So what's next?

0/ Let it all quietly disappear?

1/ Sentencing in absentia, followed by continuing pursuit by the US authorities?

2/ Since France will not extradite, request the French authorities to bring a prosecution and sentencing within France?

...or?

Extraordinary rendition by the United States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraor..._United_States
??

Ironically enough, I get the impression that it's since the threat of the cold war went away that they've been involved in one gaff after another. I guess with no clear bad guys to work against, people needing to to justify their existence had to look for threats to neutralise...

One of my favorite authors is Michael Crichton, and he wrote a book several years ago called State of Fear. It's fiction of course, but there was one small part in the book where they talk about the government controlling the people through fear (thus the name of the book). The cold war, terrorists, global warming, etc. There always needs to be an enemy...

sounds like a copy of 1984 to me

rename french toast to Freedom Toast®

Yes, exactly. famous people should be above the law, especially if they are famous film directors and only committed a crime once.

OR maybe instead of having a go at false syllogisms and constructing straw-men, you would actually like to respond to what i wrote, not what your daily-mail addled 'hang the paedo' sensibilities wanted to read and get outraged about. jeeez.

This is why it is dangerous to let people get anywhere near making the laws of a country, even a democracy...

Actually, it is exactly why it is so important for as many people as possible to either vote for the laws themselves or vote for "true" representatives.

For every "too far" liberal nut you'll have a "too far" conservative nut... the best way to do it is to have enough that they balance each other out and thus arrive at a compromise.



I keep reading back and have searched a bit but seem unable to (re)locate where part of the "deal" was for Polanski to keep himself out of trouble.

Meanwhile, his involvement with Natassja Kinski makes it pretty clear that it was not a one time thing AND their relationship reportedly began in '76 (prior to court in this case) and did not end until '79. Hardly the indication of someone who did it once and learned his lesson.


Of course, this, among many others, is a large part of why drugs and alcohol are "bad". Things you really know you shouldn't do, things which tempt you are even more tempting and tough to avoid when under the influence. This goes for both the Roman Polanski AND his victim.

__________________
The Joys of Opticianry

All paedophiles should start making films to avoid prosecution.

Oops some of them already do. Not THAT type of film.

Difficult world, isn't it?

Or maybe he should have just have stuck to his guns, that he "had no idea, ohhh nooo"?

Why the surprise , Bush uses it , Blair used it ( bird flu, the state of the NHS, terrorism ... when the chips were down Alister Campbell tried ti use anything). My old neighbour was a Met Policemen, who was pissed of with being a government whipping post. At least two of the code reds (London was about to be attacked) were totally fictitious

And a Swiss Roll to Freedom Roll ®TM

My last word on this subject, at least at this forum. I agree with Eugene Robinson's op-ed piece for The Washington Post today:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...d=opinionsbox1

What is that sentence supposed to mean?
How many thoughts is a californian judge allowed to have before the accused know what to expect for good?
Just asking...

I think the title of this thread is one of the most unfortunate ones I've seen.
I'm iff to Gstaad this weekend. There's a trampolining contest.!!! Go figure.
I wonder if you are allowed an image of Polanski to just up and down on.

Hmm, I agree with Robinson's (and everyone else's) opinion that Polanski is a rat, pervert, etc. What I don't like is how so many people are equating this decision to Switzerland actively endorsing things like this, or that they made a decision that he should go unpunished.

In my opinion, if the Swiss government didn't view his behavior as wrong in the first place, they wouldn't have bothered to arrest him or go through this process. They would have been effectively wasting their time for the past six months. It sounds to me like the Swiss government made every effort to determine if this case fit their conditions for extradition and were never provided with evidence to support that.

It has nothing to do with whether or not the Swiss government consider him guilty, or whether they think he did right or wrong. It appears to me that the Swiss operated by the letter of the law and went through the correct procedures, and the decision they ultimately came to was the result of what the US provided them (or, lack thereof).

The people most at fault in this case are of course Polanski himself and the original judge and prosecutor. They should have handed out a harsher sentence in the first place, but given the culture and views of society at that time, perhaps that seemed like enough justice back then (though it certainly doesn't seem so today).

And Swiss Cheese (the one they sell in the US with holes in it?!) to Freedom Cheese ®TM

... doesn't that mean (having been longer than 183 days in Switzerland) he now has to pay Swiss taxes in 2010?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worl...-festival.html

He fled after being charged. He is a rapist. Somehow it is the
fault of the US that he is a pedophile rapist??!! Please.

No, he is NOT. I mean, few people doubt that he WAS a rapist. By Swiss law however, the matter is beyond expiry date. As the extradition treaty with the USA excludes expiry limits, the procedure against him was started. But as the State of California failed to produce the required evidence, the matter got closed, and so, by Swiss laws he is NOT a criminal but a free man ..... and so he is NOT a rapist but a film producer