A Swiss court today decided that Roman Polanski should not be extradited to the United States and, instead allowed him to go free with their blessing and to continue making money and directing movies and to provide a beacon for child rapists everywhere that you can run from justice and not have to worry about anything.
One of Polanski's lawyers said it was a vindication and that Americans misunderstand the case. I don't misunderstand anything. If it is just a misunderstanding then tell him to come to the United States for a visit. To say that I am disappointed and upset is to put it mildly.
Enty, the Swiss say one of the factors in their decision was that the U.S. refused to provide "confidential" information from 1978 sentencing documents. Who in the L.A. court system made that decision? Since it's a company town, shall we assume they were paid off?
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree that he should not be released one of the main reasons it is happening is because the US has not provided the Swiss with proper documentation that they asked for months ago. His release should be blamed on the US/California courts for not handling this better.
ReplyDeleteAwwww to be RICH and WHITE.........
ReplyDeleteWell, they may not provide confidential information because it may not be information relevant to the case. Since we don't know what the information involved may be, I'd more likely assume that the U.S. didn't want Polanski to start further bloodying the young girl's reputation just because he wants to be free.
ReplyDeleteIn any case, a conviction is a conviction and the Swiss should honor it. That's just a general principal in extradition. Unless the person involved is a political refugee or an alleged victim of human rights violations or genocidal activity within the country seeking extradition, there's really no reason for any authority with an agreement with the U.S. for extradition to reject the request.
Honestly, I have to say the Swiss probably got a very nice bribe from one of Polanski's friends or a lot of pressure from his pals.
ReplyDeletelol, i agree MM.
ReplyDeleteLady J, do you even know what the "US/California courts" supposedly did that justifies, in your mind, blaming them for Polanski's release?
ReplyDeleteHere are the lame excuses provided by the Swiss in rejecting the extradition request from the US:
1. The Swiss claimed that the U.S. had failed to provide the records of a January hearing in Los Angeles County Superior Court that would have shown the judge in charge of the Polanski case in 1977agreed that "the 42 days of detention spent by Roman Polanski in the psychiatric unit of a Californian prison represented the whole term of imprisonment he was condemned to."
(In fact, the judge never agreed that 42 days would be his entire sentence. At most, he said that 48 additional days (on top of the original 42) would be the full sentence IF Polanski agreed to certain illegal conditions that he never agreed to.)
2. The Swiss claimed that when Mr. Polanski traveled in September 2009 to the Zurich Film Festival where he was arrested as he arrived at the airport, he did so in "good faith" that "the journey would not entail any legal disadvantages for him." The Swiss justice ministry noted that Mr. Polanski had been staying regularly in Switzerland since 2006, and though "he was registered in the Swiss registry of wanted persons, he was never controlled by the Swiss authorities."
(Boohoo. Who cares about Polanski's "good faith" belief? He drugged a 13 year-old and anally raped her and for this he spent a few months confined to a Swiss chalet.)
this whole mess can be laid at the feet of the state of california. they botched this case from the giddy up. so as horrible as it is, i think it's important to point the finger in the right direction.
ReplyDeleteafter all, if you had a chance to get away with this and move on with your life, wouldn't you take it?
well, that's what he gets to do, all because of a completely fucked up prosecution.
His punishment (i mean the confinement in the cottage) would be considered a great vacation for the rest of us, I think
ReplyDeleteI got about 2 hours sleep last night and I read the title as, "The Rapist [That] Roman Polanski Set Free", and thought, WTF?
ReplyDeleteAnd then my brain finally filtered it correctly and I thought, WTF????
Well I hope all the douches that signed the petition to set him free are happy. Many are directors. Woody Allen is one--no surprise!
This list is probably outdated; I'm sure many more assholes signed it:
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/bighollywood/2009/09/29/naming-names-the-free-roman-polanski-petition/
You can't blame the prosecution for this one, Nancer. Polanski only got the deal because the family wanted to spare the child from being victimized for a second time by Polanski's lawyers. Such deals are made in many cases involving children for that reason; kids already damaged will likely be damaged a second time.
ReplyDeleteFour decades later, the U.S. did its job and requested extradition. As Armatel points out, the Swiss rejected extradition for reasons that wouldn't even be considered worthy by my wife's old law school professors.
Should he had been extradited a long time ago? Of course, but it wasn't likely to ever happen so long as he stayed in France. Now, it will definitely not happen because he will never leave his chateau ever again. The U.S. will definitely seek extradition again, and Polanski won't go to countries like the U.K., which are more-likely to kick him to the states.
What a joke. Imagining the smug grin on Polanski's face today makes me feel stabby.
ReplyDeletei am disgusted and this makes me want to vomit.
ReplyDeleteI love how his lawyer says "Americans misunderstand the case" No one misuderstands anally raping an underage young girl! And we also do not misunderstand that this piece of shit celebrity thinks he is above it all.
ReplyDeletei can and do blame the prosecution. they let him plead to a greatly reduced charge which was ridiculous. since when do the victim's wishes dictate that a child predator get a slap on the hand? how does what he did get pled down to statutory rape??
ReplyDeletethen the judge went against that agreement and was going to put him in prison and that's when he fled.
if we're going to let the victim decide---like they did in the beginning---then why is that not happening now? he settled with her and she doesn't want him prosecuted further.
she even asked that he be allowed to return to the US to get his oscar!
it was FUCKED UP from the start and the prosecution can't undo it now. they made lame decisions and they have to live with them!
Oh great, STILL no closure. What a clusterfuck.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, the state screwed up the case in the beginning by not putting him on trial. Instead they agreed to a plea bargan in which Mr. Polanski would plead guilty and then do time in the psychiatric unit of a California prison. He did that. Once he was finished doing that, he was to be given a time served sentence.
ReplyDeleteTHe press at the time got wind of the agreement and the judge felt the public pressure. He let it be known that he wasn't going to honor the sentence agreement. So Polanski skipped town.
The only reason he pled guilty was because of the agreement made between his attorney and the prosecution.
He could have withdrawn his guilty plea had the judge slammed him as the judge hinted. That would have put him back in a trial stance.
Polanski obviously showed a guilty mindset by not trying to withdraw the guilty plea and fleeing.
As bad as Polanski's crime was, this mess sits squarely in the lap of the prosecutors at the time who made promises to induce a plea.
The Swiss refused extradition because of this history. The Swiss court felt that there was strong evidence that Polanski already served his time under the original plea agreement. When California refused to forward all of the documents concerning the original deal to the Swiss courts, they had no option but to refuse extradition.
I'm a criminal defense attorney by profession. One thing I tell my clients is that when dealing with the court system, we are deeling with man's law. It is imperfect. Polanski may slip through here, but there is true justice in the hereafter.
My 2 cents worth for what its worth.
thank you, obitguy! the state failed to prosecute him on the correct charge, then reneged on their deal with him. so what did they expect?
ReplyDeletei'm so sick of this case. but i blame the fact that he's a free man on the people who COULD have put him away and didn't.
Well, you know what ignorant people we are. The Swiss authorities, of course, understand all. I wonder if it's all little girls they think deserve to be drugged and anally raped or just American little girls.
ReplyDeleteThey looked for *any* reason to release this bastard.
Obitguy, I respect your general expertise but you've biffed some of the particulars in this case.
ReplyDeleteThe Daily Beast ran excerpts of a transcript from the the hearing where Polanski entered his guilty plea, and it was evident that Polanski understood fully that the psychiatric detention might not be time served. Further, Polanski stated that he understood that the judge had full discretion to sentence him anywhere from time served to 20 years in state prison. Polanski was asked to make a proffer of this understanding when he entered his guilty plea, and did so.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-10-02/the-lost-polanski-transcripts/
The idea that Polanski fled in a raw panic because of the possibility of an unscrupulous sentencing him to an unanticipated, extended sentence is a lie. I guess if you tell a lie for 33 years, it becomes truth, which is pretty goddamned depressing.
Well, Nancer, if the kid doesn't testify or if the kid testifies and she is beaten down on cross (and really good lawyers can do that without appearing to be nasty), then Polanski goes free, acquitted, never to actually serve justice. Prosecutors have to often weigh whether to pursue a case or not based on everything -- and not just the evidence. If your witnesses are fragile or not credible, prosecuting a case makes no sense. If the family of the victim is concerned about the mental state of the child, that also comes into play. Ask any prosecutor; they don't just do these things without some thought. Just because you can indict a ham sandwich doesn't mean you can get it convicted.
ReplyDeleteSo prosecutors make deals. Not always good deals (look at the Karen Homolka/Paul Bernardo case as a clear example of what not to do as a prosecutor), but often the best deals possible. If you can take the case to trial, great, you do it. But look at the case of Michael Jackson; that fell apart because the Santa Barbara County prosecutor didn't consider for a moment that his witnesses were a tad incredible.
Back to Polanski: I'm not saying I wouldn't have taken the case to trial if I were in the prosecutor's position. I probably would have. But that's not a call you or I had any chance to make. The prosecutor made the best call at the time; hindsight is always clearer after the fact. So blaming the prosecution is rather ridiculous. Especially since, at the end of the day, Polanski agreed to a deal, reneged, flew the coop and became a fugitive. That's the real point and the real source of blame for all this: A scumbag who wouldn't actually do his penance like a man.
Thanks, Cupcakewalker, for submitting that piece. Again, the correct charge is the one to which he pleaded guilty, not the one he would have gotten had he gone to trial and been convicted.
ReplyDeleteOnce more, people keep forgetting who is to blame for all this in the end: A scumbag who couldn't do his time like a man.
I'm totally digusted, he will probably never chance going anywhere so justice will never be served, imo.
ReplyDeleteTo the person who said he "settled with her" (his victim), he did not and he never completed paying her the civil judgement against him, this guy is total scum.
And I have to say from the beginning people knew the Swiss would not honor an extradition no matter what because of his "status" and money. Total bs!!
On Good Morning America today, the reporter said that Polanski was convicted of "having sex with a 13 year old girl". And now all the media will report is the blame game between U.S. and Switzerland.
ReplyDeleteA child got raped. A child rapist walked away scot free. Very sad day.
- Butterfly
www.reasonsyoushouldntfuckkids.wordpress.com