BREAKING: Swiss court won't extradite Polanski, releases him from house arrest.

[Heidi]

We just watched it live on Swiss TV.

http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/12/polanski-free-as-swiss-reject-extradition-request/

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hwv8qKQSMIhfdh2oT7hD0TeXDMpgD9GTGFSO0

[customerserviceguy]

1. Another child molester set free by enlightened Eurothinking on the subject

I guess I'll have to be satisfied that he can never set foot in this country again.

[Submariner]

2. I guess with enough money, child rape is an okay thing

for the Swiss and that ilk. Instead of prison he gets a free pass....sick.

[Joe Bacon]

4. Justice really means "Just-Us Rich People"

Money talks.

[treestar]

3. They claim there is a fault in the request

He is on electronic monitoring.

[Heidi]

5. No, he is free from the conditions of the house arrest.

He is free to leave the country if he wants to.

"The freedom-restricting measures against him have been revoked." -- excerpt from statement by the Swiss justice ministry. http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/12/polanski-free-as-swiss-reject-extradition-request/

[ananda]

6. Considering that Polanski's case was already tried and adjudicated...

... he shouldn't have been arrested and restricted in the first place.

[Heidi]

7. I'm not arguing one way or the other the merits of his arrest.

I'm stating a fact. He is free to go. Given today's decision, I support his release from house arrest. It would be illegal here to continue to confine him.

[seabeyond]

14. yes it was adjudicated adn waiting sentence. then he ran. shouldnt be consideration

of sending or not. should send to get sentence. you are right. that simple

[Johonny]

26. Sounds like the Swiss think he served his sentence

In exchange, the judge agreed to drop the remaining charges and sentence him to prison for a 90-day psychiatric evaluation. However, he was released after 42 days by an evaluator who deemed him mentally sound and unlikely to offend again. The judge responded by saying he was going to send Polanski back to jail for the remainder of the 90 days and that afterward he would ask Polanski to agree to a "voluntary deportation." Polanski then fled the country on the eve of his Feb. 1, 1978, sentencing. Based on references to Gunson's testimony in U.S. courts, the Swiss said it "should prove" that Polanski served his sentence after undergoing 42 days of diagnostic study. "If this were the case, Roman Polanski would actually have already served his sentence and therefore both the proceedings on which the U.S. extradition request is founded and the request itself would have no foundation," the ministry said.

For whatever reason the US refused the Swiss testimony that would prove he hadn't. If the point of this trail was to remove the man from American society so he can't rape again. Sounds like mission accomplished. I'm not sure if I care if he serves another 48 days in jail or not.

[Heidi]

32. The US is letting Switzerland takenthe blame

for the massive clusterf*ck that the California prosecution created. The Swiss justice ministry specifically requested testimony related to Polanski's sentencing. The US refused. Guess the US prosecutors don't care as much about justice behind the scenes as they do on TV. What an easy out.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bragi]

9. Sorry if facts get in the way of your self-righteousness /nt

[spiritual_gunfighter]

11. Facts?

Here are some facts about Roman Polanski if you care to read them,

Roman Polanski raped a child. Let's just start right there, because that's the detail that tends to get neglected when we start discussing whether it was fair for the bail-jumping director to be arrested at age 76, after 32 years in "exile" (which in this case means owning multiple homes in Europe, continuing to work as a director, marrying and fathering two children, even winning an Oscar, but never -- poor baby -- being able to return to the U.S.). Let's keep in mind that Roman Polanski gave a 13-year-old girl a Quaalude and champagne, then raped her, before we start discussing whether the victim looked older than her 13 years, or that she now says she'd rather not see him prosecuted because she can't stand the media attention. Before we discuss how awesome his movies are or what the now-deceased judge did wrong at his trial, let's take a moment to recall that according to the victim's grand jury testimony, Roman Polanski instructed her to get into a jacuzzi naked, refused to take her home when she begged to go, began kissing her even though she said no and asked him to stop; performed cunnilingus on her as she said no and asked him to stop; put his penis in her vagina as she said no and asked him to stop; asked if he could penetrate her anally, to which she replied, "No," then went ahead and did it anyway, until he had an orgasm.

Can we do that? Can we take a moment to think about all that, and about the fact that Polanski pled guilty to unlawful sex with a minor, before we start talking about what a victim he is? Because that would be great, and not nearly enough people seem to be doing it.

The French press, for instance (at least according to the British press) is describing Polanski "as the victim of a money-grabbing American mother and a publicity-hungry Californian judge." Joan Z. Shore at the Huffington Post, who once met Polanski and "was utterly charmed by sobriety and intelligence," also seems to believe that a child with an unpleasant stage mother could not possibly have been raped: "The 13-year old model 'seduced' by Polanski had been thrust onto him by her mother, who wanted her in the movies." Oh, well, then! If her mom put her into that situation, that makes it much better! Shore continues: "The girl was just a few weeks short of her 14th birthday, which was the age of consent in California. (It's probably 13 by now!) Polanski was demonized by the press, convicted, and managed to flee, fearing a heavy sentence."

Wow, OK, let's break that down. First, as blogger Jeff Fecke says, "Fun fact: the age of consent in 1977 in California was 16. It's now 18. But of course, the age of consent isn't like horseshoes or global thermonuclear war; close doesn't count. Even if the age of consent had been 14, the girl wasn't 14." Also, even if the girl had been old enough to consent, she testified that she did not consent. There's that. Though of course everyone makes a bigger deal of her age than her testimony that she did not consent, because if she'd been 18 and kept saying no while he kissed her, licked her, screwed her and sodomized her, this would almost certainly be a whole different story -- most likely one about her past sexual experiences and drug and alcohol use, about her desire to be famous, about what she was wearing, about how easy it would be for Roman Polanski to get consensual sex, so hey, why would he need to rape anyone? It would quite possibly be a story about a wealthy and famous director who pled not guilty to sexual assault, was acquitted on "she wanted it" grounds, and continued to live and work happily in the U.S. Which is to say that 30 years on, it would not be a story at all. So it's much safer to focus on the victim's age removing any legal question of consent than to get tied up in that thorny "he said, she said" stuff about her begging Polanski to stop and being terrified of him.

http://www.salon.com/life/broadsheet/feature/2009/09/28/polanski_arrest

[seabeyond]

15. sex to some is just getting past the no.... one way or another. nt

[Mad_Dem_X]

10. Disgusting.

Just as bad are the people who think this is good news.

[JPZenger]

12. This was real brutal repeated forcible rape, not just statutory

Before says anything in support of Polanski, they should read the facts of the case. He committed really brutal repeated forcible rape of a 13 year old, after he drugged her.

Some people make comments like this was a case involving consensual sex with a 15 and 3/4 year old groupie.

[TheWraith]

25. The victim disagrees with your characterization.

I really don't care at all about this case, but actual facts need to be the basis of any rational discussion:

"In a documentary for A&E Television Networks entitled Roman Polanski (2000), Samantha Gailey Geimer stated "…he had sex with me. He wasn’t hurting me and he wasn’t forceful or mean or anything like that, and really I just tried to let him get it over with." She also claimed that the event had been blown "all out of proportion"."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Polanski_sexual_abuse_case#Post-conviction

[LisaL]

28. Oh for crying out loud.

That same woman said she has told him "no" which clearly takes it out of statutory rape category.
She also was 13 years old, and claimed he had given her drugs.

[TheWraith]

35. And your point is?

Is this level of zeal given to every single victim who's been taken advantage of, even 40 years later?

[KansasVoter]

13. If you want to molest a child, move to Switzerland afterward.

[Heidi]

17. Truth be told, that's not the way it is.

It's difficult for even law abiding Americans (like myself) to get permanent residence in Switzerland, even when you're married to a Swiss citizen. When I applied for residence, there was a background check and an interview with the Swiss police. I know it's easy and tempting to smear a whole country because of one Swiss justice ministry decision, but it's not right.

[KansasVoter]

18. Wow, Wow.

[BeyondGeography]

16. Good...His victim 'got over it long ago'

http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2009/09/28/2009-09-28_roman_polanskis_victim_now_45_got_over_it_long_ago.html

[KansasVoter]

19. Wow, pay the victim and escape justice. Great!!!

[BeyondGeography]

20. And she would like to stop reliving the experience every time he makes headlines

Go back to moralizing now.

[seabeyond]

22. gosh, only on du to recognize rape of a child as moralizing, as if that is a bad thing.

rape of a child, :thumbsup: . to say rape of a child is criminal, bad.....

[spiritual_gunfighter]

23. Disgusting isnt it? n/t

[seabeyond]

24. pretty disgusting. nt

[LostinVA]

21. Yup, which is why the victims don't bring criminal cases

The State does, because people can be paid off or scared off too easily. It's teh Satte of CA vs. Polanski. And, he admitted his guilt and was sentenced anyway.

[joeybee12]

27. What happened has nothing to do with whether they thought he was guiltyor innocent..

...whether he had been punished enough...whether he should be brought to justice...whether they think the vicitm "got over it"

All this is is a phuck up by the US in not playing by international rules. Not a surprise, either.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

29. This is the correct answer.

But of course, the torches-and-pitchforks crowds must have their "Country X is evil!!! YAAAARRRGGHHH!!!" buzz.

[Heidi]

34. It's obvious that the US prosecution wants this case to go away but needs

another nation to bear the PR backlash. Switzerland asked for testimony related to Polanski's 77-78 sentencing. The US refused. So Switzerland decided the prosecution had not met the threshhold foe extradition. Why Switzerland is being hung out to dry for following internationally recognized extradition protocol is strange beyond understanding. Switzerland honored the arrest warrant when no other nation would, then had the temerity to suggest that the US prosecution support its extradition demand with documentation that the defendant had fled before completing his sentence. The US refused to provide that essential proof.

It's not Switzerland who let the US justice system down. But no one ever wants to lay responsibility at the prosecution's door. Remind me not to smirk next time a prosecutor whines about justice not being served.

[Johonny]

36. prehaps the US didn't have the proof

perhaps the testimony they sought would show the US was more than happy to let Polanski go after serving his 90 day sentence in which he was released early from. Perhaps the only way the US could assure itself he never returned to the US was to NOT provide the evidence and thus keep the case in limbo forever.

[Heidi]

37. It's their job as prosecutors to provide the proof.

My tax dollars (Swiss francs, actually) helped pay to process and monitor this guy for 10 months, and supported adjudication of a case US prosecutors didn't seem to give a crap about proving. If US prosecutors had really cared about the so-called justice issues they created an international firestrom over, Polanski would be in the US as I type this.

[BeyondGeography]

30. The victim's attitude gives them cover

Silly to think otherwise:

The Justice Ministry also said that national interests were taken into consideration in the decision, and the wishes of the victim, Samantha Geimer, who long ago publicly identified herself and has joined in Polanski's bid for dismissal.

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/38201135/ns/today-entertainment

[BurtWorm]

33. .

:applause:

Well played, joeybee12.

[Scurrilous]

31. Kick

:kick: