Mikey wrote:And to GK in particular and others who have show a like mind: I must have something wrong with my PC or inter-web connection, because it seems like you guys believe the letter of the law is more important than justice (you may continue calling it "revenge" if you like to keep portraying pro-extradition folks with the paintbrush of intimation) for a man who raped a little girl.
Actually, that's not what I said.
What I actually said was that if you are interested purely in the letter of the law, then you must be of the opinion that Polanski should not be extradited to the US, as the US has quite clearly failed to meet the extradition criteria.
IF, however, your interest in in justice, then stop telling me that things such as the victim's opinion or the plea bargain dangled in front of Polanski are "immaterial". If we are talking about justice here, then EVERYTHING becomes material. If we are talking about justice, then I ask what good it does to drag this whole thing up when even the
victim says she wants it left in the past and forgotten? If we are talking about justice then I ask why a crime that the
prosecutors thought was worth a plea bargain and a 41 day sentence is now, apparently, so much more serious that we should disregard the letter of the law?
Let me restate something that a lot of people seem to have overlooked: Roman Polanski raped a little girl and then subsequently went fugitive from the law.
You claim he raped her; I don't know. He certainly never got tried and convicted to it in any court of law. And he went fugitive from the law because the law, at least in his view, cheated and lied to him.
So yes - the French have the excuse of their non-extradition law. The Swiss have the excuse of faulty paperwork.
Tell you what; I won't say "revenge" and more, and you don't say "excuse" any more.
Here's my questions: why would either of those nations look for excuses or loopholes to protect and harbor the monster who did such a thing; and how could any human think that the letter of the law regarding extradition-request paperwork deserves more consideration than bringing a man to face the law who has done such a thing?
Dude, implementing the exact letter of the law is what courts DO. It's their entire job description, and the only reason they even exist.
I'm reminded of a famous example where a man was faced with a verdict he didn't like in a British court. As the judge rose the man yelled "But your honour, I thought this was a court of justice!" The judge shot a withering look at him and said "Then you were very much mistaken, sir. This is a court of LAW."
Courts in every civilized country in the world, including the US, put the letter of the law above notions of justice day in, day out, as a matter of absolute routine. Jesus, I remember the time not so long ago when the US was routinely finding so called "excuses" not to extradite terrorist suspects to the UK, back when the US supported terrorism against my country. Remember that?
Give a man a fire, and you keep him warm for a day. SET a man on fire, and you will keep him warm for the rest of his life...
