Polanski Detained by Swiss Authorities

[KSigkid]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090927/...rland_polanski

Wow...I never thought this would happen.

[knight_shadow]

Ditto. And I'm sure it was awkward, with the Susan Atkins thing.

[Benzgirl]

Interesting timing?

[Munchkin03]

This is so weird. Not only has he traveled in and out of Zurich without any trouble, he owns a house in Gstaad. Why would they decide to extradite him now?

Earlier this year, I watched "Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired," which is about the prosecution and the misconduct that went on there and it made me think about this whole thing in a different light. Not that I think plying a 13 year-old with Quaaludes and having anal sex with her is okay in any regard, the judge was trying to make an "example" out of him.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

This is so weird. Not only has he traveled in and out of Zurich without any trouble, he owns a house in Gstaad. Why would they decide to extradite him now?

Earlier this year, I watched "Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired," which is about the prosecution and the misconduct that went on there and it made me think about this whole thing in a different light. Not that I think plying a 13 year-old with Quaaludes and having anal sex with her is okay in any regard, the judge was trying to make an "example" out of him.

and instead he because a kind of different example of how some people avoid the (most of the) legal consequences of their actions, at least for a very long time.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

This is so weird. Not only has he traveled in and out of Zurich without any trouble, he owns a house in Gstaad. Why would they decide to extradite him now?

Earlier this year, I watched "Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired," which is about the prosecution and the misconduct that went on there and it made me think about this whole thing in a different light. Not that I think plying a 13 year-old with Quaaludes and having anal sex with her is okay in any regard, the judge was trying to make an "example" out of him.

Well, plus there are the questions about the judge offering a plea deal, then withdrawing that offer after Polanski fulfilled the terms (a 45 day observation). It's an interesting case.

The timing is odd, especially since he's spent so much time in the area. Why now?

[CutiePie2000]

Better late than never, I say.

[UGAalum94]

Maybe there's new expectation of clemency that made enforcing the arrest warrant more palatable?

[Preston327]

Great, one more media circus for T.V. Guide to drone on about for every waking hour. This is way before my time so I don't know the details of Polanski's accusation but if the victim wants the charges dropped then for God's sake drop them. Going to court can be a traumatic experience, especially if the victim is trying to forget and move on.

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by Jen

His victim wants the charges against him dropped so she can move on with her life. I say, in cases like this where the victim is an adult now, it should be up to them what happens. Give them the power to decide.

I agree. She's been fairly vocal about wanting to move on. Why won't the prosecutors let that happen?

There's a little chatter about this being Switzerland's way to throw a bone to the US over this whole UBS thing. If that's the case it's kind of creepy.

[UGAalum94]

If there were only the original charges to consider, what the victim wants now might be a big deal*, but when you consider his actively avoiding accepting the legal consequences of conviction, I'm not so sure.

And there was kind of a weird complicity of a couple of European governments in his behavior. I was looking at his suit against Vanity Fair, and it really seems remarkable the lengths he was able to go to to avoid traveling to a country which might extradite him.

You can be a great artist and a horrible, even criminal human being. Drugging and raping a 13 year old probably shouldn't be something that you avoid legal penalty for if you just avoid the US for 30+ years. I think we're pretty swell and all, but no, it doesn't equal serving your time.

That said, I don't really much care what happens to him. I wonder what the original sentence would have been?

*The original article linked here notes that she reached a private settlement with him, and I sort of think that we ought to be careful with dismissing criminal charges when it might appear that the perpetrator bought off the victim, even if it is 30+ years later.

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

This is so weird. Not only has he traveled in and out of Zurich without any trouble, he owns a house in Gstaad. Why would they decide to extradite him now?

Earlier this year, I watched "Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired," which is about the prosecution and the misconduct that went on there and it made me think about this whole thing in a different light. Not that I think plying a 13 year-old with Quaaludes and having anal sex with her is okay in any regard, the judge was trying to make an "example" out of him.

I don't see the Swiss doing anything unless the United States federal government requested it. I'm surprised that this happened now and not in the past.

[srmom]

I am curious for those legal minds on GC - where would "statute of limitation" laws come in play? I thought that only murder had no limit. Does rape, or child molestation have no statute of limitation? Is this a state by state thing, or is it federal law?

Also, if the victim does not want to testify, then won't it be difficult to get a conviction? or, has he plead guilty and is just evading sentencing?

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by srmom

I am curious for those legal minds on GC - where would "statute of limitation" laws come in play? I thought that only murder had no limit. Does rape, or child molestation have no statute of limitation? Is this a state by state thing, or is it federal law?

Also, if the victim does not want to testify, then won't it be difficult to get a conviction? or, has he plead guilty and is just evading sentencing?

I'm pretty sure he's already been convicted, so all of this is moot.

[srmom]

Right - just read this -

He pled guilty; prosecutors offered a deal; he took it; but on the eve of its execution in the courtroom the judge in the case signaled he would not abide by it, to the distress of prosecution and defense alike

I didn't realize he took off AFTER pleading guilty, before sentencing.