Roman Polanski free

NSFW Forums: Legal, Rape, Child Abuse, Roman Polanski, Polanski
Email this Topic • Print this Page

The Swiss government this morning announced that it has rejected the U.S.' request to extradite the director back to Los Angeles so that he could finally face up to the charge he fled the country over back in 1977—namely, having sex with a 13-year-old girl.

"The 76-year-old French-Polish film director Roman Polanski will not be extradited to the U.S.A.," the Swiss Justice Ministry said in a statement this morning. "The freedom-restricting measures against him have been revoked.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 19 • Views: 24,415 • Replies: 373

@dyslexia,

Seems that the message being sent to those who have sex with children is to go to Switzerland.

2 Replies

@Intrepid,

Intrepid wrote:

Seems that the message being sent to those who have sex with children is to go to Switzerland.

I really doubt that is the message, I would opine the message has more to do with legalistic wranglings. Had you mentioned Bangkok I would have agreed but no, not Switzerland.

1 Reply

@dyslexia,

Not meaning go for that purpose. Mean to run there to avoid punishment in North America.

1 Reply

@Intrepid,

Since he's been living in Europe for a number of decades, it would seem there are several countries that would serve the purpose.

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

Switzerland was who determined not to extradite him.

1 Reply

@Intrepid,

it's not the only country to have a standing request from the U.S. government

(this was all the talk when Switzerland finally stood up and nabbed him)

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

So, you are saying that other countries have refused to extradite him as well?

2 Replies

@Intrepid,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/sep/29/law-catch-roman-polanski

Quote:

France does not allow its own citizens to be extradited to the US.

0 Replies

@Intrepid,

There was an international arrest warrant issued in 2005.

0 Replies

I think that if someones commits a crime and stays on the loose for over 20 years, punishing then loses the point. People change a lot over 20 years, assuming they didnt continue commiting crimes over this time I think they should just be forgiven. Punishing even after 10 years sounds too much.

After all the objective (at least teoric, albeit on practice it oftenly becomes revenge) of our penal systems is trying to change people while keeping then safely away from society. If a criminal stays on the loose for so long he may have changed completly, and if he didnt commit more crimes over this time, showing that he really changed, then there is no point in arresting him.

3 Replies

@manored,

Not true. Capital-crimes ?

0 Replies

@manored,

What if that criminal committed murder? John List wasn't caught for nearly 18 years. During the whole time he was on the run he committed no more murders. He was considered a quiet and upstanding citizen of his community, yet he slaughtered his mother, wife, and his children. You think because he then lived a crime free life he should be let off the hook?

Oh! Can someone tell me how to quote the post I want to reply to? I haven't figured it out.

1 Reply

"The reason for the decision lies in the fact that it was not possible to exclude with the necessary certainty a fault in the US extraditionary request," ithe Swiss Justice Minister Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf said in a statement.

Quote:

Bern. The 76-year-old French-Polish film director Roman Polanski will not be extradited to the USA. The freedom-restricting measures against him have been revoked. This announcement was made by Mrs Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf, head of the Swiss Federal Department of Justice and Police (FDJP), in Berne on Monday. The reason for the decision lies in the fact that it was not possible to exclude with the necessary certainty a fault in the US extradition request, although the issue was thoroughly examined. Moreover, also the principles of State action deriving from international public order were taken into account.

At the end of 2005 the US authorities issued an international search warrant against Roman Polanski due to sexual offence against a minor committed in 1977. On the basis of this international order of arrest, Roman Polanski was arrested on 26th September 2009 upon his arrival at the airport of Zürich and taken into provisional custody pending extradition. On 22nd October 2009 the US authorities filed a formal extradition request. On 4th December Roman Polanski was released from custody after depositing a 4.5 million franc bail and was granted house arrest under electronic monitoring in his chalet in Gstaad.
... ... ...

Source and full Press Release

0 Replies

@Arella Mae,

Arella Mae wrote:

Oh! Can someone tell me how to quote the post I want to reply to? I haven't figured it out.

In preferences, be sure that QUOTE is set to yes. Then you will see a quote button on each post. Simply hit the quote button when you want to reply with the quote showing.

0 Replies

@Intrepid,

You can, of course, go to the USA if you have sex with children, if you rape and torture their families and murder the whole family as long as it's done under the auspicious and guidance of the CIA or other criminal US organization.

Not only can you go to the US if you excel at these ventures, they'll likely find you more work in your chosen field.

1 Reply

It is about damn time!

Quote:

The stunning decision could end the United States' three-decade pursuit of Polanski, unless he travels to another country that would be willing to apprehend him and weigh sending him to Los Angeles. France, where he has spent much of his time, does not extradite its own citizens, and the public scrutiny over Switzerland's deliberations may dissuade other nations from making such a spectacular arrest

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2010/07/12/entertainment-financials-roman-polanski_7758737.html?feed=rss_europe

There is no chance in hell that any country is going to repeat the mistake of the swiss....this is really over, finally.

0 Replies

@manored,

manored wrote:

I think that if someones commits a crime and stays on the loose for over 20 years, punishing then loses the point. People change a lot over 20 years, assuming they didnt continue commiting crimes over this time I think they should just be forgiven. Punishing even after 10 years sounds too much.

After all the objective (at least teoric, albeit on practice it oftenly becomes revenge) of our penal systems is trying to change people while keeping then safely away from society. If a criminal stays on the loose for so long he may have changed completly, and if he didnt commit more crimes over this time, showing that he really changed, then there is no point in arresting him.

From what I've read, the girl in question (who is obviously now a full grown woman) has indicated strongly she does not want Polanski tried and merely wishes the matter to now be dropped.

However, there is no escaping the fact that he commited a crime under US law. Even if the sex was "consensual", the fact he was 43 and she was 13 meant that there was a fundamental disparity of psychological power in the encounter and so, at the very least, he behaved like deeply creepy f*cker

1 Reply

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

You can, of course, go to the USA if you have sex with children, if you rape and torture their families and murder the whole family as long as it's done under the auspicious and guidance of the CIA or other criminal US organization.

Not only can you go to the US if you excel at these ventures, they'll likely find you more work in your chosen field.

yes

Quite

0 Replies

@stevecook172001,

stevecook172001 wrote:

the fact he was 43 and she was 13 meant that there was a fundamental disparity of psychological power in the encounter and so, at the very least, he behaved like deeply creepy f*cker

This could very well be applied to a (shudder) clown entertaining children in the cancer ward of a hospital.

Anyway....

Here's my opinion, and I know I'm going to be told how wrong I am...

The fact that this then 13, now 46? year old is STILL saying it was consenual, even after all these years, means a lot to me.

When I was 16 I started a 10 year relationship with somone significantly older than me. To this day I do not regret one moment of the time I was underage and had to sneak around to be with this man.

It would be different if the now grown woman indicated it was not consenual, but to the best of my knowledge, she never has.

Was what he did wrong? Yes.
Should this have happened? No.

But, if the only people who have a right to be angry at him, and mainly the woman in question, have no issue, then I don't either.

Question, has he ever been implicated with any other act like this?

6 Replies

Roman Polanski free

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know