I read somewhere here on the Dope (sorry, I don’t recall enough about the post to be able to find it) that the judge was going to sentence Polanski to twenty years and that’s why he fled. I think this is the more likely case as Polanski probably wouldn’t have fled the country and voluntarily divorced himself from the U.S. - and particularly Hollywood, with its production money and prestigious award ceremonies - simply to avoid 38 more days in a psychiatric hospital.
Yeah, but that type of sex, even though legal, was still considered in a negative light. Jerry Lee Lewis did huge damage to his career by marrying his 12-year-old cousin, for example, whereas my impression is that in France sex between grown or perhaps even middle-age men and pubescent girls seems to have been (and perhaps still is) considered good, clean fun and perfectly acceptable.
What I’d like to know is if that was the case at the time, and/or if it is still the case now. Not only would this be interesting to know in general terms but it would speak pretty importantly to France’s stance on Polanski as a citizen and it’s obstinancy in shielding Polanski from U.S. law.
In other words, is the general feeling in France that Polanski is merely the victim of what they view as typically American puritanism?
Well, certainly. Though I’ve pointed out that the Swiss officials (I don’t believe it was a judge) were - somewhat muddled as to their legal reasoning - based as it was in part on non-disclosure of a document they themselves had earlier said was “irrelevant”.
My point was this: people keep saying that it was in Swiss national interest not to extradite him. I honestly do not know what they are basing this conclusion on.
I could understand it (though not condone it) if the fellow was a spy, or general, or knew some sort of national secrets. But he’s a movie director. Other than being a celebrity, what sort of “national interest” is involved?
But he’s not in France, and he’s already I understand been convicted. If I, as a Canadian, commit a crime in the US and flee to Mexico after being convicted, Mexico would I believe be perfectly within its rights to extradite me to the US (assuming the relevant treaty exists, etc.). Why would Canada insist on re-trying me for the same crime, in Canada?
The Los Angeles Times has this to say:
Swiss refuse extradition, free Polanski
By Henry Chu and Joe Mozingo, Los Angeles Times; July 12, 2010
Perhaps the posters were referring to the fact that, if he didn’t leave, the judge would sentence him to more time?
It’s probably true that cultural differences come into play here. in France, the age of consent is 15. In Germany, it’s 14. In Spain, it’s 13. In Switzerland, it’s 16.
(I’m not an expert on the topic, I’m depending on Wikipedia for the information.)
Opinions in Europe may also be swayed by the fact that (as was previously mentioned in this thread) the victim herself is asking the LA district attorney to drop the case. Most recently, yesterday.
Roman Polanski victim: Director is not a threat, prosecution should end Los Angeles Times, July 13, 2010
Just wanted to say I strongly agree with you. Switzerland requested information, which was denied them, so, sorry, can’t comply with your request at this time. That sounds reasonable to me.
Even where the Swiss had earlier stated that the information was “irrelevant” to the extradition decision?
Well, it’s not quite true that he’s been ‘convicted.’ He pled to a lesser charge allegedly in return for a plea deal that would result in his being sentenced to time already served in the psych hospital. Then he allegedly learned that the judge was going to renege on that agreement and sentence him to a long prison term. So it’s probable that in the minds of the French he was not convicted of a crime so much as he simply pled guilty as part of an agreement that would allow him to serve no additional time and put the issue behind him, and then understandably bailed once he learned that the agreement wasn’t going to be honored. In other words, they likely view him as the victim of a legal agreement that was being reneged upon rather than a criminal justly convicted by due process.
Could be, I suppose. But the post I referred to, which was made in the immediate wake of Polanski’s having been arrested in Switzerland, was to the effect that Rittenbrand was a publicity hound and intended to sentence Polanski to twenty years. This post was followed by one from another poster who pointed out that, legally, the judge would be within his rights to ignore the plea deal and mete out whatever sentence he liked. So it seemed to be accepted fact by posters more in the know than I that this was what Rittenbrand actually intended to do and that he was within his rights to do so.
So it’s hard to say. There’s so much ‘he said/she said’ going on from both sides in this issue that it’s hard to separate the wheat from the chaff and know who’s telling the truth.
Reminds me of the following:
Okay, so shall we just dispense with trials as well then, provided the crime is sufficiently offensive? I would expect this kind of comment from the likes of Nancy Grace, not a State Department spokesman.
Oh dear, they do not share all the values and beliefs of contemporary America, and they have a different legal system. We had better put a stop to that!
I have to admit that my opinion is largely swayed by this as well.
From what I understand, he was charged, pled guilty, was convicted and sentenced. He fled because he was concerned that a judge would increase his sentence. Thus, he had been convicted.
If there were procedural errors or a lack of natural justice in the way his case was handled, that is the sort of thing that an extradition process is supposed to examine.
However, in this case the Swiss sucked & blew on that very issue - they claimed intitially that the transcript was 'irrelevant" to the extradition hearing — and then denied extradition for failure to produce that very transcript!
100% political chicanery in order to please France, and to protect a lawfully convicted criminal. Utterly shameful.
I understand that from a technical, legal standpoint here in the U.S. he has been convicted. What I was trying to explain was the likely point of view of the French and maybe even the Swiss with regard to their apparent indifference to what they probably regard as his ‘so-called’ conviction - a conviction born of an agreement that was being reneged upon, and therefore not legitimate.
And now what has he done? According to the LA District Attorney, by fleeing, he has guaranteed that if he ever does get extradited, or find himself in a LA courthouse by some other means, all of the original 6 charges (including rape) will still be on the table.
Oh God, let this scumbag rapist PLEASE find his way back to LA.
France has offered to try him there, and we said no.
Again, if there were errors or irregularities in the procedure leading up to the extradition request, the better way to deal with them is up front in the extradition process.
Instead, it appears (at least on the surface) that the Swiss resorted to what amounts to a shabby-seeming trick - citing a failure to disclose a document that they themselves had earlier said was not required.
What motivated this may be a whole host of considerations. Perhaps a sort of generalized feeling that he was hard done by is one of them; or possibly, that his sexual improprieties should be winked at as the cost of genius; or that celebrities are above such petty considerations; or that this is a way of standing up to American overbearing bullying; or that, since the victim has foregiven him, the Swiss should too; or that his release was in the Swiss “national interest” - all theories I’ve seen advanced, many in this thread. Who can say? All is pure speculation.
All I know is that the ruling, as it stands, appears flawed on its face and that such rulings do harm to the notion of international legal comity.
To answer a question posed earlier, yes, California does have an “evasion” statute, that was brought up in an earlier thread.
Y’know, Polanski had already gotten a break by being able to plead down to unlawful intercourse with a minor, as opposed to aggravated rape; if he was under the impression that the plea deal was something ironclad and he could comply by showing up at the rehab and then having the shrinks go “Oh, you’re doing so much better now, you can go already” half way through, he must have been badly counseled. Then he panicked that he was about to get 20 years in pound-me-in-y’know-where prison (as if that were the only option). Considering the facts of the case, so much panic over getting any amount of hard time as a consequence of his actions may be the mark of a punk wuss, but being a punk wuss is not by itself an aggravating element.
So on the one hand, the USA and the State of California have every right to continue to pursue this case (and the victim’s desire to be over it does not bind the authorities to give up); Roman should have manned up and probably would have got nowhere near the dreadful punishment he expected, and shortly have been kicked out of the country and spent the last 3 decades doing the same he has been doing anyway. BUT American Public Opinion makes a big deal of THIS case because of the lurid components thereof – both the immediately lurid part of the drugging, rape and sodomy of a 13-year-old by an older man, and the culturally lurid part of underage girls being left in the company of wealthy drug-using foreign Hollywood celebs, someone touched by the Manson murders, foreign jurisdictions looking down on Americans, etc., and because of the sheer nerve of this fellow just escaping American justice.
On the other hand, the Swiss and French really have no obligation to placate American moral outrage (as someone else mentioned above, maybe to Nancy Grace “justice” means sating moral outrage, but that’s not how the Law works IRL). It may be, that what happens is the Swiss magistrates who reached this decision came to believe that by now the American court wants Polanski more to make an example of him for being such a punk wuss… however, unlike with the death penalty or torture they don’t have an exception in the treaties for that, so instead they found a procedural workaround within the existing legal system. Inelegant and unsatisfying to everyone but Mr. Polanski (the California court doesn’t get him, the Swiss and French get flamed for it), but the forms are complied with and they get him off their hands.
As to any harm to comity, maybe that has been compromised long ago. It has been mentioned that France does not allow extradition of its own citizens, but instead offers to try them there (I suppose, under whatever the French Penal Code provides for an equivalent set of facts as to actual charges and potential punishments), and the California authorities declined. Fine, so then this part looks like two legal systems mutually scorning one another as not being able to provide “real justice”, and they just mutually reinforced the caricature. Meanwhile there is no closure.
ETA: OTOH those folks in the arts community who imply that Polanski should be left alone on the grounds of “genius” just succeed in looking foolish. He’s no political refugee.
[QUOTE=JRDelirious
ETA: OTOH those folks in the arts community who imply that Polanski should be left alone on the grounds of “genius” just succeed in looking foolish. He’s no political refugee.[/QUOTE]
And thats why the rest of us view them as snobs.
Are the French particularly predisposed to being light on convicting/sentencing beloved filmmaker child rapists?