Switzerland rejects a U.S. request to extradite Roman Polanski

Director Roman Polanski is a free man after the Swiss government rejected a request of the USA to extradite him.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100712/ap_on_en_mo/roman_polanski

(prepares for idiotic rape-apologist comments).

Polanksi's nothing but a turd.  His movies stink, and the way that Hollywood bent over backwards in it's inexcusable defense of his actions is rather laughable.  

BUT the thing that bothered me the most is that this, like any trial, is none of my/our business.  Two things went wrong here.: the whole affair got a lot of press, and he got away with it in the end.  Both totally inexcusable.

Drugged, sodomized, and repeatedly asked Polanski to stop ...

Ben Roethlisberger, Kobe Bryant etc ... The USA legal system is no better than the Switzerland, France or Poland

I will do something about it - I will not see his new movie when it gets released.

has anyone actually ever seen a Polanski movie?

I saw:

Rosemary's Baby (1968 horror film starring Mia Farrow),
Chinatown (1974 film starring Jack Nicholson) and
The Pianist (2002 film starring Adrian Brody).

They are all very good films.

I think Polanski is a great director but this should not play a role in the extradition case. The rape of a 13 old girl should not go unpunished ever. The USA had a chance to build a case against Polanski in 1977 but they blew it and now they were too superior to provide the requested information to Switzerland. The Swiss government had no other chance than to reject the extradition request as a result. If the US justice system had done their job correctly the whole case would have been forgotten a long time ago. Why a plea bargain was okay 33 years ago but today they need another trial is a mystery. The Swiss decision was a big surprise and there must have been good reasons for the government to reject the US request. Funny how the US justice dept blames Switzerland now for "letting get Polanski away" when their own justice was unable to get a verdict when the case was new and Polanski in US custody 33 years ago.

I think that Polanski's films (and some of them are very good indeed) should have nothing to do with the issue at all.

This case is clear on all levels

A) The direct trigger: the US refused to allow the Swiss to review relevant parts of the trial the US cited as the basis for extradition. On that ground alone the Swiss should logically refuse further coöperation, which is exactly what they did - further coöperation would create a legal precedent for later extradition to, for instance, Iran or Zimbabwe.

B) There were serious irregularities with the original trial - not in the least a judge who spoke to the media and pronounced Polanski guilty literally before the prosecution had started its case.

C) A trial back when this happened, if considerably less irregular than the one the US had, would have been no more than just. However, as the victim does not want this renewed legal drag, I think this farcical proceeding is an unsavoury, cold-blooded career move by the prosecution that plays on revenge whereas consideration for the victim should come first were it to be justice.

A critic once called Polanski "The five-foot Pole you wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole."

ThomasQuinn wrote: C) A trial back when this happened, if considerably less irregular than the one the US had, would have been no more than just. However, as the victim does not want this renewed legal drag, I think this farcical proceeding is an unsavoury, cold-blooded career move by the prosecution that plays on revenge whereas consideration for the victim should come first were it to be justice.
=====================================================

The victim has stated that she long ago moved on and wants no further focus on the case as each new round brings unwanted media attention on her and her family.  I can completely understand and respect that, and hope she finds her permanent peace soon. However, the justice system can't be about 'consideration for the victim' unfortunately.  It's never 'The Victim vs. Roman Polanski', it's 'The People vs. Roman Polanski'. Prosecution, conviction and sentencing is in significant part about the denunciation of anti-social acts to society and about general deterrance.  I've often thought that there should be a parallel process in the justice system that is is purely about supporting the victims and their families because criminal trials so often leave victims strung out, confused and feeling revictimized.  The obligation of the state to proceed where warranted and possible and the right of the accused to have a fair trial and challenge his or her accusers supercedes the victim's rights in just about every way.

In the end, the prosecution was right to try and to send the message that 'you can run but you can't hide'.   Most now know Polanski is an unrepentant statutory rapist and drugger of children who has been boxed into a little corner of a big beautiful world for his crimes.  That may have to do in the end. He probably could have done 30 days 30+ years ago and have been done with it.  What a schmuck.

You've got an incorrect and barbaric view of law, if you ask me. Your view that the enforcement of laws comes before the interest of the victim is in direct negation of Civil law, the foundation of most modern western law. It opposes the very object of western law, which is, for better or for worse, the protection of rights, person and property of the individual.

ThomasQuinn wrote: You've got an incorrect and barbaric view of law, if you ask me. Your view that the enforcement of laws comes before the interest of the victim is in direct negation of Civil law, the foundation of most modern western law. It opposes the very object of western law, which is, for better or for worse, the protection of rights, person and property of the individual.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are two fundamental things to consider in western law: punishment and deterrent. Letting Polanksi get away with this fulfills neither of those functions.

Punishment and deterrent are medieval concepts. They have been outdated since Enlightenment! Protection of individual and collective rights, not caveman-style revenge.

ThomasQuinn wrote: Punishment and deterrent are medieval concepts. They have been outdated since Enlightenment! Protection of individual and collective rights, not caveman-style revenge. ...................................................................................................................................................................................

Very noble sounding. What does it mean exactly?

It means, plain and simple, that the interests of the victim take precedence over prosecution to the full extent of the law.