Polanski Arrested in Zurich

[lesbiaphrodite]

Polanski has been arrested in Zurich for the 32-year old case involving his purported rape of a 13-year old girl way back in the day. The girl who is now obviously a grown woman wants the case to be put behind and reached an undisclosed settlement with Polanski years ago. Should this case be brought before a judge again? What are your thoughts?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/movies/29polanski.html?_r=1&hp

 

[Safe_Bet]

Polanski has been arrested in Zurich for the 32-year old case involving his purported rape of a 13-year old girl way back in the day. The girl who is now obviously a grown woman wants the case to be put behind and reached an undisclosed settlement with Polanski years ago. Should this case be brought before a judge again? What are your thoughts?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/movies/29polanski.html?_r=1&hp

Polanski is a creepy, child molesting, pedophile & rapist. Period.

If you hurt kids you should be hunted down and prosecuted, no matter HOW long it takes. Just because he's had the money (and arrogance) to escape prosecution up till now, doesn't mean he should go free and never face his due punishment.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Polanski admitted the charge at his trial 32 years ago, then fled the country before he was sentenced. At this point I'm not sure what good extraditing him back to the U.S. would do.

Also it seems the French are pissed off and will aid him since he is now a French citizen with a French Passport. This might be fun to watch.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6851581.ece

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Polanski admitted the charge at his trial 32 years ago, then fled the country before he was sentenced. At this point I'm not sure what good extraditing him back to the U.S. would do.

Also it seems the French are pissed off and will aid him since he is now a French citizen with a French Passport. This might be fun to watch.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6851581.ece

Since when has citizenship of another country got anything to do with it? There isn't a country on the planet that isn't perfectly to jail the citizens of other countries. Since he basically pled guilty all those years ago, all that is needed it extradition and sentencing. There isn't any statute of limitations on a guilty plea.

 

[bronzeage]

A friend of mine served 14 months in prison and will spend the rest of his life with his picture on the Sexual Predators website because he had sex with a 16 year old girl.

If it was good enough for him, it's good enough for Roman.

 

[R. Richard]

Roman Polanski states that the girl consented. The girl couldn't have consented. An 18-year-old girl could have consented, but a 13-year-old girl hadn't reached the age of consent. His lawyer either explained the matter to Polanski, or his lawyer should be disbarred. Polanski is lying, plain and simple.

 

[3113]

Well, let's be clear, Roman Polanski didn't flee the country for quite the reason that you're all giving. No matter what he did, or you think he now deserves for it, back then the situation was that the judge he had was playing games, would say one thing one day, and another the next, was screwing over deals made by the prosecution and defense.

Even the prosecution now says that what the judge was doing during Polanski's trial was, itself, a crime, wrong and illegal and screwed up. Which is why Polanski fled, because he couldn't trust the judge. Now this might not make a lick of difference to you and that's fine with me, but that was the reason he left the country. Not before his trial, not during his trial, but before sentencing because the judge wasn't trustworthy.

VM mentions:

There isn't a country on the planet that isn't perfectly able to jail the citizens of other countries

Not if they've got diplomatic immunity, VM. And plenty of countries try to fight to get their citizens back from what they feel is unfair or unjust situations in other countries. The U.S. just fought for the freedom of two journalists in North Korea.

Furthermore, let us remember that Polanski wasn't IN the U.S., which would make it hard for France to argue this. He was in Zurich and was nabbed.

Keep in mind also that no matter what you think of him or think he deserves for his crime, the girl involved is going to be put through hell again for this. As will her family. So, is punishing Polanski for this worth putting her through punishment as well? The news reporters outside her house, etc.? What I'm pointing out here is that we should think about these things before we pronounce our decision on this action. What we viscerally want because of our outrage over what he did is not the same as what might be best for the girl, U.S. relations with France, etc. It may well even backfire if he does go to trial and because of the corrupt fuck-up judge at his first trial he's let off on a technicality.

And how would you feel about this then? If he got off on a technicality? Free as a bird and NOW able to come and work in the U.S.? You've got to think about these things folks. Few things are as simple as they seem or as you want them to be.

 

[Safe_Bet]

Well, let's be clear, Roman Polanski didn't flee the country for quite the reason that you're all giving. No matter what he did, or you think he now deserves for it, back then the situation was that the judge he had was playing games, would say one thing one day, and another the next, was screwing over deals made by the prosecution and defense.

Even the prosecution now says that what the judge was doing during Polanski's trial was, itself, a crime, wrong and illegal and screwed up. Which is why Polanski fled, because he couldn't trust the judge. Now this might not make a lick of difference to you and that's fine with me, but that was the reason he left the country. Not before his trial, not during his trial, but before sentencing because the judge wasn't trustworthy.

VM mentions:
Not if they've got diplomatic immunity, VM. And plenty of countries try to fight to get their citizens back from what they feel is unfair or unjust situations in other countries. The U.S. just fought for the freedom of two journalists in North Korea.

Furthermore, let us remember that Polanski wasn't IN the U.S., which would make it hard for France to argue this. He was in Zurich and was nabbed.

Keep in mind also that no matter what you think of him or think he deserves for his crime, the girl involved is going to be put through hell again for this. As will her family. So, is punishing Polanski for this worth putting her through punishment as well? The news reporters outside her house, etc.? What I'm pointing out here is that we should think about these things before we pronounce our decision on this action. What we viscerally want because of our outrage over what he did is not the same as what might be best for the girl, U.S. relations with France, etc. It may well even backfire if he does go to trial and because of the corrupt fuck-up judge at his first trial he's let off on a technicality.

And how would you feel about this then? If he got off on a technicality? Free as a bird and NOW able to come and work in the U.S.? You've got to think about these things folks. Few things are as simple as they seem or as you want them to be.

3113, the man is an admitted and convicted pedophile and rapist. His is not going to be retried because he has been trying to get his case over turned NUMEROUS time, through NUMEROUS judges. He has never been punished for his crimes because he fled his sentencing ONLY. He RAPED a 13 yr. old girl. 13 yr. old CHILDREN can not consent, EVER!!!! That makes it rape. That makes him a rapist. Gawd only knows how many other young children he's raped over the past 32 years.

I personally don't give a shit whether he comes back to the States or not. The Swiss should cut his dick and balls off and feed them to him. Save the airfare.

P.S. I could also give a rat's ass about our relationship with France. They universally hate our asses anyways and are willingly harboring a convicted child rapist.

 

[JamesSD]

My understanding is that if it goes to trial, the victim is willing to testify... as a witness for the defense.

Clearly the now adult woman doesn't feel she was raped when she was 13. This could certainly make it a tougher sell to the jury, along with how long ago the event occurred.

I don't want to condone what he did. As a matter of rule of law and principle it is far better to have enforced laws in place. I also could see punishing him for fleeing arrest.

I actually would make a great juror on this case, as I could be swayed either way by strong arguments.

 

[sr71plt]

My understanding is that he isn't wanted back for trial, James--but that he's wanted back for sentencing and serving of a sentence. Trial and conviction are over, aren't they? I don't know that he's admitted it as well, but, if so, whatever the judge did at the time doesn't seem relevant--nor does the time that's gone by. And, unfortunately for him, as a celebrity, it certainly wouldn't go well just to say, "let's forget it." Even the victim saying that is irrelevant.

 

[Liar]

My understanding is that he isn't wanted back for trial, James--but that he's wanted back for sentencing and serving of a sentence. Trial and conviction are over, aren't they? I don't know that he's admitted it as well, but, if so, whatever the judge did at the time doesn't seem relevant--nor does the time that's gone by. And, unfortunately for him, as a celebrity, it certainly wouldn't go well just to say, "let's forget it." Even the victim saying that is irrelevant.

Well, in the name of jucidual prudence, there was a helluva lot going on with the trial and the behaviour of the judge, that shoudl be enough for a good defense to claim mistrial.

Is the crime prescribed? If not, a fair re-trial should be in order. And if mr P is tried to the standard of many other convicts of statuatory rape , he'll be neatly convicted. Again. The "I swear, she said she was 18" defense hasn't really worked all that well for others in that situation. And there's also the drugs thing.

 

[TE999]

He did the crime, now he does the time.

Realistically, by the time all this diplomatic wrangling is over Polanski will be dead of old age.

 

[sr71plt]

Well, in the name of jucidual prudence, there was a helluva lot going on with the trial and the behaviour of the judge, that shoudl be enough for a good defense to claim mistrial.

Is the crime prescribed? If not, a fair re-trial should be in order. And if mr P is tried to the standard of many other convicts of statuatory rape , he'll be neatly convicted. Again. The "I swear, she said she was 18" defense hasn't really worked all that well for others in that situation. And there's also the drugs thing.

Did he admit to it or didn't he? That's claimed here, but I don't, myself, know. If he admitted to it--and did it--than all of this technicality beating around the bush doesn't move me in the slightest. Throw him in the slammer.

 

[elfin_odalisque]

The normal good reasoning of AHers has deserted us here. To take the points separately;

- Polanski is not officially a rapist SafeBet, he is convicted of illegal sexual intercourse with a minor - that is not rape.

- Yes 3113, there were all kinds of things wrong with the original trial, but this is no justification for breaking bail conditions to flee the country to avoid due process and ignoring the appeal procedure.

- If a crime has been committed, the perp should be prosecuted and this is an issue directly between prosecution and defence, the victim deserves sympathy but cannot be allowed to interfere with judicial process.

- There is zero justification in claiming that earning a fortune as a film director somehow places him above the legal system that us lesser mortals have to live by.

- France has a law that prohibits the extradition of french citizens to any country. That's why they're miffed.

- The US does seem to enjoy pursuing legal vendettas (and spend our money) against people who are no threat to us. (The US are spending millions in the UK to extradite a poor soul with serious Asperger's syndrome who hacked into Pentagon computers to search for evidence of UFOs - and submit this troubled soul to 30 years in prison.)

Polanski admits guilt to the lesser charge. Some punishment is clearly warranted. Why can't the authorities negotiate a suitable penalty for Polanski to assuage his admitted guilt.

 

[sr71plt]

Ah, upon a quick check, it appears he pleaded guilty to the original charge and was convicted.

Then, he fled, which is a separate crime--and one clearly against the state, not against an individual (although, in legal terms, the original one was a crime against the state and its laws too--a 13-year-old girl has no standing to just say "oh, let's forget it"--even in three-decades hindsight).

On the original charge, he admitted guilt and was convicted. All that didn't happen was sentencing and serviving the sentence. His money and connections enabled him to flee. So it doesn't make a rat's ass of a difference to me what the judge was/wasn't doing or what the woman now says. Even the original case was a crime against the state. The victim has no rights to determining guilt and carrying out a sentence in a legal sense.

And then there's the additional crime of fleeing. There's no woman or judge that is part of that separate crime.

Doesn't matter to me (or, more significantly, to the law) which slammer he serves in or that it's been decades since they managed to catch up with him or that he makes nifty movies. He has floated there for three decades as a symbol of "celebrity has its privilege/own set of rules."

All of this "is it rape or not?" or was the judge playing Judge Judy or not just seems mealymouthed to me.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Well, let's be clear, Roman Polanski didn't flee the country for quite the reason that you're all giving. No matter what he did, or you think he now deserves for it, back then the situation was that the judge he had was playing games, would say one thing one day, and another the next, was screwing over deals made by the prosecution and defense.

Even the prosecution now says that what the judge was doing during Polanski's trial was, itself, a crime, wrong and illegal and screwed up. Which is why Polanski fled, because he couldn't trust the judge. Now this might not make a lick of difference to you and that's fine with me, but that was the reason he left the country. Not before his trial, not during his trial, but before sentencing because the judge wasn't trustworthy.

That is true. Polanski admitted to the crime of Sex with a Minor, not rape. There was a plea bargin that was approved by the judge for the lesser crime with Community Service rather than jail time. After the trial, the judge renigged on the plea bargin. That's when Polanski fled to France.

I have to agree that it was wrong for Polanski to flee. This could well have been handled in an appeal since the Judge demurred. But what is to be gained now?

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Am I reading this right?? http://www.hiltonhouse.com/articles/Swiss_US_Extradition_treaty.txt

EXTRADITION TREATY BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE SWISS CONFEDERATION
AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Last Update: 27 Aug 1998

Article 4, section 1 reads :

1. Extradition shall not be granted when the person sought has been
convicted or acquitted by the Requested State for the same acts for
which extradition is requested.

Roman Polanski has already been convicted to a crime, so my reading is that the Swiss cannot extradite him for the crime under the terms of the treaty.

Under Article 2, section 1, Polanski could be extradited for jumping bail if the offense would result in at least six months in prison.

1. An offense shall be an extraditable offense only if it is
punishable under the laws of both Contracting Parties by deprivation
of liberty for a period exceeding one year. When the request for
extradition relates to a person who has been convicted, extradition
shall be granted only if the duration of the penalty or detention
order, or their aggregate, still to be served amounts to at least six
months.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Polanski has been arrested in Zurich for the 32-year old case involving his purported rape of a 13-year old girl way back in the day. The girl who is now obviously a grown woman wants the case to be put behind and reached an undisclosed settlement with Polanski years ago. Should this case be brought before a judge again? What are your thoughts?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/movies/29polanski.html?_r=1&hp

It wasn't just purported or alleged. The pedo pleaded guilty but skipped the country before sentencing. As part of the plea bargan, the charges of drugging the victim and forcible rape were downgraded to statutory rape. In other words, because of his wealth and prominence, he would have, relatively speaking, gotten off with a slap on the wrist, and he welshed even on that deal.

I don't know if he should go before a judge again or not. Since sentence has probably already been pronounced, he should be able to just go straight to Pelican Bay to begin serving it. Once he has finished that, he can be brought to court on the charge of flight.

 

[sr71plt]

So, the question is being begged whether the request for extradition is being cited to the original conviction or for the fleeing of the jurisdiction. Anyone know for sure? CNN's reporting seems all screwed up on this--and other--points.

 

[CharleyH]

Polanski has been arrested in Zurich for the 32-year old case involving his purported rape of a 13-year old girl way back in the day. The girl who is now obviously a grown woman wants the case to be put behind and reached an undisclosed settlement with Polanski years ago. Should this case be brought before a judge again? What are your thoughts?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/movies/29polanski.html?_r=1&hp

I am a fan of Polanski. I even actually remember this news. On the one hand, I believe he should stand up to the charges against him. On the other hand, I think it was very underhanded how Switzerland of all places is dealing with all of this. Shame on them.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Here is a link to a description of the crime he committed:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/6240914/The-hunt-for-Roman-Polanski.html

I refer to it as "the crime he committed" rather than using more vague terms, because he was convicted through a guilty plea, and has admitted doing what he was charged with doing.

The writer of the article seems extremely sympathetic to RP, but that is neither here nor there. He certainly knew she was underage, because he would have needed certain documents from her and/or her parents.

Under CA law, what we call "statutory rape" is referred to as "unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor." However, if he gave her enough drugs and alcohol so that she was incapable of giving assent or of resistance, that would be classified as rape, thther than unlawful etc.

One way or another, I say lock the SOB up. Don't let his wealth or success have anything to do with it.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I am a fan of Polanski. I even actually remember this news. On the one hand, I believe he should stand up to the charges against him. On the other hand, I think it was very underhanded how Switzerland of all places is dealing with all of this. Shame on them.

They have arrested a wanted felon who has fled justice. What is underhanded about that?

 

[sr71plt]

I am a fan of Polanski. I even actually remember this news. On the one hand, I believe he should stand up to the charges against him. On the other hand, I think it was very underhanded how Switzerland of all places is dealing with all of this. Shame on them.

On the first case, He pleaded guilty and was convicted--it isn't a question of "charges"--and in the second case (the fleeing one), it's a basic "he's there or he isn't" fact issue--over a 32-year span.

Why is it that his "fans" are changing the goal posts like this?

What does being a brilliant film maker have to do with this . . . really? Other than having given him the opportunity to get away with it for three decades?

 

[lesbiaphrodite]

The following excerpt is taken from an article that just appeared about 10 minutes ago on the New York Times website.

"Jack Lang, a former French culture minister, said that for Europeans the development showed that the American system of justice had run amok.

While Mr. Polanski had committed “a grave crime,” Mr. Lang said, “he is a great creator and artist, and there’s a sentiment here that pursuing someone for a crime committed 30 years ago, in which the victim has decided to drop the case, is unreasonable, a kind of judicial lynching. In Europe, it would be unimaginable to punish someone in a situation like this.

“Sometimes the American justice system shows an excess of formalism,” Mr. Lang said, “like an infernal machine that advances inexorably and blindly. It sometimes lacks equity and humanity.”

 

[voluptuary_manque]

The following excerpt is taken from an article that just appeared about 10 minutes ago on the New York Times website.

"Jack Lang, a former French culture minister, said that for Europeans the development showed that the American system of justice had run amok.

While Mr. Polanski had committed “a grave crime,” Mr. Lang said, “he is a great creator and artist, and there’s a sentiment here that pursuing someone for a crime committed 30 years ago, in which the victim has decided to drop the case, is unreasonable, a kind of judicial lynching. In Europe, it would be unimaginable to punish someone in a situation like this.

“Sometimes the American justice system shows an excess of formalism,” Mr. Lang said, “like an infernal machine that advances inexorably and blindly. It sometimes lacks equity and humanity.”

And, besides, he's a famous French celebrity and you can't do that to us!

Hmmm . . . didn't the French have a 'failure to cooperate' when it came down to hunting Holocaust perpetrators, as well?