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.
...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:
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.
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?
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.
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?
The harsher the rhetoric from the US, the less likely it becomes that Polanski will be extradited.
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?
Anyway, from what I've seen, very little has been said - rhetorical or otherwise - by US officials. Contrast that with France, where quite a bit of rhetoric has been flowing. The first reaction by the French foreign minister was that the arrest was "a bit sinister". "Sinister"? Really? Arresting a convicted rapist and international fugitive is sinister? The culture minister said he was "thrown to the lions"...well, the
culture minister has a primary area of responsibility and it isn't the law, it is entertainment, so his bias should be obvious.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2009-09-28-polanski_N.htm?obref=obnetwork
Here's a commentary that I think accurately captures the basis of the French rhetoric on this:
At 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://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbi...al-reasons-French-lionise-Roman-Polanski.html
Simply put, it is French snobbery.
And that is in addition to the irrelevant but endless stream of rhetoric from people in the entertainment industry.
That said, the French are now changing their tune:
The 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.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8283707.stm
Perhaps after the initial knee-jerk snobbery reaction they are now realizing that -- 'hey wait a minute, why are we defending/harboring a fugitive convicted rapist?' Or the cynic in me might say that they are only bowing to international pressure.
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=8721650
That's not the rhetoric from the US you were talking about before, is it? That's rhetoric from France!
