Polanski Detained by Swiss Authorities

[knight_shadow]

BERN, Switzerland – Roman Polanski lost the first round Tuesday in his battle to avoid extradition to the U.S. for having sex in 1977 with a 13-year-old girl.

Already locked in a Zurich cell for the last dozen days, Polanski learned he will remain incarcerated for an extended period as the Swiss Justice Ministry rejected his plea to be released from custody.

Swiss authorities expressed fear he might flee the country if freed from prison. The director of such film classics as "Rosemary's Baby" and "Chinatown" has been wanted by U.S. authorities since fleeing sentencing 31 years ago.

"We continue to be of the opinion that there is a high risk of flight," said ministry spokesman Folco Galli, explaining the decision.

Galli told The Associated Press that the threat was too great for the government to accept bail or other security measures in exchange for the release of the filmmaker.

Polanski was apprehended Sept. 26 as he arrived in Zurich to receive an award from a film festival. Authorities in Los Angeles consider him a convicted felon and a fugitive, and Switzerland says there has been an international warrant out on him since 2005.

Full Story

[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.

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by dmost2

You are wrong. She already made her decision when she went to the police 35 years ago. Polanski was already sentenced. She does not get to decide his fate after the fact.

Hi Madmax!

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Jen

Way to take her power away yet again.

You really can't see how it's a somewhat-dangerous precedent to set to give the victim that kind of responsibility? The criminal justice system is designed to eliminate that kind of subjective need.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

You really can't see how it's a somewhat-dangerous precedent to set to give the victim that kind of responsibility? The criminal justice system is designed to eliminate that kind of subjective need.

Yep.

Justice is not for the victim, it's for society. Polanski's crime is the sort of thing which if it goes unpunished (i.e., the rich being able to skate on child rape because they have the resources to get the hell out of Dodge before sentencing) can undermine the public's confidence in the criminal justice system.

I don't give a damn what this man has done to atone for his sins or what he has contributed through his craft. He's still a child rapist and should serve his time. In this case, his sentence will hopefully work out to the balance of his life.

[Senusret I]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I don't give a damn what this man has done to atone for his sins or what he has contributed through his craft. He's still a child rapist and should serve his time. In this case, his sentence will hopefully work out to the balance of his life.

I totally agree. No matter how I try to look at this, he raped a child. Period. Fuck his movies.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

You really can't see how it's a somewhat-dangerous precedent to set to give the victim that kind of responsibility? The criminal justice system is designed to eliminate that kind of subjective need.

Originally Posted by Kevin

Yep.

Justice is not for the victim, it's for society.

Agreed with both - our system is set up that way for a good reason.