Options

Roman Polanski: he made a thriller

16566676971

Posts

  • Options
    zeenyzeeny Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Couscous wrote: »
    The Swiss mostly blamed U.S. authorities for failing to provide confidential testimony about Polanski's sentencing procedure in 1977-1978.
    What?

    I read that simply as "You didn't satisfy our standard for extradition." which is certainly possible, but fuck knows what it really means.

    zeeny on
  • Options
    KalTorakKalTorak One way or another, they all end up in the Undercity.Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    zeeny wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    The Swiss mostly blamed U.S. authorities for failing to provide confidential testimony about Polanski's sentencing procedure in 1977-1978.
    What?

    I read that simply as "You didn't satisfy our standard for extradition." which is certainly possible, but fuck knows what it really means.

    Say pretty please.


    OK, now ask in a girl voice.

    KalTorak on
  • Options
    Tiger BurningTiger Burning Dig if you will, the pictureRegistered User, SolidSaints Tube regular
    edited July 2010
    zeeny wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    The Swiss mostly blamed U.S. authorities for failing to provide confidential testimony about Polanski's sentencing procedure in 1977-1978.
    What?

    I read that simply as "You didn't satisfy our standard for extradition." which is certainly possible, but fuck knows what it really means.

    It's actually German for "We've been taking a lot of shit politically for cooperating with the IRS on their tax evasion probes, so we'll give the Americans the middle finger on this one to prove we don't dance to their tune."

    Tiger Burning on
    Ain't no particular sign I'm more compatible with
  • Options
    zeenyzeeny Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    KalTorak wrote: »
    zeeny wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    The Swiss mostly blamed U.S. authorities for failing to provide confidential testimony about Polanski's sentencing procedure in 1977-1978.
    What?

    I read that simply as "You didn't satisfy our standard for extradition." which is certainly possible, but fuck knows what it really means.

    Say pretty please.


    OK, now ask in a girl voice.

    Could be as simple as "Remember that UBS thing? Well, suck on our balls, fuckers.".

    zeeny on
  • Options
    HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Man, what is with the undertone of jingoism in this thread?

    HamHamJ on
    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • Options
    TaramoorTaramoor Storyteller Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Man, what is with the undertone of jingoism in this thread?

    I think they're just pissed off. It seemed so open-and-shut, you'd figure extraditing a confessed child-rapist who fled justice wouldn't be that difficult of a decision.

    Then again, he DID make Chinatown.

    Taramoor on
  • Options
    The Muffin ManThe Muffin Man Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Man, what is with the undertone of jingoism in this thread?

    I don't think it's jingoism when a country refuses to extradite a pedophile rapist who fled the country to avoid the charges.

    I think at that point we're allowed to ask that country "What the fuck".

    The Muffin Man on
  • Options
    kedinikkedinik Captain of Industry Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    It bothers me how many articles reporting on this say "had sex", not "raped".

    But then again, you know, she totally wanted it.

    kedinik on
    I made a game! Hotline Maui. Requires mouse and keyboard.
  • Options
    RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Man, what is with the undertone of jingoism in this thread?

    Apparently it's impossible that American officials ignored Swiss requests for information

    I mean we've never heard of America going off half-cocked because they made a demand to another nation and then failed to provide substantial evidence to back that demand right?

    Right?
    osama-bin-laden5.jpg

    Yeah, how about that.

    Robman on
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/13/movies/13polanski.html?_r=1
    Ms. Widmer-Schlumpf said the Swiss government had rejected the extradition request in part because American authorities declined to provide confidential testimony from a January 2010 hearing on Mr. Polanski’s original sentencing agreement.

    Swiss officials said records from that hearing would have established whether the judge who tried the case in 1977 had assured Mr. Polanski that time he spent in a psychiatric unit would constitute the whole of the period of imprisonment he would serve.

    “If this were the case, Roman Polanski would actually have already served his sentence and therefore both the proceedings on which the U.S. extradition request is founded and the request itself would have no foundation,” the Swiss Justice Ministry said in a statement.
    The sentencing still hadn't happened. Even if he had assured orally, the judge being fickle wouldn't change that.

    Couscous on
  • Options
    RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Man, what is with the undertone of jingoism in this thread?

    I don't think it's jingoism when a country refuses to extradite a pedophile rapist who fled the country to avoid the charges.

    I think at that point we're allowed to ask that country "What the fuck".

    Your moral outrage does not constitute compelling evidence

    Robman on
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Apparently it's impossible that American officials ignored Swiss requests for information
    Apparently Americans think confidential means confidential.

    Couscous on
  • Options
    RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Couscous wrote: »
    Apparently it's impossible that American officials ignored Swiss requests for information
    Apparently Americans think confidential means confidential.

    I know, it's amazing that the Swiss officials wanted all the relevant information to judge this case rather then letting moral outrage dictate their response. Although to be fair, the concept of secret evidence being withheld to strengthen the case against the defendant isn't unusual in the American justice system these days.

    Robman on
  • Options
    HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Couscous wrote: »
    Apparently it's impossible that American officials ignored Swiss requests for information
    Apparently Americans think confidential means confidential.

    If you want a foreign judiciary to extradite someone, you should be prepared to provide whatever they think is relevant.

    It's not like we haven't refused to extradite far worse people you know.

    HamHamJ on
    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • Options
    kdrudykdrudy Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Polanski apologists came out fast on this one.

    kdrudy on
    tvsfrank.jpg
  • Options
    joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    edited July 2010
    kdrudy wrote: »
    Polanski apologists came out fast on this one.

    Fruit... hanging low... musn't...

    joshofalltrades on
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    Apparently it's impossible that American officials ignored Swiss requests for information
    Apparently Americans think confidential means confidential.

    If you want a foreign judiciary to extradite someone, you should be prepared to provide whatever they think is relevant.

    It's not like we haven't refused to extradite far worse people you know.

    How the fuck is it even remotely relevant? He had not even been sentenced therefor he could not have served his sentence. You can't prove he did his time when his time hadn't even been given.

    Couscous on
  • Options
    TaramoorTaramoor Storyteller Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    kdrudy wrote: »
    Polanski apologists came out fast on this one.

    Ok, dude, I'm pissed that he didn't get extradited, but saying HamHam and the rest support Polanski is a little over the line.

    I don't think ANYBODY actually thinks he's innocent or anything like that, but it IS possible that as pissed off as America is that our Justice Department did something to blow the extradition.

    Of course, the reasoning provided by the Swiss is not exactly solid, but there's not a lot we can do about it short of declaring war on the neutrals.

    Taramoor on
  • Options
    joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Taramoor wrote: »
    kdrudy wrote: »
    Polanski apologists came out fast on this one.

    Ok, dude, I'm pissed that he didn't get extradited, but saying HamHam and the rest support Polanski is a little over the line.

    I don't think ANYBODY actually thinks he's innocent or anything like that, but it IS possible that as pissed off as America is that our Justice Department did something to blow the extradition.

    Of course, the reasoning provided by the Swiss is not exactly solid, but there's not a lot we can do about it short of declaring war on the neutrals.

    What are they gonna do? It's not like they'll take their own side.

    joshofalltrades on
  • Options
    Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Robman wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Man, what is with the undertone of jingoism in this thread?

    Apparently it's impossible that American officials ignored Swiss requests for information

    I mean we've never heard of America going off half-cocked because they made a demand to another nation and then failed to provide substantial evidence to back that demand right?

    Right?
    osama-bin-laden5.jpg

    Yeah, how about that.
    If you think the two situations are in any way comparable, you're a silly goose.

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • Options
    SaammielSaammiel Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Taramoor wrote: »
    I don't think ANYBODY actually thinks he's innocent or anything like that, but it IS possible that as pissed off as America is that our Justice Department did something to blow the extradition.

    According to published reports, we refused to release confidential testimony. That hardly seems to be the same as blowing the extradition case. And the Swiss response belies a misunderstanding of how sentancing works in the US, so their reasoning seems pretty suspect. Not to mention the 'national interests' canard thrown out there.
    Of course, the reasoning provided by the Swiss is not exactly solid, but there's not a lot we can do about it short of declaring war on the neutrals.

    The US has more levers to pull than just military intervention. I mean, I doubt we would use them just to nab Polanksi, but saying there isn't much we can do isn't true at all.

    Saammiel on
  • Options
    The Muffin ManThe Muffin Man Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Robman wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Man, what is with the undertone of jingoism in this thread?

    Apparently it's impossible that American officials ignored Swiss requests for information

    I mean we've never heard of America going off half-cocked because they made a demand to another nation and then failed to provide substantial evidence to back that demand right?

    Right?
    osama-bin-laden5.jpg

    Yeah, how about that.

    I really hope you guys are attacking Americas sometimes halfassed ways of doing things and not attempting to defend Polanski but I've been horrified before.
    Your moral outrage does not constitute compelling evidence
    I think being charged with it and then fleeing does, though.

    The Muffin Man on
  • Options
    HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Saammiel wrote: »
    Taramoor wrote: »
    I don't think ANYBODY actually thinks he's innocent or anything like that, but it IS possible that as pissed off as America is that our Justice Department did something to blow the extradition.

    According to published reports, we refused to release confidential testimony. That hardly seems to be the same as blowing the extradition case. And the Swiss response belies a misunderstanding of how sentancing works in the US, so their reasoning seems pretty suspect. Not to mention the 'national interests' canard thrown out there.

    How sentencing works in Switzerland is also relevant.

    HamHamJ on
    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Saammiel wrote: »
    Taramoor wrote: »
    I don't think ANYBODY actually thinks he's innocent or anything like that, but it IS possible that as pissed off as America is that our Justice Department did something to blow the extradition.

    According to published reports, we refused to release confidential testimony. That hardly seems to be the same as blowing the extradition case. And the Swiss response belies a misunderstanding of how sentancing works in the US, so their reasoning seems pretty suspect. Not to mention the 'national interests' canard thrown out there.

    How sentencing works in Switzerland is also relevant.

    What, no it isn't unless they are trying to argue that the American system is a violation of fundamental rights or something similar, which it obviously isn't.

    Couscous on
  • Options
    HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Couscous wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Saammiel wrote: »
    Taramoor wrote: »
    I don't think ANYBODY actually thinks he's innocent or anything like that, but it IS possible that as pissed off as America is that our Justice Department did something to blow the extradition.

    According to published reports, we refused to release confidential testimony. That hardly seems to be the same as blowing the extradition case. And the Swiss response belies a misunderstanding of how sentancing works in the US, so their reasoning seems pretty suspect. Not to mention the 'national interests' canard thrown out there.

    How sentencing works in Switzerland is also relevant.

    What, no it isn't unless they are trying to argue that the American system is a violation of fundamental rights or something similar, which it obviously isn't.

    When it comes to extradition, the legal standards of both countries are relevant.

    For example, countries have refused to extradite to the US because of the death penalty before.

    EDIT: Or for example, us refusing to extradite Warren Anderson.

    HamHamJ on
    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • Options
    SaammielSaammiel Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    When it comes to extradition, the legal standards of both countries are relevant.

    For example, countries have refused to extradite to the US because of the death penalty before.

    Except death penalty cases are refused because of human rights concerns on the part of European nations. At best this is a procedural difference. If the fundamental issue was how we sentance criminals, they wouldn't extradite anyone.

    I think it is more likely that the Swiss are refusing due to political considerations given their recent spat with the US over tax evasion.

    Saammiel on
  • Options
    Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Saammiel wrote: »
    Taramoor wrote: »
    I don't think ANYBODY actually thinks he's innocent or anything like that, but it IS possible that as pissed off as America is that our Justice Department did something to blow the extradition.

    According to published reports, we refused to release confidential testimony. That hardly seems to be the same as blowing the extradition case. And the Swiss response belies a misunderstanding of how sentancing works in the US, so their reasoning seems pretty suspect. Not to mention the 'national interests' canard thrown out there.

    How sentencing works in Switzerland is also relevant.

    What, no it isn't unless they are trying to argue that the American system is a violation of fundamental rights or something similar, which it obviously isn't.

    When it comes to extradition, the legal standards of both countries are relevant.

    For example, countries have refused to extradite to the US because of the death penalty before.

    EDIT: Or for example, us refusing to extradite Warren Anderson.
    The difference, I think, is that India was seeking extradition in order to try Anderson. Polanski pled guilty to certain charges and fled to avoid his sentence. Unless the Swiss are going to argue that the US justice system does not adequately protect defendants' rights, there is no reason to refuse extradition of someone who has pled guilty of the crimes of which he is accused.

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    For example, countries have refused to extradite to the US because of the death penalty before.
    Violation of fundamental rights.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_of_Fundamental_Rights_of_the_European_Union
    The first title, dignity, guarantees the right to life and prohibits torture, slavery and the death penalty. Its provisions are mostly based on the ECHR, although Article 1 closely reflects Article 1 of the German Basic Law.
    While Switzerland isn't an EU country, the document reflects general EU opinion on the death penalty as a violation of fundamental rights. Switzerland has not had the death penalty in federal criminal law since 1942 so it is probably fairly ingrained.

    Couscous on
  • Options
    HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    The difference, I think, is that India was seeking extradition in order to try Anderson. Polanski pled guilty to certain charges and fled to avoid his sentence. Unless the Swiss are going to argue that the US justice system does not adequately protect defendants' rights, there is no reason to refuse extradition of someone who has pled guilty of the crimes of which he is accused.

    I wouldn't be surprised if the Swiss do think that.

    HamHamJ on
    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • Options
    SaammielSaammiel Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    The difference, I think, is that India was seeking extradition in order to try Anderson. Polanski pled guilty to certain charges and fled to avoid his sentence. Unless the Swiss are going to argue that the US justice system does not adequately protect defendants' rights, there is no reason to refuse extradition of someone who has pled guilty of the crimes of which he is accused.

    I wouldn't be surprised if the Swiss do think that.

    Then they wouldn't extradite anyone.

    Saammiel on
  • Options
    HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Saammiel wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    The difference, I think, is that India was seeking extradition in order to try Anderson. Polanski pled guilty to certain charges and fled to avoid his sentence. Unless the Swiss are going to argue that the US justice system does not adequately protect defendants' rights, there is no reason to refuse extradition of someone who has pled guilty of the crimes of which he is accused.

    I wouldn't be surprised if the Swiss do think that.

    Then they wouldn't extradite anyone.

    Well when was the last time they did?

    HamHamJ on
    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Saammiel wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    The difference, I think, is that India was seeking extradition in order to try Anderson. Polanski pled guilty to certain charges and fled to avoid his sentence. Unless the Swiss are going to argue that the US justice system does not adequately protect defendants' rights, there is no reason to refuse extradition of someone who has pled guilty of the crimes of which he is accused.

    I wouldn't be surprised if the Swiss do think that.

    Then they wouldn't extradite anyone.

    Well when was the last time they did?

    200 a year.

    Couscous on
  • Options
    RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Couscous wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Saammiel wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    The difference, I think, is that India was seeking extradition in order to try Anderson. Polanski pled guilty to certain charges and fled to avoid his sentence. Unless the Swiss are going to argue that the US justice system does not adequately protect defendants' rights, there is no reason to refuse extradition of someone who has pled guilty of the crimes of which he is accused.

    I wouldn't be surprised if the Swiss do think that.

    Then they wouldn't extradite anyone.

    Well when was the last time they did?

    200 a year.

    So extraditions are quite routine then, and the Americans botched a high profile extradition by playing hardball.

    Robman on
  • Options
    kedinikkedinik Captain of Industry Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Saammiel wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    The difference, I think, is that India was seeking extradition in order to try Anderson. Polanski pled guilty to certain charges and fled to avoid his sentence. Unless the Swiss are going to argue that the US justice system does not adequately protect defendants' rights, there is no reason to refuse extradition of someone who has pled guilty of the crimes of which he is accused.

    I wouldn't be surprised if the Swiss do think that.

    Then they wouldn't extradite anyone.

    Well when was the last time they did?
    Switzerland only rejects about 5 percent of the 200 extradition requests it handles annually.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/12/AR2010071202681_2.html

    According to a former Zurich prosecutor it's abnormal to deny extradition due to incomplete evidence.

    He also stated that if Polanski had already served his sentence, then the denial would make sense.

    Seeing as Polanski was never sentenced, the Swiss denial seems pretty indefensible.

    kedinik on
    I made a game! Hotline Maui. Requires mouse and keyboard.
  • Options
    HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    kedinik wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Saammiel wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    The difference, I think, is that India was seeking extradition in order to try Anderson. Polanski pled guilty to certain charges and fled to avoid his sentence. Unless the Swiss are going to argue that the US justice system does not adequately protect defendants' rights, there is no reason to refuse extradition of someone who has pled guilty of the crimes of which he is accused.

    I wouldn't be surprised if the Swiss do think that.

    Then they wouldn't extradite anyone.

    Well when was the last time they did?
    Switzerland only rejects about 5 percent of the 200 extradition requests it handles annually.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/12/AR2010071202681_2.html

    I seriously doubt all of those are to America. So that's a rather meaningless number.

    HamHamJ on
    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2010/07/12/roman-polanski-minor-rape-free-extradite-switzerland/
    “At this point, he is no longer subject to Swiss jurisdiction. There is no reason for them to hold him,” New York City-based criminal defense attorney Robert Rueland, who does not work on Polanski’s case, told Fox411. “The only basis for holding him was because the U.S. wanted him, and now the Swiss government essentially said we have no basis.”
    ...

    “On the surface, it seems that Switzerland is sticking their finger in the eye of the U.S. government, but it’s more than that. What they’re saying essentially is that the U.S failed to come forward with a sufficient explanation for the underlying charges against him. It boils down to the fact that the Swiss are uncomfortable with the charges, most likely because they are so old,” Reuland said.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/12/AR2010071202681_2.html
    A woman who answered the door said Polanski had left. The director's France-based lawyer, Herve Temime, told The Associated Press by telephone from his office in Paris that his client was still at his chalet but was now ready to enjoy his freedom.

    Approving extradition had seemed the likeliest scenario after Polanski was arrested on Sept. 26 as he arrived in Zurich to receive a lifetime achievement award from a film festival. Polanski had also suffered a series of legal setbacks this year in California courts, and Switzerland only rejects about 5 percent of the 200 extradition requests it handles annually.

    "This decision was certainly not expected," Temime said, praising Swiss authorities for making the responsible decision.

    Couscous on
  • Options
    SaammielSaammiel Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Robman wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »

    200 a year.

    So extraditions are quite routine then, and the Americans botched a high profile extradition by playing hardball.

    What? How on Earth did you arrive at that conclusion? In what way did they play hardball even? It is quite a stretch to label refusing to break confidentiality as such, if that is what you are going for?

    Saammiel on
  • Options
    enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Robman wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Saammiel wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    The difference, I think, is that India was seeking extradition in order to try Anderson. Polanski pled guilty to certain charges and fled to avoid his sentence. Unless the Swiss are going to argue that the US justice system does not adequately protect defendants' rights, there is no reason to refuse extradition of someone who has pled guilty of the crimes of which he is accused.

    I wouldn't be surprised if the Swiss do think that.

    Then they wouldn't extradite anyone.

    Well when was the last time they did?

    200 a year.

    So extraditions are quite routine then, and the Americans botched a high profile extradition by playing hardball.

    Or, somewhat more likely, he got special treatment because he's rich and famous.

    enlightenedbum on
    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Look, if Switzerland actually thought the American system was fundamentally unfair for a procedural reason, they wouldn't have a goddamn extradition treaty with the USA.

    Couscous on
  • Options
    Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Saammiel wrote: »
    Robman wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »

    200 a year.

    So extraditions are quite routine then, and the Americans botched a high profile extradition by playing hardball.

    What? How on Earth did you arrive at that conclusion? In what way did they play hardball even? It is quite a stretch to label refusing to break confidentiality as such, if that is what you are going for?
    Sentencing/plea bargain discussions are confidential. They have to be, or the prosecution or plaintiffs in a potential civil suit could use them against the defendant.

    Polanski was represented by counsel who presumably explained to him what he was pleading to and what the potential sentence could be. Maybe Polanksi expected to only serve time in a psychiatrict hospital. But, fleeing because you don't like your potential sentence is not a legitimate tactic.

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

Sign In or Register to comment.