SHould he go to jail or was his case so mishandled he deserves to be off the hook?
Given the severity of the crime (drug induced rape of a 13 year old girl), I was pretty surprised with the leniency of his plea bargain and perhaps that's why he was worried it would fall apart and skipped the country. Regardless, he's using his celebrity to assist in being a successful fugitive. If he wants to argue the case should be dropped or he should just get "time served" as the deal apparently went, fine: but you can't be allowed to make that argument while continuing to break the law. He needs to be made to deal with the reality everyone else has to deal with.
....The ironic thing is that he may end up spending more time in jail fighitng extradition than he would have if he had come back to the US to accept his plea.
What was mishandled about his case? Last I knew he plead guilty and has not said otherwise since.
I don't understand any of this. He's charged with raping a minor, pleads guilty to a plea bargin (which in my mind means he admits he raped a girl)... and he isnt suppose to spend time in jail? Maybe I'm not old enough to understand what in the world happened.
He admitted to statutory rape, which is not considered to be rape in Europe:
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?
I see you posted about it in another thread:
No, statutory rape is by definition not consentual. That's the whole point of criminalizing it!
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.
Why is "Europe" not outraged that Roman Polannski wasn't tried for rape? That's what our outrage is about in this thread.
Also, are you imply that France now has statutory rape laws that would apply in a case like this. So France had "outrage" enough to change their law but not "outrage" enough to condemn Polanski for violating it? Seems an odd thing for "Europe" to be "outraged" about.
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.
Beyond that, there is the issue of the crimes that were dropped: they were dropped in exchange for a plea bargain and so we will never know if they would have held up in court, but nevertheless, the charges and evidence exist for us to examine. Do you, as an individual who with powers of logical reasoning, actually believe that no coercion of any kind was used by Polanski, whether alcohol, drugs or social?
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".
It should be common knowledge that when you are in Country X, you must follow Country X's laws, whether you agree with them or not...even if you're famous .
Besides, he gave her alcohol and a qualuude, and she asked repeatedly for him to stop as he was raping her...she didn't consent, regardless of her age. So the "age of consent is 12 where I come from" argument is BS.
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.
Pleading guilty did complicate matters. He clearly thought he was above the law when he fled the country.
So what? How does any of that matter?
For reference, text of the current US extradition treaty with France, ratified in 1997: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=105_cong_documents&docid=f:td013.105.pdf
I find it unclear on the issue of whether France should have extradited him based on the treaty, but I've seen in some links that France typically does not extradite its own citizens, treaty or not.
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.
I'd like to see that change. I certainly think the UK should have the right to extradite US terrorists. Working out how to share evidence in a timely and secure manner is, of course, difficult; I hope that a good solution to that problem can be worked out as well. It would be useful, presumably, on both sides.
It's generally very difficult to extradite Americans for anything.
The terrorism part was introduced in the 2003 act to stop attempts by various peace campaigners to prosecute the USA for the Gulf war but it does mean a few Irish gentlemen that the Brits would like to talk to are currently safe in the USA.
Do you recall the name of the hacker or have a link - I'd like to read the story.
Its been a while since it originally happened and the story wasn't really all that big since he apparently did not get much information. It was only interesting in that he was able to hack pentagon computers.
Plea Bargains do take place in other countries including European countries. Apparently the reason it seems odd or alien to some Europeans is that they have a different form of law that does not incorporate a 'plea'. In a civil law district the prosecutor must put on a case in all cases, the defendant can not plead guilty. Here in the US, regardless of any bargaining, a defendant may plead guilty and be sentenced right away without trial if they so choose. In many cases a guilty plea will result in lesser penalties since the defendant is obviously willing to admit fault. Plea Bargains allow the defendant to know for certain that they will be given such consideration for having admitted their guilt.
yeah, i think that's the biggest problem he has now, tbh. the FBI has a little thing about fugitives, they will chase a guy from now until eternity.
i've read that the victim wants the case closed, but it's really not about her anymore.
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.
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.
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.
If you have not noticed, that's what my entry in the current photo contest is:
Anybody knows if pictures Polański took at this time are available somewhere on the web?
If he already pled guilty is there a trial?
Actually I think there will be another trial, since evading law enforcement is a separate crime.
Mitterand says lots of things. Mitterand is a jack***.
The harsher the rhetoric from the US, the less likely it becomes that Polanski will be extradited.
The French can have him.
Separate names with a comma.