Neither do I know the specific terms of our extradition treaties with France
George, France has an extradition treaty with the US since 1996.
As you know, treaties are treacherous entities and some arcanes are never clear.
As so, situations and clauses are difficult to conciliate.
Many times, it's a matter how the country, as a civilization, sees the crime and its due punishment.
All the forces at work here..
I did not expect to see an answer; the questions were only rhetorical.
if indeed there ever was any truth to the asserted Judge’s intentions.
Quote:I did not expect to see an answer; the questions were only rhetorical.
Oh no they weren't. They were just stupid. You have too much need to win to be in a grown up debate about anything.
Fancy you of all people, armed to the teeth, seeing threats everywhere, talking about paranoid delusion.
Quote:if indeed there ever was any truth to the asserted Judge’s intentions.
IF? Both the defense and the prosecution were in the room when the judge spoke his intention, there is no doubt about what he said. Are you claiming that the Judge might have LIED? This being the same judge that you claim Polanski should have stood in front of the next day expecting a 50 year sentence?
No treaty with France for this particular offense.
Bill wrote:No treaty with France for this particular offense.
Playing on words, Bill?
There's an extradition treaty between US and France than can cover this case, even though rape is not explicitly referred to.
However, the treaty stipulates that both states are free to extradite, or not, their own nationals.
The treaty was updated in 2002, with previous modifications in 1996 and 1970, after the initial extradition convention 0f 1907.
the judges behaviour was of course absurd, which is reason Polanski felt it was in his best interest to not wait around to see what would happen. If I had to guess it would be that the judge wanted off of the hook, that he did not care if Polanski ran or withdrew his plea, either way the judge would be clear. This is outragous behaviour for a judge, the process is not about him, what he thinks is best for him.
But Polanski booked, he was not tried in absence, and there is no way to have a fair trial after all of these years. It should be over.
You are of course welcome to your opinion, but have no basis to insist that others agree.
Is that an invitation for me to try a few states you "maybe" in today?
Saying that you can't take anything I say seriously is a lady argument and a species of Ignore.
There are remedies for outrageous judicial behavior. They don't include the accused deciding he's above the law and fleeing the country. In this case it has been asserted that the Judge was going to engage in outrageous behavior. This does not excuse Polanski's further criminal behavior. The poor black perp could be victimized by an outrageous Judge too. If this takes place, an appellate court has the responsibility to correct it.