In The Worst Tradition of Swiss “Neutrality”
As Paul notes below, the Swiss government has decided that fugitive child rapist Roman Polanski will not be extradited to face justice. Defending an indefensible proposition inevitably requires some gross illogic, and the Swiss government does not disappoint:
Ms. Widmer-Schlumpf said the American authorities had rejected a request by her ministry for records of a hearing by the prosecutor in the case, Roger Gunson, in January 2010, which should have established whether the judge who tried the case in 1977 had assured Mr. Polanski that time he spent in a psychiatric unit would constitute the whole of the period of imprisonment he would serve.
“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 Swiss Justice Ministry said in a statement.
In fairness, the state of California may have erred here in not providing records, but the argument here still makes no sense. Even if we were to accept arguendo that the judge was about to apply a stricter sentence, since doing so would have been inconsistent with neither the relevant statute nor the plea agreement Polanski entered into, so what? This is a matter for American courts; it’s not for the Swiss govenrment to determine that retroactively child rapists deserve a slap on the wrist based on what at best were informal misunderstandings. What a disgrace.
Wonder if, just as an exercise, you would be interested in parsing this comment, left by a Swiss reader of Polanski defender Jeffrey Wells’ website:
“So you LA guys f***ed and fooled our Swiss authorities with a fake red note Interpol arrest order (WE WANT THIS CRIMINAL! HE COULD GET 50 YEARS IN PRISON!) — and two months later, those 50 years turned out to be just 2 years max. and a minor charge for sexual intercourse with a minor… And you really thought you can get away with that?”
Is the bit about the Interpol arrest order true? Was the L.A. prosecutor’s office prepared to re-try Polanski as a child rapist given that he had ostensibly pled out, as it were, on an unlawful intercourse count? Polanski IS a child rapist, it’s true; but what does that fact actually have to do with the case that the LA prosecutor’s office is/was pursuing? I’m not being snarky here, I’m actually curious. It sometimes seems like two different things are being discussed, or if I may, confused here: justice and the law. It may indeed be justice to bring Polanski to the United States and lock him up for a long time. But it would appear that a consideration of Polanski’s actual actions has little to do with the case as it is actually constituted. Or am I completely off base here?
It could be that the LA authorities made mistakes here; I’m open to that argument. But I don’t really understand the “law” and “justice” dichotomy here. There’s no question that, as a fugitive, Polanski is in violation of the law, and I don’t think it’s controversial that states have a particularly strong interest in ensuring that people don’t flee punishment. Indeed, I think the argument BHL et al are making is the opposite: whatever the law requires, Polanski is entitled to an exemption because [insert feeble rationalization for straightforward Versailles exceptionalism here.]
Well, no, I never, ever bought the BHL argument to begin with. I thought the timing and the circumstances were…well, never mind what I thought they were, the L.A. prosecutor DID have a valid warrant, and if it was valid, they could use it. What I’m asking is what the warrant’s actually FOR, that is, is he being brought back for fleeing sentencing or is he being brought back on an actual rape charge. And if he is being brought back for fleeing sentencing, then the argument about L.A. authorities making mistakes has more grounds, as it were, because the information the Swiss are complaining wasn’t provided pertains to THAT. My whole point being that, yes, he did rape a child—but was that what the actual warrant pertained to? That’s what I mean in invoking the law-versus-justice question.
Yes, the warrant really pertained to the actual rape of an actual child. He plead guilty to a different charge, but the act he was guilty of was the actual rape of an actual child.
I think it’s difficult for some people to grasp that, especially in Los Angeles, a criminal charge can have nothing to do with the criminal act. I prosecuted a woman who stabbed a girl in the stomach with a knife, attacked a another girl with a chain, and kicked another a guy in the head. The sentece? Disturbing the peace. In Texas? Probably felony mayhem.
So you think it is healthy that a judge assures a defendent of a particular outcome if he agrees to a plea bargain and then decides unilaterally to change that outcome. Perhaps your judicial systems is really as fucked as your political system is.
And no, it is not a matter for American courts until he is on the territory of the United States.
Under American law a prosecutor can’t promise a defendant a particular sentence. He or she can recommend a sentence, and if the judge deviates from that recommendation the defendant can appeal that the deviation was unjust. But Polanski didn’t want the (ridiculously lax) rules of the system at the time to apply to him.
I am not talkng about the prosecutor, I am talking about the judge.
“So you think it is healthy that a judge assures a defendent [sic] of a particular outcome if he agrees to a plea bargain and then decides unilaterally to change that outcome. Perhaps your judicial systems is really as fucked as your political system is.”
The judge doesn’t make the agreement. The prosecution does–they agree to accept a lesser charge and recommend a sentence. The judge is free to accept or reject the sentence.
Note that the judge who was supposedly going to renege was removed from the case and replaced with a judge who would uphold it.
Weather it’s “healthy” is irrelevant to whether it’s legal, which is really the relevant standard here.
Hitler passed a law giving the death sentence to conscientious objectors so killing a couple of thousand people for that offence was “legal” but it certainly wasn’t “healthy”. Closer to home, for a long time, slavery was legal in the United States, so according to your argument it was perfectly acceptable.
So, you believe that laws prohibiting the sexual assault of minors are comparable to laws upholding slavery or executing political dissidents? Or you think a judge giving a sentence consistent with both the relevant statute and a plea agreement makes him worse than Hitler if the defendant was expecting a shorter one? I’m certainly going to take your arguments seriously in the future!
“you believe that laws prohibiting the sexual assault of minors are comparable to laws upholding slavery or executing political dissidents”
No I don’t but you obviously do with your “legal” comment above. Actually, the law broken in this or any case is irrelevant when it comes to misconduct by the prosecutor or judge.
“judge giving a sentence consistent with both the relevant statute and a plea agreement”
This is illogical. The plea agreement, and that includes any oral assurances given by the judge at the time, is claimed to specify that the time Polanski spent in a psychiatric unit would constitute the whole of the period of imprisonment he would serve. So an extended sentence might be consistent with the relevant statute but then it is not consistent with the plea bargain.
It was quite obvious that this case was resurrected for political reasons when it suddenly reappeared after thirty years. (please don’t claim that I think the child rape is such a minor offence that it should not be prosecuted after thirty years, because I don’t), because Polanski frequently travelled outside France and your precious prosecutors did absolutely nothing. Even then, once he was awaiting the extradition hearing in Switzerland, the prosecutor might have been able to do a deal (such as Polanski serving some time in a French prison) but no, he was probably more concerned about some pictures being published of him with that nasty Frenchman doing the “perp” walk. As it is, Polanski will probably now return to France and live there comfortably for the rest of his life, while Americans complain about how stupid Europe’s legal systems are without realizing that it is their entire legal system that is pretty much completely and utterly fucked with the shredding of your oh-so-precious constitution (which wasn’t really so great in the first place – hint slavery/lack of rights for native people) over the last two hundred years.
As a Brit, I know we are not much better, although we dropped slavery long before you, we deal with wrong convictions better than you, we abolished the death penalty a while ago, we haven’t built any concentration camps in the last hundred years or so and our current government seems to be improving civil rights. The bad stuff (allowing extraordinary rendition flights landing in the UK, etc.) we have been involved in recently is mostly because our politicians seem to think that they have to have their noses firmly planted in Washington’s arse.
BTW, your legal system might have a bit more credibility if Bush, Cheney, etc. were tried for what the prosecutors at Nuremberg described as the most serious offence, war of aggression. If the current Conservative government in the UK decided to do the same to Blair, etc., I think most British people would be quite happy.
This is brilliant. Clearly NO actions by the US criminal justice system can be valid until Bush and Cheney are tried for war crimes.
Oddly enough, the British legal system is responsible, in a way, for Polanski’s latest run-in with the law.
Polanski’s legal team achieved the amazing result of allowing Polanski to sue a US publication (Vanity Fair) in a British court (taking advantage of the UK’s plaintiff-friendly libel doctrines) while testifying by video from France (and thereby running no risk whatever of extradition from the UK).
After this, they apparently told him they could get his US legal problems fixed. In the process of attempting this, they presented arguments that the California authorities weren’t really trying to catch Polanski.
Prosecutors tend to take a dim view of fugitives arguing that the length of time they’ve managed to stay on the lam is a reason the charges against them should be dropped, and the rest is (now) history.
Indeed. Expecting a rich White d00d who got off with a light sentence for drugging and raping a 13-year-old girl is just like the Holocaust.
Next. . .
Laws and consequences are for the little people. Yet one more example of modern aristocratic privilege in action. It really is time to bring out the guillotines.
Somewhat in the same vein, how do you feel about a foreign nation refusing to hand over a murderer unless we take the death penalty off the table?
American justice foiled again! I won’t be able to sleep tonight. It’s almost as if the Swiss have an entirely different view of our legal and political system that’s inexplicable. Now back to the prosecution of military whistleblowers.
What is this view — that rich people don’t get enough of a break from the American legal system? That it’s unfair to punish child rapists who become fugitives from justice? No matter what, but I’d have to say this view could, er, stand some revision. But I’m sure freeing Roman Polanski will lead immediately to the arrest of John Yoo!
There are better things that the federal government could be spending its energy and resources on. Prosecuting a thirty-year-old flight from justice charge seems a bit farcical in our current legal, or I should say, illegal environment. If Polanski’s escapades are what raises your indignation level, I congratulate you on the breadth and depth of your idealism. And yes, I would like to see Yoo and some of the other torture apologists in the docket along with a few of the Wall Street con artists. The government makes choices when it demands others abide by the rule of law, and those choices are always political. The mileage on this car doesn’t particularly excite me.
If the charge is that I don’t think that raping a 13-year old and then fleeing the jurisdiction rather than facing an extremely lenient sentence is a trivial offense, I happily plead guilty. I remain interested in why you think letting Polanski go free is going to bring torturers to justice; must be some 13th-dimensional chess there.
As I’ve argued in the past, the self-righteousness of the Polanski posse seems to me a bit of compensation for the fact that their idealism in legal matters meets with such little satisfaction in substantial issues. I wish there was a correlation between punishing/not punishing Polanski for his flight from justice and arresting our contemporary political and financial criminals but there isn’t – which just means, or would have meant, greater moral pleasure for you if not for the Swiss. Damn those Swiss! Even their cheese has holes in it! Now back to my chess game.
Child rape isn’t a substantial issue?
A thirty-year-old crime in which the victim herself has moved on and even expressed forgiveness toward the creepy culprit? Very important. The state must prosecute now, even though it neglected innumerable instances earlier to rectify the situation. Definitely not political. Definitely on the same level as our current institutionalized torture regime or the fraudulent practices of the banksters. Justice must be served.
Among the other things that makes this comment spectacularly stupid is that the Polanski prosecution has nothing to do with the federal government.
***PLEASE NOTE: I AM NOT DEFENDING POLANSKI WITH THIS COMMENT!***
I don’t think the Swiss explanation is quite so illogical. Mistaken perhaps, but not illogical.
The US criminal justice system has quite the reputation for being relatively barbaric and needlessly punitive, especially when it comes to sentencing, a reputation that it seems to me few at LGM would dispute in general terms. And it seems to me that the Swiss actions here would seem much more positive – praiseworthy even – if the fugitive in question were a more sympathetic figure. For example, if Charles Dean Hood were to somehow find his way to Switzerland, and the Swiss refused to extradite him based on this kind of logic, it would be hard for me to condemn them.
Now, I would say that the Swiss are mistaken in their concern for Polanski. But I don’t think their concern is all that illogical. To me, these are the kinds of basic questions (i.e., is this guy being treated fairly by the relevant authorities?) that should be asked before extradition. And I don’t think “but we have laws here in the US!!!!!” is much of an argument at all for extradition. Generally speaking, I mean.
Well, the excessive harshness of the American justice system would be relevant…if Polanski were being treated unduly harshly. Since he was if anything treated with undue lenience, I don’t really see how it’s relevant.
I don’t really disagree with you on the merits of Polanski’s specific case. As I was trying to make clear, I was defending the Swiss authorities and not Polanski.
My point is that “unduly harshly” and “undue lenience” are somewhat in the eye of the beholder here. Switzerland doesn’t have any obligation to extradite anyone they don’t want to – the actual irrelevance when it comes to their decision are the laws here in the US.
Like I said, I think they’re wrong about Polanski but that doesn’t mean that their explanation is “grossly illogical.” Your disagreement with them is over a value judgment, not the logic that they used.
Put another way, I don’t think either of us think that countries ought to be extraditing anyone we want them to just because we say so, because after all, we have laws here. You seem to have conceded that with your reply (i.e., “if Polanski were being treated unduly harshly…”), and that’s all I was really saying.
Switzerland doesn’t have any obligation to extradite anyone they don’t want to
Um, what? You mean there wasn’t a 1995 extradition treaty between Switzerland and the US that spells out exactly when Switzerland is required or not required to extradaite?
Yes, obviously I got ahead of myself there and carelessly worded that statement. Apologies to all.
What I should have written was “Switzerland has evrey right to scrutize the case” or something to that effect.
What’s illogical is that in their official explanation is based on a legal formalism; that they would have been happy to extradite but needed more supporting evidence, which given that said supporting evidence has nothing to do with whether the warrant was valid is illogical. What you’re arguing is that for the Swiss no evidence would be good enough because since some people are treated too harshly by the American justice system even powerful people who are treated too leniently shouldn’t be brought to justice. I don’t think this supports the logic of their official explanation, and it’s also an extremely weak defense of the Swiss authorities.
Yes, it’s easy to see how you got to this interpretation by reading the following:
“I don’t think the Swiss explanation is quite so illogical. Mistaken perhaps….”
“I would say that the Swiss are mistaken in their concern for Polanski.”
“I don’t really disagree with you on the merits of Polanski’s specific case.”
“Like I said, I think they [the Swiss]’re wrong about Polanski….”
Obviously, I think that no evidence would be good enough for the Swiss! (what would that even mean?)
I know I’m not the most awesomest communicator out there, but my point was really much more banal than what you’re attributing to me. All I was arguing was that:
a) Switzerland’s “logic” would make perfect sense if the fugitive in question was a more sympathetic (which is not the same as “less hideous”) figure, which you seemed to concede to some degree in your initial reply;
b) and that accordingly, your quibble with the Swiss is not that they used some faulty logic in making their decision, but rather with the judgment call that they made
(which, again, I agree is mistaken!).
Well, it’s because you said this:
My point is that “unduly harshly” and “undue lenience” are somewhat in the eye of the beholder here.
I wasn’t saying that nothing could convince you or that you thought the Swiss was right; I was assessing your assumption about the Swiss position. This implied, to me, that the Swiss statement was pretext and in fact they just didn’t think that Polanski should be extradited on the merits. If that’s not what you meant I’m sorry, but I still don’t think it’s a very convincing defense of the logic of the Swiss actions, even on their own terms.
i have been intrigued, since the whole extradition issue surfaced, at how many people defend mr. polanski’s actions, in leaving the US before his actual sentencing.
with respect to the issues, mr. polanski, through his attorneys, has made multiple claims of ethical breaches, on the parts of the prosecutor and the judge in his case. these issues can hardly be investigated fully, while he continues to stay in switzerland.
as regards his guilt/innocence, he is guilty, though he got a deal and a half. that is not at all an issue for discussion.
I made my case against the Swiss shipping Polanski in chains off to the US in the thread at the time of the arrest, so I won’t remake my case now. And I fully understand that you disagree with my case.
But hallelujah! It’s good to see that Europe is still a spot on the planet where sanity reigns in legal matters. Today is a good day in the annals of justice.
(And shame on you for not preserving old comments somehow. I understand you may not have had the tech expertise or money to transition them over, but one of the very first traditions of the internet is to always maintain archives. A network’s value is lost when memory is lost.)
Given that IIRC your argument — which I think was preserved at TAPPED — is that good artists should be exempt from legal sanction, you should treat the loss of archives as a mercy…
“Given that IIRC your argument — which I think was preserved at TAPPED — is that good artists should be exempt from legal sanction, you should treat the loss of archives as a mercy…”
Well, I’d say my case was a bit less single-faceted…
The thread is indeed still there at TAPPED. And there I wrote:
But there was a parallel thread here with much better comments.
Here, I talked also about the victim’s wishes and whether or not Polanski had already been sufficiently punished by the laws and mores of the time when the crime took place.
Is “I had a great argument, but you lost the blog comment archive” the modern equivalent of “This margin is too narrow to contain it”?
“Is “I had a great argument, but you lost the blog comment archive” the modern equivalent of “This margin is too narrow to contain it”
No. “Maintain your archives, goddammit” is a rule of best practices that has been in constant effect for millennia.
No modernization of the rule is necessary. It is an eternal rule.
Funnily enough, when unsuccessfully googling about to find the lost comments to the Polanski thread, I discovered a post I’d never before seen, where Scott was taking my side on the point that the WH had agency over the contents of the healthcare bill.
Well, since I’m not permitted to make the point on the CAP blog, in the the interests of The Eternal Archives™, I will make the point here instead:
Today, we find essential confirmation of the central point I was making over on the CAP blog from September to December of 2009, namely that the WH wanted everything done in the Senate through a 60 vote process, while Senate Leadership wanted the crucial bits done through a 50 vote process. Matt ‘n’ Ezra blogged their li’l hearts out insisting that wasn’t the case.
But Harry Reid now sez:
God, I love honesty.
I’ve never agreed with Andrew Bartbeit on anything in the past, and fully expect I never will agree with him on anything in the future, but I quite sincerely hope his sleazy little fishing expedition on Journolist catches a bite.
Sure. It’s very important that the private conversations of people Petey doesn’t like be exposed to the scrutiny of people sure to twist out of context any little thing they can find.
“Sure. It’s very important that the private conversations of people Petey doesn’t like be exposed to the scrutiny of people sure to twist out of context any little thing they can find.”
It is my position that Matt ‘n’ Ezra were the “journalistic” purveyors of lies to ’09 – ’10 in much the same way that Judy Miller and Jeffrey Goldberg were the “journalistic” purveyors of lies in ’02 – ’03.
If Judy Miller and Jeffrey Goldberg had been on a listserve in ’02 – ’03, you wouldn’t want someone on that listserve to pull a Daniel Ellsberg?
Interesting, by this metric Elie Wiesel has a few Child Rapes for free he still hasn’t used right. Have you worked a specific formula- and if so how many more cases of abuse does the Catholic Church get- I mean they backed in large part the Renissance surely that means the systematic rape of children is but an afterthought.
I’ve been encountering Petey’s comments for several years now, since before Yglesias was at the Atlantic if I remember correctly, and it’s one of the persistent wonders of the internet that he hasn’t abandoned his handle and its record of accumulated loathing; Petey’s wanting to make sure everyone knows that he argued that Polanski should get away with raping a little girl and fleeing incarceration because he’s produced great art and a quarter-century later his victim prefers not to be burdened with the event is an odd decision, but it’s one that’s par for the course.
Mind you, as someone who believes in principled pseudonymity I salute Petey’s decision to stick with his much-debased handle, as it’s about the only one of Petey’s decisions I’ve seen in recent years that I can endorse – but his positive eagerness to wallow in his past autodefenestrations still puzzles me.
“I’ve been encountering Petey’s comments for several years now, since before Yglesias was at the Atlantic if I remember correctly”
You remember well. Petey was born in the dark days of early 2003.
“it’s one of the persistent wonders of the internet that he hasn’t abandoned his handle and its record of accumulated loathing”
Along with the fear and loathing, I’ve been correct 85% of the time, which is better than the above-average bear. Given Eternal Archives™, the handle is a feature, not a bug.
But the handle essentially is eliminated, though not by my choice. I’m not permitted to post at most of the mainstream left blogs, and haven’t been permitted to do so since late ’09 when I kept telling the truth about the state of play on the Hill on the healthcare bill.
“Petey’s wanting to make sure everyone knows that he argued that Polanski should get away with raping a little girl and fleeing incarceration because he’s produced great art and a quarter-century later his victim prefers not to be burdened with the event is an odd decision, but it’s one that’s par for the course.”
Of course, my case against Polanski being hauled back to the US in chains is a considerably more nuanced than that. But that nuance has to stand up against chants of “child-rapist! child-rapist! child-rapist!” And the only way to stand up to that chant in fora like this is to make the correct nuanced case slowly, repeatedly, and taking care to respond to the more coherent folks expressing their outrage. I did that in the thread that went down the memory hole, and don’t have the interest in taking the time to do so again. So thus, by default, I concede your point, “child-rapist! child-rapist! child-rapist!”
It’s good to see that Europe is still a spot on the planet where sanity reigns in legal matters.
I couldn’t agree more. And to properly celebrate this victory we must immediately establish a Polanski fund, a fund designed to render financial, legal, and PR assistance to convicted US child rapists who wish to flee to Europe before sentencing.
At least the US will have one less child molester to worry about.
And a lesson for the kids: if you have rich friends that really love you, you can go ahead and have one free rape of a young teenage girl. Remember, choose wisely, even rich friends may eventually turn away from you if you make it a habit.
Just kidding! Rape as many as you want.
That was beautiful!
I am scoring this
Extraditers 17 vs. Non-Extraditers 14
in the Manicheistic Strawman game
This was (also) a political case: something that could allow someone to score political points or reinforce some pecking order. Would the justice system have bothered about this old case if there wasn’t some political value in it?
From the Swiss point of view this was most unwelcome. Probably they felt that someone was using them. Someone would score points and they would get nothing: there was not much to gain in shipping poor Roman to the USA, just an “attaboy!” from the Justice Department. They would get to pay the price of, at the very least, waging an internal war about the issue and straining their relations with France and Poland and staying under pressure until the whole affair is finished. But things could get much worse for them. What if Polanski got an unusually harsh sentence or got raped in prison? The political pressures would be huge (heads would roll).
So they made the logical choice. They went through the motions and let him go. To do otherwise would require an extraordinary amount of faith in the American justice system. They will get some heat from some press, from some blogs, but it will go away soon. It’s over.
Disclaimer: I like cinema.
Is the point here is to argue that extradition treaties should be enforced–or not enforced–purely on political grounds? Because if that’s the argument, it seems to this non-lawyer that exactly the same line of reasoning applies to all international agreements…and one then wonders WTF international agreements are even FOR.
So the nation that has, for the past century or so, acted as the world’s repository of embezzled funds, gold from the teeth of concentration-camp guests, and other ill-gotten gains, shielding them from the scrutiny of other countries on behalf of wealthy individuals and organizations, has now refused to extradite a wealthy individual.
Quelle surprise.
“So the nation that has, for the past century or so, acted as the world’s repository of embezzled funds, gold from the teeth of concentration-camp guests, and other ill-gotten gains, shielding them from the scrutiny of other countries on behalf of wealthy individuals and organizations, has now refused to extradite a wealthy individual.”
The funny thing is that Switzerland only took the craven step of putting Polanski under house arrest in the first place in order to curry favor with the US during the crucial stages of drafting the Basel III bank regulations.
Now that they’ve gotten what they want in terms of real business, they feel at their liberty to do the just thing and set Polanski free.
I’m very happy about the release, but the Swiss are no heroes here.
One nice thing about the Swiss house arrest, craven though it may have been, is that it prompted me to watch The Pianist again for the first time since it was in the cinemas. And it’s even better on the second and third viewings.
Kubrick had a famous saying that it was impossible to make a good and true Holocaust movie since to make it true, you had to show everyone slowly and helplessly dying, and there is no way to make that narrative into a good movie.
Polanski proved Kubrick wrong, and Kubrick is never wrong.
Yes, it’s a great movie. So what? The extradition request wasn’t for artistic crimes.
Yeah, if his career had ended with Pirates, would the warrant then be enforceable?
You know, “Pirates” isn’t actually as bad as its reputations suggests. It’s not exactly good, n fact it is MOSTLY bad, but it’s not ENTIRELY appalling. Look, I say so here:
http://mubi.com/notebook/posts/1312
…so it must be true!
“What?,” on the other hand, is truly abominable.
http://mubi.com/notebook/posts/1242?from_theauteurs=1
And if Polanski’s career had ended there, well…he wouldn’t have made “Chinatown,” among other things.
It may be over now. As a commenter on another site noted, he’s not likely to visit the UK any time soon, and that’s where he shot his last two pictures. And while Andrew Klavan is convinced that the evil entity he calls “Hollywood” is trying to “sanctify” Polanski, given the speed with which the industry works and the artiste’s own pickiness, it’s not entirely unlikely that he’ll never work again.
“Yeah, if his career had ended with Pirates, would the warrant then be enforceable?”
No one had any interest in enforcing the warrant after Pirates.
It was only the Academy’s audacity in giving Polanski an Oscar® for The Pianist, which directly led to the documentary about the miscarriage of justice in the Los Angeles court proceedings, which directly led to the LA district attorney being deeply embarrassed, which directly led to the Interpol warrant being issued in the first place.
So if his career had ended with Pirates, there would have been no Interpol warrant in the first place to be enforceable or not.
If his career had ended with Pirates, none of the events of the past year would have happened. The issue was moot after Pirates, as it happily is now again.
It was only the making and Academy lauding of The PIanist which brought about the farce that has just now ended.
French lawyer here.
I hope you don’t mind if I question your basic assumption that US law should trump French law in this matter.
What we have here is a crime committed on US soil by a French citizen. Both countries have jurisdiction. France has routinely prosecuted its citizens from crimes committed abroad.
Mr. Polanski was within its rights to leave the US jurisdiction if he felt his rights were being violated (ie: the judge’s alleged intention to not abide by the terms of the plea bargain and impose a different sentence) and return to his own country.
Had the case be deemed important, morally or legally, either the victim or the LA DA could have filed a criminal complaint in France. (Now the Statute of Limitations has run out.) It would have been very easy, basically filing a certified translation of the original charges.
I’ll skip over the procedural bits, but had the prosecution been able to prove that Mr. Polanski had sex with a 13-year-old (which shouldn’t have been too difficult to do), according to the French Penal Code, he would have faced a minimum sentence of 5 years in jail.
It is hard to understand why this routine procedure was not followed.
“Mr. Polanski was within its [sic] rights to leave the US jurisdiction if he felt his rights were being violated (ie: the judge’s alleged intention to not abide by the terms of the plea bargain and impose a different sentence) and return to his own country.”
How many times is it necessary to point out that in the US, a plea bargain is between the prosecutor and the defendant, not between the court and the defendant? And that the judge is not compelled to turn off his brain and rubber-stamp the plea bargain?
Anyway, I think it’s a brilliant rhetorical strategy for Lupin to declare here that Polanski has a right to flee the jurisdiction “if he felt his rights were being violated”. Shall we conclude by analogy that Radovan Karadzic has the right to flee The Hague because he refuses to recognize the international tribunal that’s judging him? How about any petty French criminal (Lupin being French, after all) who decides the judge is biased? Lupin is cool with having the guy flee?
Gotta love it: Lupin’s idea of justice is that the defendant has an absolute right to reject the authority of the court. Quelle idee!
Whether or not all participants of your family see one on a daily basis, relationship is important. This is in essence the best way to enhance the hyperlink one of many family members as well as make your connection together tougher. It is definitely excellent to do something outdoors but if the weather is certainly not excellent or maybe it is pouring birds outside, you can look at a variety of in house game titles and routines that will genuinely make anyone feel happy. This is an excellent alternate you can think about. Below are the online games or the things to do you can apply in the house.Hide and seek is probably the hottest games actually performed and also this really can be performed in your own home. Another person should be an InitHalf inch who definitely are sensible of trying to find other members of the family who are hiding. The first that might be discovered devoid of reachingOrreaching your house base should become the future Half inchit.In . But when you are believe that this is not an amazing selection, you possibly can consider charade which can be an additional in house activity. With this activity, if possible, the converter should have two groups. You will see part that may make a scene the phrase that is certainly written on a piece of paper as you move the individuals are working-charge of questioning the saying. The team with the most factors are able to be proclaimed because victor.As well as hide and go seek and charade, a lot of avenues of cards and games can also be one of many best possibilities you could check into. Cards involve Menagerie, Outdated House maid, Moving, Natural stone, Slapjack and many more. For board games, you may go for Scrabble, Chess, Monopoly, Family Feud and Checkers. When you have a lot of options to see, you simply need to choose one which you think is basically enjoyable.On the other hand, if you feel that playing the games which are already mentioned is definately not up to scratch, you are able to select other suggestions which the majority of the members of the family have pursuits in. As an illustration, if you like in order to smokeOrprepare as a way your children, then you can makes action in order to connection with your family. It is possible to designate every single fellow member to try and do a certain perhaps the the baking/cooking method to ensure that all people will relish. Be certain that anyone extends to attend these kinds of action. And when food is grilled or cake is prepared, you may try to eat it collectively with the members of the family. Anyone will certainly be happy to nibble on the fresh fruit of their total labor. Aside from bakingPerthis baking, additionally you can take into account some other activities like portray, dancing, vocal skills, looking at, viewing films and plenty of far more.These are incredibly approaches to rapport with the family but these are very efficient. There is no need in your case shell out lots of money as these basic issues can surely carry enjoyment to every person specifically if the family members are comprehensive. It’s actually not actually necessary that these products should be carried out daily. Once a week or maybe a few times a month can do.
Even if all members of your family see one another everyday, developing is required. It is in essence the obvious way to improve the bond one of several family and also you could make your relationship together more robust. Really it is wonderful to do something out-of-doors but when the conditions isn’t that beneficial or if it is pouring down rain out of doors, you can think about different kinds of indoors video games and actions that could definitely make everyone feel happy. This is an excellent substitute that you may factor in. Listed here are some of the games or pursuits which can be done indoors.Hide and seek is probably the hottest games possibly played and also this can actually be practiced indoors. Somebody really needs to be an Half inchitInch that happen to be sensible of seeking other loved ones that are covering. The first that is to be found without holdingPerhitting the house base should function as the next In .it.In But should you be feel that this isn’t a great alternative, you’ll be able to look into charade that is a further household video game. With this activity, essentially, the converter should have two competitors. It will have a user that may make a scene the word that is published on a piece of paper as you move the fellow members are working-management of betting the phrase. The c’s most abundant in details will be reported because success.As well as hide and seek and charade, a large variety of unit card and games are usually on the list of suitable possibilities that one could investigate. Games include Menagerie, Aged Cleaning service, Coming, Diamond, Slapjack and more. For board games, you are able to opt for Scrabble, Chess, Monopoly, Relatives Feud and Pieces. Because you have a lot of options to look at, simply opt for one that you imagine is actually entertaining.In contrast, if you think that enjoying the game titles which are mentioned previously aren’t going to be sufficient, you can go for other activities which the majority of the family have interests in. For example, if you like cookingAndcook in order young kids, you’ll be able to get this hobby in an effort to bond with your loved ones. It is possible to assign just about every fellow member to complete a certain part of the preparing your receipeeOrfood preparation practice making sure that everybody will relish. Be certain that absolutely everyone grows to participate in these exercise. As soon as the food is cooked properly or perhaps the pastry is cooked, you’ll be able to take in it in concert together with the family. Everyone will certainly be pleased to consume the fruit of these crews. Aside from cooking foodOrpreparing your receipee, also you can take into consideration several other pursuits like painting, dance, vocal, reading, watching motion pictures and many much more.These are merely quite methods to attachment with the family these are very powerful. It is not necessary for you devote lots of money simply because simple issues can certainly bring happiness to every person specifically if the family members are finish. It’s not genuinely needed that these materials carried out every day. Once every seven days or even a few times monthly is going to do.