Please do. I was trying to come up with a way to be rude without violating board policy, and I’m very pleased with the results.
Why I must have stepped into a forum warp, as it appears I’ve fucked off back to MPSIMS!
Moderator caution
You failed.
Phrase it how you like, but telling a poster to fuck themselves because you don’t like their attitude just isn’t allowed in the forum, which is General Questions. Don’t do this again.
samclem Moderator, General Questions
I’ll get you next time, Gadget!
Even more interestingly, anyone can commit a crime in the US and flee to France is safe from extradition, but only if the crime is sufficiently heinous that the person would be put to death.
I assume you’re referring to Ira Einhorn. There were two factors in play that prevented Einhorn to escape extradition for so long. First, as you mentioned, France will not extradite to countries which practice capital punishment unless the country seeking extradition gives assurances that the death penalty will not be sought. The Philadelphia D.A. did in fact give the French such an assurance in Einhorn’s case.
The more difficult issue, and the main rationale for France not extraditing Einhorn in the first place, was that he was tried and convicted in absentia (he skipped bail after the arraignment.) French law does not permit extradition unless the defendant has had (or will have) a chance to present his defence. Once the Pennsylvania Legislature passed a law allowing for new trials for defendants convicted in absentia, France sent Einhorn back to the U.S.
There’s an interesting documentary (recently made that aired on HBO last year) about the Polanski situation, came out before he was just re-arrested. I was all for him going to prison for life (ok, not life) until I saw the docu.
Here’s the movie:
He plead guilty and agreed to a sentence, but after serving his (admittedly light) sentence, the judge was afraid of a public backlash for not imposing a more severe one, and he attempted to renege on the deal and add several years of prison time on top of the sentence. That’s why Polanski fled the country, because of massive misconduct by the judge that would have led to incarceration AFTER he had already served his agreed upon sentence.
I do think his initial sentence was far too light, but according to our legal system that’s beside the point. Once a plea is agreed to, that’s the deal. There’s no going back.
I’m not saying I agree with his behavior, just trying to put it in perspective for those of you who aren’t aware of the full facts. Until I had seen the film, my assumption had always been that he was charged and immediately fled, I’d never heard he actually tried handling the situation in the legal system before he left the country.
It was just a joke based on the idea above that France would not extradite if you were going to be put to death. So, normal, garden variety crime, no problem. Horrible crime that would necessitate capital punishment, and you’re free to stay in France.
That was interesting info, though.
Interesting… I just saw this, may explain the odd timing.
Apparently the documentary had a lie in it (if the article is to be believed) that really helped Polanski’s case, and Polanski’s lawyers used it to try and get charges dropped, and then when the lie was revealed the lawyer’s actions backfired and got him arrested.
Hmmm.
Except it wasn’t that he served the sentence; he was sent for a psychiatric evaluation, to assist the judge in determining the appropriate sentence. He was released earlier than anticipated from the evaluation, but that wasn’t a sentence for the offence. He failed to attend for the sentencing.
As well, it’s my understanding that judges in California are not necessarily bound by a plea agreement. Whether this particular judge misconducted the matter may be open for discussion - but that’s not as clear cut as you make it sound. That’s what court hearings (and appeals) are for. Polanski refused to participate in the process, and skipped out.
The article I linked to in my follow up has some great additional information. Explains the situation really well. Article was written by Marcia Clark. Who’s blond now, according to her picture. Whatever.
Still a good article, regardless of hair dye.
PS - I agree it’s not as clear cut as I made it sound, I just think the prosecution side isn’t as clear cut as I thought it was before seeing the doc.
Nice job reading the thread there, chief. 
French courts have jurisdiction for all crimes committed by French citizens, regardless of the country where they were committed, providing that they are crimes in both countries (except in the case of the rape of a minor), and that the case hasn’t already been tried in the other other country ( and resulting in either acquittal or a sentence that has been actually served).
(By the way, they also have jurisdiction when a French citizen is the victim)
And French citizens indeed can’t be extradited, except (and it’s very recent) for a limited number of minor crimes committed in some of the EU countries.
Actually, I wondered myself for a long time why Polansky hadn’t been tried in France. I eventually read once that it was indeed because there had been no request by the USA. But 1) It wasn’t in a particularly reliable source and 2) I don’t think that such a request is necessary. But I suppose that lacking that, at least a complaint from the victim (or her parents, in this case) would have been.
So much for the Revolution, eh?