France refuses to extradite French citizens to other countries regardless of the crime alleged. It has nothing to do with the merits or otherwise of the case.
The Swiss decision seems to have been based on a procedural irregularity - the US failed to provide some documents the Swiss courts had requested.
The extradition treaty (pdf) between Poland and the USA contains this clause:
So it looks like the ultimate decision will be made by the Polish government if Polanski is still a Polish citizen.
Personally I hope he is sent back to the US, but I doubt that’ll happen,
Any time I’ve read articles on this case they bring up the plea deal and other stuff. I thought the circumstances of the case influenced France’s decision.
If all Polanski wanted to do was settle the case, that would be easy - he’d just surrender himself to American authorities and do his sentence. What Polanski really wants is to be able to come back to America without being punished for the crime he was convicted of.
Polanski committed rape. He chose to become a fugitive in order to avoid prison. I don’t see any reason why he should have the case “settled” for his convenience.
Polanski might be able to get a light sentence for his 40 year old crime, or get his case dismissed–but he’d have to show up in California for that to happen. He can’t stay in France until he learns what the outcome of his case is going to be, then decide whether to turn himself in or stay a fugitive.
Oh, I agree. I was just responding to aceplace57’s suggestion that France had refused to extradite Polanski because the French authorities didn’t think a crime had been committed. France’s refusal to extradite is not a judgment about how strong or weak the US case may be; they don’t extradite their own citizens in any event.
You were wrong in saying that our laws on sex with a minor were more draconian than those of France. You were wrong in saying that France was influenced by that disparity in denying extradition. You were wrong in saying that France was influenced by the plea deal in denying extradition. You were twice wrong in saying that if he returns “he’ll be tried under current law”; he won’t be tried for anything (except perhaps fleeing justice) and his sentencing on the original conviction will be in accord with the laws and guidelines in place at the time.
Your opinions about this case are founded on misinformation. Given the right information, you might form a different opinion.
I can’t speak to the second issue but if the first issue is true, then isn’t that something Polanski would have raised on appeal (which is what the rest of us would have to do rather then skipping away to France and be aided and abetted by “stars”)?
Raises a lot of questions about what, exactly? That Switzerland had a different view of what his sentence consisted of than the US’s did?
:dubious:
Please. The amusing thing is that if he hadn’t fled, he’d most likely have been out of prison a long time ago.
(I wonder if he’d come back if you offered him a baseball bat and five minutes alone with Charles Manson?)
I think it might get interesting if some non-government agent were to kidnap Polanski and bring him to the US to face punishment. Then, when the French government complains, both the state and federal governments can tell the French “Go ahead and file an extradition request. We’ll give it the same consideration you did for our request.”
