Switzerland Will Not Extradite Polanski

[Captain Seafort]

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.

We have a case where the US is trying to extradite a man who hasn't been found guilty of rape (as I've said repeatedly, what he actually did is another matter entirely, and not relevant to the legal proceedings we're discussing). All charges except the underage sex one were dropped by the prosecution as part of the plea deal, which left the judge with only a relatively minor offence to sentence him for (and the agreement said he'd be sentenced to time served). Polanski believed (probably correctly) that the judge was unhappy with the deal the prosecution struck and intended to throw the book at him, so he did a runner. This doesn't change the fact that he'd already plead guilty to the underage sex charge and the others had been dropped.

Yet everyone from england here is saying "no he's okay in our book" (shorthand).

That's more strawman than shorthand. We're arguing that all that's relevant in the Swiss decision is the offence he's guilty of - our opponents are basing their arguments on the various other charges that he probably should have been tried for, and found guilty, but wasn't.

[Deepcrush]

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.

A, you need to put up your old avatar. The guy who looked like he needed fiber. It would go so much better for this thread.
B, yes idiots are annoying
C, pretty sure I did forget our last "set-to?" but thats mostly because I don't take you very seriously unless we're talking about navies or the chakat.

[Captain Seafort]

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

You're doing an exceptionally poor job of demonstrating that.

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.

I'm not about to stick a clause on the end of every bloody post stating that I'm using "guilty" in the legal sense when we're talking about a legal case. That should be taken for granted.

By the social sense, he's guilty

So what? We're talking about a legal case.

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.

Wrong - all the other charges were dropped 30-odd years ago.

[Deepcrush]

That's more strawman than shorthand. We're arguing that all that's relevant in the Swiss decision is the offence he's guilty of - our opponents are basing their arguments on the various other charges that he probably should have been tried for, and found guilty, but wasn't.

I meant it as shorthand because I wasn't going to restart four pages of arguing for people. Plus I really didn't want to have to reread four pages of people arguing...

It was meant more just for a fresh start.

We have a case where the US is trying to extradite a man who hasn't been found guilty of rape (as I've said repeatedly, what he actually did is another matter entirely, and not relevant to the legal proceedings we're discussing). All charges except the underage sex one were dropped by the prosecution as part of the plea deal, which left the judge with only a relatively minor offence to sentence him for (and the agreement said he'd be sentenced to time served). Polanski believed (probably correctly) that the judge was unhappy with the deal the prosecution struck and intended to throw the book at him, so he did a runner. This doesn't change the fact that he'd already plead guilty to the underage sex charge and the others had been dropped.

Okay first that wasn't the question I asked. Second in the US if a Judge feels the deal made between parties is unequal to the crime committed then he/she is allow to cancel the deal. Third in the US if you run before sentence then thats a violation of parole and there for his deal is void.

[stitch626]

Wrong - all the other charges were dropped 30-odd years ago.

It doesn't matter if they were dropped.

Your words were:

if he wasn't convicted then he's not guilty.

Using the legal sense, he is not not guilty.
The only way to be not guilty in the eyes of the law is to be acquired.
The only way to be found guilty in the eyes of the law is to be convicted.

If charges are dropped, then legally he's nowhere.

Also, the charges technically were not dropped, as the judge did not accept the plea.

[Mikey]

Sorry, Captain, but you're full of it - and I don't just mean piss and vinegar. You CAN'T ask everyone else to meet your standard and then wilfully ignore that standard yourself. You want to say that in this discussion "guilt" doesn't mean the definition of the word "guilt," but only means legally convicted, fine - but you cannot then go on to say that what is legally defined as rape isn't rape because you don't think it should be.

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.

"Your book" doesn't amount to a rat's ass for the purposes of this discussion. In "my book," Polanski is guilty of raping a little girl - but you say that my opinion of him is irrelevant, and only the court's judgement of him is what matters. Very well - your opinion of rape is likewise irrelevant, and what the law says is rape... is rape.

[Captain Seafort]

Okay first that wasn't the question I asked.

I decided to cut straight to the misunderstanding of the points raised that led to your opinion.

Second in the US if a Judge feels the deal made between parties is unequal to the crime committed then he/she is allow to cancel the deal.

How on earth does that work? The US legal system is based on common law, which means that the judge is separate from the prosecution. If the prosecution decides to drop charges there's sod-all the judge can do about it.

Third in the US if you run before sentence then thats a violation of parole and there for his deal is void.

Wouldn't change the fact that the charges had already been dropped.

Sorry, Captain, but you're full of it - and I don't just mean piss and vinegar.

Thank you, but I already knew I was full of wit and intellect. 8)

you cannot then go on to say that what is legally defined as rape isn't rape because you don't think it should be.

Indeed, hence why I used the legal definition.

[stitch626]

How on earth does that work? The US legal system is based on common law, which means that the judge is separate from the prosecution. If the prosecution decides to drop charges there's sod-all the judge can do about it.

Because it wasn't dropped charges. The prosecution made a deal in which they would drop the charges if Polanski plead guilty to the miner charge. That is a plea agreement, which the judge has final say over.

If the prosecution had dropped the charges, there would be no issue, cause there would have been no deal to break.

[Deepcrush]

I decided to cut straight to the misunderstanding of the points raised that led to your opinion.

But it didn't answer the question, just sounded like a PR spin.

How on earth does that work? The US legal system is based on common law, which means that the judge is separate from the prosecution. If the prosecution decides to drop charges there's sod-all the judge can do about it.

Wouldn't change the fact that the charges had already been dropped.

(I put the above together since I felt they should be answered at once rather then apart.

The door swings both ways. While the Judge can say the Prosecution isn't pushing hard enough for their jobs. The Judge can also say when they've crossed a line and are being unfair to the Defendant. Its meant as a balancing act and for the most part Judges tend to just leave it alone. This is just one of those deals where a Judge made the choice to enforce it. Plus while the Prosecution can drop its charges in court, its not official until sentence is passed by the Judge. Since the Judge didn't sign off before Roman took a run, his deal is void. He could have avoided all of it by appeal which is the whole point of the system.

[Captain Seafort]

If the prosecution had dropped the charges, there would be no issue, cause there would have been no deal to break.

That was the deal - the prosecution dropped most of the charges, in return for which Polanski plead guilty to the remaining one. Please explain how the judge is in any way relevant to this process. The only part of this that the judge has any involvement in was the sentencing, and he intended to throw the book at Polanski.

[Deepcrush]

I answered that above, stitch just posted a second before me.

[stitch626]

If the prosecution had dropped the charges, there would be no issue, cause there would have been no deal to break.

That was the deal - the prosecution dropped most of the charges, in return for which Polanski plead guilty to the remaining one. Please explain how the judge is in any way relevant to this process. The only part of this that the judge has any involvement in was the sentencing, and he intended to throw the book at Polanski.

It doesn't work that way. The judge must accept the plea agreement (US law). The agreement was for the charges to be dropped in exchange for the guilty plea of the lesser charge. The judge did not accept the agreement. Therefore the charges were never dropped.

[Graham Kennedy]

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.

You're not only wrong, I don't think that you could be more wrong if you tried.

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).

I'd say your shorthand needs considerable work.

What we actually have here is a case where a man was ACCUSED of violating a child against her will and the prosecution declared that "actually, we're not sure we can prove that, so cop to this lesser charge for a small sentence" and the guy said "okay" and then after the fact the judge said "nope, not gonna do that."

I don't see how any part of that can possibly translate into "there's no such thing as rape and Polanski is okay in my book" unless you're just lying about the first part of your post and looking to be insulting to provoke some sort of reaction.

Does England even have rape laws?

Yes we do. They're much the same as US law; rape, sexual assault, age of consent, all that.

Because if you guys don't then that would explain a lot of your confusion on the matter.

I don't have any confusion on the matter. I'm very, very clear in my view of it. I'm just not the kind of person who closes the thinking part of my brain off and becomes hysterical when the words "child rapist" are used.

[Mikey]

Yes we do. They're much the same as US law; rape, sexual assault, age of consent, all that.

Not to hear Seafort tell it - he still claims that statutory rape isn't rape, even according to the laws of the U.S. (about which he is obviously more erudite than any of the Americans on here.)

That last bit was facetious, in case it didn't translate in print.

I'm just not the kind of person who closes the thinking part of my brain off and becomes hysterical when the words "child rapist" are used.

More's the pity. I'm proud to be the type of man who goes completely apeshit N-V-T-S when it comes to things like raping a child.

Obviously, I can't continue to discuss this matter, because there are those on here who feel compelled to limit the paradigm of discussion to only those aspects which they wish to discuss, and claim that any points to which they cannot respond are "out of bounds." While in actuality, the paradigm of a discussion is organically determined by the participants - note the plural - I have nothing to say if any points to which another debater chooses to ignore are deemed outside the scope of the discussion. However, let me sum up plainly:

I have absolutely no contention that the French and Swiss didn't follow the letter of the law. They did. I have no contention that a plea bargain was offered in the Polanski case. It was (although it was never accepted, Captain, so whatever deal was proffered by the prosecution is moot, and has no bearing on the case whatsoever.) However, here's the heart of this discussion, at least in the paradigm which I am using - Roman Polanski did an evil, awful thing. I don't care if he was convicted of it; I don't care if the victim forgives him or has erected a defense mechanism; he is the worst type of rabid animal, no matter that he can direct films well. Are the French and Swiss within their legal rights to deny extradition? Of course, and I have never argued that point. My contention is that the right thing to do is not necessarily in accordance with the letter of the law - which Graham so helpfully pointed out in his illustration of the disparateness between justice and law. The right thing to do would be for the Swiss (actually, for the French before them) to say, "This is a man who did something indescribably terrible; while we don't have to extradite him, we should." Further, the right thing to do would to prosecute him to the fullest, and not offer him any further plea bargains.

[Deepcrush]

You're not only wrong, I don't think that you could be more wrong if you tried.

Maybe, but from what I've read it doesn't look that way to me.

I'd say your shorthand needs considerable work.

What we actually have here is a case where a man was ACCUSED of violating a child against her will and the prosecution declared that "actually, we're not sure we can prove that, so cop to this lesser charge for a small sentence" and the guy said "okay" and then after the fact the judge said "nope, not gonna do that."

Don't think anyone here is saying it didn't start out that way.

I don't see how any part of that can possibly translate into "there's no such thing as rape and Polanski is okay in my book" unless you're just lying about the first part of your post and looking to be insulting to provoke some sort of reaction.

Easy to do and no its not and insult, I even went the length to say that when I posted. So far, every Brit on here has done everything possible to cover for him. To the point where seafort even claimed that laws are void when they don't fit his opinion. While this isn't out of the norm for him and on its own isn't a fair judgement. It did however seem strange to me how the population of the board was so cleanly split. England on one side, everyone else on the other. Of course with the constant protection that Roman is getting throughout Europe. To me its looking more like a European problem versus just a British problem.

Yes we do. They're much the same as US law; rape, sexual assault, age of consent, all that.

As Mikey said, its hard to believe as such by the way you guys talk.

I don't have any confusion on the matter. I'm very, very clear in my view of it. I'm just not the kind of person who closes the thinking part of my brain off and becomes hysterical when the words "child rapist" are used.

I meant confusion about our laws, that part was more for Seafort when he was asking about how the Judge fit into things. Not confused as in how you feel about rape. I thinks it's pretty clear how those of you across the pond feel about rape.