I was trying to come up with a way to point out the flaw in the argument, but this is better than what I had in mind.
It appears to be a paperwork problem on the surface. Of course, we all know that’s bullshit, and the Swiss are kowtowing to the political will of the French government, who think Polanski is a Great Filmmaker, as if that were an excuse for raping a young girl. In other words, you know as well as I do that this is a political chip, and the Swiss government has no intention of imposing justice on a confessed rapist.
I thought that extradition worked by the court in the extraditing country examines the validity of the warrant and then, if the warrant met the legal requirements of the extradition treaty, ordered the person extradited to the requesting country, not first determining if the person is guilty.
Does it help you any that large parts of the documentary you cite has been retracted and the DA involved has admitted his statemenets were outright lies?
Well, I read the same wiki page you did. You didn’t feel compelled to note the film-maker’s bafflement at Wells’ retraction, nor explain why Wells’ later statement should be believed. Heck, decades after the fact, I’m sure many of the key witnesses have come to doubt things about the case that were true, or believe things that are untrue. The best approach is to see what part of the witness accounts agree, and on that a pattern of misbehaviour from the judge becomes clear.
I’ll take that as a “yes”, then, You’re welcome.
I heard and read several times at the time all this was going on that in France, sex between grown men and thirteen or fourteen year old girls was not all that uncommon and that many people in France were somewhat critical of America’s ‘puritanical’ response to Polanski’s behavior. I also recall reading much more recently a comment by a different Frenchman to the effect that while one may very well find it enjoyable to ‘lie down’ with a fourteen-year-old girl, one most certainly wouldn’t want to engage her in conversation afterward.
Now I have no idea whether either of these are true or not, but I do recall having read and heard them at the time, and if true these types of attitudes may well explain France’s apparent easy forgiveness of Polanski and whatever pressure it may have brought upon Switzerland to refuse to extradite him to the U.S.
(And while we’re on the subject, I’d welcome knowledgeable information as to whether these types of attitudes either were or are prevalent in France.)
I believe I said that if he is guilty and he has not served the time that he was promised in the plea bargain then I guess time in a European prison would be a decent compromise.
Perhaps you missed it by, I dunno, not reading or something.
Well apparently it is nothing to do with him being or being not guilty. It is all to do with him allegedly accepting a plea bargain which he then got word was going to be ignored by the Judge. The Swiss wanted to read the transcripts regarding this before they decided what to do and someone in the US refused. Seeing this as questionable and suspicious behaviour the Swiss decided not to extradite.
I can’t blame them.
I see that overnight no-one bothered to answer why Swiss reservations about the US legal process are meaningless but the US won’t even ratify the treaty they signed regarding the ICC due to their own reservations. Why are Swiss reservations meaningless but US reservations so important?
Uh…thanks? Feel free to bring other issues irrelevant to extradition treaties to our attention in future. Maybe some stuff about your cat.
Well, thanks for your input, but you’re quoting a post containing a question directed to another user, who has since sort-of answered.
An American lecturing other countries on morality? What next? The French lecturing the Swiss on arrogance? Italians lecturing them on corruption? Saudis lecturing them on their treatment of women?
Which is actually how things work, until the gavel comes down, the plea deal isn’t fait accompli. And Polanski had a U.S. attorney who knew that, explained it to him, and he still fled the country, knowing that he was still charged with a serious felony, and that didn’t just “go away” because he did, and his sentence wasn’t served just because he felt that his 42 days were “sufficient.”
Ethically? Countries don’t act ethically. They act in their self interest. This is a minor example of it. Minor in the sense of impact on people BTW, I’m not saying drugging and raping a child isn’t a deplorable thing to do.
In a perfect world the fucker would be locked up for a decent amount of time but this corld isn’t perfect. Every country looks after it’s interests.
Stupid Switzerland. They should just do what we do as soon as the US wants to get their hands on someone. Arrest them, ignore their rights, drug them and hand them over to CIA operatives to be hooded and flown to a country that has a more reasonable relationship to the use of torture in interrogation.
Fuck Switzerland with their stupid human and democratic rights! They make all us good puppets who put real effort into pleasing the US look like… you know, puppets!
Polanski drugged and raped a 13 year old girl orally, vaginally, and anally.
Your priorities are completely fucked.
So I am guessing you are unable to answer the question.
What exactly was the question, Paul? Are you talking about the idiotic “can we think of a time when the Swiss government acted ‘ethically’” question you posted up thread, in as much as a government can? How about the fact that Switzerland often tops lists of countries ranked by political and human rights? Why are you trying to paint Switzerland as some sort of North Korea-esque black hole of morality? Why is it Americans have such a love of demonizing other countries (c.f. France) when those countries decide acting in their own best interests may not coincide with what America wants?
The Swiss acted in what they perceive to be their own national interest. Why Americans cannot understand this is a mystery, seeing as they like to play the Realpolitik game when it comes to deporting Irish-American terrorist sympathizers, and the like.
Like I said, an American lecturing other nations on “morality” is a bit rich. Come back to us when the Swiss elect a war mongerer who causes the deaths of a couple of hundred thousand in the Middle East, or sets back human rights in South America for the best part of a century.
Well, 'cuz we’re the best and all that. Duh.
It is purely a matter of proper procedure. Presumably, there was some good reason to seal the transcript in the first place; thus, there must be some good reason to unseal it.
Where the Swiss authorites themselves have said it is irrelevant to the issue of extradition, there is no good reason to unseal it. The judge could not know that the Swiss would change their minds and, in part, base their decision to not extradite on the failure to unseal a transcript that they themselves earlier claimed was irrelevant - because, normally, you don’t make judicial decisions on the basis that the courts and officials of other nations would behave so unreasonably.
To my mind, purely as a legal matter (and bearing in mind I’m not American), this decision was inexplicable, and thus wrong - however one feels about Mr. Polanski, his crime, and the relative virtues of Switzerland or the United States.
The criminal law in the international setting should be predictable and in application no respecter of persons; judicial comity (that is, mutual cooperation and respect between judicial and national officials in matters legal) ought to be respected. It is no answer to say, tu quoque fashion, that on such-and-such an occasion the US has failed to respect comity - on the principle that two wrongs don’t make a right, but only more wrong. The breakdown of comity is a common harm that effects everyone, and the failure to respect it in this case is a loss for everyone - Europeans and Americans alike.
Now, that being said, there is a limited class of cases where judicial comity should be over-ridden by other, public policy goods: say if Iran was seeking the extradition of a gay man for the “crime” in Iran of homosexuality. In that case the courts would be well justified in refusing extradition. However, I understand that in this case the “crime” was that of drugging and raping a young girl. That’s a crime on which all civilized persons agree.
While the case was long in the past, the conviction was obtained back then so there is no concern based on latches or limitations (there, the concern is that the defendant would be prejudiced by the passing of time removing exculpating evidence). Fleeing a conviction does not create such issues.
There is no compelling public policy concern in this case and the expressed legalistic reasons for rejecting extradition appear in part incoherent (for example, for refusal to produce some transcript which the local authories previously declared irrelevant). I do not understand how it is in the Swiss best interest to undermine judicial comity.
I am sure you know people who behave only in their own self-interest. Are they moral people?
If a nation acts only on its own self-interest, is it moral?
==eta==
To restate the question, can you think of any case where the Swiss have done something against their own self-interest because they felt it was the right thing to do?