Swiss to extradite Polanski?

posted at 10:07 am on September 27, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

More than 30 years after his arrest and trial for statutory rape and sodomy of a 13-year-old girl, director Roman Polanski may have to face the music for his crime and his flight.  Switzerland arrested Polanski on his way to receive an award from the Zurich Film Festival, surprising him and his French collaborators, who have kept Polanski from getting extradited to the US for decades.  They plan to send Polanski back to Los Angeles as soon as the US completes its extradition request (via HA commenter Mr. Joe):

Director Roman Polanski was arrested by Swiss police for possible extradition to the United States for having sex in 1977 with a 13-year-old girl, authorities said Sunday.

Polanski was flying in to receive an honorary award at the Zurich Film Festival when he was apprehended Saturday at the airport, the Swiss Justice Ministry said in a statement. It said U.S. authorities have sought the arrest of the 76-year-old around the world since 2005.

“There was a valid arrest request and we knew when he was coming,” ministry spokesman Guido Balmer told The Associated Press. “That’s why he was taken into custody.” …

The Swiss statement said Polanski was officially in “provisional detention for extradition,” but added that he would not be transferred to U.S. authorities until all proceedings are completed. Polanski can contest his detention and any extradition decision in the Swiss courts, it said.

It’s not clear from the AP report whether the Swiss acted on an old outstanding arrest warrant, or whether the US had renewed efforts to arrest Polanski.  If it’s the former, then Barack Obama has a dilemma on his hands.  He gets a lot of support from the Hollywood community, who regularly lionize Polanski as a misunderstood genius.  They have long demanded that the US drop its charges against Polanski and allow him to return freely into the bosom of Hollywood.  Will he demand extradition or have to publicly admit he’s not interested in pursuing Polanski?

If the US renewed the warrant, it seems that Obama has already made the decision — and it would be the right decision, regardless of what the American film industry says.  As Bill Wyman wrote last February in Salon,  Hollywood has tried to sell the statutory rape as some sort of misunderstood love story.  They tried again last year in the documentary Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired. The reality is that Polanski drugged, raped, and sodomized a 13-year-old girl:

Bad art is supposed to be harmless, but the 2008 film “Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired,” about the notorious child-sex case against the fugitive director, has become an absolute menace. For months, lawyers for the filmmaker have been maneuvering to get the Los Angeles courts to dismiss Polanski’s 1978 conviction, based on supposed judicial misconduct uncovered in the documentary. On Tuesday, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Peter Espinoza ruled that if Polanski, who fled on the eve of his sentencing, in March 1978, wanted to challenge his conviction, he could — by coming back and turning himself in. …

Polanski deserves to have any potential legal folderol investigated, of course. But the fact that Espinoza had to state the obvious is testimony to the ways in which the documentary, and much of the media coverage the director has received in recent months, are bizarrely skewed. The film, which has inexplicably gotten all sorts of praise, whitewashes what Polanski did in blatant and subtle fashion — and recent coverage of the case, in the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times and elsewhere, has in turn accepted the film’s contentions at face value.

For now, the Los Angeles judge has injected a dose of reality into the debate. But “Wanted and Desired” seems to have inserted into the public consciousness the idea that Polanski, an irrepressible European, had been naughty during a colorful time, and that he has been toyed with by a monstrous legal system. Creepy and disturbing, the film does show us a few of the director’s moral warts. But it leaves the strong impression that Polanski was a wronged man, jerked around by a cartoony, publicity-hungry judge to the point where fleeing was his only viable option. …

Now, that’s one way to portray those two men — and one that Polanski’s current lawyers would prefer. But there’s another way, too: You could show one as a child-sex predator who drugged a 13-year-old girl with quaaludes and champagne; lured her to pose for naked photographs; ignoring her protests, had sex with her; and then anally raped her. …

It’s a drag to include a scene of anal rape of a 13-year-old in your moody documentary about such a Byronic figure, but it’s also fairly relevant.

The victim would now prefer to see the charges dropped, but that doesn’t account for 32 years of fleeing justice.  Polanski still needs to be held accountable for his crimes, at the very least by getting hauled back to an American court to face the process of justice.  He’s no hero; he’s a rapist, and it’s about time that someone make it clear that being a fabulous Hollywood director does not give one a license to commit violent crimes.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 6

Reality bites dog.

ray on September 27, 2009 at 10:11 AM

Now, they need to put him on trial, convict him and lock up the pig for the rest of his worthless life.

rplat on September 27, 2009 at 10:11 AM

Here is a good picture of Roman Polanski during better times…

http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/9799/a220812122950715231951.jpg

ninjapirate on September 27, 2009 at 10:12 AM

ACORN will defend him.

unclesmrgol on September 27, 2009 at 10:12 AM

Really shows the integrity of these people, giving this man an award

blatantblue on September 27, 2009 at 10:12 AM

Barack Obama has a dilemma on his hands.

Have Holder get him extradited and charge him, or make Polanski “film and culture Czar”?

forest on September 27, 2009 at 10:13 AM

Bu, but……He`s a GENIUS!

/sarc

ThePrez on September 27, 2009 at 10:13 AM

And Obama’s first Presidential pardon goes to…

trubble on September 27, 2009 at 10:14 AM

French collaborators

Are there two words that go together more naturally than those two?

Prediction: The One haves his merciful, benovolent hands and end the torment and persecution of the Child Rapist Director.

TheBigOldDog on September 27, 2009 at 10:14 AM

And Obama’s first Presidential pardon goes to…

Doubtful, or we commence with the Frank Marshall Davis speculation…

ninjapirate on September 27, 2009 at 10:16 AM

Hollywood is absolutely immoral. They always support thugs who commit crimes against the innocent of the world whether it be Polanski, Castro, Ho Chi Minh, Ortega, abortionists, drug cartels, etc., etc. No wonder they support Obama so heavily.

MeAlice on September 27, 2009 at 10:16 AM

I hope that he goes to jail dies there and then forgotten while he burn in hell.

bessex on September 27, 2009 at 10:16 AM

Hollyweird has no shame

Really, they have zero shame

blatantblue on September 27, 2009 at 10:17 AM

Ya just know that Dustin Hoffman is going to play him in a movie some day.

Scott P on September 27, 2009 at 10:18 AM

Ironic that this vermin may be brought to LA about the time Hannah’s and James’ shipment of underage El Salvadoran girls will be arriving.

TXUS on September 27, 2009 at 10:19 AM

The Washington Post’s Tom Shales is a big defender of Polanski’s and wrote a review of the movie that was critical of the “crusade” to “get” Polanski.

It was really appalling.

To be sure, there’s strong evidence that the DA and the Judge were using the case for their own career advancement but that in no way excuses Polanski’s sick and depraved acts. One can hold two or more ideas in your head at the same time.

Shales apparently can’t.

SteveMG on September 27, 2009 at 10:19 AM

When will Hollywood start pushing Obama to pardon him.

I mean, the 13 year old wanted it!

Mr. Joe on September 27, 2009 at 10:21 AM

Can we bring Ted Kennedy back for trial for Mary Jo?

Punditpawn on September 27, 2009 at 10:22 AM

Nay, Holder has better things to do. He has to prosecute the CIA staff for “torture”. Barry also does not want to make his High Arts friends to feel guilty about their bad behaviors. I bet Polanski will be released to go back to Paris by the Swiss.

bayview on September 27, 2009 at 10:22 AM

Remember as well that Polanski drugged the girl using alcohol and Quaaludes. Again, a 13-year old.

Then raped and sodomized her.

Patterico had a good overview of the matter here: Link.

SteveMG on September 27, 2009 at 10:23 AM

We are working our way up to bin Laden.

Mr. Joe on September 27, 2009 at 10:23 AM

But, but… He’s from Hollywood! He’s important. He makes important movies with important actors who pretend to be other important people. Having sex with children is normal for important people. When will all this insanity stop! This is just another example of Bush/Cheney/Halliburton/Blackwater trying to dictate morality on important people.

Burn in Hell @$$hole.

ronnyraygun on September 27, 2009 at 10:23 AM

It’s not clear from the AP report whether the Swiss acted on an old outstanding arrest warrant, or whether the US had renewed efforts to arrest Polanski.

According to Bloomberg News, he was arrested in the 1978 US warrant.

Del Dolemonte on September 27, 2009 at 10:23 AM

Maybe the era of Hollywood and counter-culture celebs “getting away with murder” is finally over. After all, Phil Spector got convicted. And Ira Einhorn rots in jail.

capricorn on September 27, 2009 at 10:23 AM

ON the 1978 warrant.

Del Dolemonte on September 27, 2009 at 10:24 AM

Here is a good picture of Roman Polanski during better times…

http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/9799/a220812122950715231951.jpg

ninjapirate on September 27, 2009 at 10:12 AM

I see what you did there…

DangerHighVoltage on September 27, 2009 at 10:26 AM

He’ll run to some other country? I just don’t see him returning here..something will happen.

jeanie on September 27, 2009 at 10:26 AM

They gave the man an Oscar, of course they support him 110%. Heck, many of them are probably guilty of the same thing, hooking up with ACORN to find the best brothels so they don’t make the same mistake he did and rape some white girl who can complain to the authorities.

Orange Doorhinge on September 27, 2009 at 10:26 AM

Roman Polanski: My favorite child rapist.

:-\

Whenever Polanksi yells “Cut!” I’m sure he’s referring to the facts.

Dion on September 27, 2009 at 10:27 AM

The young girl’s in France breathe a sigh of relief.

heshtesh on September 27, 2009 at 10:28 AM

He’s no hero; he’s a rapist,

…..

Worse, he’s a CHILD rapist.

And yes, there IS a pattern of the left defending these monsters.

artist on September 27, 2009 at 10:28 AM

I’m not so sure it’s a case of “the US renewing the warrant”. Polanski’s crimes were violations of California penal code and it’s a state case. Sure, the federal government has to participate in the extradition from Switzerland, but any decisions regarding disposition of the case will come from the California court system, not the feds.

Trafalgar on September 27, 2009 at 10:28 AM

Lets see if the left has the same level of outrage over Polanski as they did over Mark Sanford. Somehow I know the answer.

fourdeucer on September 27, 2009 at 10:31 AM

The victim would now prefer to see the charges dropped

….

That’s nice and also irrelevant.

The state is the legal victim.

She can however become a hostile witness. I don’t know how strong the evidence is, outside of victim testimony.

Could it be that he was amde to understand that the charges would be dismissed and tgis is his chance to clear it up and walk?

artist on September 27, 2009 at 10:31 AM

ACORN will defend him.

unclesmrgol on September 27, 2009 at 10:12 AM

I would be shocked if Obama was actively pursuing Polanski specifically because of the ACORN scandal.

I would imagine the last think Obama would want right now is a public discussion about pedophilia when another group of his supporters will be loudly arguing the pro side.

BTW, have any State Media reporters asked about Obama’s days in ACORN yet? Or if he regrets hiring the “nonpartisan” group in 2008?

18-1 on September 27, 2009 at 10:34 AM

The Swiss Directors Association sharply criticized authorities for what it deemed “not only a grotesque farce of justice, but also an immense cultural scandal.

Because our cultural superiors should not be bound by trivialities.

entropent on September 27, 2009 at 10:34 AM

The lefty arguments will be the same as for Teddy’s mruder of Mary Jo. Because this was so long ago, and because he has “contributed” so much to society since then, this should be “left in the past.”

Wethal on September 27, 2009 at 10:34 AM

When will Hollywood start pushing Obama to pardon him.

I mean, the 13 year old wanted it!

Mr. Joe on September 27, 2009 at 10:21 AM

Obama has zero authority to pardon him. He was convicted in the California court system, so only the governor of California has pardon/clemency authority.

The state is the legal victim.

She can however become a hostile witness. I don’t know how strong the evidence is, outside of victim testimony.

Could it be that he was amde to understand that the charges would be dismissed and tgis is his chance to clear it up and walk?

artist on September 27, 2009 at 10:31 AM

He has already been convicted. He fled prior to sentencing, so there’s no need at all for anybody to have to testify to anything again. The charges cannot be dismissed, the guilty verdict has already been certified.

Trafalgar on September 27, 2009 at 10:35 AM

Lets see if the left has the same level of outrage over Polanski as they did over Mark Sanford. Somehow I know the answer.

fourdeucer on September 27, 2009 at 10:31 AM

Actually the better comparison would be Mark Foley – but of course Foley never graduated to sexual assault…

18-1 on September 27, 2009 at 10:36 AM

I’m not making excuses for Polanski’s behavior, which was both criminal and disgusting, but is this really the best use of California’s limited resources? The crime happened decades ago, the victim doesn’t want the prosecution, and the perpetrator is no longer a threat (at age 76).

California doesn’t have unlimited amounts of money to spend on criminal prosecutions, but they do have a state full of violent criminals (many of whom are illegal alien gang members). Wouldn’t the CA taxpayers’ money be better spent on pursuing the criminals who present an actual, present threat to the people of California — instead of some decrepit old pervert whose crimes happened decades ago?

AZCoyote on September 27, 2009 at 10:36 AM

If Bertha is chased out of ACORN, Polanski could take her place; he already has experience in exploiting underage girls.

Bishop on September 27, 2009 at 10:37 AM

Obama can always pardon him in a few years just before he leaves office.

Doesn’t that sound nice? Obama leaving the Office. I like that. Obama leaving the Office.
:)

bridgetown on September 27, 2009 at 10:38 AM

AZCoyote on September 27, 2009 at 10:36 AM

A 76 year old is no longer a threat? oh boy…

bridgetown on September 27, 2009 at 10:39 AM

The crime happened decades ago, the victim doesn’t want the prosecution.

California doesn’t have unlimited amounts of money to spend on criminal prosecutions

AZCoyote on September 27, 2009 at 10:36 AM

There is no prosecution involved in this. He has already been tried and found guilty. It’s quuite simply a matter of being sentenced and confined.

Trafalgar on September 27, 2009 at 10:39 AM

California doesn’t have unlimited amounts of money to spend on criminal prosecutions

Polanski was already prosecuted and sentenced. There will be no prosecution.

He fled from going to jail.

Re going after criminals: it depends on the crime.

SteveMG on September 27, 2009 at 10:40 AM

And Obama’s first Presidential pardon goes to…

trubble on September 27, 2009 at 10:14 AM

Obama won’t wear his moral equivocation hat this time. His 2 daughters won’t let him.
And Hollywood will hail him for opening their eyes that, yes, child rape is a crime, even if it did happen back when their dear leader was only 16 years old.

CarolynM on September 27, 2009 at 10:41 AM

Obama can always pardon him in a few years just before he leaves office.

Doesn’t that sound nice? Obama leaving the Office. I like that. Obama leaving the Office.
:)

bridgetown on September 27, 2009 at 10:38 AM

I agree on the Obama leaving office bit, but, once again, Obama has zero legal authority in this case…it’s totally a State of California issue.

Trafalgar on September 27, 2009 at 10:41 AM

“The victim would now prefer to see the charges dropped…”

Probably because she knows good and well what the left does to people who go after one of their own. They’ll destroy her. Absolutely destroy her. And wasn’t it just yesterday that we were talking about how the right wing would make excuses for the killing of that census taker in Kentucky. I think we’re about to see how rationalizing the horrific behavior of fellow travelers is really done.

Rational Thought on September 27, 2009 at 10:41 AM

He has already been convicted. He fled prior to sentencing, so there’s no need at all for anybody to have to testify to anything again. The charges cannot be dismissed, the guilty verdict has already been certified.

Trafalgar on September 27, 2009 at 10:35 AM

OK, thanks. I didn’t realize that.

Did the rape victim testify? If so, and she recants her testimony with some type of conspiracy, is the rest of the evidence strong enough to convict?

artist on September 27, 2009 at 10:41 AM

Actually the better comparison would be Mark Foley – but of course Foley never graduated to sexual assault…

18-1 on September 27, 2009 at 10:36 AM
You are right, somehow I forgot about Foley and his attempted pursuit of teenage boys. The hippocracy is staggering when it comes to one of their own.

fourdeucer on September 27, 2009 at 10:41 AM

Lock him up for the rest of his life in a regular prison, not a country club one.

kingsjester on September 27, 2009 at 10:42 AM

Lock him up for the rest of his life in a regular prison, not a country club one.

kingsjester on September 27, 2009 at 10:42 AM

He would go to state prison in CA.

And those are NOT club-like.

artist on September 27, 2009 at 10:43 AM

I forgot to mention the other week when people were discussing the Manson murders, that years later, the cool thing for the Hollywood leftards was to argue that there was no evidence to convict Manson because he did not kill anyone. Nickleson was one of the idiots floating that meme. Apparently, leftards do not understand conspiracy to murder. Duh.

Blake on September 27, 2009 at 10:44 AM

There is no prosecution involved in this. He has already been tried and found guilty. It’s quuite simply a matter of being sentenced and confined.

Trafalgar on September 27, 2009 at 10:39 AM

Okay, but that’s still going to cost CA taxpayers. My point is just that there are better things to spend that money on. By all means, keep him out of the country. But bring him back so taxpayers can pay to keep him in prison? How does that make sense, especially given CA’s current budgetary constraints?

AZCoyote on September 27, 2009 at 10:44 AM

To be sure, there’s strong evidence that the DA and the Judge were using the case for their own career advancement but that in no way excuses Polanski’s sick and depraved acts. One can hold two or more ideas in your head at the same time.

SteveMG on September 27, 2009 at 10:19 AM

One can hold in their head the idea that the prosecutor is the adversary of the accused.

Polansky now gets to have a (much belated) hearing on the so-called “improper communications” between DA David Wells and the late Judge Rittenbrand asserted in the mentioned documentary.

But he does so with the presumption of guilt, given his flight from justice.

Here’s the statement on this from the London Times:

In their brief, Mr Polanski’s lawyers quote liberally from the documentary, citing statements by former Deputy District Attorney David Wells in which he acknowledged advising the judge on how to sentence the film director, even though he was not assigned to the case.

The lawyers said that Mr Wells’ recommendation to send Polanski away for a diagnostic study was illegal without his lawyers present. They said Mr Wells also inflamed the judge by showing him photos depicting the director with girls at an Oktoberfest party in Germany while he was awaiting sentencing. They said the photos were misrepresented.

“As the result of DDA Wells’ illegal … communications, Mr Polanski has been subject to a punishment that has spanned the course of over 30 years,” the motion stated, noting he has been deprived of opportunities to work on films outside France.

So, Polanski had been found guilty, and all that remained was the sentencing. It is the events around the sentencing to which Polanski’s attorneys objected, not the conviction itself.

As for Polanski’s punishment over a span of 30 years, that was Polanski’s own doing. Having been found guilty of raping and sodomizing an underaged person, and free on his own recognizance, he chose to flee. All of the inability to obtain work other than in France is a result of that act, not of any other.

Perhaps, in this post-ACORN world, Polanski can find a libertarian judge to dismiss the original conviction — but I doubt it.

unclesmrgol on September 27, 2009 at 10:45 AM

Let me guess:

The Polanski “documentary” was funded by the N.E.A.

J.J. Sefton on September 27, 2009 at 10:45 AM

Did the rape victim testify? If so, and she recants her testimony with some type of conspiracy, is the rest of the evidence strong enough to convict?

artist on September 27, 2009 at 10:41 AM

Absent a California appeals court reversing the conviction and ordering a new trial in Superior Court, she cannot recant her testimony. Appeal courts only listen to arguments regarding the law, not regarding the facts.

Trafalgar on September 27, 2009 at 10:45 AM

Okay, but that’s still going to cost CA taxpayers. My point is just that there are better things to spend that money on. By all means, keep him out of the country. But bring him back so taxpayers can pay to keep him in prison? How does that make sense, especially given CA’s current budgetary constraints?

AZCoyote on September 27, 2009 at 10:44 AM

You do the crime, you do the time. Polanski had done the first, but has not yet done the second. He now will be given that opportunity. Not even California will let a pedophile go.

unclesmrgol on September 27, 2009 at 10:47 AM

You American’s are so closed minded….

If a accomplished and talented European Director can’t ply a 13 year-old girl with “ludes” and vodka and then force himself on her in Los Angeles that WHO can and WHERE can it be done? Did you ever think of it that way?

I look forward to Obama’s pardon of Polanski and a Presidential apology to this great Frenchman for his oppression at hands of “the America that once was.”

Kasper Hauser on September 27, 2009 at 10:48 AM

Okay, but that’s still going to cost CA taxpayers. My point is just that there are better things to spend that money on. By all means, keep him out of the country. But bring him back so taxpayers can pay to keep him in prison? How does that make sense, especially given CA’s current budgetary constraints?

AZCoyote on September 27, 2009 at 10:44 AM

On the basis of your arguement, I assume that you would be in favor of just shutting down California’s prison system and letting everybody out? The thing is that Polanski committed an extremely serious crime against the people of California and the state has an obligation to not only protect the people but also to exact retribution and punishment.

Trafalgar on September 27, 2009 at 10:48 AM

Okay, but that’s still going to cost CA taxpayers. My point is just that there are better things to spend that money on.

Good argument for the death penalty for child rape.

Kasper Hauser on September 27, 2009 at 10:51 AM

ACORN issued the following statement: “What’s wrong with having sex with a 13-year-old girl? Is that illegal or something?”

Kafir on September 27, 2009 at 10:51 AM

If so, and she recants her testimony with some type of conspiracy, is the rest of the evidence strong enough to convict?

artist on September 27, 2009 at 10:41 AM

And even if there were a new trial, she’d have to recant her testimony under oath, facing perjury charges if she’s lying. Depending on what other evidence was introduced at trial, she might very well be on extremely shaky ground and face imprisonment herself.

Trafalgar on September 27, 2009 at 10:52 AM

I think drugging, raping and sodomizing a 13-year old girl is sufficient grounds for imprisonment even after 30 years and even with the budgetary problems that the state is facing.

Kiting checks, failing to pay a hotel bill, possession of small amounts of drugs? A victimless crime? Okay, let him go.

There’s a real victim here.

SteveMG on September 27, 2009 at 10:53 AM

More than 30 years after his arrest and trial for statutory rape and sodomy of a 13-year-old girl,

Here’s to hoping that a 6’10″ homosexual black convict gets to return the favor…..repeatedly!

conservnut on September 27, 2009 at 10:53 AM

Absent a California appeals court reversing the conviction and ordering a new trial in Superior Court, she cannot recant her testimony. Appeal courts only listen to arguments regarding the law, not regarding the facts.

Trafalgar on September 27, 2009 at 10:45 AM

That’s where I’m going. If the victim claims some type of conspiracy or wrongdoing, with respect to her interview/testimony, wouldn’t that be a matter of law?

artist on September 27, 2009 at 10:53 AM

BTW–As for recanting….there is also Polanski’s confession and guilty plea. The semen evidence likely still exists and can be DNA tested.

Kasper Hauser on September 27, 2009 at 10:53 AM

Come to Nevada baby. We’ve got OJ here. You guys would be peas in a pod together.

I agree Kasper, this guys totally on the pardon list on the last Friday of Obama’s failed presidency.

Mojave Mark on September 27, 2009 at 10:54 AM

Polanski was already prosecuted and sentenced. There will be no prosecution.

He fled from going to jail.

Re going after criminals: it depends on the crime.

SteveMG on September 27, 2009 at 10:40 AM

Not jail. Prison. There is a difference, nowadays. Things have changed, Mr. Polanski, and not for the better; expect the same treatment from your fellow inmates that you gave to your victim so many years ago…

unclesmrgol on September 27, 2009 at 10:54 AM

I sense another standing ovation at the Oscars for Roman.

Caper29 on September 27, 2009 at 10:56 AM

Depending on what other evidence was introduced at trial, she might very well be on extremely shaky ground and face imprisonment herself.

Trafalgar on September 27, 2009 at 10:52 AM

While theoretically possible, certainly not likely.

No one is going to jail a child-rape victim.

Certainly not a jury or judge in Los Angeles. I seriously doubt that charges would even be pursued.

artist on September 27, 2009 at 10:56 AM

Here’s to hoping that a 6′10″ homosexual black convict gets to return the favor…..repeatedly!

conservnut on September 27, 2009 at 10:53 AM

Doesn’t have to be black, or even 6’10′. “girlie man” Polanski won’t stand a chance in the general population.

I think he’ll spend the rest of his days in solitary because of the possibility you just mentioned.

unclesmrgol on September 27, 2009 at 10:57 AM

expect the same treatment from your fellow inmates that you gave to your victim so many years ago…

Well, I share your anger but not your thoughts.

Prison rape is a serious problem and one that shouldn’t be “encouraged” (if you will).

SteveMG on September 27, 2009 at 10:57 AM

That’s where I’m going. If the victim claims some type of conspiracy or wrongdoing, with respect to her interview/testimony, wouldn’t that be a matter of law?

artist on September 27, 2009 at 10:53 AM

Essentially no. Those are matters of fact, not law. There is only one trier of fact, the trial court and the jury. Appeals courts generally only look at whether the trial judge applioed and followed the law correctly during the trial. That’s why you never see death row inmates appealing to the Supreme Court regarding their convictions, for example, they always appeal on the Constitution not having been properly followed or that the death penalty is unconsitiutional.

Trafalgar on September 27, 2009 at 10:58 AM

expect the same treatment from your fellow inmates that you gave to your victim so many years ago…

unclesmrgol on September 27, 2009 at 10:54 AM

He would like be in ADSEG or protective custody.

Two reasons:

1. Child-rape

2. Fame status

artist on September 27, 2009 at 10:58 AM

I think he’ll spend the rest of his days in solitary because of the possibility you just mentioned.

unclesmrgol on September 27, 2009 at 10:57 AM

You are probably right. And that is too bad!

conservnut on September 27, 2009 at 10:58 AM

expect the same treatment from your fellow inmates that you gave to your victim so many years ago…

unclesmrgol on September 27, 2009 at 10:54 AM
The irony would be sweet but I doubt many prisoners would have an interest in an old man. There would be more of a risk for him to be brutalized by inanimate objects, unless that is what you are thinking.

fourdeucer on September 27, 2009 at 10:59 AM

He’ll file motions to withdraw his plea. It’ll be denied.

Blake on September 27, 2009 at 11:00 AM

Trafalgar on September 27, 2009 at 10:58 AM

I appreciate your knowledge.

One question, what if it came out post-conviction, that the witness testimony was unlawfully coerced by the police or that the witness just fabricated?

What recourse does the defendant have?

artist on September 27, 2009 at 11:01 AM

If Polanski is retried on rape of a minor, there is no chance whatsoever he’ll be convicted now. The victim, who had received a settlement from him, wanted the charges dropped. She will not testify, or be a hostile or unhelpful witness. But I think the charge will be flight from justice, because he had been convicted.

However, I do not think extradition is likely. Polanski will be released. The Swiss government is probably upset at the immigration officer who (properly) arrested Polanski, but created an embarrassing situation for the “oh so enlightened” government. And I’ll bet Barry and Eric the p—pot holder would not seek extradition.

bayview on September 27, 2009 at 11:01 AM

I agree Kasper, this guys totally on the pardon list on the last Friday of Obama’s failed presidency.

Mojave Mark on September 27, 2009 at 10:54 AM

OK folks, can we take Obama out of this equation once and for all? He is forbidden by law to issue pardons or clemency in state cases. Only the governor of the state may do that.

Trafalgar on September 27, 2009 at 11:01 AM

Can we bring Ted Kennedy back for trial for Mary Jo?

Punditpawn on September 27, 2009 at 10:22 AM

Teddy is finally getting his punishment.

Johan Klaus on September 27, 2009 at 11:01 AM

I have it on good authority that Phil Spector is looking for a room mate. They are both misunderstood geniuses you know.

BigAlSouth on September 27, 2009 at 11:02 AM

I think it’s a non-starter. He will get a free ride here and charges will be dropped or there will be a mock trial and he will be let go. This will not touch BO and is nothing more then another celebrity distraction to grab the news cycle from the BO train wreck. As the left is so fond of saying, “I question the timing.”

RagTag on September 27, 2009 at 11:02 AM

Here is a good picture of Roman Polanski during better times…

http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/9799/a220812122950715231951.jpg

ninjapirate on September 27, 2009 at 10:12 AM

I see what you did there…

DangerHighVoltage on September 27, 2009 at 10:26 AM

Came for the pedobear; left statisified

///slashies!!!

TC@LeatherPenguin on September 27, 2009 at 11:03 AM

Maybe this is Obama’s “sister Souljah” moment, in which he demonstrates to middle America his guardianship of traditional values.

I think it’s a good move. What’s he got to lose? Not the useful idiots of Hollywood, that’s for sure. They’d throw a dozen Polanskis under the bus for Obama.

rrpjr on September 27, 2009 at 11:03 AM

OK folks, can we take Obama out of this equation once and for all? He is forbidden by law to issue pardons or clemency in state cases. Only the governor of the state may do that.

You assume your mere laws and precident can bind Obama? Hah! Naive fool

Kasper Hauser on September 27, 2009 at 11:04 AM

Watch the Swiss let him go before extradition.

You heard it here first.

Red Cloud on September 27, 2009 at 11:04 AM

<blockquoteOne question, what if it came out post-conviction, that the witness testimony was unlawfully coerced by the police or that the witness just fabricated?

That would definitely be a reason for the appeal court to reverse the verdict and order a new trial. If the police violated the state constitution by coercing testimony, that is a matter of law. However, if he didn’t win the appeal in state court I don’t think he’s have a course in the federal appeal system…I don’t think there’s anything in the US Constitution barring the police from coercing witnesses, just suspects. But I could be wrong

>

Trafalgar on September 27, 2009 at 11:05 AM

He will get a free ride here and charges will be dropped or there will be a mock trial and he will be let go

Once again, he was already tried and convicted. He fled during the sentencing part of the trial.

I imagine Schwarzenegger could commute whatever sentence is handed down or even give a full pardon. No doubt the Hollywood crowd will be pressing him on this one.

Obama won’t go near this. Not a chance.

It’s Schwarzenegger’s problem.

SteveMG on September 27, 2009 at 11:06 AM

If Polanski is retried on rape of a minor, there is no chance whatsoever he’ll be convicted now.

He pled guilty. There will be no trial. And any issues he had with the judge, he waived by fleeing and not choosing to address them in court.

The victim, who had received a settlement from him, wanted the charges dropped. She will not testify, or be a hostile or unhelpful witness.

She she will. She is not a nut.

But I think the charge will be flight from justice, because he had been convicted.

Why bother if they can just sentence him and send him directly to prison?

However, I do not think extradition is likely. Polanski will be released. The Swiss government is probably upset at the immigration officer who (properly) arrested Polanski, but created an embarrassing situation for the “oh so enlightened” government. And I’ll bet Barry and Eric the p—pot holder would not seek extradition.

bayview on September 27, 2009 at 11:01 AM

I dunno. I have a feeling that Barry may not care all that much for little girl rapists.

Blake on September 27, 2009 at 11:06 AM

Here is a good picture of Roman Polanski during better times…

http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/9799/a220812122950715231951.jpg

ninjapirate on September 27, 2009 at 10:12 AM

Heh, never tought i’d see good ol’ pedobear in a Hot Air thread.

Anyways, Polanski is a scumbag of the highest order, but i’ll be damned if “The Pianist” wasn’t one hell of a movie.

madne0 on September 27, 2009 at 11:07 AM

On the basis of your arguement, I assume that you would be in favor of just shutting down California’s prison system and letting everybody out? The thing is that Polanski committed an extremely serious crime against the people of California and the state has an obligation to not only protect the people but also to exact retribution and punishment.
Trafalgar on September 27, 2009 at 10:48 AM

And asking the Swiss to send a 76 year old pervert back to CA for crimes he committed 30 years ago, and is unlikely to commit again, is protecting the people of CA how, exactly? And yes, retribution and punishment are worthy goals of the prison system, but they are not always goals that can be met — which is why CA is currently releasing many of its prisoners before their terms are completed. They just don’t have the money.

As to your assumption that I would favor releasing all of CA’s prisoners, that doesn’t even make sense. I am a pragmatist. I understand that CA has limited funds to spend on criminal justice. I am arguing that CA should use those limited funds on pursuing and imprisoning the criminals who present the most serious actual threats to the people of the state. The money they’ll spend on pursuing and imprisoning Polanski for his 30-year old crimes is money CA won’t have available to spend on pursuing and imprisoning an L.A. gang-banger who is currently committing crimes against CA citizens. It’s about prioritizing.

AZCoyote on September 27, 2009 at 11:07 AM

Now, they need to put him on trial, convict him and lock up the pig for the rest of his worthless life.

rplat on September 27, 2009 at 10:11 AM

Tuesday, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Peter Espinoza ruled that if Polanski, who fled on the eve of his sentencing,

Wrong,he has been put him on trial and convicted. He fled just before he was sentenced. Let him fight this they way we would have to. Appeal, go to trial again or serve his sentence. The crime of fleeing and obstructing Justice is a new charge and trial. He is guilty of both. The first he admitted to already, the second is obvious but he gets a trial anyway. In legalese he “allegedly” fled Justice.

IowaWoman on September 27, 2009 at 11:07 AM

He didn’t inform on Stalinists in the 1950′s so he is still cool in Hollyweird.

RobCon on September 27, 2009 at 11:08 AM

Obama, in his own words, regarding the CIA case, refused to inject himself into the Holder’s decision to investigate.
Therefore, would he then inject himself into this one?
Yes? No? Sounds like a good Vegas betting scenario.
Set him up in a cell with Jamal, and Hollywood gets two, for one visit.

hopefloats on September 27, 2009 at 11:09 AM

Trafalgar on September 27, 2009 at 11:05 AM

No, you are not wrong. And the young woman gave a deposition under oath, spoke to law enforcement, and has made many statements. She is not the criminal – he is.

Blake on September 27, 2009 at 11:10 AM

Haha, I love that attempting to attend an event honoring himself was what led to his arrest. Gobsmacked!

Too bad he didn’t just accept his fate all those years ago and do the time like a man. Oh yea, real men wouldn’t have done this type of crime in the first place.

scalleywag on September 27, 2009 at 11:10 AM

How about him sharing a cell with Manson. I’m sure they will have much to talk about.

RobCon on September 27, 2009 at 11:10 AM

AZCoyote on September 27, 2009 at 10:36 AM

What if Polanski had killed the girl, instead of just ruining her life?

Johan Klaus on September 27, 2009 at 11:13 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 6