I think the point is that due process did not take its course, because he ran away.
Polanski Not to be Extradited to US, Free man.
- Thread starter Chiliagon
- Start date
I think the point is that due process did not take its course, because he ran away.
Well, in this case the victim does not wish to open the old wounds. And yes, it is possible to get over even child abuse. Human spirit is capable of anything. Not every victim of child sex abuse ends up on drugs, alcohol or kills him/herself. With proper help and proper therapy, many of them can lead normal lives.
Sure the process took its course and now has ended. The outcome may not have been what most would have liked, but the process did take its course.
Smaller countries like to give USA a poke in the eye, just to assert themselves. I remember the same thing happened with Bobby Fisher, the world chess champion.
He was wanted in USA for some crime, but was a fugitive in Europe. Finally he was arrested in Japan. Japan was ready to extradite him to USA. But then Iceland (a tiny country of 300,000) intervened. They gave him a temporary citizenship. But that wasn’t enough for Japan, he was still going to be extradited. So Iceland gave him full citizenship, made him an Icelandic citizen.
Then Japan had no choice but to let him fly to Iceland.
It is very difficult to leave the country by air, if you don't have the passport. I am sure it is some kind of felony to aid and abet a person convicted of crime in leaving the country.
And I believe I have already answered your question.
I really don't know what to think about this...
Polanski was wrong to have gotten a 13 year old drunk, stoned and then had his way with her, and deserves to spend time in jail for it...
BUT
...it happened decades ago (I don't think there should be any statute of limitations on violent crime but why has it taken so long to get an extradition hearing? Is it a case of him being out of extraditing countries that long?) and its at the point where the VICTIM of his crime wants it to end. I think this is one case where a victim's rights & wishes should trump other considerations. Not to mention that the US gov't could probably find numerous other things to spend the money this cost on...
Polanski was wrong to have gotten a 13 year old drunk, stoned and then had his way with her, and deserves to spend time in jail for it...
BUT
...it happened decades ago (I don't think there should be any statute of limitations on violent crime but why has it taken so long to get an extradition hearing? Is it a case of him being out of extraditing countries that long?) and its at the point where the VICTIM of his crime wants it to end. I think this is one case where a victim's rights & wishes should trump other considerations. Not to mention that the US gov't could probably find numerous other things to spend the money this cost on...
I'm with you on this one Wulfie and for the reasons you state. As nefarious as the S.O.B. is/was, he's likely beyond being a threat and we know where he is. There are a lot worse who need rounding up and that is where the money should be spent- once that is done they can go back to Polanski (if he's still alive)
Wulfie68, There is no statute of limitations in this case even if he was accused of jaywalking. Polanski was found guilty, convicted, he just ran before he was to serve jail time. The trial part is over.
Ok, for the record I think the guy is a sadistic SOB and deserves more than just jail time.
I also think the wants and rights of the victim in this case should not be superseeded; if she wants to let it go, let it go. As mentioned, the difference between this case and the Catholic cases is that the abused want to press charges; this woman wants it just to be over with and it should be her right since she is the victim.
But at the same time, he fled justice and there should be some retribution for that.
The problem is, the US tried to get him back, and failed.
From the BBC article found here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10601930
"The justice ministry said that the US authorities had failed to provide confidential testimony about Polanski's original sentencing procedure.
The reason for the decision lies in the fact that it was not possible to exclude with the necessary certainty a fault in the US extraditionary request.
Polanski was originally charged with six offences including rape and sodomy over the 1977 case.
In 1978, he pleaded guilty to unlawful sex following a plea bargain. He served 42 days in a US prison.
He has always maintained he was promised a short sentence, but he fled the US after hearing rumours that the judge was about to re-sentence him for a much longer term. He has never returned to the US.
On Monday, the Swiss said that the US authorities simply had not clarified the issue of length of sentence and therefore had not made a convincing case for extradition."
Video about the case: BBC News - Switzerland rejects US extradition of Roman Polanski
Another article after the fact: BBC News - US 'disappointed' by Swiss Polanski extradition ruling
So the US failed to clarify the length of sentence and he got off on a Technicality. The US FAILED and now they can't try again from what I understand from the video. While it might have been a "small technicality", it still is a technicality (a little bit of Californian law, according to the second article) that was overlooked by the US prosecutors.
They had their chance and blew it. If they want to try again, it'll have to be for something totally different, or wait until he travels to another country.
So while the anger at Polanski is justified, I'd also look at the US argument's and wonder where the HE** they screwed up so bad to lose the case. They should have made sure it was air tight before going over to fight for his extradition.
And, as reported, the Swiss say it's not saying the man is guilty or innocent, but just the US failed in their bid to get him out of the country.
I also think the wants and rights of the victim in this case should not be superseeded; if she wants to let it go, let it go. As mentioned, the difference between this case and the Catholic cases is that the abused want to press charges; this woman wants it just to be over with and it should be her right since she is the victim.
But at the same time, he fled justice and there should be some retribution for that.
The problem is, the US tried to get him back, and failed.
From the BBC article found here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10601930
"The justice ministry said that the US authorities had failed to provide confidential testimony about Polanski's original sentencing procedure.
The reason for the decision lies in the fact that it was not possible to exclude with the necessary certainty a fault in the US extraditionary request.
Polanski was originally charged with six offences including rape and sodomy over the 1977 case.
In 1978, he pleaded guilty to unlawful sex following a plea bargain. He served 42 days in a US prison.
He has always maintained he was promised a short sentence, but he fled the US after hearing rumours that the judge was about to re-sentence him for a much longer term. He has never returned to the US.
On Monday, the Swiss said that the US authorities simply had not clarified the issue of length of sentence and therefore had not made a convincing case for extradition."
Video about the case: BBC News - Switzerland rejects US extradition of Roman Polanski
Another article after the fact: BBC News - US 'disappointed' by Swiss Polanski extradition ruling
So the US failed to clarify the length of sentence and he got off on a Technicality. The US FAILED and now they can't try again from what I understand from the video. While it might have been a "small technicality", it still is a technicality (a little bit of Californian law, according to the second article) that was overlooked by the US prosecutors.
They had their chance and blew it. If they want to try again, it'll have to be for something totally different, or wait until he travels to another country.
So while the anger at Polanski is justified, I'd also look at the US argument's and wonder where the HE** they screwed up so bad to lose the case. They should have made sure it was air tight before going over to fight for his extradition.
And, as reported, the Swiss say it's not saying the man is guilty or innocent, but just the US failed in their bid to get him out of the country.
Last edited:
Not much difference, send the "Dawg" after him now. In reference to your question, if it was my daughter he would have been taken care of years ago, we wouldn't be having this chat today, and there wouldn't be any regrets.
The real question is why did the U.S. wait so long before trying to extradite him? He wasn't hiding.
wow Have you even seen "Chinatown"? Nicholson played the detective that dug out the truth. He was not the perp in the movie.
Why would they be? He hasn't ever changed his preferences.
In a 1979 interview with a novelist by the name of Martin Amis, Polanski said:
The "man" is f'cked between the ears.
I guess it's ok to break the law, cause trauma to a kid and her family and friends, skip to a safe place, and never be held accountable for the sickness that caused you to do what you do as long as you're a famous director (or whatever).
I don't think so, he was priceless in "One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest" and another one where he starred with Ann-Margret. There was one other one where the last scene was his woman ditched him while he was in the men's room and she rode off in a logging truck and the reason I remember that scene was it was filmed at Westholme (near Duncan) about 5 miles from where I lived at one time)
An old wound is still a wound. So you've contradicted yourself right off the hop.
If there weren't people like Polanski and ideals like yours my daughter and I would see my wife a lot more.
SJP
You statement about your son never took in any account of what happens to many that have been abused - As to the woman now - you know diddly squat - You state : As far as we know" - Ya and I and the rest of the world know diddly as to what this women went thru for the past 30 + years.
I gave you variables - not at the far end of reality but the common denominators of what the effects of Sexual Abuse can and does cause - Read up on it - Just Google Catholic Priests - I am sure some of your own answer would come up as the damage cause emotionally & physically - What the after affects were from drug use to abuse of others - the list is long - and one thing you should know- Not one case has ever been shown to have anything but a massive damage of emotion, self esteem, ethics, family life -Nothing positive comes from it - yet you give such a flippant answer " As far as we know" Really I never took you to be that dumb.
So read it over again and think what could happen over the 33 years to your son - If he was sexually assaulted as a child - Think of what impact it would have on him - then add in the extended family - friends - the effects are far reaching and permanent - they do not go away - A person learns to control them and deal with the issues over time - But before that they head down a road much like I described.
As to killing - It is easy - but again we all have it in us - dealing with it after is the problem.
You look upon violence as the last resort of a weak willed man - rather sexist I must say - You never now what you would do if your family was threatened with death- off topic - but relevant -
So answer the question and stop the Clintonesque replies.
He was living in and was a french Citizen - France does not extradite it's citizens - Perhaps we should reciprocate.
Goobs. This is coming from a guy who supports legalizing brothels.
I think the guy has some sexual respect problems he needs to sort through.
Due process started - but was never allowed to come to the proper conclusion becaue he chose to flee the country. and while I have much admiration for the victim to have been able to come through the trauma of the raqpe an pof the media scruteny, that does not mean that the whole case should be dropped. It is a LEGAL issue - as much as it would be wonderful to just pack it in because the victim has said she has 'forgiven' him - it is a LEGAL issue. He needs to be brought back to the States to finish the sentencing. And no doubt, because he thumbed his nose at the process, if some country actually has the backbone to do what is correct, he will be eventually brought back. I don't give a tinker's damn about his age, whether or not he just did all this elaborate planning to get her and then drugged, raped and sodomized one person only - he did it. All your; forgive and forgetr garbage is just that - garbage., To let him go sends a message to any other person who would do the same thing - that they can get away with it because people like you favour 'forgiving and forgetting' rather than seeing that justice is done.
I DON'T believe in revenge - which is why I don't believe in the death penalty, but I DO believe that when someone has done something wrong, they need to experience the consequences.
Again, and I feel that I'm going to continue to say this ad nausiem, this has nothing to do with the feelings of the victim, it has EVERYTHING to do with seeing justice done.
You tend pass yourself off as a 'logical' person, how can you fail to see that?
and my story I gave some time back on this thread, that I would do away with anyone who had done
such a thing to any of my daughters, then literally got away with it.
well, what I mean is, 'what I would like to do', and in reality, not what I would do, as I can't
even hit anyone, (unless it was in self defense), so I couldn't actually go through what I would
want to do, and yes, also I would not put myself in a vulnerable position, to possibly spend the
rest of my time in prison because of a piece of scum like him, so, any plan that
would 'put him down', would not be a responsibility of mine, but something I would not finch at if
it happened, nor would I be one tad sorry.
The fact that the victim does not want him to be punished now, means 'nothing', this is a legal situation
not a decision from the victim or any regular citizen on the street, she can say whatever she wants, and
good for her if she is fine and having a good life, 'beside the point', it
should not affect the legal proceedings in this case.
such a thing to any of my daughters, then literally got away with it.
well, what I mean is, 'what I would like to do', and in reality, not what I would do, as I can't
even hit anyone, (unless it was in self defense), so I couldn't actually go through what I would
want to do, and yes, also I would not put myself in a vulnerable position, to possibly spend the
rest of my time in prison because of a piece of scum like him, so, any plan that
would 'put him down', would not be a responsibility of mine, but something I would not finch at if
it happened, nor would I be one tad sorry.
The fact that the victim does not want him to be punished now, means 'nothing', this is a legal situation
not a decision from the victim or any regular citizen on the street, she can say whatever she wants, and
good for her if she is fine and having a good life, 'beside the point', it
should not affect the legal proceedings in this case.