Switzerland: what is it really for?

blobbyh

I'm genuinely outraged by this article that I just read on the news:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment_and_arts/10601930.stm

So the message now is that anyone who has previously admitted their guilt over their crimes but doesn't want to face justice for them, can simply escape from custody before legging it to Switzerland. A country that apparently knows no limits to it's cowardice while welcoming anyone and everyone to stash their ill gotten gains so no doubt they can use the interest to boost their allegedly high standard of living. I'd rather be poor and honest.

I used to joke when I was younger that if I ever had a nuke, I would launch it at Switzerland. Time clearly hasn't changed my stance...

Rinske

I fail to see your issue in this and would say, HURAY to Switzerland for not blindly agreeing to US demands.

Just my two cents... Maybe I should put them on a swiss bank account...

PGM

Thats a strange one.

Why has the US left it so long? And if there has been a plea bargain all them years back why allow it and then go back on it?!

blobbyh

Distasteful reading so the sensitive should possibly avoid this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Polanski_sexual_abuse_case

Then tell me it's okay to not 'bow' to extradition requests, whether US or anywhere else, or is sexual abuse really not a global offence after all?

Rinske

blobbyh wrote: »

Distasteful reading so the sensitive should possibly avoid this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Polanski_sexual_abuse_case

Then tell me it's okay to not 'bow' to extradition requests, whether US or anywhere else, or is sexual abuse really not a global offence after all?

Read the piece and found these quotes actually confirming my point of view:

Wikipedia wrote:

In a documentary for A&E Television Networks entitled Roman Polanski (2000), Samantha Gailey Geimer stated "…he had sex with me. He wasn’t hurting me and he wasn’t forceful or mean or anything like that, and really I just tried to let him get it over with." She also claimed that the event had been blown "all out of proportion".

In a 2003 interview, Samantha Geimer said, "Straight up, what he did to me was wrong. But I wish he would return to America so the whole ordeal can be put to rest for both of us." Furthermore, "I'm sure if he could go back, he wouldn't do it again. He made a terrible mistake but he's paid for it." In 2008, Geimer stated in an interview that she wishes Polanski would be forgiven, "I think he's sorry, I think he knows it was wrong. I don't think he's a danger to society. I don't think he needs to be locked up forever and no one has ever come out ever — besides me — and accused him of anything. It was 30 years ago now. It's an unpleasant memory ... (but) I can live with it."

So if the victim already says this, you might want to reconsider. Besides that the case is now over 30 years old, so in most other countries this would be considered outdated.
I think it is 20 years in The Netherlands for rape, starting on the day of the 18th birthday of the victim. Granted, this was already in court and therefore is different, but maybe they should reconsider the whole case, whether it is worth continuing or not.

By now you would hope the victim would have left it behind and got to the point of being a survivor instead of a victim and she got him convicted to pay her quite a sum of money, which is not sure whether or not it has been paid or not.

Wikipedia wrote:

In December 2008, Polanski's lawyer in the United States filed a request to Judge David S. Wesley to try and have the case dismissed on the grounds of judicial and prosecutorial misconduct. The filing claims that Judge Rittenband (now deceased) violated the plea bargain by keeping in communication about the case with a deputy district attorney who was not involved. These activities were depicted in Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired.

In January 2009, Polanski's lawyer filed a further request to have the case dismissed, and to have the case moved out of Los Angeles, as the Los Angeles courts require him to appear before the court for any sentencing or dismissal, and Polanski did not intend to appear. In February 2009, Polanski's request was tentatively denied by Judge Peter Espinoza, who said that he would make a ruling if Polanski appeared in court. The same month, Samantha Geimer filed to have the charges against Polanski dismissed from court, saying that decades of publicity as well as the prosecutor's focus on lurid details continues to traumatize her and her family. Judge Espinoza also stated there was misconduct by the judge in the original case but Polanski must return to the United States to actually apply for dismissal.

So yes, I stick to my point. I don't think he should be sent to the US, just to rake it all up again and give the newspapers something to talk about, if there is a clear point from the judge as well as the victim to dismis the case.

I really don't understand why he would have to appear in person to dismis the case, but I suppose that's the US for you.

I am far from a defender for anyone suspected of any sexual offense, quite the opposite and usually welcome big sentences, but I do think this is a case where it is over the top and blown out of proportions, because the person happens to be either famous, or any other reason.

Just one note, I wasn't there and can't judge what happens, other than stories of others. However I feel that this case is too strongly judged in the papers, and that maybe the victim should get what she wants, which is all charges dropped.

So sorry Blobster, in this case I completely disagree with you. But as I'm going on holiday tomorrow, you most likely won't get any more arguments from me!