Extradition Request for Convicted Rapist Roman Polanski Denied

[GinandTonic]

Well the US could bomb Geneva, tear up it's extradition treaties or, you know, provide the paperwork for the extradition?

 

[illram]

I don't think their is any question he was not extradited because of his international celebrity. "Missing paperwork" is a nice excuse but they could have easily come to the opposite conclusion. It's not like they didn't submit required forms; the Swiss wanted transcripts of testimony, not paperwork. They basically made a call on our trial judge's procedural missteps, which is out of bounds. Let us figure that out.

I'm surprised that doesn't outrage more people. The guy is clearly being treated with kid gloves, as berzerker eloquently put it, because he's rich and famous.

 

[GinandTonic]

I don't think their is any question he was not extradited because of his international celebrity. "Missing paperwork" is a nice excuse but they could have easily come to the opposite conclusion.

I'm surprised that doesn't outrage more people. The guy is clearly being treated with kid gloves, as berzerker eloquently put it, because he's rich and famous.

There is no missing paperwork. There is existent paperwork the US will not hand over.

 

[illram]

There is no missing paperwork. There is existent paperwork the US will not hand over.

It's not paperwork. It's testimony. They said they needed it to determine if he served his sentence or not, which is ridiculous, because that's not their job. There job is to determine if they have a wanted fugitive, which they have.

They looked for an excuse to let Polanski go because he is rich and famous, and they found one and ran with it.

 

[GinandTonic]

It's not paperwork. It's testimony. They said they needed it to determine if he served his sentence or not, which is ridiculous, because that's not their job. There job is to determine if they have a wanted fugitive, which they have.

They looked for an excuse to let Polanski go because he is rich and famous, and they found one and ran with it.

Not at all. He has now served far longer than his original sentence. The US needs to demonstrate any variation in the sentence had due process and so forth.

 

[Winner]

Of course, let's ignore the inconvenient fact that the "victim" herself doesn't even want to pursue the case any more. This case ceased to be about justice decades ago, now it's just about the American ego.

One would almost think the US has better things to do. Aren't there any rich bankers and managers to put on trial? You know, the guys who almost brought the global economy to its knees...

 

[MobBoss]

Of course, let's ignore the inconvenient fact that the "victim" herself doesn't even want to pursue the case any more. This case ceased to be about justice decades ago, now it's just about the American ego.

As was pointed out earliler, the fact the victim has supposedly forgiven her rapist is moot. Also, when Polanski fled prior to his sentencing, his crime was against the state, not against his victim.

One would almost think the US has better things to do.

No, I am pretty happy with my country going after child rapists no matter how long it takes.

Aren't there any rich bankers and managers to put on trial? You know, the guys who almost brought the global economy to its knees...

Yeah, we have tried more than a few of those as well. But I still find child rapists more repugnant by far.

 

[amadeus]

Of course, let's ignore the inconvenient fact that the "victim" herself doesn't even want to pursue the case any more. This case ceased to be about justice decades ago, now it's just about the American ego.

So if I rape a minor and they forgive me as an adult, that makes it OK?

 

[illram]

Not at all. He has now served far longer than his original sentence. The US needs to demonstrate any variation in the sentence had due process and so forth.

He served 42 days on a 90 day sentence and then took off before another hearing could determine whether he needed to go back. That alone justifies his return. Anything following his departure from the US cannot be considered part of his "sentence."

I took the liberty of searching for the words "due process" in our current treaty with the Swiss. I found no matches.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=104_cong_documents&docid=f:td009.104.pdf

Check out page 12 of that for the treaty language, it's pretty simple. If they have someone charged with an extradited offense, they extradite, barring particular exceptions, with due process not being one of them from what I can tell.

He's a celebrity, he's being treated differently than someone similarly situated, and I think it's unfair.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

I agree he should be extradited to the US.

Does the US have an extradition treaty with Italy? How come those CIA agents haven't been extradited in that case?

 

[Cutlass]

Absolutely ridiculous decision. I honestly don't think it matters whether he's served his sentence already or not -- he should have to come back to the States to be sentenced like anyone else. They could let him go on the spot, or send him to prison until he dies, but it's our call. Not Switzerland's.


That's a little bit harsher than I was thinking. But I would at the very least cease extraditing anyone to Switzerland, and freeze any law enforcement ties or exercises that we have with them in the meantime. Probably add some seriously harsh regulations on Americans using Swiss banks while we're at it, too. (It's past time we cracked down on tax evaders, anyway, and from what I've heard, what we did a few months ago was insufficient for doing so, even though it ticked the Swiss off an awful lot)

I doubt there are very many Swiss criminals fighting extradition from the US....

 

[GinandTonic]

He served 42 days on a 90 day sentence and then took off before another hearing could determine whether he needed to go back. That alone justifies his return. Anything following his departure from the US cannot be considered part of his "sentence."

I took the liberty of searching for the words "due process" in our current treaty with the Swiss. I found no matches.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=104_cong_documents&docid=f:td009.104.pdf

Check out page 12 of that for the treaty language, it's pretty simple. If they have someone charged with an extradited offense, they extradite, barring particular exceptions, with due process not being one of them from what I can tell.

He's a celebrity, he's being treated differently than someone similarly situated, and I think it's unfair.

He's been on remand and under house arrest for more than a year.

And, as Para points out, countries dont extradite for a great many reasons whatever the wording of the treaty says. The US is a prime offender in this case.

 

[illram]

I agree he should be extradited to the US.

Does the US have an extradition treaty with Italy? How come those CIA agents haven't been extradited in that case?

Technically Italy never asked us to extradite them. (Even though we never would have handed them over.)

I realize the potential double standard, but two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[Grisu]

It's not paperwork. It's testimony. They said they needed it to determine if he served his sentence or not, which is ridiculous, because that's not their job. There job is to determine if they have a wanted fugitive, which they have.

They looked for an excuse to let Polanski go because he is rich and famous, and they found one and ran with it.

Then why did they arrest him in the first place and not ignore the warrant like everybody else if they wanted to treat him with kid gloves? The tinfoil hattery here is astounding...

It's really amazing how people automatically assume some sinister motives by switzerland and never even consider a judicial mess up on the US side.

 

[Ayn Rand]

It's not like the Swiss to wash their hands of the World's problems

 

[MobBoss]

Then why did they arrest him in the first place and not ignore the warrant like everybody else if they wanted to treat him with kid gloves? The tinfoil hattery here is astounding...

It's really amazing how people automatically assume some sinister motives by switzerland and never even consider a judicial mess up on the US side.

Oh, I will tell you why. The Swiss greatly under-estimated the pushback and objection from France.

Bottom line, its not part of the extradition treaty for the Swiss to determine if there was a judicial mess on the US side or not. Its not their place to retry the issue at all, but to simply honor the extradition unless there is some concern that the person in question might be treated or punished unfairly or excessively.

 

[Grisu]

Oh, I will tell you why. The Swiss greatly under-estimated the pushback and objection from France.

Bottom line, its not part of the extradition treaty for the Swiss to determine if there was a judicial mess on the US side or not. Its not their place to retry the issue at all, but to simply honor the extradition unless there is some concern that the person in question might be treated or punished unfairly or excessively.

there was very little to no pushback form france recently, once the original outrage had died down...why didn't they release him then?

The point is, if there was a mistrial and he already did the due time, then it would indeed be unfair punishment. the US had it in their hands to set the record straight...they chose not to. I fail to see why they refused that. At least that's one way to see it....but of course certain people here always automatically assume that any possible mistake could never have been done by the US....

the most likely cause, though, is probably a mess up on both sides

 

[Elrohir]

It is Switzerland's decision whether to extradite him or not. They simply exercised their right. You can fret about it, but that's all you can do.

And it's America's decision to extradite any criminals wanted in Switzerland. Or cooperate with the Swiss government on any matters relating to international crime. I suppose you won't be upset if the US exercises that right?

Please, go ahead. I am sure you don't need Switzerland's cooperation in tracking terrorist money transfers or other forms of help they provide.

They haven't been terribly helpful so far! Their archaic banking laws make it extremely difficult for them to actually provide any tangible assistance.

Oh, you should then extend the ban also on the other European countries which refuse to arrest/extradite him. You know, countries like France or Germany whose help you don't need either

Since we don't have an extradition treaty with France, we're already not under any obligation to extradite anyone to France. I don't know about Germany; if we have an extradition treaty with them and they refuse to arrest and extradite Polanski, then I'd support widening the ban to them as well. (If we don't have an extradition treaty, then that's fine, we can't blame them for not upholding their side of a treaty if that treaty doesn't exist)

Something tells me that Switzerland cares more about the European Union market, in which France has more say than the US.

Last I checked, this was a "Should a child rapist be sent home to be sentenced" case, not a "which political/economic block should we try and curry favor with" case.

Of course, let's ignore the inconvenient fact that the "victim" herself doesn't even want to pursue the case any more. This case ceased to be about justice decades ago, now it's just about the American ego.

I honestly don't think it's relevant at all whether the victim wants to pursue the case anymore. He's flaunted American court decisions and American law and refuses to even apologize for committing a serious crime. For that alone, the case should be pursued to the fullest extent we legally can -- to show that just because you're rich and famous and the French think you're cool, doesn't mean you're above the law.

One would almost think the US has better things to do. Aren't there any rich bankers and managers to put on trial? You know, the guys who almost brought the global economy to its knees...

In America, we take raping 13 year old girls pretty seriously. I guess it may be hard to understand for someone who doesn't seem to give a crap about human rights,
but for civilized peoples, it's pretty easy.

Not at all. He has now served far longer than his original sentence. The US needs to demonstrate any variation in the sentence had due process and so forth.

That's false, because he was never sentenced, because he ran away first. He was ordered to undergo psychiatric evaluation before sentencing, and then ran after the evaluation, because he was afraid he'd receive jailtime. You cannot serve longer than your sentence if you were never given a sentence; saying he has served longer than his original sentence is completely false.

I doubt there are very many Swiss criminals fighting extradition from the US....

I don't think that matters much. If the Swiss won't honor their side of a treaty, then we should make it clear that the treaty is no longer in effect -- even if that has little to no practical effect on the Swiss. As a matter of principle, the US should not be bound by treaties that the other party no longer honors.

 

[Frank Drebin]

nobody needs allies that kidnap people on your soil anyway.

 

[Grisu]

while the point that non-celebs might have not gotten this attention is valid the opposite is also true. Apparently around 15% of all extradition requests are denied...why is nobody outraged about those?