Quoting Mithi:

Quote:
Quoting Alien Redrum:

Quote:
Glad to see the Swiss government supports child rapists.

They don't, they just don't handover people without proper documentation. If the US is unwilling (or unable?) to provide those requested documents, they are to blame.

Not to mention that the whole thing seem rather fishy, the deal back then, the bail and not to mention the decades of utter silence from the US until last year December.

cya, Mithi

My thoughts exactly!

Quote:
thank you stupid Swiss. the Swiss and their idiotic banking laws and extradition laws allow criminals to get away with things.

I think you forgot a minor point:
The US judicial system had Roman Polanski and it was THEM to let him go.

I wouldn't want to excuse a child rapist (Put them to jail and let every other convict know what they did), but in this case the error was made by the US law enforcement.

It took them nearly 40 years to find him (Roman Polanski!) it wasn't exactly as if he was hiding, and when the US law enforcement finally got hold of him (again), it refused to send the necessary documents.

Sorry of having to correct you, but I wouldn't want to live in a country that would extradite someone just because another country says (and refuses to prove) that the person still has to do some time in jail. So the law is not stupid, it's there to protect people against ill-founded accusations.

Quoting Alien Redrum:

Quote:
Quoting Silence_of_Lambs:

Quote:

Quote:
thank you stupid Swiss. the Swiss and their idiotic banking laws and extradition laws allow criminals to get away with things.

I think you forgot a minor point:
The US judicial system had Roman Polanski and it was THEM to let him go.

I wouldn't want to excuse a child rapist (Put them to jail and let every other convict know what they did), but in this case the error was made by the US law enforcement.

Agreed 100%. The original judge was a clown, for sure.

Quote:
It took them nearly 40 years to find him (Roman Polanski!) it wasn't exactly as if he was hiding, and when the US law enforcement finally got hold of him (again), it refused to send the necessary documents.

In all fairness, IIRC, France refused to extradite him. It's not like it was a big mystery where he was.

Quote:
Sorry of having to correct you, but I wouldn't want to live in a country that would extradite someone just because another country says (and refuses to prove) that the person still has to do some time in jail. So the law is not stupid, it's there to protect people against ill-founded accusations.

From what I understand, they refused to turn over confidential testimony of the original prosecutor taking on January 26th.

IMO, that's neither here nor there. He fled before serving his time, no matter which way you look at it, and the Swiss should turn him over for that.

Seriously shut up and stop pi**ing on another country's government as if yours is so perfect. Switzerland while yes it has it's problems it pales in comparison to the mess yours is in with back dealing politicians who make policy's on the bases of how much money a lobbyists gives them just for a start.

Quoting Alien Redrum:

Quote:
Quoting FilmAlba:

Quote:
Seriously shut up and stop pi**ing on another country's government as if yours is so perfect. Switzerland while yes it has it's problems it pales in comparison to the mess yours is in with back dealing politicians who make policy's on the bases of how much money a lobbyists gives them just for a start.

You are so cute, punkin.

America is perfect FTW!

Im going to have you deported to Scotland for raping a sheep. In Aberdeen you get the Death Penalty for that 

Quoting Alien Redrum:

Quote:
From what I understand, they refused to turn over confidential testimony of the original prosecutor taking on January 26th.

That's not quite what I heard.
Confidential testimonies, yes, but from the witnesses during the original court hearing. I'd expect to be some kind of record of this to be at hand.

Quoting Mithi:

Quote:
Quoting Alien Redrum:

Quote:
He fled before serving his time,

That is exactly the point: Serving his time for what? The swiss judge obviously still has unanswered question, which th US couldn't or wouldn't answer, so OF COURSE, after putting Polanski under house-arrest for 7 month, he turned to in dubio pro reo and cut him loose.

And http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Polanski#Sexual_assault_case doesn't really paint a clear picture either. First there was a deal and a psychological evaluation, then the judge talks to Polanski's lawyers about not following that evaluation?

cya, Mithi

From what I understand, he plead guilty to statutory rape (or unlawful sex or something relatively minor). Judge ordered a 3 months in a psyche word. Polanski served 42 of those 90 when the shrink cut him loose.

Then, according to a fluff doc on Polanski (can't remember the title, came out last year or so), there were rumors the judge was going to make him serve his full 90. Polanski, fearing he would have to serve the full sentence, fled.

He was never officially cut free.

Quoting Alien Redrum:

Quote:
Here's what CTV reports:

Quote:
The Swiss government wanted the U.S. to provide details of confidential testimony that Roger Gunson -- the Los Angeles attorney who handled Polanski's case originally -- gave to an L.A. court earlier this year.

But even in this case the testimony should be available (from the court in L.A.) and in any case it shouldn't take more than 7 months to provide the requested documentation (while the accused is kept under house-arrest). Especially not if we are really talking about a (probably) missing time of 48 days.

Quoting hydr0x:

Quote:
Has anyone complaining in here actually bothered to read the girls testimony? I have and even what she said back then is a borderline case only, not even mentioning she herself later said he didn't do anything wrong (that of course depends on whether u think mutual sexual intercourse between a teen and an adult is or is not wrong, the laws are quite different about this from country to country).

I'm not saying he didn't do it. Just saying that you should probably thoroughly check the facts before complaining about legal systems and before you judge. Especially as in this case he wasn't set free because he was found innocent but rather because the US did not provide the necessary documents to prove otherwise.

In the United States, a 13 year old can't consent to sex with an adult.  Whether she though he did anything wrong is besides the point.  The law says it is illegal for an adult to have sex with a minor...which is why it is called statutory rape rather than rape.