Just pointing out the obvious, really. Don’t mention it.
By the way, might you have a 13-year-old daughter or niece?
According to the U.S. Why is it that they or anyone else should trust the U.S. legal system? And keep in mind that Europe isn’t as big on the age of consent thing as the U.S. is - although it’s 16 in Switzerland most of its neighbors, including Germany, Austria, and Italy set 14 as the age of consent. In nearby Spain it’s 13. I don’t know any of the details about the drugging and whatnot but over there if the case was looked at on the basis of age alone it wouldn’t have been hardly as big of an issue.
Why, do you fancy fucking her? I hear you’re into that sort of thing.
Any specifics, since Abu Hamza’s case has no similarity to that of Roman Polanski’s? Or are you just sort of blindly protesting the entire American (or Californian, I suppose. Which is it?) justice system? How do you think child rapists SHOULD be treated?
You absolutely sicken me. In your zeal to slam the US, you are siding with a man who drugged and then anally raped a thirteen year old girl. You’re a vile, miserable excuse for a human being.
Seriously. People are bending over backward to make this look like it was a simple age-of-consent thing, when it was, in fact a brutal, premeditated rape. They’d rather see Switzerland score some “gotcha-ya!” political points against the US than see a fucking psychopathic rapist go to jail. What the fuck?
I am? I’m not siding with anyone. I’m answering your question as stated with a reasonable response - that not everyone believes the U.S. justice system to be as infallible as you believe it to be. Like I said, why should Switzerland assume Polanski’s guilt and associated moral condemnation to be an absolute truth?
The case doesn’t but the fact that the US wants him extradited does. If you remember I said “In other words, what he was found guilty of has no bearing, IMHO, on whether or not he should be extradited”.
If he is guilty then he should be in a prison within a justice system that I consider humane. I’m not entirely sure that the US can provide that, hence I don’t support the extraditing of either Hamza or Polanski to the US. If they are guilty (and frankly, the Polanski case dates to the 70s when I was either not born or a toddler and I really can’t be bothered reading up on it as whether or not I think he should be extradited doesn’t rely on that) then I guess serving the sentence in a European prison seems like a better idea.
I notice no-one seems to have anything to say about the comparison of “fuck their reservations” with the US’s refusal to ratify the ICC treaty despite signing it due to the US’s reservations. As I said, it works both ways.
And with that I am going to bed.
I think the US has a preoccupation with sex.
Not to belabor the point, but to reply to another poster, I think if the original victim, 30 years removed, didn’t want the case to be brought up again, her wishes should be taken into consideration. I’m not saying that all victims can renounce justice in their name on any circumstance, that would make it too hard to seek justice in many cases. But this case specifically, having been so long, the victim having made peace with it, not wanting to have her name in the tabloids again, and the whole judge issue hanging over the thing seems to warrant an exception
I’ve always thought that in the interest of justice, wouldn’t the proper thing to do is extradite him anyway and let them have their trial in India and see just how much evidence they can muster? After all, prosecutors in the US can’t be said to be unwilling to go to trial simply because of that. Sometimes evidence appears during trial, sometimes convictions can be had in other ways. Why would we protect this guy anyway?
If correct, and I have no desire to research if everything you say is up to snuff, then it seems like we are sowing the seeds we plant. Good point
Why, in the interest of justice, did Espinoza jeopardize a 30+ year old case by making that distinction? Sure it was probably correct and his to make, but if I were the judge and I really wanted Polanski, I unseal it and sent it over certified mail, with multiple copies in case they wanted extras. I wouldn’t make some power play and tip my legal hand simply because I could.
You overlook the fact that age of consent laws usually take into account the gap in age between the two parties. And for some strange reason you seem to cavalierly hand-wave away both the fact that she was drugged and he was in a position of authority and influence over her.
Italy: The age of consent in Italy is 14 years, with a close-in-age exception that allows those aged 13 to engage in sexual activity with partners who are less than 3 years older. The age of consent rises to 16 if one of the participants has some kind of influence on the other (e.g. teacher, tutor, adoptive parent).[6]
Spain: The age of consent in Spain is 13, as specified by the Spanish Penal Code, Article 181(2). However, if deceit is used in gaining the consent of a minor under 16 years an individual can be charged under Article 183(1) upon parental complaint.
“181
(1) (Approximate translation: An individual who, by use of deceit, commits sexual abuse with a person over thirteen years and under sixteen years, will be punished with imprisonment for one or two years, or a fine equivalent to twelve to twenty-four months…)
(2)(Approximate translation: **To the effects of the previous section, it is considered unconsenting sexual abuse if sexual acts are committed against persons under thirteen years, **unconscious persons or persons whose mental illness is taken advantage of…)”
Germany: The age of consent in Germany is 14, as long as a person over the age of 21 does not exploit a 14–15 year-old person’s lack of capacity for sexual self-determination. In this rare and special case, a conviction on an individual over the age of 21 requires a complaint from the younger individual; being over 21 and engaging in sexual relations with a minor of that age does not constitute an offense in and of itself. Otherwise the age of consent is 16, although provisions protecting minors against coercion apply until the age of 18.
As specified by Sections 176 (Sexual abuse of children) and 182 (Sexual abuse of youths), which read:
§ 176: “(1) Whoever commits sexual acts on a person under fourteen (14) years of age (a child) or allows them to be committed on himself by the child, shall be punished by imprisonment from six months to ten years […]”
§ 182: “(2) A person over twenty-one years of age who abuses a person under sixteen years of age, in that he: 1. commits sexual acts on the person or allows them to be committed on himself by the person; or 2. induces the person to commit sexual acts on a third person or to allow them to be committed on the person by a third person, and thereby exploits the victim’s lack of capacity for sexual self-determination, shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than three years or a fine. […] the act shall only be prosecuted upon complaint, unless the prosecuting authority considers ex officio that it is required to enter the case because of the special public interest therein. […] the court may dispense with punishment pursuant to these provisions if , in consideration of the conduct of the person against whom the act was directed, the wrongfulness of the act is slight.”
Austria: The general age of consent in Austria is 14, as specified by Section 206 of the penal code. (The term unmündig is specified in Section 74 of the penal code.) Paragraph 4 of Section 206 defines a close-in-age exception of max. three years.
Section 207b of the penal code contains an exception to the general age of consent: if one of the partners is younger than 16 years of age and “not sufficiently mature to understand the significance of the act”, then the act is punishable.
Well, first we need to to establish that you have a daughter or a niece. Is that a yes or no?
Well, for one, the cite you offered was misleading, and added to the impression that you believe that’s it’s the U.S.‘s puritan views on sex that are at issue. My last post to you shows that even in the countries you cited, what he did is a disgusting crime. Why the Swiss, you and others seek to give Polanski every benefit of the doubt—even when there isn’t one—is friggin’ min-boggling. And disgusting. He is a rapist of the worst order. We’ll I guess she could have been younger. But then you’d probably site those countries that have the age of consent at 12. Or perhaps try to draw some equivalence by pointing to some ancient culture. Or the fucking habits of other species.
Unbelievable.
Yeah, fuck those people.
Anyway, my earlier questions have gone unanswered regarding what you think would be “justice” in this case.
I don’t know the details of the case and I acknowledged as much; I’m not interested in discussing it or defending Polanski. I’m just questioning the perceived infallibility of the U.S. justice system. I don’t know how much the U.S. puritanical views play into it, but I offered that as a possible explanation for why Europeans might not be as quick to condemn him.
If Switzerland had any objections to the evidence against Polanski they would have refused to extradite him on the basis of the lack of evidence. You are inventing justifications out of thin air.
I’d guess offhand that:
-Switzerland doesn’t really care what Polanski did 30+ years ago.
-Switzerland has no incentive to do anything that might prevent celebrities from coming and going, representing as they do a not-insignificant source of tourist income, both from themselves and the people who gather at film festivals and whatnot in hopes of catching sight of celebrities.
I can understand why they feel no inclination to lift a finger in this case, though of course they have to go through the motions of trying to seem less callous about it.
What I think is immaterial. But he was convicted according to due process of law in a court. He then flouted the law and sought sanctuary for a violent crime in another country. “Justice” in this case would be whatever sentence is handed down by a duly sworn judge in the jurisdiction of his offense. Anything less is completely unacceptable, and frankly, anyone who doesn’t think this is true has no respect for the rule of law.
Can you think of any example of the Swiss government behaving ethically on any issue? I am sure there must be some, but I certainly cannot think of one.
Handing Jews to the Nazis?
Keeping Jewish gold for themselves?
Helping dictators hide their wealth?
Helping citizens of other countries avoid taxes?
I hope some Smart Person will come and educate me on Swiss morality.
Gee, because he pled guilty, maybe?
Of course, this is exactly contrary to how extradition treaties work. The extraditing countries don’t just blindly hand over the accused - they analyze the case and apply their own concepts of due process and justice to the case, then they extradite (or not).