Forums > Personal > Switzerland rejects a U.S. request to extradite Roman Polanski

forum rss feed
Author

YourValentine user not visiting Queenzone.com
registered July 27th 2001
YourValentine
Deity: 7611 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 12 Jul 10, 08:13 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Director Roman Polanski is a free man after the Swiss government rejected a request of the USA to extradite him.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100712/ap_on_en_mo/roman_polanski


I do not want any google ads here.

bobo the chimp user not visiting Queenzone.com
bobo the chimp
Deity: 12700 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 12 Jul 10, 09:31 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

(prepares for idiotic rape-apologist comments).

Polanksi's nothing but a turd.  His movies stink, and the way that Hollywood bent over backwards in it's inexcusable defense of his actions is rather laughable.  

BUT the thing that bothered me the most is that this, like any trial, is none of my/our business.  Two things went wrong here.: the whole affair got a lot of press, and he got away with it in the end.  Both totally inexcusable.


"Your not funny, your not a good musician, theres a difference between being funny and being an idiot, you obviously being the latter" - Dave R Fuller
Panchgani user not visiting Queenzone.com
St Peter's Burnt Piano
Panchgani
Deity: 6372 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 12 Jul 10, 20:14 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Drugged, sodomized, and repeatedly asked Polanski to stop ...

Ben Roethlisberger, Kobe Bryant etc ... The USA legal system is no better than the Switzerland, France or Poland


Roger: I like it. If you don't. Sod you!



Queen song poll: http://home.comcast.net/~vantricers/index.html



B-52's: I, I, I'm lookin for some fun - waitin for the REAL Queen Box Sets to come
tcc user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1580 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 13 Jul 10, 03:28 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I will do something about it - I will not see his new movie when it gets released.

JoxerTheDeityPirate user not visiting Queenzone.com
JoxerTheDeityPirate
Deity: 6272 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 13 Jul 10, 04:35 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

has anyone actually ever seen a Polanski movie?


isnt innuendo an italian suppository?

im gonna ride the wild wind!

its_a_hard_life wrote:you nutcase you rule!

joxer replies: but in a nice way :-]

tcc user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1580 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 13 Jul 10, 04:55 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I saw:

Rosemary's Baby (1968 horror film starring Mia Farrow),
Chinatown (1974 film starring Jack Nicholson) and
The Pianist (2002 film starring Adrian Brody).

They are all very good films.

YourValentine user not visiting Queenzone.com
registered July 27th 2001
YourValentine
Deity: 7611 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 13 Jul 10, 06:19 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I think Polanski is a great director but this should not play a role in the extradition case. The rape of a 13 old girl should not go unpunished ever. The USA had a chance to build a case against Polanski in 1977 but they blew it and now they were too superior to provide the requested information to Switzerland. The Swiss government had no other chance than to reject the extradition request as a result. If the US justice system had done their job correctly the whole case would have been forgotten a long time ago. Why a plea bargain was okay 33 years ago but today they need another trial is a mystery. The Swiss decision was a big surprise and there must have been good reasons for the government to reject the US request. Funny how the US justice dept blames Switzerland now for "letting get Polanski away" when their own justice was unable to get a verdict when the case was new and Polanski in US custody 33 years ago.


I do not want any google ads here.

thomasquinn 32989 user not visiting Queenzone.com
thomasquinn 32989
Deity: 6256 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 13 Jul 10, 10:18 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I think that Polanski's films (and some of them are very good indeed) should have nothing to do with the issue at all.

This case is clear on all levels

A) The direct trigger: the US refused to allow the Swiss to review relevant parts of the trial the US cited as the basis for extradition. On that ground alone the Swiss should logically refuse further coöperation, which is exactly what they did - further coöperation would create a legal precedent for later extradition to, for instance, Iran or Zimbabwe.

B) There were serious irregularities with the original trial - not in the least a judge who spoke to the media and pronounced Polanski guilty literally before the prosecution had started its case.

C) A trial back when this happened, if considerably less irregular than the one the US had, would have been no more than just. However, as the victim does not want this renewed legal drag, I think this farcical proceeding is an unsavoury, cold-blooded career move by the prosecution that plays on revenge whereas consideration for the victim should come first were it to be justice.


Not Plutus but Apollo rules Parnassus

Holly2003 user not visiting Queenzone.com
Hot Buttered Soul
Holly2003
Deity: 4706 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 26 Jul 10, 04:39 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

A critic once called Polanski "The five-foot Pole you wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole."


"With a population of 1.75 million, Northern Ireland should really be a footballing minnow. Instead, they could be better described as the piranhas of the international game" (FIFA.com)
GratefulFan user not visiting Queenzone.com
GratefulFan
Deity: 3776 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 27 Jul 10, 01:14 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

ThomasQuinn wrote: C) A trial back when this happened, if considerably less irregular than the one the US had, would have been no more than just. However, as the victim does not want this renewed legal drag, I think this farcical proceeding is an unsavoury, cold-blooded career move by the prosecution that plays on revenge whereas consideration for the victim should come first were it to be justice.
=====================================================

The victim has stated that she long ago moved on and wants no further focus on the case as each new round brings unwanted media attention on her and her family.  I can completely understand and respect that, and hope she finds her permanent peace soon. However, the justice system can't be about 'consideration for the victim' unfortunately.  It's never 'The Victim vs. Roman Polanski', it's 'The People vs. Roman Polanski'. Prosecution, conviction and sentencing is in significant part about the denunciation of anti-social acts to society and about general deterrance.  I've often thought that there should be a parallel process in the justice system that is is purely about supporting the victims and their families because criminal trials so often leave victims strung out, confused and feeling revictimized.  The obligation of the state to proceed where warranted and possible and the right of the accused to have a fair trial and challenge his or her accusers supercedes the victim's rights in just about every way.

In the end, the prosecution was right to try and to send the message that 'you can run but you can't hide'.   Most now know Polanski is an unrepentant statutory rapist and drugger of children who has been boxed into a little corner of a big beautiful world for his crimes.  That may have to do in the end. He probably could have done 30 days 30+ years ago and have been done with it.  What a schmuck.

thomasquinn 32989 user not visiting Queenzone.com
thomasquinn 32989
Deity: 6256 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 30 Jul 10, 06:55 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

You've got an incorrect and barbaric view of law, if you ask me. Your view that the enforcement of laws comes before the interest of the victim is in direct negation of Civil law, the foundation of most modern western law. It opposes the very object of western law, which is, for better or for worse, the protection of rights, person and property of the individual.


Not Plutus but Apollo rules Parnassus

Holly2003 user not visiting Queenzone.com
Hot Buttered Soul
Holly2003
Deity: 4706 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 30 Jul 10, 08:08 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

ThomasQuinn wrote: You've got an incorrect and barbaric view of law, if you ask me. Your view that the enforcement of laws comes before the interest of the victim is in direct negation of Civil law, the foundation of most modern western law. It opposes the very object of western law, which is, for better or for worse, the protection of rights, person and property of the individual.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are two fundamental things to consider in western law: punishment and deterrent. Letting Polanksi get away with this fulfills neither of those functions.


"With a population of 1.75 million, Northern Ireland should really be a footballing minnow. Instead, they could be better described as the piranhas of the international game" (FIFA.com)
thomasquinn 32989 user not visiting Queenzone.com
thomasquinn 32989
Deity: 6256 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 30 Jul 10, 10:05 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Punishment and deterrent are medieval concepts. They have been outdated since Enlightenment! Protection of individual and collective rights, not caveman-style revenge.


Not Plutus but Apollo rules Parnassus

Holly2003 user not visiting Queenzone.com
Hot Buttered Soul
Holly2003
Deity: 4706 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 30 Jul 10, 10:29 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

ThomasQuinn wrote: Punishment and deterrent are medieval concepts. They have been outdated since Enlightenment! Protection of individual and collective rights, not caveman-style revenge. ...................................................................................................................................................................................

Very noble sounding. What does it mean exactly?


"With a population of 1.75 million, Northern Ireland should really be a footballing minnow. Instead, they could be better described as the piranhas of the international game" (FIFA.com)
thomasquinn 32989 user not visiting Queenzone.com
thomasquinn 32989
Deity: 6256 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 30 Jul 10, 10:43 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

It means, plain and simple, that the interests of the victim take precedence over prosecution to the full extent of the law.


Not Plutus but Apollo rules Parnassus

The Real Wizard user not visiting Queenzone.com
The Real Wizard
Deity: 18625 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 30 Jul 10, 10:56 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

So you're suggesting that if the victim says he shouldn't be prosecuted, the law should follow their lead?  That almost sounds like stockholm syndrome.


"The more generous you are with your music, the more it comes back to you." -- Dan Lampinski



http://www.queenlive.ca
GratefulFan user not visiting Queenzone.com
GratefulFan
Deity: 3776 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 30 Jul 10, 13:47 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

To your original complaint: I was a bit stark in my expression in order to make the point, but the thrust of it remains.  The best investigators and prosecutors do of course care deeply about the victims.  The justice system will try to accommodate the victim and his or her needs or preferences where possible, but not to the point of failing to uphold the law, which is their sworn duty.  Bargains may be struck to reduce charges to entice the accused to make a deal that will avoid a painful trial for the victim, but we do not simply let people off in deference to a victim.  In fact, in most jurisdictions for most crimes reluctant victims can be and are compelled to testify through subpeona.  If they proceed to trial, victims must submit themsleves where called to the questioning and tactics of the representatives of those that have harmed them.   Justice is not wholly or even mostly a transaction between the victim and the offender, it's between the laws of society and the offender.  I honestly think this is so self evident that I'm not even sure what the argument is.

thomasquinn 32989 user not visiting Queenzone.com
thomasquinn 32989
Deity: 6256 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 03 Aug 10, 14:51 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Sir GH wrote: So you're suggesting that if the victim says he shouldn't be prosecuted, the law should follow their lead?  That almost sounds like stockholm syndrome.

===

That sounds really paranoid.


Not Plutus but Apollo rules Parnassus

The Real Wizard user not visiting Queenzone.com
The Real Wizard
Deity: 18625 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 05 Aug 10, 00:26 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Don't get your drift.  Can you elaborate?


"The more generous you are with your music, the more it comes back to you." -- Dan Lampinski



http://www.queenlive.ca
Micrówave user not visiting Queenzone.com
Delilah, on Medium Power
Micrówave
Deity: 7037 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 05 Aug 10, 13:13 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Zebonka wrote:

 and the way that Hollywood bent over backwards


I didn't know she had a nickname.   Regardless, he probably shouldn't have done that.