Roman Polanski detention

Yes, but when he was in France and the country obviously didn't allow its citizens to be extradited, the simplest thing to do was to as France to prosecute him. Why that hadn't been done, that's beyond me.

Because he didn't commit the crime in France. He committed the crime in America. And he should face trial in the country he committed the crime in, to be tried against that countries' laws and possibly face that countries' punishments for breaking the law in that country.
 
Dude. I am not being obtuse, but am trying to educate you on how this works. You dont seem to be listening.

You can be charged with a great many things. Big deal. However, the plea deal he entered into was that the charges of rape, etc. would go away (and they did) if he pled guilty to the lesser charge of sex with a minor.

Thats how a plea deal works. Do you understand? You seem to think that there was some miscarrige of justice here when all it really is is your ignorance of how the process works. Stop and listen for a bit. Maybe this will help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plea_bargain

Which mmmeeeaaaans that he was not found guilty of those charges. Which is what I was saying the whole time. Next time read what I am actually writing.

Well, actually we do know what the range is for that particular crime. It could have very well been back then that he got time served and thats it.

Just out of curiosity, what's the range in this particular case?

Why would you let someone out on bail that is proven flight risk?

Maybe to placate France without actually violating the treaty with the US? :think:

If they let him go it wont be over...it will just continue as it has for the last 30 years. Why not just face the music and get it over now?

It doesn't look like that he suffered in those past 30 years...

Then their not really committed to punished sex crminals I guess.

Or maybe they don't really trust the findings of the US courts.
 
Give me a break,30 years ago!?Why didn't they arrest him then!?
 
Because he didn't commit the crime in France. He committed the crime in America. And he should face trial in the country he committed the crime in, to be tried against that countries' laws and possibly face that countries' punishments for breaking the law in that country.

So, let's say an American gets busted in Indonesia for smuggling few joints of marijuana. He's sentenced to 50 years (hypothetically, I chose the country at random) in prison, but he manages to flee and get back to the US. Indonesia asks the US to extradite him so that the can rot in Indonesian prison for the 50 years.

How realistic it is that the US would extradite him? Even though he committed a crime, the opinion in the both countries seriously differs on how should such a crime be punished. So, in reality, the US would, in the very best case, prosecute him and sentence him according to US law.

How is this different? From French point of view, he's a French citizen and so he is entitled to French protection.
 
Which mmmeeeaaaans that he was not found guilty of those charges. Which is what I was saying the whole time. Next time read what I am actually writing.

God, Winner, what the heck. SO WHAT?

He need to face the music on the charge he pled guilty to. Period.

We arent trying to re-try him on rape charges. They just simply want him to serve the sentence for the one charge he pled guilty to.

THATS IT.

I dunno what your thinking here. I really dont.

Just out of curiosity, what's the range in this particular case?

They have changed to be much more harsh since Polanskis crime, so I have no idea. These days they are quite harsh....back then? I have no clue.

Maybe to placate France without actually violating the treaty with the US? :think:

Actually, that probably would violate the treaty with the USA. If not by the letter, then certainly by the intent.

It doesn't look like that he suffered in those past 30 years...

Sufferings got nothing to do with it.

Or maybe they don't really trust the findings of the US courts.

Uhm....Polanski ADMITTED GUILT. DUH.
 
God, Winner, what the heck. SO WHAT?

He need to face the music on the charge he pled guilty to. Period.

We arent trying to re-try him on rape charges. They just simply want him to serve the sentence for the one charge he pled guilty to.

THATS IT.

I dunno what your thinking here. I really dont.

Maybe you don't because you didn't follow the previous discussion :p

They have changed to be much more harsh since Polanskis crime, so I have no idea. These days they are quite harsh....back then? I have no clue.

Actually, that probably would violate the treaty with the USA. If not by the letter, then certainly by the intent.

Exactly. And the US could do exactly nothing about it. Everybody else is happy.

Uhm....Polanski ADMITTED GUILT. DUH.

Sigh - maybe because it was the only way how to save his skin and get a chance to escape? As I said, many in Europe have doubts about the whole thing, including the Poles who are otherwise very uncompromising about these things.
 
He ONLY (this word is really important, please focus) pleaded guilty to the charge of having sex with her. He was not convicted of rape and the other stuff.

No, he was not sentenced in the first place. He fled before the sentence was given.

A 44 year old man having sex with a 13 yar old is rape. I do not understand how anyone could not see this.

He was convicted, via a plea bargain, and sentenced. He fled. He got caught.

The director pleaded guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse in a deal with prosecutors that saw them drop charges of rape, drugging and sodomy, which could have carried a life sentence, but fled the country in February 1978 when it became apparent that he was likely to serve time in prison.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/sep/27/roman-polanski-arrest-switzerland-custody

What life sentence?
 
So, let's say an American gets busted in Indonesia for smuggling few joints of marijuana. He's sentenced to 50 years (hypothetically, I chose the country at random) in prison, but he manages to flee and get back to the US. Indonesia asks the US to extradite him so that the can rot in Indonesian prison for the 50 years.

How realistic it is that the US would extradite him? Even though he committed a crime, the opinion in the both countries seriously differs on how should such a crime be punished. So, in reality, the US would, in the very best case, prosecute him and sentence him according to US law.

How is this different? From French point of view, he's a French citizen and so he is entitled to French protection.

They probably wouldn't extradite him, but they should. If you want to commit a crime on foreign soil, you should have to pay for that crime on foreign soil. In your example, the criminal knows what sort of punishment they'd be in for if they get caught over there when they commit the crime, yet commit it regardless. It's not the US's responsibility to uphold the law of a foreign land.

Back to the example in the OP, the criminal even admitted a charge, whilst in America. What sort of country could morally harbour a wanted criminal who admits they committed a crime?
 
They probably wouldn't extradite him, but they should. If you want to commit a crime on foreign soil, you should have to pay for that crime on foreign soil. In your example, the criminal knows what sort of punishment they'd be in for if they get caught over there when they commit the crime, yet commit it regardless. It's not the US's responsibility to uphold the law of a foreign land.

Back to the example in the OP, the criminal even admitted a charge, whilst in America. What sort of country could morally harbour a wanted criminal who admits they committed a crime?

A country which has doubts about the whole thing, or the severity of the actual sentence?

It is besides the point. Most countries generally don't extradite their citizens to other countries. In Europe, there was a lot of controversy about the EU-wide arrest warrant which overrides national sovereignty, but it was eventually agreed by all EU members. USA is a different case, Europeans generally don't want to send people there.
 
Sigh - maybe because it was the only way how to save his skin and get a chance to escape?

No. He had plenty of chances for that along the way. He wasnt considered a flight risk until he actually fled.

As I said, many in Europe have doubts about the whole thing, including the Poles who are otherwise very uncompromising about these things.

Doesnt make em right, Winner. Again, the guy pled guilty - he admitted to having sex with her. On the record. If people in Europe want to be in denial about it /oh well. I think they need to get over it personally - sometimes famous people do bad things. They are still very much human.

A country which has doubts about the whole thing, or the severity of the actual sentence?

It is besides the point. Most countries generally don't extradite their citizens to other countries. In Europe, there was a lot of controversy about the EU-wide arrest warrant which overrides the national sovereignty, but it was eventually agreed by all EU members. USA is a different case, Europeans generally don't want to send people there.

Didnt I just give you a link where the USA is extraditing a US citizen to face crimes in Germany?

No comment about that?
 
Huh? :eek:

Do you believe the reverse? That no American citizen should be extradited back to Europe whatever the alleged crime is?

I mean wow, can I come over and act like a Kennedy with no repercussion?
actually he's right on that one. Most countries don't extradite their own countrymen, I think the US is no exception to this. But the fact is that he's no swiss citizen, and switzerland isn't in the EU. so whether he's French, Polish or American doesn't matter
 
As I said, many in Europe have doubts about the whole thing, including the Poles who are otherwise very uncompromising about these things.
The only Poles with any doubts are the Polish Film-maker's Association. Prove otherwise.
 
A country which has doubts about the whole thing, or the severity of the actual sentence?
What the hell could they have doubts about? He plead guilty! And the severity of the sentence isn't France's concern. He knew what he was getting himself in for. If he wanted a lighter sentence, maybe he should have raped a kid in France instead. (And no, I'm not advocating that before someone rips me to shreds for that one)

It is besides the point. Most countries generally don't extradite their citizens to other countries. In Europe, there was a lot of controversy about the EU-wide arrest warrant which overrides national sovereignty, but it was eventually agreed by all EU members. USA is a different case, Europeans generally don't want to send people there.

It doesn't matter whether we want it. He committed a crime on American soil. He should be held accountable on American soil.
 
Quote from the Guardian article:

The director pleaded guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse in a deal with prosecutors that saw them drop charges of rape, drugging and sodomy, which could have carried a life sentence, but fled the country in February 1978 when it became apparent that he was likely to serve time in prison.

Polanski's arrest is the latest twist in an extraordinary life that has been marked by violence, tragedy and controversy. His family returned to Poland shortly before the outbreak of the second world war and were forced into the Krakow ghetto with thousands of other Jewish families. The young Polanski escaped from the ghetto in 1943, but his parents were shipped to concentration camps, and his mother was murdered in Auschwitz.

Polanski married American actor Sharon Tate in 1968, but the following year, when eight months pregnant with his baby, she and four other people were brutally murdered by members of Charles Manson's "family".

In recent months, lawyers for Polanski have been seeking through the US courts to have the rape charges against him dropped, after new evidence emerged in a documentary that, they argued, showed he was a victim of "judicial misconduct" at his original trial. The film showed a former Los Angeles deputy district attorney admitting discussing the case with the trial judge while it was ongoing.

In February a Los Angeles judge agreed that "substantial … misconduct" had taken place during the original court proceedings, but said he could not drop the charges so long as Polanski remained a fugitive. Polanski has since appealed against the ruling, insisting he would not voluntarily return to the US even to clear his name.

What a happy life.
 
What a happy life.

Cry me a river. So the guy shouldnt be punished for having sex with minors? Is that what you are saying? If your life sucks hard enough, breaking the law is ok?

I thought you were better than that Winner. :confused:
 
A country which has doubts about the whole thing, or the severity of the actual sentence?

Do you know what the actual sentence was? It was not life.

You are citing the sentence for the combination of the original charges, not the sentence for what he plead guilty to (raping a 13 year old girl).

Polanski was initially charged[38] with rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under 14, and furnishing a controlled substance (methaqualone) to a minor. These charges were dismissed under the terms of his plea bargain, and he pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.[39]

Following the plea agreement, according to the documentary Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired, the court ordered Polanski to report to a state prison for a 90-day psychiatric evaluation, but granted a stay of ninety days to allow him to complete his current project. Under the terms set by the court, he was permitted to travel abroad. Polanski returned to California and reported to Chino State Prison for the evaluation period, and was released after 42 days. On February 1, 1978, Polanski fled to London, where he maintained residency. A day later he traveled on to France, where he held citizenship, avoiding the risk of extradition to the U.S. by Britain.
 
No. He had plenty of chances for that along the way. He wasnt considered a flight risk until he actually fled.

If the guardian article is right, he could have been sentenced to life in prison, despite the plea bargain.

Doesnt make em right, Winner. Again, the guy pled guilty - he admitted to having sex with her. On the record. If people in Europe want to be in denial about it /oh well.

Who's denying it? This whole "debate" started because I objected to the accusations made by some other people in this and the other thread, who called him a convicted rapist. I simply proved that he was not convicted of rape, ergo there is no reason to call him like that.

Jeez, before you start an argument with someone, do me a favour and first find out what's the other guy actually saying.

I think they need to get over it personally - sometimes famous people do bad things. They are still very much human.

You're crying on a wrong grave here.

Didnt I just give you a link where the USA is extraditing a US citizen to face crimes in Germany?


Cry me a river. So the guy shouldnt be punished for having sex with minors? Is that what you are saying? If your life sucks hard enough, breaking the law is ok?

I thought you were better than that Winner. :confused:

Did I say anything like that?
I didn't notice it, you post too fast. My comment: a point for you. Doesn't change anything on the fact that European countries usually don't do it.
 
Do you know what the actual sentence was? It was not life.

You are citing the sentence for the combination of the original charges, not the sentence for what he plead guilty to (raping a 13 year old girl).

I am citing a Guardian article, nothing more.

BTW, actually the sentence was never passed.
 
Back
Top Bottom