- #1
gravenewworld
- 1,132
- 26
SHould he go to jail or was his case so mishandled he deserves to be off the hook?
I don't see your point. That article only quibbles about the wording distinction between "rape" and "statutory rape". Ok, so he's an alleged rapist and convicted statutory rapist. So what?Count Iblis said:He admitted to statutory rape, which is not considered to be rape in Europe:
http://worldhaveyoursay.wordpress.com/2009/09/28/on-the-use-of-the-word-rape/
No, statutory rape is by definition not consentual. That's the whole point of criminalizing it!I stand corrected on Honduras, but Polanski was awaiting sentencing for consensual sex with a 13 year old, not for rape.
I don't really know how extradition laws work, but the US has extradition treaties with both Switzerland and France. The US does not have an extradition treaty with Iran.This is called "statutory rape" in the US. Now, in France the age of consent was 12 at the time, so it isn't (or wasn't) even a crime in France.
We could just as well start to arrest people who violated Iranian sharia law and extradite them to Iran. It is one thing to have extremist laws, it is another thing to expect decent countries to extradite people who violated such laws.
Why is "Europe" not outraged that Roman Polannski wasn't tried for rape? That's what our outrage is about in this thread.This is what the outrage in Europe is about.
Although the age of consent has gone up in European countries since the 1970s, you do not get long prison sentences for merely having sex with a minor.
Your personal opinion about how "consentual" should be defined isn't really relevant to how it is defined and according to the legal definition (then in the US, now in France), this sex was not consentual.Of course! Children older than about ten can have sexual feelings. We have laws banning sex with children to protect children. But this is a very difficult issue. I think in the US you had a case where a teacher had consensual sex with a 12 year of boy. The teacher got pregnant and was sentenced to ten years in jail. After the teacher left jail they got married.
The whole idea that you can make a law that defines what is consensual or not is, i.m.o. ridiculous.
Fortunately, this example is not one of those ambiguous examples where consent is a reasonable possibility (such as a 19 year old boy with a 17 year old girl in a long term relationship). In this case, the age difference, status of the two parties and the situation make the sex clearly coercive - even if we didn't already know she said "no".They can have the ability to consent, it is simply that in different lawmakers have different laws in order to protect children. The law assumes that children below a certain age cannot consent, regardless of whether that is true or not from a scientific point of view.
The problem here is that rare cases in which the child obviously did consent cannot be treated different from a case in which a child was raped.
Count Iblis said:He admitted to statutory rape, which is not considered to be rape in Europe:
http://worldhaveyoursay.wordpress.com/2009/09/28/on-the-use-of-the-word-rape/
Count Iblis said:Russ, Lisab, I do agree with the main points you are making. You have someone who drugged and raped a girl and it is wrong that this goes unpunished. I fully agree.
I think the main complicating factor here is caused by the way the US law works, which is quite different from how it works in Europe. Plea bargains, confessing to something in exchange for being sentenced for a lesser charge etc. are things that are quite alien to us.
So what? How does any of that matter?Count Iblis said:I think the main complicating factor here is caused by the way the US law works, which is quite different from how it works in Europe. Plea bargains, confessing to something in exchange for being sentenced for a lesser charge etc. are things that are quite alien to us.
It's generally very difficult to extradite Americans for anything.CRGreathouse said:I certainly think the UK should have the right to extradite US terrorists.
mgb_phys said:Probably not relevant to this case but the US might not have an extradition treaty with the EU for much longer.
The current treaty with the UK from 2003 is being challenged in the european court by some UK hacker that broke into the pentagon looking for evidence of UFO coverups.
Apparently it requires the UK to hand over terrorists suspects without the US having to offer any evidence but bans the extradition of US citizen terrorists to the UK.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6521255.stmWhoWee said:Do you recall the name of the hacker or have a link - I'd like to read the story.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plea_bargainCount Iblis said:Russ, Lisab, I do agree with the main points you are making. You have someone who drugged and raped a girl and it is wrong that this goes unpunished. I fully agree.
I think the main complicating factor here is caused by the way the US law works, which is quite different from how it works in Europe. Plea bargains, confessing to something in exchange for being sentenced for a lesser charge etc. are things that are quite alien to us.
WhoWee said:Pleading guilty did complicate matters. He clearly thought he was above the law when he fled the country.
russ_watters said:So what? How does any of that matter?
PARIS (Reuters) - France's Culture Minister Frederic Mitterrand questioned on Thursday whether film director Roman Polanski would get a fair hearing from the US justice system...
If he already pled guilty is there a trial?PARIS (Reuters) - France's Culture Minister Frederic Mitterrand questioned on Thursday whether film director Roman Polanski would get a fair hearing from the US justice system...
mgb_phys said:If he already pled guilty is there a trial?
Count Iblis said:http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=8721650
Count Iblis said:The harsher the rhetoric from the US, the less likely it becomes that Polanski will be extradited.
Galteeth said:Actually I think there will be another trial, since evading law enforcement is a separate crime.
Count Iblis said:Russ, Lisab, I do agree with the main points you are making. You have someone who drugged and raped a girl and it is wrong that this goes unpunished. I fully agree.
I think the main complicating factor here is caused by the way the US law works, which is quite different from how it works in Europe. Plea bargains, confessing to something in exchange for being sentenced for a lesser charge etc. are things that are quite alien to us.
russ_watters said:So what? How does any of that matter?
mheslep said:Not only does it not matter, it is not correct to say that plea bargains are alien to Europe.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2369772&postcount=206
Count Iblis said:They are alien to most of Europe, certainly in the extreme way there are used in the US.
pbadss said:They don't necessarily need to prosecute him for skipping out of the country. They have enough to sentence him for statutory rape, no?
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-polanski1-2009oct01,0,1755914.storyLA Times. said:In an interview, Weinstein said that people generally misunderstand what happened to Polanski at sentencing. He's not convinced public opinion is running against the filmmaker and dismisses the categorization of Hollywood as amoral. "Hollywood has the best moral compass, because it has compassion," Weinstein said. "We were the people who did the fundraising telethon for the victims of 9/11. We were there for the victims of Katrina and any world catastrophe."
...neither of those two thing have anything to do with your previous quote, which seems to me to be an irrelevant criticism of the US legal system. You seem to be implying that those things play a part in extradition hearings, but you haven't presented any information to imply that that is true - and I don't think it is! You've added more:Count Iblis said:Because the Swiss judges will have to look into this. Although extradition from Switzerland to the US seems to be a legal formality, in this case there may be some arguments that may convince the judges not to agree to extradition.
Polanski skipped-out on his sentencing. He hasn't been sentenced yet, so how can that be a relevant concern? Are you asserting that in deciding on extradition, the Swiss do/should consider the outcome of prosecution and sentencing? How can they do that without having a trial themselves?1) Polanski's age. In most European countries, age is a relevant factor for sentencing (or getting released on health grounds). In the US you typically don't get a lighter sentence based on age or health. So, if Polanski were likely to get a ten year jail sentence in the US, then given his age, that would be too harsh according to our standards.
Are you asserting that the Swiss would/should base extradition on the predicted direction and outcome of a new trial that there isn't any reason to expect would happen anyway? How does that not sound silly in your head when you think it?2) Polanski's confession. If this is seen to be unreliable evidence here, then a new prosecution in the US based on that would be seen to be problematic.
Yet another throw-away one-liner. This is getting tiresome. You need to explain yourself here: What rhetoric and why would rhetoric outside a courtroom matter inside a courtroom?The harsher the rhetoric from the US, the less likely it becomes that Polanski will be extradited.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbi...al-reasons-French-lionise-Roman-Polanski.htmlAt first sight, the reaction of France’s leaders may seem incredible.
After all, anyone in France convicted of a similar offence to the one Polanski committed — which, none of us should forget, is having unlawful sex with a 13-year-old girl — would face very severe punishment.
But for Polanski it is different — and, disturbingly, there are many reasons, both social and historical, to explain the privileged position he has enjoyed since he first arrived as a fugitive from U.S. justice.
The truth is that the French political establishment has never got used to the idea that its own members, les notables, are subject to the same laws as everyone else.
They do not always see the need to pay the same taxes as other mortals; many of them regard the public purse as their own; they believe the details of their private lives are sacrosanct — and if they get into trouble they expect to be protected by the forces of the state.
In this sense, the outrage expressed by Sarkozy and Frederic Mitterrand over Polanski’s arrest can be seen as the instinctive response of the French establishment, who are determined to look after one of their own.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8283707.stmThe French government has dropped its public support for Roman Polanski, saying the 76-year-old director "is neither above nor beneath the law".
The move follows a backlash against a campaign for Polanski's release, with several leading European politicians and cultural figures refusing to join.
That's not the rhetoric from the US you were talking about before, is it? That's rhetoric from France!http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=8721650
Agreed: Count_Iblis, in light of direct cited evidence to the contrary, you need to substantiate that claim or recind it. What you are arguing appears to be straightforwardly factually wrong: Misinformation.lisab said:You've said that several times, in contrast to what others have said. Do you have any documentation for this?