I don’t think nations should extradite people to a country that has the death penalty or treats its prisoners the way the US does. I also don’t think you can skip due process or look the other way when there’s deficiencies in the legal process, just because it’s a “bad guy”. Then you might as well throw the judicial system out, Guantanamo style.
Oh my! Law lost its brightest light when you decided to waste your talents on the internet! Yessir, you got me in the grip of your logic. I can only hope you do not crush me with further examples of your skills in reasoning.
(Excellent point about the refugees by the way. Had to dig pretty deep to find it, didn’t you?)
I’ve bolded the important part of the referenced post. YOU notice it. You’re biased and unrealistic.
I hope Switzerland becomes a safe haven for all the pedophilic rapists this world has to offer.
Rich guy gets away with crime. How shocking.
Asking the Swiss to return an escaped rapist is unrealistic? How so? Why?
So are they? Why is this a big deal to the USA otherwise?
My response was to Capt. Ridley, not to you. As far as I know, you and I are in agreement on the issue.
I nominate this thread for the Bricker of the Week award for emphasizing Switzerland’s legal right to refuse extradition over the right for Dopers to hold opinions on morality.
Whoops. I thought we were trying to emphasize Roman Polanski’s right to diddle 13-year-olds over all.
I wasn’t aware the right of dopers to hold opinions on morality was in any way infringed or endangered.
Yeah, I notice it. I notice there’s no handwringing thread, populated by stupid twats like Paul, on the Iranian nuclear scientist kidnapped by the CIA that’s just turned up, for instance. As I said, to an American, morality only seems to work one way. As a group, Americans are only too quick to bring the actions of other countries under a microscope, conveniently forgetting their own failures to extradite criminals and the shady activities of their own government, forever justified under the pretense of “national interest”, or “national defence”.
And “unrealistic”? Please. You’re completely naive in your assumption that a nation ever does anything other than its own self interest. If the Swiss decided to hand over Polanski, it’s because they’d reasoned that upholding the extradition treaty, and currying favour with America, was more important that currying favour with France, presumably their biggest trading partner and larger source of income. There’s nothing “unrealistic” in my appraisal; it’s exactly what’s happened.
Two second Google search. Try it some time instead of embarrassing yourself you stupid fuck.
I’d imagine that Switzerland views their relationship with France as more important than their relationship with the US (share a common border, language, elements of culture etc). Extraditing a French citizen to the US when France is utterly opposed to extradition of any of their citizens would damage that relationship.
You also seem to be of the opinion that he fled to Switzerland (seeing as you write about fleeing to Mexico). He didn’t. He lives in France and he fled to London, staying for one day before moving on to France. He also owns a chateaux in Switzerland and has regularly visited there over the past twenty years or so. He was in Switzerland to collect a lifetime achievement award for his films.
This regular toing and froing from Switzerland apparently is relevant to the case (according to what I have heard/read at the BBC). Over the past twenty years he has had free access to Switzerland and the US has never requested his extradition. Thus he has it in good faith that he is safe in Switzerland. Suddenly turning around and extraditing him is considered very bad form and would have diplomatic consequences as it is so high profile. There is also the question as to why the US didn’t bother requesting extradition at any point over the past twenty years when they were well aware that he was regularly in Switzerland due to owning a home there.
Of course it was easy, after all you did it. But isn’t it remarkable that when asked to mention something did against their own self-interest, for the sake of morality, you had to point out a couple of refugees taken, with the encouragement of the United States? That’s it?
Really, come on, is that the best you can find? A whole county? Over say the last fifty years? A couple of refugees? Pretty pathetic for a country, don’t you think?
I’m aware he did not “flee” to Switzerland, but was rather there to pick up a prestigeous award; and that he owns a chateaux, and that he’s a “high profile” celebrity. I do not think that fact should make any difference, or that people who are famous, awarded for their artistic merits, and own chateaux should be treated any differently than a penniless fugative, if they happen to be guilty of rape. But of course, that’s just my opinion.
The further issue - that he travelled that way many times before and was never caught - does not create any “good faith” reliance rights that he would never be caught in the future. Mere inaction on the part of the authorities does not provide convicted criminals with immunity from punishment. There is of course the concept of limitations, where inaction by authorities precludes prosecution: the purpose of that is to prevent injustice to the accused because evidence helpful to them would be lost by the passage of time - hardly relevant where the facts are not in dispute and he’s pled guilty.
None of which I actually said either, even though you seem intent to imply it. What I did say is that a high profile case can have diplomatic consequences.
The facts are in dispute and he pled guilty apparently as a plea-bargain which he apparently heard the judge was going to ignore. The details regarding this were not made available to the Swiss. Yes, they may have said that it is irrelevant but Polanski’s lawyer wanted access to them. The US authorities declared that they would remain sealed until Polanski is in the US. That, to me, sounds bizarre. They have no problem with unsealing them, just they refuse to do so until he is in the country. One must wonder what is in those transcripts that are so important that they must remain sealed until the US authorities have their hands on him. My guess is that the transcripts back up Polanski’s reasoning for fleeing the US.
Still, as has been noted, the Swiss have admitted to acting with their own national interests in mind. Something that every country does. Just that this time it has gone against the US. Normally it is the other way round. Welcome to how the rest of the world has to deal with things.
What’s the distinction?
a. Rich, famous celebrity = different treatment; vs
b. Rich, famous celebrity = “high profile case, can have diplomatic consequences” = different treatment?
Isn’t it true that any case involving a rich and famous celebrity is more likely to have “diplomatic consequences” than one involving some poor sclub?
Naturally, a certain amount of difference in treatment is inevitable - the rich and famous can afford better lawyers, that sort of thing. Personally, I think it is the job of the law, to the extent possible, to treat every person alike regardless of fame and fortune - thus I’m against officially bending the law in favour of the wealthy and famous, even where actually imposing punishment for their admitted crimes risks creating “diplomatic consequences”.
There are no facts in dispute as to what he did. The only facts in dispute are about his plea-bargain.
The fact that Polaski’s lawyer wanted access to a document is irrelevant. The issue is whether the Swiss authorities wanted access to it, for purposes of the procedure.
Saying they did not - and then saying that they are in part basisng the the outcome of the hearing on the US failure to disclose it - is by any stretch questionable: it doesn’t (or should not) matter what one thinks of the “right-ness” of the outcome. The procedure was messed up, and that was entirely the Swiss fault.
They have? I must have missed that. Are they saying that the legal stuff was all so much window dressing and they simply chose to not extradite him because, hey, they didn’t want to?
I’m not American, so this is sort of lost on me.
Of course it’s relevant. An extradition hearing is an adversarial hearing, just like an ordinary criminal trial. It just doesn’t go as far.
Because “high profile” doesn’t just mean “rich, famous celebrity”.
Polanski disputes it and plea bargained. You are aware that people often plea bargain even though they don’t agree with their plea?
Don’t be a fool. Clearly he wanted access to it for use in the appeal against extradition. My guess is that the transcript backs up Polanski’s view, meaning that the Swiss would be unlikely to extradite. Hence the US didn’t release it.
Maybe the US authorities should release the transcript. What could possibly be in it that would justify it remaining sealed?
I apologise.
I wonder how much the Swiss decision was motivated by a view (rightly or wrongly) that the DA was suddenly taking action on this after ignoring the case for so long due to a desire to look “tough on crime” for the voters rather than any real need for justice, and are unwilling to allow their legal system to be used to further the DA’s political goals. I also wonder whether resentment at being essentially bullied by the US into changing their banking secrecy laws to make it easier for the IRS to collect taxes is a factor in the decision.