Switzerland Will Not Extradite Polanski

[stitch626]

Quit trying to shift the blame for your own incompetence onto the Swiss and French

Just the French right?

[Deepcrush]

You did f**k all. Quit trying to shift the blame for your own incompetence onto the Swiss and French

Yes, its my personal fault that the Swiss and French like to roll with criminals...

I know that balanced extradition treaties and the rule of law are things the US doesn't understand, but I'd appreciate it if you at least made an effort.

Somehow this kind of an insult coming from a guy who doesn't know what rape is just doesn't hurt my feelings.

[Graham Kennedy]

Okay, so in England, drugging a 13yr old, f***ing her in front of your friends and then walking out... isn't rape. So what counts as rape in your country?

Convict him of doing that in a court of law, and we can talk.

We did that, he even admitted doing that.

No you didn't. You got him to do a plea bargain for time served, which is an entirely different thing.

Though the talk with your kind isn't a concern. The brits on here all seem very happy with sucking up to the pro-rapist party.

Unmitigated bullshit of the first order. Just because the words "child rapist" don't send me into a blind unthinking rage doesn't mean I'm pro anything.

[Mikey]

This is the umpteenth time you've made the accusation that the Swiss and French are refusing to extradite Polanski solely because he's a celebrity. Please provide some evidence to back it up.

No, I've said that the French won't because the mechanism of their law prevents the matter from even being examined consciously. I did say that about the Swiss. You can ask me for all the vidence you won't, and you know full well that it doesn't exist. This isn't a matter of sceintific fact about which we're debating, and this request is pedantic while still only technically being within the bounds of fair debating. How much evidence did Dutch Schultz, Bugsy Siegel, or Gotti leave behind to connect them with most of their crimes, yet it's common knowledge that they were the guilty parties. I'd like you to look yourself in the mirror and tell yourself that you honestly believe that Polanski wouldn't have been extradited by the Swiss if he were a career window-washer. If you can, you're very good at lying to yourself.

No, it isn't. It's a crime, certainly, but one that can vary hugely from the huge difference in age and status in this example to a couple of teenagers.

Yes, it is. I don't know British law, so thankfully that doesn't enter this conversation - but it doesn't apply to crimes in America. Regardless of the fatc that he wasn't convicted of drugging the girl and raping her, we all know that he was guilty of such a thing, and for that I am justified in calling him an evil monster. As far as his conviction alone - statutory rape is rape. An adult having sex with a minor is rape, no matter how much that minor may agree to it.

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?

I would be very interested to hear how, exactly, the fact that the victim has somehow found a coping mechanism affects time in such a way to have caused the crime to have never happened.

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."

Yes, yes, I'm well aware of the difference between law and justice. Here it is: Seafort asked me (in so many words) what I wanted, and I told him. I laugh ruefully as I tell you - this is just one drop in a very large bucket of things I want but will never have.

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?

Yes I do, and it's a terrible example to bring up here because I thought those animals should have been sent home to face justice immediately, and loudly decried the U.S. government which refused to do so.

[Captain Seafort]

No, I've said that the French won't because the mechanism of their law prevents the matter from even being examined consciously.

Very well.

I did say that about the Swiss. You can ask me for all the vidence you won't, and you know full well that it doesn't exist.

Concession accepted.

I'd like you to look yourself in the mirror and tell yourself that you honestly believe that Polanski wouldn't have been extradited by the Swiss if he were a career window-washer. If you can, you're very good at lying to yourself.

Or I've more faith in the Swiss justice system than you.

Regardless of the fatc that he wasn't convicted of drugging the girl and raping her, we all know that he was guilty of such a thing

That's a contradiction in terms - if he wasn't convicted then he's not guilty.

An adult having sex with a minor is rape, no matter how much that minor may agree to it.

I disagree. Rape, in my book, applies specifically to non-consensual sex - the age of the participants is irrelevant to that definition. It's a crime, certainly, but not rape if both participants are willing, regardless of the risk of physical and mental damage to the child involved, largely because the extent of said damage is likely to be dependent on the age of the child. I'm sure you'd agree that an adult have sex with a 15-year old is a less serious offence than a 12/13 year old, and both considerably less so than paedophilia. Indeed, in the case of an adult just past 18 and a a child just short of 16, in a long-term relationship, the very existence of harm must be questioned.

[Tyyr]

Just to recap this. Polanski didn't just have sex with her. He drugged her then orally, vaginally, and anally raped a 13 year old girl as she pleaded with him to stop. Yes, he pleaded out to a lesser charge but what he was accused of was that.

[stitch626]

That's a contradiction in terms - if he wasn't convicted then he's not guilty.

That is the most moronic thing you have ever said.

So does this mean that no one is responsible for crashing the planes into the Twin Towers because no one was convicted of it?

[Captain Seafort]

*sigh*

For the purposes of extradition, as I've already stated, what he did is irrelevant - it's what 's he guilty of that matters

Convict him of doing that in a court of law, and we can talk.

You claim he raped her; I don't know. He certainly never got tried and convicted to it in any court of law.

Regardless of what he actually did, the only crime he's guilty of is sex with an underage girl, and that's what the extradition argument had been about.

Read the fucking thread before you jump in and make an idiot of yourself.

[stitch626]

Guilt is not just a legal term. It is also a social term. If the person knows what they did, they are already guilty. Guilt, in this case, refers to the crime being committed, not a conviction.

[Captain Seafort]

Guilt is not just a legal term. It is also a social term. If the person knows what they did, they are already guilty. Guilt, in this case, refers to the crime being committed, not a conviction.

Guilt is a legal term referring to a conviction in a court of law. It has been adopted in a more general sense, but when referring to legal matters it makes sense to use it to use the legal definition.

Given that this is the third time I've used the word in its legal sense, I reiterate: read the fucking thread before you make an idiot of yourself. Too late this time, but there's always the future.

[stitch626]

Fine. Legally, he still is not "not guilty" because he never was acquitted either. Guilt is still pending.

[Deepcrush]

Here's a serious question with no flaming or insults attached, I'm just wondering. I'm getting the picture that in England, you guys don't believe in rape. I say this because we have a case here where a man violated a child against her will and where a judge declared that what he was pleading to wasn't enough and threw the plea out. Yet everyone from england here is saying "no he's okay in our book" (shorthand).

Does England even have rape laws? Because if you guys don't then that would explain a lot of your confusion on the matter.

[Deepcrush]

Damn seafort, piss your pants much today??? You're mad even for you.

[Captain Seafort]

Damn seafort, piss your pants much today??? You're mad even for you.

I dislike idiots who can't be bothered to read the thread before jumping in, and if you think that's mad you've obviously forgotten our last little set-to.

[stitch626]

Damn seafort, piss your pants much today??? You're mad even for you.

I dislike idiots who can't be bothered to read the thread before jumping in, and if you think that's mad you've obviously forgotten our last little set-to.

I did read the thread. I've been reading since page one.

Each time you mentioned guilt, you mentioned a court of law as well. But then you go and say he's not guilty in general, which is wrong. By the social sense, he's guilty, and by the legal sense, his guilt is pending. In order for him to actually be not guilty (in the eyes of the law) he would have to be acquitted.