Roman Polanski

[Aggie]

Anyone care to defend the case of NOT extraditing and prosecuting this individual?

I really can't read this any other way than a piece of human scum who intentionally drugged and raped a 13-year-old child who JUST SAID NO. Artistic achievements and/or the passage of time do not count as excuses in my books, and I don't mark the fact that the (now) woman who was victimized is pushing for the case to be dropped as sufficient to clear him. 

Helen Goddard might get a bit of sympathy from me (although I don't think her sentence was out of line; teachers are in a position of authority and she deserves to be punished for lapsed judgment), but the defense in the media and by certain countries of Mr. Polanski is IMNSHO disgusting.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

The incident is more than 30 years old and the victim would love to skip the attention. I don't condone in any way Mr. Polansky's actions but I have the feeling that the whole thing is a bit out of proportion all around. Now the extradition case will drag for months and the victim has become the victim (of the media attention, reliving the incident, etc) again.

There should be a way to solve this things in a better way. Besides, how is it that for 30 years the guy has come and gone from Switzerland and now he gets arrested? I wonder what changed.

[Aggie]

I do sympathize with the victim and understand why one would like to spare her the anguish, but he skipped the country and stayed skipped simply to avoid this; how is this acceptable?

As for proportion, I think while there's plenty of media circus because he's a celebrity, he's getting a gruesome amount of slack because of it as well.  Read the details of the actual event (not the lesser charge of sex with a minor that he plea-bargained it down to).  I'm aware that the definition of 'sodomy' has changed since the charges were originally laid, but it was flat-out premeditated child rape.

Most countries have no problems extraditing proven child-sex-tourists, how does the fact that this was done on the pretext of a 'photo shoot' change what happened?

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

It doesn't. And it shouldn't be statutory rape either if the description of the events by the victim is accurate.

It still bothers me that it took 30 years and there is a chance that he never gets extradited anyway, making the whole circus worse. It's like the Swiss prosecutor decided one morning "Mmm, lets arrest this guy, he had it coming anyway".

[Griffin NoName]

It is very odd that it has surfaced now. Is it naive to assume there must be a reason why it has?

No one is above the law and especially not for being famous or creative. Some of the doctors in the Nazi regime were creative.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

I'm sure there is a reason, although how germane that reason would be is a different matter all together.

[Opsa]

I smell a rat in book or movie form.

Polanski should not be pardoned simply because he is a genius (which he is), or because he has avoided being nabbed until now. He did the crime and must do the time. Otherwise it is a mockery of the U.S. laws against raping children.

[Zan]

Any culture which doesn't defend its children is a culture that is doomed and, what's more, deserves to be doomed.

The fact that it happened 30 years ago makes no difference.  The statute of limitations does not apply, as he is a fugitive from an in-progress court proceeding.

A pedophile is a monster, and if the justice system won't hunt monsters, then of what possible use is it?

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

if the justice system won't hunt monsters, then of what possible use is it?

To place and remove scarecrows periodically?

Forgive my cynicism but I agree with a saying we have back home which could be loosely translated like, the justice is for those with ponchos* (IOW, the poor). The biggest monsters in our society rarely visit the accused chair in court, and when they do they frequently get away with it. Do you think the bankers that screw up the economy, or the heads of the previous US administration are trembling in fear of justice? Ha!

Justice won't hunt monsters, just little rats and mice to show they do something.

* not those plastic ones. In the Andes mostly poor people and/or indians use them to keep warm.

[Opsa]

* not those plastic ones. In the Andes mostly poor people and/or indians use them to keep warm.

The rest is sad, but often the case. Where do you think Polaski fits in? Is his talent and fame enough power? Or is someone putting a poncho on him for a reason? (Talk about cynical!)

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

He is a tiny monster. Or he was, assuming his behavior changed over the years.

My measurement is on the level and amount of damage created, one evil deed (as in this case, again assuming there isn't more) to one person can't be compared to decisions that affect the lives of thousands or millions (in many cases fatally). Polansky is guilty of one rape to an underage girl. Bush & Co are guilty of the deaths -depending who you ask- between 150k to half million people, and the misery of millions more, just counting the Iraq war.

It's like comparing a pebble with a 5Km wide meteoroid.

[beagle]

I'm all for him standing trial, but on the wider issue I think plea-bargaining is fundamentally immoral. 

If you have evidence for something you should prosecute for that thing, not intimidate somebody with the possibility that a jury will believe something worse, or with bankruptcy by legal costs.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

But that would be justice not the pragmatic approach of prosecutors who prefer a simpler and cheaper solution for everybody.

In a perfect world lawyers would have a rating and a balanced number of cases so that the confrontation would be fair (a level 5 lawyer vs a level 5 lawyer) and one side wouldn't be outgunned by the resources of the other side. More rich people would be found guilty and less poor people would be found guilty just on the base of their representation.

A plea bargain is a twisted form of arbitration. Certain things (like divorces) are better served by arbitration, others (like rape, murder, white collar crimes, etc) are better served by a fair trial.

But that's all in Unicorn Land, in the real world the adversarial model of justice becomes a race of resources rather than an exercise of fairness.

[Griffin NoName]

A plea bargain is a twisted form of arbitration. Certain things (like divorces) are better served by arbitration, others (like rape, murder, white collar crimes, etc) are better served by a fair trial.

But that's all in Unicorn Land, in the real world the adversarial model of justice becomes a race of resources rather than an exercise of fairness.

So better to go and deal out justice oneself - re Polanski, off with his wotsit.

[Opsa]

THE RED QUEEN HAS SPOKEN!

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

So better to go and deal out justice oneself - re Polanski, off with his wotsit.

Are you by chance channeling Dee Dee?

[Aggie]

I'm all for him standing trial, but on the wider issue I think plea-bargaining is fundamentally immoral. 

If you have evidence for something you should prosecute for that thing, not intimidate somebody with the possibility that a jury will believe something worse, or with bankruptcy by legal costs.

I don't mind plea-bargains where it catches bigger fish than the one negotiating the plea-bargain (i.e organized crime), but not in cases like this - makes no sense whatsoever.  Speaking of plea bargains and extraditions, Marc Emery recently had the honour to get himself locked up on a plea-bargain to keep a couple of his partners more or less free and clear of the law (suppose that's why they call him the Prince).  Mind you, if he had lost a proper trial the sentence could have been much higher. 

[Griffin NoName]

So better to go and deal out justice oneself - re Polanski, off with his wotsit.

Are you by chance channeling Dee Dee?

I wish!

[Sibling Lambicus the Toluous]

The incident is more than 30 years old and the victim would love to skip the attention. I don't condone in any way Mr. Polansky's actions but I have the feeling that the whole thing is a bit out of proportion all around. Now the extradition case will drag for months and the victim has become the victim (of the media attention, reliving the incident, etc) again.

But the same could be said of any cold case involving rape.

Should there be an "expiry date" for violent crimes, where if we haven't put someone in prison already, the matter gets dropped out of regard for the victims?

He's a convicted rapist who deliberately evaded capture for decards.  He shouldn't benefit from his own illegal actions; he should be sent to prison to serve his sentence.

There should be a way to solve this things in a better way. Besides, how is it that for 30 years the guy has come and gone from Switzerland and now he gets arrested? I wonder what changed.

His movements got a lot more attention across the board after he put out a public statement in 2004 or 2005 (IIRC) when he said he wouldn't be going to the UK to accept an award because of their extradition treaty with the US and his outstanding conviction.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

He hadn't gone to Switzerland since 2005 (the year the California prosecutor place the request)? To be honest, I only know that he had a villa in Switzerland.

Reading here and there the prosecutor knew he was going to Switzerland to receive the award and notified the Swiss.

[Griffin NoName]

It's odd in some ways that this has been viewed as contentious in any way, when one considers the outrage people have over paedophiles (who have done their time and are on probabtion) living anywhere near them. I don't see any of those people saying Oh it's Ok because the guy paints nice pictures or whatever.

It's incredible how inconsistent people can be.

[Sibling Lambicus the Toluous]

He hadn't gone to Switzerland since 2005 (the year the California prosecutor place the request)? To be honest, I only know that he had a villa in Switzerland.

Reading here and there the prosecutor knew he was going to Switzerland to receive the award and notified the Swiss.

I don't know.  It could be that it wasn't enough of a priority for the Swiss police to watch his villa for months on end until he arrived, but if they knew he was going to be in a particular place at a particular time and were pressured to get him by the Americans, that was enough to make them pick him up.

[Swatopluk]

Eh, Switzerland is not part of the EU, so on entering by any legal means his passport would have been controlled, so the authorities would have known he was entering. And it's not that he is that unknown that the name would not ring a bell, even if the computer doesn't.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Ironically Switzerland just entered the Schengen treaty so no need of passport if you come from other member state if I understand correctly.