Polanski

Everyone loves a healthy debate. Post an idea or comment about a current event or issue. Let others post their ideas also. This area is for those who love to explore other points of view.

Moderator: Nicole Marie

Polanski

Postby Haggis@wk » Tue Oct 20, 2009 4:05 pm

The US has not yet submitted a formal extradition request to Switzerland after Polanski’s arrest. The Obama administration has until November 25th to do so, or the Swiss will be forced to release Polanski. Over the next five weeks, we will see if the White House is more interested in appeasing its Hollywood backers or enforcing the law.
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” Alexis De Tocqueville 1835
Haggis@wk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 6055
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:01 am
Location: Home office

Re: Polanski

Postby jamiebk » Tue Oct 20, 2009 4:36 pm

Haggis@wk wrote:The US has not yet submitted a formal extradition request to Switzerland after Polanski’s arrest. The Obama administration has until November 25th to do so, or the Swiss will be forced to release Polanski. Over the next five weeks, we will see if the White House is more interested in appeasing its Hollywood backers or enforcing the law.


I don't know much about extradition laws etc. Why is this the responsibility of the White House (Obama administration)? Does a sitting president preside over all such actions? Or are you just setting Obama up for contibuting to possible release of a child rapist....
Jamie

"Leave it better than you found it"
jamiebk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 4284
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2005 1:01 am
Location: SF Bay Area - Wine Country

Re: Polanski

Postby Giant Communist Robot » Tue Oct 20, 2009 4:40 pm

Why is this the responsibility of the White House



It a touchy issue, and all touchy issues have touchiness in common.
Thinking is overrated
Giant Communist Robot
1st Chair
 
Posts: 3236
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2004 12:01 am
Location: Waiau, Hawaii

Re: Polanski

Postby Shapley » Tue Oct 20, 2009 4:43 pm

The Justice Department or the Department of State has that responsibility, either of which falls under the auspices of the Obama Administration.
It was a state level crime, but my understanding is that the state must have the federal goverment apply for extradition. Extradition treaties are federal in nature, the individual states do not sign such treaties.

It is entirely possible that the administration has yet to receive the proper request from the state. I haven't been following this this closely, perhaps Haggis has more information.
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15196
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Re: Polanski

Postby Giant Communist Robot » Tue Oct 20, 2009 5:16 pm

Just how hard did Bush lean on France and Poland for extradition, anyway?
Thinking is overrated
Giant Communist Robot
1st Chair
 
Posts: 3236
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2004 12:01 am
Location: Waiau, Hawaii

Re: Polanski

Postby Shapley » Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:05 am

According to Wikipedia, no interntional arrest warrant was issued for him until 2005, which would indicate that the Bush administration was responsible for stepping up efforts to bring him to justice. I am not sure what spurred the issuance of an international arrest warrant in 2005, it may have been necessitated by some change in international law. I didn't see anything in the news that indicated that there was specific reason for escalating the extradition demands. The indications are that France and Poland pretty well guaranteed him safe haven, and that he was careful to avoid traveling to countries that would extradite him. He filmed the movie Tess in France, rather than England, in order to avoid extradition by the British government.

Today's news indicates that Switzerland considers him a flight risk, and that his fight against extradition will be a lengthy process.

In my view, he probably has little to fear from returning. Public attitude has moved to become pretty well sympathetic to his cause. He had accepted a plea bargain, which he feared was going to be overruled by the judge, so he fled. The charges for fleeing justice will probably be more serious than the original charge, now long since forgotten. It's not as if he has lived a life of crime while he was on the run. Even if the current judge does not grant him a suspended sentence, he can probably get a pardon from Governor Schwartzeneggar or from President Obama, which will probably result in little, if any, uproar. Granted, the government will want to show the world that our laws cannot be ignored, so he may have to serve a couple of nights in jail, but I'm not sure I would count even on that. He is incarcerated in Switzerland currently. They'll probably be content to slap him with 'time served' and be done with it.
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15196
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Re: Polanski

Postby jamiebk » Wed Oct 21, 2009 11:02 am

Shapley wrote:In my view, he probably has little to fear from returning. Public attitude has moved to become pretty well sympathetic to his cause. He had accepted a plea bargain, which he feared was going to be overruled by the judge, so he fled.

he can probably get a pardon from Governor Schwartzeneggar or from President Obama, which will probably result in little, if any, uproar.


Shap, I really don't agree with you on this. This guy is scum and I think most people think so. Granted, time has smoothed over the rough edges, but if anything, the laws regarding his crime have become tightened and people more sensitized to such things. Look at the Jaycee Dugard kidnapping and rape by Phillip Garrido...People are enraged. I have never watched a Polanski film in my life and I never will. The guy is dog $hit as far as I am concerned. I think you are underestimating the public outrage.
Jamie

"Leave it better than you found it"
jamiebk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 4284
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2005 1:01 am
Location: SF Bay Area - Wine Country

Re: Polanski

Postby Shapley » Wed Oct 21, 2009 11:17 am

Perhaps I am. However, Phillip Garrido was a serial child molester who kidnapped Jaycee. Polanski's does not appear to have been predatory, and the girls mother appears to have been at least partially aware of the circumstances.

I don't like the guy, and I don't discount the nature of his crime. I particularly don't like the fact that he eluded justice for 32 years. I'm merely trying to look at it realistically. Things may be different over there, closer to the crime scene, but around here, the news of his arrest and pending extradition hardly raise an eyebrow. "So what, it happened a Hell of a long time ago", seems to be the stream of thought.

I'm a law-and-order kind of guy, so I think he ought, at the least, to serve the time he previously agreed to in his plea bargain (45 days of 'treatment', I think), plus additional time for evading justice. But, realistically, I don't see them locking up a 76-year old man for a 32 year old crime, given that his record has been pretty clean in the meantime.
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15196
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Re: Polanski

Postby Haggis@wk » Wed Oct 21, 2009 3:50 pm

His flight negates any deals he may have had. According to the DA where this crime occurred (Hollywood?) all previous charges are still on the menu. I'm (more or less) certain that the Obama Administration will request his extradition but I don't know if the state of California has requested it yet. I think the Obama Administration would play this one strictly by the book and not give the Right (more) ammunition for the 2010/2012 elections. Letting Polanski off the hook by not requesting extradition would be close to a "Sister Souljah moment" for Obama personally. Whatever he might be, I don't think he's that stupid.

I do suspect that any future prosecution will be more lenient that Jamie envisions although Jamie and I share a common revulsion of the creep.

I think he will probably spend more time in a Swiss jail than he ever will in a California one and it would be in his best interest to avoid extradition. Theoretically, he could be locked away in a Swiss jail for a year or more before he would have exhausted his legal remedies.

As for him being "pretty clean" that's only in the sense that he continued (continues?) his rather sick predilections for young girls in countries that turn a blind eye on that type of behavior. His actions and comments about young girls since he fled his punishment are damning in themselves; he is a predatory pervert.
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” Alexis De Tocqueville 1835
Haggis@wk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 6055
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:01 am
Location: Home office

Re: Polanski

Postby jamiebk » Wed Oct 21, 2009 4:47 pm

Haggis...not to venture off subject, but have you been away? Haven't heard much from you for a while. Hope all is well.
Jamie

"Leave it better than you found it"
jamiebk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 4284
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2005 1:01 am
Location: SF Bay Area - Wine Country

Re: Polanski

Postby Shapley » Wed Oct 21, 2009 4:56 pm

Haggis@wk wrote:His flight negates any deals he may have had.


Supposedly, he fled because he suspected the judge was going to negate the deal anyway. There is probably little hope of getting any new convictions associated with the original crime, so they'll probably have to settle with the guilty plea on the one charge they have. The girl reportedly has forgiven him, and it's doubtful she'll testify against him. The mother was complicit with the original crime, having deliverd her daughter to Polanski so she could pose nude. The statute of limitations is likely out on the drug charges and the rape charges would go nowhere without the girl's testimony.

There are flight charges possible at both the state and federal levels, if they choose to pursue them. The Justice Department could hold those in reserve in case the state drops the ball. But that assume they realy want to convict him. I suspect they'll wait and see how the public reacts.
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15196
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Re: Polanski

Postby jamiebk » Thu Oct 22, 2009 10:50 am

E-mails: US discussed nabbing Polanski in Austria

By BRADLEY S. KLAPPER
Associated Press Writer
The Associated Press

updated 5:49 a.m. PT, Thurs., Oct . 22, 2009

GENEVA - American prosecutors closely monitored Roman Polanski in Austria and considered seeking his arrest there days before the director's apprehension in Switzerland, documents obtained by The Associated Press show.

Los Angeles officials decided against filing a warrant for Polanski's arrest with the Austrian government after questioning how accommodating it would be to an extradition request. They also were concerned about the limited time available before Polanski left the country, according to e-mails obtained by the AP under U.S. public records request.

The e-mail exchange Sept. 23 came three days before Polanski traveled to Switzerland and was arrested Sept. 26 at Zurich's airport. It sheds new light on how closely U.S. officials were monitoring the 76-year-old director's movements after being tipped off that he was outside France, and why they chose to go after him in Switzerland, where they are now seeking his extradition for having sex in 1977 with a 13-year-old girl.

"I don't have experience with any Austrian extraditions so I don't know how 'friendly' they would be to extradition on such a case," Diana Carbajal, a Los Angeles deputy district attorney, wrote in an e-mail.

She wrote that Polanski had checked out of an Austrian hotel that morning and was "on the move" ahead of his scheduled appearance at the Zurich Film Festival on Sept. 26. With the little time available and questions over extradition, she asked whether it was better to "maintain our position to extradite from Switzerland."

Lael Rubin, another deputy district attorney, answered: "Yes."

Polanski had been in Austria as early as Sept. 16, when he attended the opening night of his cult musical "Dance of the Vampires" in Vienna.

E-mails obtained by the AP show U.S. officials only learned of his upcoming trip to Zurich after the Swiss asked if Washington would be submitting a request for his arrest.

Swiss Justice Ministry spokesman Folco Galli said the Americans immediately confirmed they would seek Polanski's arrest. As a result, Switzerland was required by treaty to apprehend Polanski, the director of such film classics as "Rosemary's Baby" and "Chinatown."

It is unclear from the e-mails why Los Angeles officials were concerned about Austrian cooperation on a Polanski extradition request. There was no reference to Polanski's history as a Jewish Holocaust survivor whose mother died in Auschwitz, or the sensitivities about having him pursued in the land of Adolf Hitler's birth.

Austria and the United States have an extradition agreement, and the Vienna prosecutor's spokesman Gerhard Jarosch said wanted individuals have been sent to the U.S.

Jarosch said the U.S. sent no arrest request, and Austrian Justice Ministry spokesman Paul Hefelle said authorities did not detain Polanski while he was in the country because he was not wanted domestically.

Still, U.S. officials expressed stronger confidence in the Swiss justice system.

"Generally, Switzerland does not release fugitives sought for extradition," a Sept. 25 e-mail states.

Later, on Oct. 5, nine days into Polanski's imprisonment, another e-mail states that the Swiss government had assured U.S. officials that Polanski would probably be sent back to Los Angeles to face justice after the U.S. submits its formal extradition request. The U.S. has until Nov. 26 to do so.

"While the Swiss officials cannot speak for the judge, the extradition will likely be ordered based upon the facts submitted in our papers," according to the e-mail, relaying a conversation between Washington and Bern.

Polanski, who won a 2003 directing Oscar in absentia for "The Pianist," was accused of raping the 13-year-old girl after plying her with champagne and a Quaalude pill during a modeling shoot in 1977. He was initially indicted on six felony counts, including rape by use of drugs, child molesting and sodomy.

Polanski pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of unlawful sexual intercourse. In exchange, the judge agreed to drop the remaining charges and sentence him to prison for a 90-day psychiatric evaluation. Polanski was released after 42 days by an evaluator but the judge said he was going to send him back to serve the remainder of the 90 days. Polanski then fled the country on Feb. 1, 1978, the day he was to be sentenced.

A French native who moved to Poland as a child, Polanski has lived in France since fleeing the United States. France does not extradite its citizens.

On Wednesday, Polanski's lawyers split on strategies, with one suggesting for the first time that Polanski might voluntarily return to the U.S. to face justice in California after 31 years as a fugitive.

The new approach emerged after a Swiss court dealt the 76-year-old filmmaker a major setback on Tuesday by rejecting his appeal to be freed from jail because of the high risk he would flee again. Polanski, who has until Oct. 29 to appeal that decision, faces lengthy detention if he is unsuccessful and continues to fight extradition.

"If the proceedings drag on, it's not completely impossible that Roman Polanski might decide to go explain himself in the United States, where there are arguments in his favor," one of his lawyers, Georges Kiejman, told Europe 1 radio.

But another Paris-based lawyer for Polanski said there had been no change in strategy.

"We continue to fight extradition, and for him to be free," Herve Temime told the AP.

___

Associated Press writers Thomas Watkins in Los Angeles and Veronika Oleksyn in Vienna contributed to this report.

Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33042435/ns/entertainment/
Jamie

"Leave it better than you found it"
jamiebk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 4284
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2005 1:01 am
Location: SF Bay Area - Wine Country

Re: Polanski

Postby piqaboo » Thu Oct 22, 2009 11:10 am

Shapley wrote:so she could pose nude.

What part of you equates posing nude with granting permission for sexual relations?

Do you equate offering a tradesman a glass of water to inviting them to stay for dinner as well?
Altoid - curiously strong.
piqaboo
1st Chair
 
Posts: 7135
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 12:01 am
Location: Paradise (So. Cal.)

Re: Polanski

Postby Giant Communist Robot » Thu Oct 22, 2009 11:24 am

The girl reportedly has forgiven him


I've seen the victim, now in her mid-forties, on the news asking that the whole matter be dropped. She seemed exasperated.


The statute of limitations is likely out on the drug charges and the rape charges would go nowhere without the girl's testimony.



He's already pled guilty, but fled before sentencing.
Thinking is overrated
Giant Communist Robot
1st Chair
 
Posts: 3236
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2004 12:01 am
Location: Waiau, Hawaii

Re: Polanski

Postby Shapley » Thu Oct 22, 2009 11:59 am

piqaboo wrote:What part of you equates posing nude with granting permission for sexual relations?


Allowing a 13-year-old girl to pose nude for an older male does not necessarily grant permission for sex, but leaving her alone in the company of said male represents poor judgement to say the least. At least one report indicated that the mother only pursued rape charges when her request for cash was rejected, although I cannot vouch for the reliability of that report. I"m not excusing him. Ultimately, the decision to have relations with the girl rested solely and completely with him. What I was suggesting by the statement that she was 'complicit' was that, even if she is still alive, she may not be willing to testify against him because her role in the issue may not be entirely innocent.
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15196
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Re: Polanski

Postby Giant Communist Robot » Thu Oct 22, 2009 3:28 pm

she may not be willing to testify against him because her role in the issue may not be entirely innocent.


Hey! Its a done deal! There can't be any testifying because it didn't go to trial; he pled guilty. That part of your argument looks like speculation, but its not based on facts.
Thinking is overrated
Giant Communist Robot
1st Chair
 
Posts: 3236
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2004 12:01 am
Location: Waiau, Hawaii

Re: Polanski

Postby Shapley » Thu Oct 22, 2009 3:39 pm

Giant Communist Robot wrote:
she may not be willing to testify against him because her role in the issue may not be entirely innocent.


Hey! Its a done deal! There can't be any testifying because it didn't go to trial; he pled guilty. That part of your argument looks like speculation, but its not based on facts.


He pleaded guilty to one charge. The prosecutor is saying all of the original charges are still 'open'. If he seeks to pursue any of the charges to which he has not pleaded guilty, there will have to be a trial. As it now stands, they can only punish him, sans trial, for the charge to which he has served 42 days of a 90 day 'treatment'. Why he was released early, I do not know.

Polanski pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of unlawful sexual intercourse. In exchange, the judge agreed to drop the remaining charges and sentence him to prison for a 90-day psychiatric evaluation. Polanski was released after 42 days by an evaluator but the judge said he was going to send him back to serve the remainder of the 90 days. Polanski then fled the country on Feb. 1, 1978, the day he was to be sentenced.
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15196
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Re: Polanski

Postby Shapley » Thu Oct 22, 2009 4:09 pm

I'm not sure how the 'double jeopardy' prohibition applies here. The D.A. accepted the plea bargain. He served part of the sentence. I'm not sure they can renig on that at this point. But, then, that's what we pay lawyers and judges to decide. It would seem to me they are limited in the original case to sentencing him over the original charge of 'unlawful sexual intercourse'.

Any new charges would likely be due to his flight from justice. As I said, he could face both state and federal charges in that crime. They can throw the book at him in that case.
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15196
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Re: Polanski

Postby Haggis@wk » Thu Oct 22, 2009 4:31 pm

No judge is ever bound by any plea agreement, that's what panicked him in the first place, that the judge was going to ignore the plea bargain and impose a harsher sentence or force him to go to trail on all the charges.

I believe his lawyers are slightly nervous what he might face if he does return.

America's attitudes about such offenses today are, in my opinion, much more severe than they were in the 70's. Our baby boomers have progressed from the "free sex" mindset of the sexual revolution to today’s parents of similar potential victims and their attitudes have hardened. I doubt the plea bargain he received in the 70's would be available today.

I can assure you the potential the victim might not testify fills Polanski's lawyers with dread because then we'll hear the grand jury's recording of a terrified 13 y.o. child describe how she pleaded with him not to penetrate her both anally and vaginally rather than a 45 y.o. dowdy matron recounting an embarrassingly bad 32 y.o. memory.

If you were sitting in the defendant's seat which of these witnesses would you prefer a jury hear?
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” Alexis De Tocqueville 1835
Haggis@wk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 6055
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:01 am
Location: Home office

Re: Polanski

Postby Giant Communist Robot » Thu Oct 22, 2009 4:34 pm

Here you'll see he pled guilty to unlawful intercourse with a minor. I'm gonna guess this is the area of her testimony that you refer to when speaking about rape charges.
Thinking is overrated
Giant Communist Robot
1st Chair
 
Posts: 3236
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2004 12:01 am
Location: Waiau, Hawaii

Next

Return to The Debate Team

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

cron