Should the Swiss have sent Polanski back to California?
The Swiss government's decision not to allow Roman Polanski to be extradited to Los Angeles has (predictably) rankled U.S. authorities, and The Times' editorial board has ladled on another helping of outrage. But Polanski has no shortage of defenders, some of whom argue (as does Polanski) that L.A. Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley's sudden attempt to arrest and extradite the filmmaker was politically motivated.
Regardless of what you think of the filmmaker (and admitted child molester), there's an interesting issue here about the rule of law and the role of the Swiss, who have studiously cultivated their reputation as secret-keepers. If Los Angeles authorities really did double-cross Polanski and renege on the deal that led him to plead guilty to having unlawful sex with a minor in 1977 (a 13-year-old girl whom he'd been charged with drugging and raping), should he be able to contest his treatment in a neutral forum? Or does the fact that he's a fugitive who fled the country before he could be sentenced mean that he has to come back to Los Angeles to make his case?
Take our highly unscientific poll, leave a comment below, or do both!
-- Jon Healey
Photo: Swiss Justice Minister Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf. Credit: Fabrice Coffrini / AFP/Getty Images
The Swiss are right and they have a case. The DA had ample time in office to arrest the man many times over. Why now? That's what befuddled the Swiss, and convinced them that the action after all this time is politically motivated.
Posted by: Mike | July 12, 2010 at 06:35 PM
Mike, you are wrong. Polanski spent many years in France, which doesn't have an extradition treaty. As soon as he goes to Switzerland, the LA DA filed a request for extradition.
This is simply a case of the rich and powerful getting away with sex crimes. Had he been Joe Average Guy he would have been in jail for 20 years, if not longer.
Posted by: Robert | July 12, 2010 at 08:27 PM
I agree with Robert's post.
The rich and famous can have sex with children...
It is just the "bad guys" that are child rapists!!!
I wonder how safe his own children and children's
friends are...How can a woman marry a child
molester....almost spells like monster...
Deborah (worked with many...they do not change)
Posted by: deb-z | July 12, 2010 at 09:12 PM
The Swiss are right after all. There were multiple serious crimes 1) the egregious sex crime 2) a facile agreement to serve a psychiatric observation period, with subsequent deportation -- given a certain finding 3) changing the deal, thus violating the most minimal standard of double jeopardy -- after the observation period was only somewhat reduced.
Why now? I tend to agree that the extradiction delay was substantially related to crime #3 (I assume the judge is safe beyond a statute of limitations at this point).
Posted by: rt | July 13, 2010 at 12:46 PM
Robert you haven't followed the story well enough. Roman Polanski travelled to Switzerland many times. Deb you are correct but this was in the past. The rich and famous are now picked on for sex charges because they can put so much money into the legal system. The legal eagles get rich when a Polanski type case comes up. He has paid dearly for his evening of criminal sexual activity and the money mostly goes into the pockets of the lawyers not just his victim. If he had been extradited, the legal fraternity in the USA would have absorbed most of his wealth and false victims would start to appear with false charges. They would take the rest of his estate.(Ref Michael Jackson)
Posted by: Steve Maile | July 13, 2010 at 05:37 PM
Does it matter to anyone in this forum that the age of consent in New Mexico is 13 -- and the young woman is not called a "child"?
Does it matter that in California a girl of 13 (or even younger!) can marry (with parental consent) and participate in any kind of sexual activity with her husband -- and there is no allegation of him being a "child molester."?
The Polanski case is based on arbitrary laws, arbitrarily enforced, at a cost of millions of dollars in taxpayer funds. The young woman at the center of the case has repeatedly said that Polanski should not be prosecuted... and presumably not persecuted either.
But those who wish to call her a "victim" and persist in calling her a child... are obsessed with a witch hunt that makes no sense and has nothing to do with justice.
The Swiss justice system understandably had its doubts about many aspects of this case; sufficient to deny the request for extradition.
Posted by: palinurus | July 14, 2010 at 03:47 PM