Roman Polanski detention

[Harvin87]

Roman Polanski was arrested in Switzerland...

Spoiler :

Politicians and Hollywood heavyweights have rallied behind director Roman Polanski following his arrest.

French foreign minister Bernard Kouchner called the detention of the film-maker - a French citizen - in Switzerland a "bit sinister".

According to trade paper Screen Daily, Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein is also backing the director.

A lawyer acting for Mr Polanski said his client has "refused " the US request for extradition.

US prosecutors want Mr Polanski to return to be sentenced for having sex with a 13-year-old girl in 1977.

He pleaded guilty at the time as part of a plea bargain but then fled abroad. Mr Polanski, 76, is currently in custody in a Zurich prison.

The French-born Polish director was detained on Saturday as he arrived in Zurich to receive a lifetime achievement award.

"We're calling on every film-maker we can to help fix this terrible situation," Weinstein said.

A petition has been signed by film-makers and actors including Monica Bellucci and Fanny Ardant expressing dismay at Mr Polanski's arrest.

Culture minister Frederic Mitterrand said President Sarkozy was following the case "with great attention".

Mr Mitterrand also told France-Inter radio that he and the Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski have written to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and said there could be a decision as early as Monday if a Swiss court accepts bail.

And British novelist Robert Harris described the arrest as "disgusting treatment". Mr Polanski is directing a film adaptation of his book The Ghost. Mr Harris said the production team were "reeling from the news".

Oscar-winning director Andrzej Wajda was among members of the Polish Filmmakers Association calling on their website for Switzerland to immediately release Mr Polanski and for the US to review his case.

In its Monday edition the French daily Le Figaro quotes Mr Polanski's Paris-based lawyer as saying: "We will be demanding that he be freed. Then we will fight the extradition."

Mr Polanski's agent, Jeff Berg, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme the arrest was "surprising because Roman for the last 12, 15 years has lived in Switzerland, he has a home, he travels there, he works there".

Justice spokesman Guido Balmer said the difference with this particular trip was that authorities knew exactly when and where Mr Polanski would arrive. Switzerland does not perform passport checks on arrivals from 24 other European countries.

The Swiss Directors Association also criticised the arrest, describing it as "not only a grotesque farce of justice, but also an immense cultural scandal".

Swiss Justice Minister Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf said that because of agreements with the US, "when Mr Polanski arrived we had no choice from a legal point of view but to arrest him".

The Swiss media have rounded on the authorities.

"Switzerland let a guest walk into a nasty trap. We should be ashamed," said tabloid newspaper, Blick.

Daily paper Le Temps said Switzerland had "shocked film buffs and friends of the arts with its kindly and efficient co-operation with US justice. It has angered Poland and France".

The Swiss Justice Ministry has not ruled out the possibility that the film-maker could be released on bail under very strict conditions that he does not flee Switzerland.

American authorities have up to 60 days to make a formal extradition request but Mr Polanski could then appeal to the Swiss courts.

In recent years, the director has asked a US appeals court in California to overturn a judge's refusal to throw out his case. He claimed misconduct by the judge, now deceased, who had arranged a plea bargain and then reneged on it.

A judge dismissed his bid to throw out the case earlier this year because he did not appear in person in court but said there was "substantial misconduct" in the handling of the original case.

Planned Arrest.

The director is being held under a 2005 international alert issued by the US.

Sandi Gibbons, a spokeswoman for the Los Angeles County district attorney's office, confirmed that moves to detain the director were set in motion last week.

"It wasn't a big secret that he was going to be in Zurich. They had announced it on the internet," Ms Gibbons said.

There had been two previous attempts to arrest Mr Polanski when he planned visits to countries that have extradition agreements with the US, but each time he apparently learned of the plans and did not travel, Ms Gibbons said.

Mr Polanski was initially indicted on six counts and faced up to life in prison. He has not set foot in the US for more than 30 years.

The victim at the centre of the case, Samantha Geimer, has previously asked for the charges to be dropped. She has already sued Mr Polanski and reached an undisclosed settlement.

from bbc news.

So what do you think? ... was it in deed "sinister" ... or fair? ...

 

[bhsup]

We've already tried this once. The other thread is closed for review...

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=336875

 

[Harvin87]

ok ... I wasn't aware of that...

 

[Mise]

I don't understand, why are people so outraged that a man who admitted drugging and raping a 13 year old girl before skipping bail and fleeing the country is finally facing justice???

 

[Yeekim]

I don't understand, why are people so outraged that a man who admitted drugging and raping a 13 year old girl before skipping bail and fleeing the country is finally facing justice???

I, for one, am not. He certainly deserves punishment for what he did. However, I guess that with the benefit of hindsight we can say that life sentence would have been a bit excessive.

Plus, I am confused as to why he was detained only now.

 

[Virote_Considon]

I don't understand, why are people so outraged that a man who admitted drugging and raping a 13 year old girl before skipping bail and fleeing the country is finally facing justice???

Because they like his films and don't want to think of one of their favourite directors as a rapist?

 

[Grisu]

Plus, I am confused as to why he was detained only now.

He's a french and polish citizen and both of these countries (as most countries) don't extradite their own citizens.

Why he hasn't been arrested before when he was vacationing in Switzerland was probably that back then the authorities could with a more or less clean concience look away and claim they didn't know he was here until after he left. In the current case this was really impossible to do, since his arrival was widely publicized. The authorities basically had no choice but to act on the warrant.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Because they like his films and don't want to think of one of their favourite directors as a rapist?

Phil Spector was great too!

 

[HannibalBarka]

What is surprising is the fact that he escaped till now not that he has been arrested.
This guy was a rapist of the worst kind, he forced a 13 years old to have sexe with him when he was 46. The fact that it happened 30 years ago and that he did not do it again (at least what he says, go figure) is no excuse. I see no reason why he shouldn't have the same treatement as any one else. And it is not about "cultural differences", what he committed would be qualified as a crime in France also. People in Europe may be more "easy" going about teenagers having sexe with young adult, but in this case the age differnce is huge and its was clearly a abuse case (no love, no feelings, nada).
He escaped because he is famous, for the same reason whan a famous person do drugs go away with it, but when the usual guy does it, he ends in jail.
The fact that the victim is calling for forgetting the case is also non sense, she wants to move forward and she has been "indemnised" (??? english)

 

[warpus]

He should be charged and prosecuted, but life in prison? Give me a break!

Send him to Poland and castrate him already.. Then let him make a movie about it - maybe it'll win an oscar.

 

[Earthling]

Because they like his films and don't want to think of one of their favourite directors as a rapist?

I did not participate in the other thread, however, if this thread is going to see such strawmen, it'll probably meet the same fate. From what I read, those who some posters said were "supporting a rapist" were in fact mostly against the potential misuse/diplomatic conflict in extradition law. Admittedly, I also think that situation is odd and potentially controversial, considering France never extradited him and it's still possible Switzerland might not.

 

[Winner]

I, for one, am not. He certainly deserves punishment for what he did. However, I guess that with the benefit of hindsight we can say that life sentence would have been a bit excessive.

Plus, I am confused as to why he was detained only now.

What I am sick of the most is how certain people keep overreacting. "Lol, he raped a child, why do you defend rape?" (hello, Elrohir! ) or "He's a rapist, get rid of him." and stuff like this.

I don't know how it works elsewhere, but usually there is this thing called presumption of innocence. He was not convicted of rape. He only pleaded guilty on charge of having sex with the girl.

Now, I am not saying he didn't do it, I just don't know. What I know from the few articles I read, the original trial was flawed and problematic. Furthermore, the US had an option to transfer the case to France, which would continue the prosecution. For some reason, the US opted against it. Why? If the case was solid, why didn't they ask France to finish the job?

It seems like the US was hell bent on doing it "their way", with no regard to any sense of justice or whatever. That's something I can't support, especially 30 years after the deed was done and the guy established himself as a famous artists who even received Oscar for his work. He obviously haven't done anything bad since then, which only increases the doubts about the case.

Finally, the method how the US plans to get him back is plain despicable. If the Americans can't swallow their pride and ask France to re-open the case, they can go to hell with their "justice".

 

[bhsup]

Presumption of innocence flew out the window as far as I am personally concerned when he fled the country. He's not Dr. Kimble, there was no one-armed man. He did it. He drugged a girl and forced himself upon her and she did not resist because she was afraid of him. That's rape. No other way to slice it.

As my view has always, ALWAYS, consistently been that rape warrants the death penalty, I don't see why that should change for this case just because it happened 30 years ago.

And why should we have to beg France to try it? It happened on American soil to an American.

 

[El_Machinae]

Moderator Action: If this thread degrades, especially due to the same people, the mod-stick will be heavy

 

[Bestbank Tiger]

Since it's "old news" and raping a child is "no big deal", should we let Paul Shanley out of prison? The only differences between him and Polanski are the number of victims and the fact that Shanley has been punished and Polanski hasn't.

(Unless the fact that Polanski's victim was female makes her less important).

 

[Mise]

What I am sick of the most is how certain people keep overreacting. "Lol, he raped a child, why do you defend rape?" (hello, Elrohir! ) or "He's a rapist, get rid of him." and stuff like this.

I don't know how it works elsewhere, but usually there is this thing called presumption of innocence. He was not convicted of rape. He only pleaded guilty on charge of having sex with the girl.

Now, I am not saying he didn't do it, I just don't know. What I know from the few articles I read, the original trial was flawed and problematic. Furthermore, the US had an option to transfer the case to France, which would continue the prosecution. For some reason, the US opted against it. Why? If the case was solid, why didn't they ask France to finish the job?

It seems like the US was hell bent on doing it "their way", with no regard to any sense of justice or whatever. That's something I can't support, especially 30 years after the deed was done and the guy established himself as a famous artists who even received Oscar for his work. He obviously haven't done anything bad since then, which only increases the doubts about the case.

Finally, the method how the US plans to get him back is plain despicable. If the Americans can't swallow their pride and ask France to re-open the case, they can go to hell with their "justice".

Winner, for the avoidance of doubt, do you believe he should face a fresh trial, or that he shouldn't face trial at all?

 

[Grisu]

What I am sick of the most is how certain people keep overreacting. "Lol, he raped a child, why do you defend rape?" (hello, Elrohir! ) or "He's a rapist, get rid of him." and stuff like this.

I don't know how it works elsewhere, but usually there is this thing called presumption of innocence. He was not convicted of rape. He only pleaded guilty on charge of having sex with the girl.

and drugging her, IIRC.

but what are you really saying? that because of the presumption of innocence he should not be arrested and tried? Isn't that what due process is all about? Someone's suspected of a crime so he's arrested (and if no danger of flight exists released on bail), then he's tried where his guilt or innocence is determined and in the end set free of jailed. no? That's exactly what's happening here, isn't it?

It's also highly ironic how you suddenly become the big defender of 'presumption of innocence'

 

[bigdog5994]

no man not even Polanski is above the law

 

[Patroklos]

That's something I can't support, especially 30 years after the deed was done and the guy established himself as a famous artists who even received Oscar

How exactly does being famous or winning an Oscar change anything?

 

[Winner]

and drugging her, IIRC.

but what are you really saying? that because of the presumption of innocence he should not be arrested and tried? Isn't that what due process is all about?

Definitely. Which is why the US should have transferred the case to France ASAP. Failure to do so has delayed this case so much, that justice can hardly be served today.

Someone's suspected of a crime so he's arrested (and if no danger of flight exists released on bail), then he's tried where his guilt or innocence is determined and in the end set free of jailed. no? That's exactly what's happening here, isn't it?

Is it? So far, Switzerland is only deliberating whether it is possible to extradite him or not. The US still insists that the trial must be held there. Again, I ask why they didn't ask France to prosecute him in accordance to correspondent treaties between the two countries.

It's also highly ironic how you suddenly become the big defender of 'presumption of innocence'

It's equally ironic how many of those who allegedly respect liberal values suddenly call for blood. We're all hypocrites then.

How exactly does being famous or winning an Oscar change anything?

Don't put my sentences out of the context, please.