Roman Polanski (once again)

[Denbrought]

Swiss won't extradite Polanski on child sex charge - CNN.com

(CNN) -- Switzerland will not send Oscar-winning filmmaker Roman Polanski to the United States to face child sex charges, the Ministry of Justice announced Monday. He is now free, the ministry said.
Polanski pleaded guilty in Los Angeles, California to having unlawful sex with a 13-year-old girl in 1977 but fled to Europe before he was sentenced.
He was arrested in Switzerland last year and had been fighting extradition since then.

Thought y'all might want to know this, considering how much interest the last thread on him had.

 

[Dave]

Rape a kid, you should go to jail for a long time, regardless of how well you direct movies. Fucking Swiss. Think they're so fucking smart with their chocolate, Alps, watches, army knives and bank accounts! Okay, they're pretty smart, but why the hell would they harbor a pedophile?

 

[sixpackshaker]

I wonder who will out himself as a pedo in this thread?

 

[SpecialKO]

Rape a kid, you should go to jail for a long time, regardless of how well you direct movies. Fucking Swiss. Think they're so fucking smart with their chocolate, Alps, watches, army knives and bank accounts! Okay, they're pretty smart, but why the hell would they harbor a pedophile?

According to the article, the Swiss asked the DoJ for legal documents they require for extradition, and the DoJ didn't bother. Not the best way to get stuff done in a country whose economic system is literally based on banking bureaucracies.

Besides, Polanski probably just bribed someone to be difficult, and the DoJ made it easy by dropping the ball.

 

[Chibibar]

Rape a kid, you should go to jail for a long time, regardless of how well you direct movies. Fucking Swiss. Think they're so fucking smart with their chocolate, Alps, watches, army knives and bank accounts! Okay, they're pretty smart, but why the hell would they harbor a pedophile?

According to the article, the Swiss asked the DoJ for legal documents they require for extradition, and the DoJ didn't bother. Not the best way to get stuff done in a country whose economic system is literally based on banking bureaucracies.

Besides, Polanski probably just bribed someone to be difficult, and the DoJ made it easy by dropping the ball.[/QUOTE]

Yea. consider the Swiss banking system is pretty secure (for the most part) and all about the paper work, since DoJ drop the ball (so to speak) the guy is free.

 

[Soliloquy]

There is one thing that bugs me about the whole Polanski thing, involving the plea bargain.

I mean, yeah, I agree with the whole "rape a kid, burn in hell" sentiment, and I want him to be sent back to the U.S. and punished. But from what I understand, Polanski pleaded guilty on the assumption that he'd get the reduced sentence he bargained for, but the judge threw out the reduced sentence, yet kept his guilty plea. Maybe I've read everything wrong, but if this is the case, I'd say he should have the right to change his plea and defend himself.

Then we can skewer him on a pike and roast his flesh.

 

[Dubyamn]

There is one thing that bugs me about the whole Polanski thing, involving the plea bargain.

I mean, yeah, I agree with the whole "rape a kid, burn in hell" sentiment, and I want him to be sent back to the U.S. and punished. But from what I understand, Polanski pleaded guilty on the assumption that he'd get the reduced sentence he bargained for, but the judge threw out the reduced sentence, yet kept his guilty plea. Maybe I've read everything wrong, but if this is the case, I'd say he should have the right to change his plea and defend himself.

Then we can skewer him on a pike and roast his flesh.

Not the way the system works. Judges aren't held to the agreements that a prosecutor makes and can impose whatever sentence they want so long as it falls within the punishment allowed under law.

They don't do it often because it undermines the plea deal system but there is nothing wrong when they do it.

 

[Soliloquy]

There is one thing that bugs me about the whole Polanski thing, involving the plea bargain.

I mean, yeah, I agree with the whole "rape a kid, burn in hell" sentiment, and I want him to be sent back to the U.S. and punished. But from what I understand, Polanski pleaded guilty on the assumption that he'd get the reduced sentence he bargained for, but the judge threw out the reduced sentence, yet kept his guilty plea. Maybe I've read everything wrong, but if this is the case, I'd say he should have the right to change his plea and defend himself.

Then we can skewer him on a pike and roast his flesh.

Not the way the system works. Judges aren't held to the agreements that a prosecutor makes and can impose whatever sentence they want so long as it falls within the punishment allowed under law.

They don't do it often because it undermines the plea deal system but there is nothing wrong when they do it.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I know they're allowed to do that under law. But I am of the strange opinion that what is legal and what is just are not always the same thing.

 

[Dubyamn]

Yeah, I know they're allowed to do that under law. But I am of the strange opinion that what is legal and what is just are not always the same thing.

And I am perfectly fine with somebody having the ability to overrule unjust agreements between Prosecutors and Defendants.

 

[Math242]

the girl he raped doesn't want a trial. She absolutely does not want to be dragged back into it.

Maybe that's why they let it go.

Well, i like that explanation better than failure to send documents in a timely manner by a bureaucrat

 

[Iaculus]

the girl he raped doesn't want a trial. She absolutely does not want to be dragged back into it.

Maybe that's why they let it go.

Well, i like that explanation better than failure to send documents in a timely manner by a bureaucrat

Except that it's not just about her any more. Dude fled prosecution. The injured party is the U.S. legal system as a whole.

Ye gods, I cannot believe they dropped the ball this badly on this.

 

[Chibibar]

the girl he raped doesn't want a trial. She absolutely does not want to be dragged back into it.

Maybe that's why they let it go.

Well, i like that explanation better than failure to send documents in a timely manner by a bureaucrat

Except that it's not just about her any more. Dude fled prosecution. The injured party is the U.S. legal system as a whole.

Ye gods, I cannot believe they dropped the ball this badly on this.[/QUOTE]

the thing is that the U.S. hasn't really pursuit this until recently. The article was saying that Polaski went to Switzerland multiple time before and never had an extradition request. Why? why now? why not all the dozens of time he was there before?

 

[Soliloquy]

Yeah, I know they're allowed to do that under law. But I am of the strange opinion that what is legal and what is just are not always the same thing.

And I am perfectly fine with somebody having the ability to overrule unjust agreements between Prosecutors and Defendants.[/QUOTE]

So am I! I just think that the plea, which is part of the agreement, should be overruled as well.

 

[SpecialKO]

the thing is that the U.S. hasn't really pursuit this until recently. The article was saying that Polaski went to Switzerland multiple time before and never had an extradition request. Why? why now? why not all the dozens of time he was there before?

Now that I've put some thought into it, I imagine that we're actually seeing the surface of some quiet quid pro quo diplomacy related to the War on Terror.

Since 9/11 the US has put a lot of pressure on the Swiss to basically provide unfettered access to Swiss banking records to track down suspected terrorists. The Swiss, who practically hold their banking privacy laws sacred, don't like providing that info without a mountain of proof.

I'm guessing that a few months ago the Swiss offered Roman Polanski as a high-profile "big win" arrest to the US in exchange for the US either laying off specific individuals, or even changing their policy of financial pursuit in regards to potential suspects.

The DoJ probably thought about it, initially said yes, then for whatever reason (break in case, office politics, just dropped the ball), wimped out on the deal, and now the Swiss are thumbing their noses at them publically.

 

[Chibibar]

the thing is that the U.S. hasn't really pursuit this until recently. The article was saying that Polaski went to Switzerland multiple time before and never had an extradition request. Why? why now? why not all the dozens of time he was there before?

Now that I've put some thought into it, I imagine that we're actually seeing the surface of some quiet quid pro quo diplomacy related to the War on Terror.

Since 9/11 the US has put a lot of pressure on the Swiss to basically provide unfettered access to Swiss banking records to track down suspected terrorists. The Swiss, who practically hold their banking privacy laws sacred, don't like providing that info without a mountain of proof.

I'm guessing that a few months ago the Swiss offered Roman Polanski as a high-profile "big win" arrest to the US in exchange for the US either laying off specific individuals, or even changing their policy of financial pursuit in regards to potential suspects.

The DoJ probably thought about it, initially said yes, then for whatever reason (break in case, office politics, just dropped the ball), wimped out on the deal, and now the Swiss are thumbing their noses at them publically.[/QUOTE]

heh.. as for conspiracy theory goes, that is a pretty good one. I can actually see that happening.

I do remember many articles about the Swiss NOT giving up their banking info to the U.S. and stuff.

Gotta love politic and bargaining.

 

[Math242]

faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar fetched

 

[David]

faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar fetched

?

 

[Adam]

I wonder who will out himself as a pedo in this thread?