I think it’s just WONDERFUL that sticking it to the US government is more important to some people than getting justice for a 13 year old rape victim.
Just out of curiosity, what would you consider justice in this case? Is it far removed from what a typical first-time offender pleading to “unlawful intercourse with a minor” (as California calls statutory rape) in 1977 might expect?
A lawfully executed sentence for his crime(s).
You know you’re making sound like you’re trying to draw an equivalence between what that parasite Polanski did and a 19-year-old having sex with a 17 or 16-year-old he might date. But I’m sure I must be mistaken, because that with both be dumb and gross. So, you may want to reframe you’re question in a way that the 19-year-old dating a girl down the street doesn’t fall into the same disgusting camp as an adult drugging, raping, and sodomizing a 13-year-old girl.
Would that include a judge who was straightforward about his intentions, who didn’t play games with the defense and prosecution attorneys, who hints that he’ll void a plea-bargain, who over-reacts in anger to an irrelevant newspaper picture of Polanski smiling while in Europe to shoot a film? The documentary (which I have little reason to doubt since it includes extensive interviews with both the lead defense attorney and the lead prosecutor) makes the case that the judge in 1977 was not to be trusted.
Further, there were recommendations at the time that Polanski should get probation. Would you consider that a fair result if imposed now?
If anybody out there has plans to commit a crime in Switzerland and then flee to the US, this would be a great time to do it. 
Of course not. Now he should be tried for 33 years of evasion as well.
Well, no… that’s what California calls the offense for which Polanski was pleading guilty: “unlawful intercourse with a minor”. The wikipedia article describes this as synonymous with “statutory rape” and I have no reason to doubt it.
Your issue is with the California criminal code and its use of descriptors, not with me.
Wouldn’t both these cases be described the same way in a California court? Sure, the evidence and testimony (and hopefully the sentencing) would vary significantly, but the various labels and descriptors of the offense on the court documents would be pretty much the same.
So basically I don’t know what you’re talking about.
And what’s an appropriate penalty for 33 years of evasion? Does California have an “evasion” statute?
Seriously, I don’t know.
Lifelong confinement in France?
I don’t give a flying fuck about the US. However, the attitudes seen in this thread - and that are somewhat prevalent on this board - are that the world should bend over backwards for the US no matter what. Look at the reactions in this thread; the OP refers to the Nazis - and don’t get me started on “Those are both bullshit excuses. Apparently a treaty with the Swiss isn’t worth the paper that it’s written on. Good to know.”.
I was simply reacting to that.
In my world, honouring a treaty and extraditing a rapist hardly constitutes bending over backwards.
I think that the fact that you seem to think that it does indicates that you do, in fact, care a flying fuck about the US, despite your protests to the contrary.
The Swiss apparently have reservations. Reaction from many in this thread: fuck their reservations, we want Polanski and you should fucking well hand him over now.
You know what? You’re exactly right. Fuck their reservations. The man is a fucking rapist and why they feel the need to throw their lot in with him I’ll never understand.
I tried to add this as an edit but I ran out of time:
Edit:
Let me expand upon that. I don’t give flying fuck about the US with respect to what I was accused of: finding getting one over on the Americans more important than handing over a rapist. I do however give a flying fuck about the US when it comes to things like extradition. I’m a Brit and someone else mentioned Abu Hamza. The man is a class A cunt but I would never support him being extradited to the US as frankly I don’t agree with the US’s treatment of prisoners and if anything the last ten years has shown as that when it comes to foreign nationals the US is in no way to be trusted. I honestly do not think anyone should be extradited to the US, especially not people from Europe.
You may think Europeans are too soft on criminals. I think the US treats them inhumanely.
He may be a rapist but he is still a human being. In my opinion no-one can do anything to reach such a low point that I can forget that they are still human.
In other words, what he was found guilty of has no bearing, IMHO, on whether or not he should be extradited.
Child rapist. She was 13. Fuck him with a thousand fondue forks. At once. And fuck the Swiss powers responsible for this decision the same way.
But, obviously, you’re an asshole. So we need to take that into consideration, too.
Yet the US won’t even agree to their citizens being dealt with by the ICC due to, guess what, their reservations.
It works both ways.
Thanks, darling.