Prison is also about setting the standards for our society. We are a society that does not allow people to drug and rape 13 year olds. Punishing people who do so is the method by which we stay that kind of society.
It’s nobody’s fault but his own that he is still dealing with this at 81. He could have turned himself in at any time.
The Polanski case has always been really weird. As far as I can tell, there isn’t any real definitive evidence that Polanski had any genuine reason to believe that Judge Rittenbrand was going to sentence him any differently than the plea deal specified. Polanski’s then-attorney basically just told him that he thought the Judge was untrustworthy, so Polanski fled the country. It’s quite rare for a judge not to go along with the terms of a plea agreement, so barring any evidence other than second hand information on Polanski’s attorney’s “intuition” I think it’s likely Polanski would’ve had an uneventful final sentencing hearing in 1978 and a long career in Hollywood in which he’d be able to much more easily work with the major studios, attend awards shows and etc.
It’s often been repeated in various news articles that Rittenbrand was going to sentence him to more time–but I’ve done a good bit of searching, and I cannot find any actual source for this claim, other than Polanski’s attorney in 1978 telling Polanski that was going to happen. How did he know this? Rittenbrand has never given information on it publicly to my knowledge and is long dead.
It should be noted it wasn’t just the prosecutor that recommended the plea deal, Polanski’s parole officer wrote a glowing recommendation as to his character, basically saying it was a “poor judgment” and a “mistake”, but that Polanski didn’t deserve jail time. In the parole officer’s report it is noted that even back in the time of the original court proceedings the victim and her mother were not pressing for jail time.
I will say that whatever your opinion of the wisdom of the California authorities in continuing this and not just dropping it, I find it really reprehensible so many people in power have mischaracterized it as “consensual sex” that was only illegal because of age, or as “not a big deal.” The girl affirmatively denied consent, was drugged, and forced to have sex. That’s rape, it’s not a girl having too much fun at a party and having regrets the next day. Ignoring her age entirely, it was rape, period. People in power both in Hollywood and in politics should not be defending Polanski’s behavior or minimizing what it was. Reading some of the original statements from Polanski’s friends (famous celebrities and power brokers in Hollywood and even the legal system officials involved) is a jarring look back to how we used to treat sex crimes. It’s largely summed up as “she was thirteen but her mother had her dolled up and sexed up, she was mature and wanted it, and Polanski is a man, he can’t be blamed for getting an erection and needing to satiate his desire that occurred spontaneously during a photo shoot.”
Also–the judge couldn’t “renege” on the plea agreement. A prosecutor could, but a judge isn’t a party to the plea agreement so cannot renege on it. All plea agreements in the United States are done with the understanding that a judge has discretion in sentencing and is not bound by the agreement, but is “likely” to consider strongly the prosecutor’s recommendation.
I was going to create a new thread to ask this question, until I realized that the OP was nine months old, and then decided that I didn’t trust my Google-fu enough to find whether this had already been brought up. But, anyway, here goes:
Somebody asked, back on page 1, why a bounty hunter didn’t just snatch Polanski, and bring him back to the US, and was told that it was illegal. Disregarding the legality of the kidnapping itself, I’m kind of more interested in the aftermath of said hypothetical kidnapping. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that somebody did kidnap Polanski, drugged him, flew him back to the US, dumped him in the middle of Times Square, and then made an anonymous phone call to the FBI, as they drove off. Would the US be within their rights to take him into custody, or would we be compelled to return him to wherever the hell he was snatched up from?
Well, I’m not sure since France is a major ally and would be deeply upset. There was a somewhat similar situation with Andrew Lester, the Max Factor cosmetics heir that raped over a hundred women. He fled while out on bail, to Mexico. Now, Mexico has no problem extraditing Americans back to America as long as they won’t be sentenced to death. But Mexico also isn’t going to spend tons of money and man hours searching for American fugitives who are hiding in their country. This was essentially the situation with Andrew Luster. He ended up living fairly openly in Puerto Vallarta, some have suggested probably with the complicity of local officials who may have received bribes.
Anyway, a U.S. bail bondsman (whose licensure has no legal authority in Mexico) went after him and captured him. This was considered kidnapping under Mexican law. He was escorting Luster back to the United States when he was captured by Mexican authorities. In this scenario, the bounty hunter was charged, and Luster was extradited to the United States. While they weren’t interested in doing the leg work, the Mexicans had no problem with extraditing him when he literally fell into their lap. FWIW the bail bondsman was granted bail and then fled Mexico, himself becoming a bail jumper. Mexican authorities requested his extradition, and he was taken into custody by U.S. Marshals and put on ankle monitoring while the legal fight played out. During the subsequently legal battle he became a cause celebre, with a large number of U.S. Congressmen coming to his defense and formally passing a resolution requesting Mexico drop the charges. Possibly due to political pressure, the Mexican government simply allowed the case to expire on procedural grounds and the bounty hunter essentially got off completely from any criminal penalties.
There was another situation somewhat similar, Fawaz Youniz was a Lebanese Hezbollah member involved in hijacking a Royal Jordanian airline flight in Beirut with 70 passengers (4 Americans) on board. He escaped after the hijacking to Cyprus, where American officials were aware of where he lived. The FBI turned one of Youniz’s friends, and said friend lured him to a party on a yacht. The yacht had been rented by the FBI, and the party goers were all FBI agents. Once the yacht passed into international waters he was arrested, put on an aircraft launched from an aircraft carrier and flown directly to the United States. He was prosecuted for the hijacking and convicted, spent 16 years in prison and was then deported. I don’t know of any diplomatic response from Cyprus, but Cyprus isn’t France.
In the scenario of Polanski being illegally kidnapped from France and dropped in Times Square, I think a lot of complex issues would be set in motion. For one, he’s not wanted in New York, but in California. Likely his extradition hearing from New York to California would be a large political affair, much would depend on the official position of the State Department and possibly the President. If they wanted to return Polanski as a courtesy to France, they’d apply pressure on New York to not extradite him to California, but to release him on some pretext so they could ship him back to France. Whether that would happen or not would possibly depend quite a bit on how much of a row France wanted to make over it. While Polanski has received defense from some of the French elite, I believe the last time he was detained on threat of extradition (in Switzerland), a large chunk of the French public was polled as thinking he should be extradited, so he’s less popular with the public at large than with the elites.
There’s also a question of Federalism. The Federal government would, as far as I know, only be able to apply political pressure on New York. If the New York courts extradite him to California, the Feds would then apply political pressure to California to release him–but I don’t know if there is actually a mechanism by which they can force the matter. I know that in the case of some foreign nationals who have been executed in the United States, the State Department has tried in the past to apply pressure to the State government’s involved, and been unsuccessful–State simply lacked legal authority under our laws to force the States involved to do anything.
If those quotes were aimed at me I’ll ask you to kindly remember I didn’t say the judge reneged, I said he renegaded.
What is it they say, “I correct auto-correct more than auto-correct corrects me”? I obviously missed it that time. 
I have a question. Okay, I understand about France not extraditing their own citizens. I may not agree with it, but that’s their law. However, why didn’t they agree to have him serve his sentence there in France? I do believe that’s an option.
That could only be an option (assuming you are correct) once the man has been sentenced by the US court. He bolted before sentencing.
Because France doesn’t extradite its own citizens, it also allows for the option of prosecuting its citizens for crimes committed abroad, assuming they are also crimes in France. There is a process by which a foreign government can request this happen. The French system is not designed to allow French nationals to commit crimes abroad with impunity once they’ve fled back home, it’s instead just based on a stance of not subjecting their citizens to foreign systems of jurisprudence. Some may be perfectly fine, some are terrible, and for the French it just makes the most sense for them to restrict their nationals to only be subjected to French jurisprudence when they are the ones with physical control of said national.
My understanding is the Polanski prosecutors have intentionally never availed themselves of this option under French law to have him prosecuted there for his crime. Probably because from very early on the victim in this case was fairly uncooperative, so she likely would not assist with the French prosecution and thus it would’ve gone nowhere. It’s also possible the fact his trial (but not his sentencing) was already complete in the United States may have made it legally murky if this process could be started. My best understanding is that he could have been held accountable under French law, but that for whatever reason the prosecutors in California have never initiated the process that would cause this to occur, and it’s likely no longer an option due to statute of limitations.
Another tangled and prolonged extradition case between the U.S. and France: Ira Einhorn - Wikipedia
If Polanski were to be grabbed by bounty hunters and brought back to the U.S., even illegally under Polish law, it would make no difference as to the handling of his case here: United States v. Alvarez-Machain - Wikipedia
nm
One of the great fears of several European nations was the Osama Bin Laden ended up seeking refugee in their country. Then they’d have to deny extradiction because he’d face the death penality in the USA. And can’t see the USA being too happy about Bin Laden walking about in Sweden or sitting in a luxury Norwegian prison. I guess it’s the same with Edward Snowden.
Well, stated policy of the United States at the time was that any country sheltering Osama bin Laden had made itself at war with the United States. I mean obviously the United States wouldn’t go to war with a European ally over bin Laden, but it’s enough of a problem I think said allies would do everything in their power to prevent the refugee scenario from happening. Plus that was never that realistic a scenario, bin Laden would never have wanted to spend the rest of his life in a European prison. That destroys the entire image of himself he’d constructed over his lifetime to surrender and be put in a European jail.
Snowden, other than the recent moves in the European Parliament to block his extradition, would be a very straight forward extradition case back to the United States. He’s not really a whisteblower and wouldn’t likely prevail in those legal arguments in most places. There’s a reason he went to Russia, most other countries would extradite him back to the United States.