0
Gawain

Polanski: Extradition Based on a Lie - wtf?!

Recommended Posts

Ya know that thing where there's two sides and neither side wants to give the other guy a "win" so no matter what happens, even if it's the right thing to do, the guy says "no"?

It's the sort of thing we see here in SC on a daily basis.

Even though Polanski absolutely did it, the US has fucked its good name up throughout the world and so now countries just don't want to give the US any sort of "win" on anything.

At least, that's the way I see it.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Ya know that thing where there's two sides and neither side wants to give the other guy a "win" so no matter what happens, even if it's the right thing to do, the guy says "no"?

It's the sort of thing we see here in SC on a daily basis.

Even though Polanski absolutely did it, the US has fucked it's good name up throughout the world and so now countries just don't want to give the US any sort of "win" on anything.

At least, that's the way I see it.



So it's President Obama's fault? :o






:P
So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Ya know that thing where there's two sides and neither side wants to give the other guy a "win" so no matter what happens, even if it's the right thing to do, the guy says "no"?

It's the sort of thing we see here in SC on a daily basis.

Even though Polanski absolutely did it, the US has fucked it's good name up throughout the world and so now countries just don't want to give the US any sort of "win" on anything.

At least, that's the way I see it.



So it's President Obama's fault? :o


no, I think his point is "the US is bad, therefore Hollywood types can rape children"

hard to tell, but the "US is bad" part is pretty clear anyway but tying it to the thread is the tricky bit

I'm sure higher taxes will fix it

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

hard to tell, but the "US is bad" part is pretty clear anyway but tying it to the thread is the tricky bit



You guys are either missing the point or illustrating it perfectly.

I can't tell which.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Ya know that thing where there's two sides and neither side wants to give the other guy a "win" so no matter what happens, even if it's the right thing to do, the guy says "no"?

It's the sort of thing we see here in SC on a daily basis.

Even though Polanski absolutely did it, the US has fucked its good name up throughout the world and so now countries just don't want to give the US any sort of "win" on anything.

At least, that's the way I see it.



While you're probably right about that on a broad basis, I did note this from the latest article:

Justice Minister Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf .... said the decision had been taken following Washington’s refusal to give access to confidential documents.


Now, without judging, that does pique my curiosity a bit. What was requested by the Swiss, and why? What was denied by the US, and why? I'd like the answers to those questions to help me form my opinion of this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/roman-polanski/7886166/Switzerland-rejects-Roman-Polanski-extradition-request-from-US.html

Quote

The Swiss had requested records relating to the 1977 court hearings in which Polanski reached a deal with prosecutors, pleading guilty in return for more serious charges of rape and sodomy being dropped.

Polanski served 42 days in the psychiatric unit of Chino state prison as part of his plea bargain. According to the director, the judge in the case agreed that his time in Chino would count as his sentence and he would serve no additional jail time.

The US refused to hand over the records, ruling that the documents must be kept secret. As a result, Miss Widmer-Schlumpf said, she could not be certain that Polanski had not already served his sentence.



The funniest thing about the whole thing is the commentator that wants to boycott Swiss Miss, lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


Even though Polanski absolutely did it, the US has fucked its good name up throughout the world and so now countries just don't want to give the US any sort of "win" on anything.

At least, that's the way I see it.



This silliness ranks up with the black UN helicoptor crap. The decision had nothing to do with getting back at the US for invading Iraq.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

"the US has fucked its good name up throughout the world"



You think that's exclusive to Iraq? I don't. You need to think in broader terms of history than that. The general image of the US throughout the world has always been an international sore point, with various peaks and valleys, even prior to WW2, but definitely since the 1950s when the CIA started doing its thing in fomenting coups and propping-up corrupt, repressive, tin-horned dictators all over the world. And there's little objective doubt that 2nd Bush Administration's foreign policy was viewed by many across the world as arrogant, bullying and scornful of international law. So yes, sticking it up the US's ass has always been a bit of a sport in the rest of the world, and it's not as though there's no reason for it. (I'm not judging it; I'm just reporting it, BTW.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Additionally, a LOT of the world doesn't think the way the US judicial system works is fair. Particularly the way it handles death sentences.

Not that what Polanski did necessarily would involve a death sentence, but giving an example of why some might think the US is a bit messed up.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Additionally, a LOT of the world doesn't think the way the US judicial system works is fair. Particularly the way it handles death sentences.



Additionally, torture/mistreatment scandals like Abu Graib and Guantanamo, and the practice called "extraordinary rendering", in which prisoners are captured by the US and turned over to other countries where we know fully well (read: intend) they'll be tortured doesn't bode well for our international image, either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

"the US has fucked its good name up throughout the world"



You think that's exclusive to Iraq? I don't. You need to think in broader terms of history than that.



Read the rest of that quote and note Quade's use of the word "now" in it. He didn't say this was a decades long problem.

Now buying the judicial argument either. The guy fled the country to avoid part of his sentence. It's not the Swiss judge's role to determine if he really fulfilled that sentence for underage rape or not. That could be disputed at the hearing in LA. It should be a fairly straightforward matter. One that could easily have been taken care of decades ago. Polanski instead fled the country and his obligation for the crime he admitted to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The guy fled the country to avoid part of his sentence. It's not the Swiss judge's role to determine if he really fulfilled that sentence for underage rape or not. That could be disputed at the hearing in LA. It should be a fairly straightforward matter. One that could easily have been taken care of decades ago. Polanski instead fled the country and his obligation for the crime he admitted to.



And I don't think anybody in this thread is disputing that.

However, not every decision made by every court in the world has to make sense according to our standards.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

The guy fled the country to avoid part of his sentence. It's not the Swiss judge's role to determine if he really fulfilled that sentence for underage rape or not. That could be disputed at the hearing in LA. It should be a fairly straightforward matter. One that could easily have been taken care of decades ago. Polanski instead fled the country and his obligation for the crime he admitted to.



And I don't think anybody in this thread is disputing that.



I'm certainly not disputing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Additionally, a LOT of the world doesn't think the way the US judicial system works is fair. Particularly the way it handles death sentences.

Not that what Polanski did necessarily would involve a death sentence, but giving an example of why some might think the US is a bit messed up.



We just quit executing people for murders committed as juveniles 6 or 7 years ago. Then the world had like 7 or 8 countries still doing it.

Polanski's deal was butchered by the judge, it was teh right thing to do, esp considering the victim wanted that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

"the US has fucked its good name up throughout the world"



You think that's exclusive to Iraq? I don't. You need to think in broader terms of history than that.



Read the rest of that quote and note Quade's use of the word "now" in it. He didn't say this was a decades long problem.

Now buying the judicial argument either. The guy fled the country to avoid part of his sentence. It's not the Swiss judge's role to determine if he really fulfilled that sentence for underage rape or not. That could be disputed at the hearing in LA. It should be a fairly straightforward matter. One that could easily have been taken care of decades ago. Polanski instead fled the country and his obligation for the crime he admitted to.



Once teh judge renegged on teh plea deal, or was contemplating it. No way he could ever get an impartial jury after making a confession per plea deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


Polanski's deal was butchered by the judge, it was teh right thing to do, esp considering the victim wanted that.



there's good public policy. If you flee the country and pay off the victim, your crime should be forgiven.

The legal nuance of was he sentence to 90 days with an eval, or to a 90 day eval which was completed early, should be simple enough. When it happened.

But it's a bit hard to do now, given how much time has passed. And that doesn't excuse skipping out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote


Polanski's deal was butchered by the judge, it was teh right thing to do, esp considering the victim wanted that.



there's good public policy. If you flee the country and pay off the victim, your crime should be forgiven.

The legal nuance of was he sentence to 90 days with an eval, or to a 90 day eval which was completed early, should be simple enough. When it happened.

But it's a bit hard to do now, given how much time has passed. And that doesn't excuse skipping out.



Who knows whatthe judge was gonna do, all we know is that he was considering rejecting the plea deal after Polanski admitted to world what happened; kinda hurts your defense strategy. The judge fucked up, the Swiss fixed it. BTW, his victim could still have asked for a pound of flesh with or w/o the settlement, that wasn't part of the deal, so the settlement is sole and seperate of the way she feels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote


Polanski's deal was butchered by the judge, it was teh right thing to do, esp considering the victim wanted that.



there's good public policy. If you flee the country and pay off the victim, your crime should be forgiven.

The legal nuance of was he sentence to 90 days with an eval, or to a 90 day eval which was completed early, should be simple enough. When it happened.

But it's a bit hard to do now, given how much time has passed. And that doesn't excuse skipping out.



Who knows whatthe judge was gonna do, all we know is that he was considering rejecting the plea deal after Polanski admitted to world what happened; kinda hurts your defense strategy. The judge fucked up, the Swiss fixed it. BTW, his victim could still have asked for a pound of flesh with or w/o the settlement, that wasn't part of the deal, so the settlement is sole and seperate of the way she feels.



Polanski fucked up. End of story.


General comment:
The girl does not get a say. The crime was statutory. It is designed to protect young girls who do not know to say "no" or do have the right to say "yes" because of their youth.

I have to admit I've been rather surprised by the number of folks chiming in on the side Polanski (which, if you're using time, the Swiss, as an arguing factors, you are therefore backing Polanski). If I ever have a daughter and anything even remote happens like this, the criminal better pray he "only" gets the US justice system.
So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote


Polanski's deal was butchered by the judge, it was teh right thing to do, esp considering the victim wanted that.



there's good public policy. If you flee the country and pay off the victim, your crime should be forgiven.

The legal nuance of was he sentence to 90 days with an eval, or to a 90 day eval which was completed early, should be simple enough. When it happened.

But it's a bit hard to do now, given how much time has passed. And that doesn't excuse skipping out.



Who knows whatthe judge was gonna do, all we know is that he was considering rejecting the plea deal after Polanski admitted to world what happened; kinda hurts your defense strategy. The judge fucked up, the Swiss fixed it. BTW, his victim could still have asked for a pound of flesh with or w/o the settlement, that wasn't part of the deal, so the settlement is sole and seperate of the way she feels.



Quote

Polanski fucked up. End of story.



I see, daddy, as long as you know there is only a black and a white. Polanski fucked up, but those actually think he should recieve const rights in court, not pseudo constitutionalists, feel maybe the judges indiscretions outweighed the need to run this through the courts.

Quote

General comment:
The girl does not get a say.



The AZ victims bill of rights allows a say, not with veto powers, however.

Quote

The crime was statutory.



And sammy the bull gravano admitted to killing 19 people, those laws are statutory too. I think you know not what you speak. A crime is against the state, but a judge can toss any and all charges as he/she wishes, so statutory means niothing. Wait, it jjust occurred to me you mean statuory rape, a very obvious and fundamental comment. However you need to state that the rape was 'statutory rape' not just statutory, as a traffic violation is statutory. Statutory, in the basic terms, means it is written as statute (law). Oh well, it's your ambiguity party, have a good time making sense by yourself.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/statutory

Main Entry: stat·u·to·ry
Pronunciation: \ˈsta-chə-ˌtȯr-ē\
Function: adjective
Date: 1766
1 : of or relating to statutes
2 : enacted, created, or regulated by statute

— stat·u·to·ri·ly \ˌsta-chə-ˈtȯr-ə-lē\ adverb


The predominant definition is that it defines a law. if you say something is statutory, you're saying it's codified, saying, "The crime was statutory" means it is written as law. You need to say it's, "statutory rape" to be clear. All that means is that she didn't have the legal ability to give consent. And really the issues are deeper, Polanski druggerher or got her drunk.

As for the crime, it was against the state, the state can drop it and/or the judge can toss it.

Quote

It is designed to protect young girls who do not know to say "no" or do have the right to say "yes" because of their youth.



Or in a legal sense, they don't have the legal mental maturity to give legal consent, regardless of what they overtly agree to.

Quote

I have to admit I've been rather surprised by the number of folks chiming in on the side Polanski (which, if you're using time, the Swiss, as an arguing factors, you are therefore backing Polanski).



Yea, maybe the country isn't as all-out conservative crazy and wanting to hang any liberal. On an associated note, your boy Steinbrenner died today, I guess that statutory law and conviction for tax evasion from teh good ole fascist one was ok, I'm sure you're good with that.

Quote

If I ever have a daughter and anything even remote happens like this, the criminal better pray he "only" gets the US justice system.



More empty bravado.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Polanski fucked up, but those actually think he should recieve const rights in court, not pseudo constitutionalists, feel maybe the judges indiscretions outweighed the need to run this through the courts.

[blah blah]


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/statutory

Main Entry: stat·u·to·ry
Pronunciation: \ˈsta-chə-ˌtȯr-ē\
Function: adjective
Date: 1766
1 : of or relating to statutes
2 : enacted, created, or regulated by statute

— stat·u·to·ri·ly \ˌsta-chə-ˈtȯr-ə-lē\ adverb


The predominant definition is that it defines a law. if you say something is statutory, you're saying it's codified, saying, "The crime was statutory" means it is written as law. You need to say it's, "statutory rape" to be clear. All that means is that she didn't have the legal ability to give consent. And really the issues are deeper, Polanski druggerher or got her drunk.



smirk. Look, Lucky's trying to reinforce how he watches Judge Judy at night!

http://cppreference.com/wiki/keywords/const

The const keyword can be used to tell the compiler that a certain variable should not be modified once it has been initialized. It can also be used to declare functions of a class that do not alter any class data

Oh, you meant constitutional, didn't you? It was too unclear to figure out, esp since his constitutional rights were never violatated, unlike that girl's ass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Polanski fucked up, but those actually think he should recieve const rights in court, not pseudo constitutionalists, feel maybe the judges indiscretions outweighed the need to run this through the courts.

[blah blah]


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/statutory

Main Entry: stat·u·to·ry
Pronunciation: \ˈsta-chə-ˌtȯr-ē\
Function: adjective
Date: 1766
1 : of or relating to statutes
2 : enacted, created, or regulated by statute

— stat·u·to·ri·ly \ˌsta-chə-ˈtȯr-ə-lē\ adverb


The predominant definition is that it defines a law. if you say something is statutory, you're saying it's codified, saying, "The crime was statutory" means it is written as law. You need to say it's, "statutory rape" to be clear. All that means is that she didn't have the legal ability to give consent. And really the issues are deeper, Polanski druggerher or got her drunk.



Quote

smirk. Look, Lucky's trying to reinforce how he watches Judge Judy at night!



I didn't realize she aired at night.....guess who watches her? I actually received a formal education, you're the TV PhD.

http://cppreference.com/wiki/keywords/const

Quote

The const keyword can be used to tell the compiler that a certain variable should not be modified once it has been initialized. It can also be used to declare functions of a class that do not alter any class data



So you're taking this out of context; using a C++ computer languge to try to use it in a US COnstitutional sense in a thread about Polanski's extradition decision - could you be further out of context? When people need to be that abstract to make a non-point they are out of gas. Obvioulsy that is my abbreviation I've beeen using for years.

Quote

Oh, you meant constitutional, didn't you? It was too unclear to figure out, ...



Really? I guess Judge Judy doesn't use that, esp since she is in lower court and us const rights really aren't a presiding factor there; it's basically binding arbitrtion and you sign away rights when you agree to have your case heard there.

Quote

...esp since his constitutional rights were never violatated, unlike that girl's ass.



His US Const rights would have been violated if there was a trial / sentencing; no way to get an impartial jury after he admitted to it, then the judge decided to think about changing the agreement. But of course the Nevada OJ trial was totally filled with US Const violations too, but you don't see it as that for 2 reasons:

- You like the outcome

- You don't understand the US Const

Guys like you don't care about constitutional rights unless we're talking about yours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0