Switzerland Will Not Extradite Polanski

[Graham Kennedy]

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.

Well then you and I are proud of very different things. All my life I have valued control, logic and rationality.

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."

Yes. It was an attempt to do just that by declaring the wishes of the victims immaterial that brought me into this thread.

However, here's the heart of this discussion, at least in the paradigm which I am using - Roman Polanski did an evil, awful thing.

Well if you know that, then you know more than I do. I know what he was accused of, and I know what he confessed to as part of the plea bargain. But as to what actually did happen, I've no idea. I do know there's a reason we have trials with juries and very strict rules of evidence to determine such things, and I know that in this case the prosecution believed they likely couldn't win through that process, which is telling in itself. I also know that without it, I'm not prepared to lay claim to The Truth.

[Mikey]

Yes. It was an attempt to do just that by declaring the wishes of the victims immaterial that brought me into this thread.

Interestingly, I wasn't talking about that at all.

Well then you and I are proud of very different things. All my life I have valued control, logic and rationality.

Lofty ideals, every one of them - but all my life I have also valued visceral passion for right over wrong.

[Captain Seafort]

Lofty ideals, every one of them - but all my life I have also valued visceral passion for right over wrong.

Passion has its place. The legal process is not it - indeed, it's precisely because crimes, particularly sex crimes and those against children, tend to provoke strong reactions in people that the process must rely on procedure and a precise application of the letter of the law. No one who has any interest in living in a civilised society can allow subjective opinions to influence the outcome of that process.

[Deepcrush]

Lofty ideals, every one of them - but all my life I have also valued visceral passion for right over wrong.

Passion has its place. The legal process is not it - indeed, it's precisely because crimes, particularly sex crimes and those against children, tend to provoke strong reactions in people that the process must rely on procedure and a precise application of the letter of the law. No one who has any interest in living in a civilised society can allow subjective opinions to influence the outcome of that process.

You do everyday. Why should the rest of the world be any different?

[Captain Seafort]

You do everyday.

On the contrary - I'm not a judge or lawyer, and I've never sat on a jury.

[Deepcrush]

Your lack of legal experience aside. Your actions on a daily basis still impact how justice is handed out in your country. Here you, and most of Europe in fact, have shown a total disregard of law over the Polanski case. Europe continues to protect a criminal out of emotional attachment and then tries to justify it by ignoring the very laws they pretend to support. To that emotion has no place is law is just silly. In fact its at the very heart of the matter so to speak.

Law, Justice and Enforcement are social forms of emotional balance. Responding to the needs of the culture while maintaining order. To ignore one half of a matter while pretending to care about other gains nothing but contempt. A good point of view for the world would be the actions of the US in the 80's and 90's where our forces crossed borders on a regular basis to arrest criminals. Most of the world stood shocked from it and rightfully so if they were in fact allies in law enforcement. Be imagine a world where a criminal is safe because he walks on a different piece of dirt. That tells the world that crime is okay so long as you don't do it in your home country. Now, lets be honest and admit that the US is hotblooded.

How would Europe on a whole feel if the US just started walking into your countries to pick up criminals? Not asking, not even covering it up. Just in the open violations of your countries. Of course you'd be upset but what could you say about it? That its your right to protect criminals? That its your right to block the enforcement of law because its not your own? It merely opens a powder keg that in reality wasn't needed in the first place.

[Mikey]

Lofty ideals, every one of them - but all my life I have also valued visceral passion for right over wrong.

Passion has its place. The legal process is not it - indeed, it's precisely because crimes, particularly sex crimes and those against children, tend to provoke strong reactions in people that the process must rely on procedure and a precise application of the letter of the law. No one who has any interest in living in a civilised society can allow subjective opinions to influence the outcome of that process.

On the contrary - I'm not a judge or lawyer, and I've never sat on a jury.

Nor have I, and that's precisely the POV from which I'm writing. I don't know how to express it any more plainly - despite your attempts to relegate any points you don't like to "outside the scope of the discussion" even though they've been within the scope of my part since forever, I have never once here said that the Swiss or the French were outside either their rights or the letter of the law. I am speaking here as a man, not as a jurist or legal scholar. Yes, sex crimes and particularly those against children elicit strong visceral reactions. Rightly so. It is that visceral reaction which forms and infuses my opinions of this matter, and I'd consider myself a bad person if it didn't. If I were a jurist, then those would possibly make me a bad one. But that hypothetical situation is indeed outside the scope of the discussion.

[Captain Seafort]

Your lack of legal experience aside. Your actions on a daily basis still impact how justice is handed out in your country.

No, they don't, for the reasons I pointed out.

Here you, and most of Europe in fact, have shown a total disregard of law over the Polanski case. Europe continues to protect a criminal out of emotional attachment and then tries to justify it by ignoring the very laws they pretend to support.

The French and the Swiss enforced the rule of law, by applying it equally to all. If you don't like it, then tough.

To that emotion has no place is law is just silly. In fact its at the very heart of the matter so to speak.

It can't be. Not in civilised countries. Crime is usually an emotive issue, but that's all the more reason to ensure that such emotion does not colour the application of the law.

Law, Justice and Enforcement are social forms of emotional balance. Responding to the needs of the culture while maintaining order. To ignore one half of a matter while pretending to care about other gains nothing but contempt.

Indeed, but the time to respond to social and cultural pressures is during the development of the law, not in its enforcement.

A good point of view for the world would be the actions of the US in the 80's and 90's where our forces crossed borders on a regular basis to arrest criminals.

When you let terrorists use your country as a base, bank and armoury. When you rewarded the leaders of an organisation responsible for the murders of thousands of people with invitations to the White House.

Be imagine a world where a criminal is safe because he walks on a different piece of dirt. That tells the world that crime is okay so long as you don't do it in your home country.

I fail to see the comparison with Polanski. In his case the Swiss arrested and imprisoned him for the duration of the extradition process, and the end of which they determined that the US case against him simply didn't stack up.

In the case of the US in the 1980s and 1990s, you made no effort whatsoever to deal with the terrorists using your country as a base.

[Captain Seafort]

Nor have I, and that's precisely the POV from which I'm writing. I don't know how to express it any more plainly - despite your attempts to relegate any points you don't like to "outside the scope of the discussion" even though they've been within the scope of my part since forever, I have never once here said that the Swiss or the French were outside either their rights or the letter of the law.

You have, however, repeatedly stated that both countries were wrong to follow the letter of the law. You have gone so far as to state that they should have ignored the letter of the law in Polanski's case, due to the gravity of the act of which he was accused (and probably responsible for). That is what I object to - the concept that the law should be brushed aside merely because of the subjective opinions of individuals.

Yes, sex crimes and particularly those against children elicit strong visceral reactions. Rightly so. It is that visceral reaction which forms and infuses my opinions of this matter, and I'd consider myself a bad person if it didn't. If I were a jurist, then those would possibly make me a bad one. But that hypothetical situation is indeed outside the scope of the discussion.

On the contrary - that is the very heart of the discussion, a discussion that probably holds the record for staying within hailing distance of the original topic. This issue at hand has never been whether Roman Polanski is a nasty piece of work. The issue at hand is the actions of the Swiss in refusing to extradite him. That's what we've been arguing over. It is a matter of law and it's applicability, of whether the law should be followed to the letter in all cases, or whether it should be cast aside based on the individual to which it is being applied and the crimes of which they are accused.

[Mikey]

All of which has nothing to do with whether or not I would be a good jurist. I freely admit that I would probably not. But we're not discussing a case of letting a murderer go because some hippie-dippe convinced a judge that he had a bad home life; rather, we're discussing the "right-ness" of the Swiss being willing to allow a technicality stand in the way of Polanski's extradition. They obviously are willing to allow that technicality to trump doing the right thing; as I've said repeatedly, they are within their rights to do so, no matter how much I don't like it. The point is that I don't like it, and you will never be able to convince me that I should.

[Deepcrush]

No, they don't, for the reasons I pointed out.

So you've never voted or talked to someone who's voted or met someone who's voted? Never taken part in any rally or worked in or for a government service, never paid taxes? Because if you've touched even one of those things, then you've had an impact.

Aside that, most of the "reasons" you threw up was emotional no sense anyhow. So its still a yes but you're in denial about it.

The French and the Swiss enforced the rule of law, by applying it equally to all. If you don't like it, then tough.

Not really, since Polanski didn't break any laws in their countries. So there was no enforcement, equally or not.

It can't be. Not in civilised countries. Crime is usually an emotive issue, but that's all the more reason to ensure that such emotion does not colour the application of the law.

But it is, you can't have law without emotion otherwise there wouldn't be law as no one would care enough to make laws or enforce them.

Indeed, but the time to respond to social and cultural pressures is during the development of the law, not in its enforcement.

Really? So then that whole issue with British troops gunning down people across India or that little mess in the US about slavery... Shouldn't have been bothered with that after the laws were passed right?

In fact the best time to learn that a law is failing is in its enforcement when you have a clear view of those failings in action. Moments like those are a part of cultural evolution. To ignore them is about as useful as ignoring the human need to breath to live.

When you let terrorists use your country as a base, bank and armoury. When you rewarded the leaders of an organisation responsible for the murders of thousands of people with invitations to the White House.

Well duh, they worked for us. To be honest a lot of those terror groups out there still do. But do you see that as fair? Is that sticking to a civilized law that we hired terrorists to kill for us? Maybe not, but then again that kind of thing happens when you ignore the rights of one country. They'll start ignoring your rights as a country in response.

I fail to see the comparison with Polanski. In his case the Swiss arrested and imprisoned him for the duration of the extradition process, and the end of which they determined that the US case against him simply didn't stack up.

Because he ran to another country who's now protecting him for the same reason that you're protecting him. You feel that the goes against what you like (emotions again) and then just brush it off.

In the case of the US in the 1980s and 1990s, you made no effort whatsoever to deal with the terrorists using your country as a base.

Again that's a duh kind of thing. The IRA, Al Qaeda, Mujahideen, Serbian Nationalist... they all worked for us so dealing with them in the way you're thinking of would be very counter productive.

Be honest though, with all the good they did for us what's wrong with a few bad things? Outside of your emotions that is. Because if we're being fair and without emotion. The life of a few people here and there is a small price for global balance of power.

*******************************************************************

Now take what I said above with a grain of salt. I spoke as I did to make a point. You can't have culture or a civilized sociaty without emotion. It's purely impossible because without emotion the only thing left is cruelty. You've built a position where any action is okay so long as "YOU" don't feel bad about it with no regard to those around you.

If a leader, who doesn't feel bad about it, can do whatever he wants to his/her people. Would that truly be civilized?

[Captain Seafort]

we're discussing the "right-ness" of the Swiss being willing to allow a technicality stand in the way of Polanski's extradition. They obviously are willing to allow that technicality to trump doing the right thing;

To follow the letter of the law, regardless of individual circumstances, is the right thing. Whether or not that technicality of the law should be changed is a different question entirely, and not relevant to the decision.

[Deepcrush]

we're discussing the "right-ness" of the Swiss being willing to allow a technicality stand in the way of Polanski's extradition. They obviously are willing to allow that technicality to trump doing the right thing;

To follow the letter of the law, regardless of individual circumstances, is the right thing. Whether or not that technicality of the law should be changed is a different question entirely, and not relevant to the decision.

So then why do you argue against the law? The law says he violated his parole and should be go to trial for that. Max for that is a 30 day sentence IIRC. But up till now your whole argument has been that the letter of the law doesn't fit your opinion.

[Captain Seafort]

So then why do you argue against the law? The law says he violated his parole and should be go to trial for that.

No - the law (i.e. Swiss law) says that the US must provide the Swiss courts with certain documents before the extradition request can be granted. The US failed to do so, ergo no extradition.

[Captain Seafort]

You can't have culture or a civilized sociaty without emotion.

Indeed, but nor is such a society possible if emotion is allowed to influence the execution of the law. It's formation certainly, but never the execution.