Top Leaderboard, Site wide
July 30, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Help us grow by sharing
and liking Truthdig:
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Newsletter

sign up to get updates








Truthdig Bazaar
Room: A Novel

Room: A Novel

By Emma Donoghue
$13.72

Churchill

Churchill

By Paul Johnson
$14.97

more items

 
Arts and Culture

Swiss Set Polanski Free

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Jul 12, 2010
Polanski
AP / Roberto Pfeil

Free Polanski: The electronic bracelet comes off.

Roman Polanski is a lucky man—and as of Monday, he’s also a free man after a Swiss judge decided that the justification for Polanski’s extradition to the U.S. was flawed. So, the “freedom-restricting measures against him have been revoked,” as the Swiss Justice Ministry put it in an official statement.  —KA

Update: The Wrap followed up later on Monday with a report that Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley isn’t giving up that easily on the Polanski case.

The Wrap:

A Swiss judge accepted Polanski’s lawyer’s move to block the extradition.

“In these circumstances it is not possible to exclude with the necessary certainty that Roman Polanski has already served the sentence he was condemned to at the time and that the extradition request is undermined by a serious fault,” the judge, Justice Minister Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf, said. “Considering the persisting doubts concerning the presentation of the facts of the case, the request has to be rejected.”

“The United States cannot contest the decision,” Widmer-Schlumpf added. “This is not about qualifying a crime. That is not our duty. This is not about deciding on guilt or innocence.”

The news was said to hit the Los Angeles District Attorney’s office “like a bomb.”

Read more


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By velville, July 16, 2010 at 11:57 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“It is pigheaded of those that wanted to punish Polanski for rape, there are two sides to the story.”

At law a child under 7 years old cannot form thoughts sufficient to be prosecuted.  From 7 to 13? 

Sorry, but a child under 13 is not of an age of consent.  Period.  If she is a tartlette then the grownups around her did not do their job.  But that is only when the word “responsible adult” means something.

Make all the excuses you want until your kid or grandchild ends up in the sack with some celebrity…then go look for two sides.

I, however, will go looking for a baseball bat or a shortgun…

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, July 15, 2010 at 2:34 pm Link to this comment

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704682604575368940917717562.html

Since when does a judge need the court records and testimony to turn down an international extradition request?

Especially when the subject pled guilty.

Report this

By Michael, July 15, 2010 at 12:47 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Polanski is a life long pedophile. The case may only involve this one girl, but there have been so many more. He makes pedophile priests look like choirboys. He acts entitled to his perversion and is contemptuous of law, morals, and the rights of children. He should be made an example. He must be hunted down, kidnapped if need be, and charged with crimes against humanity, as well as this rape charge.
BTW, raping a prostitute is also a crime. Esspecially one that was forced into sex slavery by her parents at the age of 13. It is “rape-rape” not whoopy.

Report this
Peter Knopfler's avatar

By Peter Knopfler, July 13, 2010 at 5:25 pm Link to this comment

F—k Him. I raised two girls, at 13 they are still babies, As others have said,
Do that to one of mine,
no where in this world can you hide,
The creative mind of a stressed father has no bounds,
He is a walking Dead MAN! Show no mercy!

Report this
skmacksk's avatar

By skmacksk, July 13, 2010 at 3:01 pm Link to this comment

Is it possible that Mr. Polanski committed the crime he pleaded guilty to, and left this country because he thought, that what he did was acceptable, from his point of view ,as an exceptional person: as a being above a certain plebian, bourgeois American morality?
Is the thirty three year delay, in apprehending him, as a wanted fugitive, betray an utterly feckless law enforcement and their attempts to capture him; that that fecklessness betrayed law enforcement’s tacit agreement with his self-estimation? Is justice delayed, justice denied, in this case? Is the drugging of a child with intent and commission of rape and sodomy acceptable in any cultural setting? Is her mother an accessory to these acts as a passive enabler? From beginning to end this case reeks of the unsavory, the malign and the self-serving, not to speak of the criminal, in Mr. Polanski and his intellectual allies and law enforcement. The motto of the LAPD is ‘to protect and to serve’ in this case utterly laughable!

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, July 13, 2010 at 2:02 pm Link to this comment

I do have a 12 year old daughter (who thinks shes 22) and if anyone attempted to do to her that Polanski did to the 13 year old, I would make their misfortune my mission in life.

I am astounded that anyone can make excuses for the dirtbag Polanski.

Report this

By FRTothus, July 13, 2010 at 1:33 pm Link to this comment

Yet our own government allows mass-murderers and international terrorists to freely walk our streets, give interviews on national television, and write columns for the corporate press, to say nothing of official and unwavering support for murderous regimes, civilian-targeting attacks, wars of choice, and propping up brutal dictators.  The hypocrisy is astounding.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, July 13, 2010 at 4:23 am Link to this comment

Rico, PH:

I’m with you on this.  I do NOT have a 13 year-old daughter—only sons, but that doesn’t mean I’m accepting of raping a child.  There is no “gray area”.  Polansky is a confessed pedophile, who fled justice. He’s damn lucky but his other victims aren’t.

Prison has several purposes:
Deterrence—scaring others
Punishment—retribution
Rehabilitation—teaching how to live in society
Separation—remove the predator from his prey

In this last, Polansky’s flight has allowed him to victimize others.

He’s a sick prick.

Report this
rico, suave's avatar

By rico, suave, July 12, 2010 at 2:46 pm Link to this comment

Well, it wasn’t “rape-rape” in Whoopie Goldberg’s famous formulation.

melpol:
You obviously don’t have a daughter. There’s no such thing as a “fully mature” 13 year old.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, July 12, 2010 at 2:21 pm Link to this comment

A sad day for justice.

Report this

By squeaky jones, July 12, 2010 at 10:49 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I remember this occured at Jack Nickelson’s house.

Report this

By melpol, July 12, 2010 at 10:35 am Link to this comment

It is pigheaded of those that wanted to punish Polanski for rape, there are two sides to the story. The mother of the fully mature 13 year old prostitute is the major culprit, she sent her daughter to be XXX by the wealthy Polanski. Any rational thinking judge should have thrown out the case, it was an obvious set up. The teenager had many customers that were not named in a trial due to the guilty plea. The court system must not only use the letter of the law but also its spirit when judging a person. Lets look at the situation not only the action.

Report this
 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.