Director Polanski Arrested on 1978 Warrant

[Tarquin Farquart]

Roman Polanski has been taken into Swiss custody on a 1978 US arrest warrant, according to reports.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Wor...Arrest_Warrant

[Eddylizard]

Interesting. I wondered how he was able to keep evading that; more to the point if he was ever going to be brought to justice - as the years went on my suspicion was no.

His reputation as a director just kept growing.

I applaud the Swiss authorities for apprehending him finally, but I'll wait to see how it pans out. Presumably the first stage will be extradition hearings.

[UEL]

Originally Posted by Eddylizard

Interesting. I wondered how he was able to keep evading that; more to the point if he was ever going to be brought to justice - as the years went on my suspicion was no.

I had to go check out my background knowledge of this case to ensure that I had not misremembered the case.

He plead guilty. He was incarcerated for six weeks awaiting evaluation and sentencing. The prosecution and the defence (and the victim and her family) stated that his incarceration satisfied their demands for justice. The judge decided that he would throw out the plea agreement and institute his own decision.** Polanski flees. Vicitim sues and wins an unidisclosed amount of money. Allegations of judicial meddling arise from Polanski.

I'm not certain where "justice" lies.

**Quick question. As for joint plea agreements, are they usually binding for judges? For example, here in Canada, they are not so binding that a judge cannot vary them, but any variance must be substantiated significantly during the penalty hearing in order to survive an appeals review. Is it similar in the US, or are judges bound to them by convention?

[snopes]

Originally Posted by UEL

The judge decided that he would throw out the plea agreement and institute his own decision.

Both the prosecution and the defense acknowledged that the judge repeatedly made deals (secret and otherwise) with them, then reneged. I think it's problematic to blame Polanski for fleeing from plea deal worked out with a judge who couldn't be relied upon to keep it.

[Tarquin Farquart]

Not quite sure what's happened to this article:

i checked already, and so did zurich. they say the question is irrelevant. he answered me with the quote i used, about we knew when he was coming this time. he's been here many times in the past, we think.

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2009/...i_6935738.html

I suspect this will be changed soon.

[I'mNotDedalus]

France's political elite rallied to the defence of Roman Polanski on Sunday, calling on Switzerland to free the 76-year-old film director rather than extradite him to the United States. Artists and film makers also urged the release of Polanski, who faces charges of having sex with a girl of 13 in 1977, accusing Switzerland of being overzealous in pursuing the case.

French Culture Minister Frederic Mitterrand said he was "stunned" by the news, adding that both he and French President Nicolas Sarkozy wanted to see the acclaimed director returned swiftly to his family.

http://www.reuters.com/article/media...R8949520090927

[Christie]

Artists and film makers also urged the release of Polanski, who faces charges of having sex with a girl of 13 in 1977, accusing Switzerland of being overzealous in pursuing the case.

No one in this case can be accused of being over zealous.

I do love the implication as well that since he is "acclaimed" and now elderly that his past actions should be excused. He had 30 years of freedom to live his life as he chose with the significant exception that he could not go back to the US. Pardon my lack of pity for him.

[RivkahChaya]

Originally Posted by Eddylizard

Interesting. I wondered how he was able to keep evading that; more to the point if he was ever going to be brought to justice - as the years went on my suspicion was no.

His reputation as a director just kept growing.

I applaud the Swiss authorities for apprehending him finally, but I'll wait to see how it pans out. Presumably the first stage will be extradition hearings.

I assume the warrant is for failure to appear, or something, and not actually for the statuatory rape, because I find it hard to believe there isn't an expired statute of limitations on the statuatory rape charge.

In fact, I had always thought that Polanski was no longer in danger of arrest, but just did not return to the US because he wasn't allowed in. He was never a citizen, and after the arrest and flight, he was probably put on a persona non grata list of some sort.

However, there probably are not statuatory limits on failure to appear, or flight-after-conviction warrants, since the problems of evidence don't exist, for which we have statutes of limitations in the first place.

[snopes]

Originally Posted by RivkahChaya

I assume the warrant is for failure to appear, or something, and not actually for the statuatory rape, because I find it hard to believe there isn't an expired statute of limitations on the statuatory rape charge.

Technically he was already convicted because he agreed to a plea bargain, so he's essentially an escaped prisoner.

In fact, I had always thought that Polanski was no longer in danger of arrest, but just did not return to the US because he wasn't allowed in.

No, he was subject to arrest in the U.S.

[RivkahChaya]

Originally Posted by snopes

Technically he was already convicted because he agreed to a plea bargain, so he's essentially an escaped prisoner.

No, he was subject to arrest in the U.S.

Yeah, I get that now. I'm assuming no statue of limitations on being an escaped prisoner.

Is the original judge still alive? I wonder how things will be handled if he is extradited, since, if I understand correctly, he left with his sentence undetermined.

[snopes]

Originally Posted by Christie

No one in this case can be accused of being over zealous.

The original judge was (mostly of promoting himself), which is why Polanski fled the U.S. I sure as heck wouldn't want to put my fate in the hands of a judge who made secret deals and reneged on agreements.

[snopes]

Originally Posted by RivkahChaya

Is the original judge still alive?

No. He vowed to stay on the bench until Polanski returned to the U.S., but he finally retired and died in 1993.

[Ryda Wong, EBfCo.]

Originally Posted by snopes

No. He vowed to stay on the bench until Polanski returned to the U.S., but he finally retired and died in 1993.

Then Polanski should have returned in 1993 to face his penalty. The danger from the "over-zealous" judge was over.

Artists and film makers also urged the release of Polanski, who faces charges of having sex with a girl of 13 in 1977,

Arg. He faces charges of RAPING a girl of 13 in 1977. I cannot stand the reluctance of journalists to call the crime what it is.

[RivkahChaya]

Originally Posted by Ryda Wong, EBfCo.

Arg. He faces charges of RAPING a girl of 13 in 1977. I cannot stand the reluctance of journalists to call the crime what it is.

I'm not sure what he was charged with, but if the actual indictment did not use the word "rape," if it said "sexual assault," or something, then the reporters probably cannot say he was "charged with rape" without risking charges of libel themselves. They could probably say something like "charged with a crime related to the rape of a 13-year-old girl," but maybe they wanted brevity.

Yes, it's a technical distinction, but I can understand the reporters wanting to avoid a libel charge.

ETA: since Polanski plea bargained, it's pretty likely the charge is some lesser crime, like "sexual misconduct." He probably plea bargained to a charge that would not bar him from re-entering the US. I'm pretty sure a non-citizen convicted of a major felony is automatically barred permanently from re-entry.

[snopes]

Originally Posted by Ryda Wong, EBfCo.

Then Polanski should have returned in 1993 to face his penalty. The danger from the "over-zealous" judge was over.

He considered doing so. The next judge on the case stated he'd allow Polanski to return to the U.S. without the threat of jail time, but Polanski declined to do because the judge supposedly imposed the condition that the hearing be televised. (The truthfulness of that claim remains a subject of dispute.)

He faces charges of RAPING a girl of 13 in 1977.

Technically, he faces the one charge he plead guilty to: "engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor" (essentially statutory rape). And he doesn't really "face" that charge any more, since he already plead guilty to it.

[Ryda Wong, EBfCo.]

Originally Posted by snopes

He considered doing so. The next judge on the case stated he'd allow Polanski to return to the U.S. without the threat of jail time, but Polanski declined to do because the judge supposedly imposed the condition that the hearing be televised. (The truthfulness of that claim remains a subject of dispute.)

Which, to me, indicates that the man really isn't interested in paying for what he did or in displaying the proper sense of remorse. Which, to me, indicates that he's not reformed and is, as such, still a danger.

[Ryda Wong, EBfCo.]

Originally Posted by snopes

Technically, he faces the one charge he plead guilty to: "engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor" (essentially statutory rape). And he doesn't really "face" that charge any more, since he already plead guilty to it.

Ah. My bad.

[RivkahChaya]

Originally Posted by snopes

He considered doing so. The next judge on the case stated he'd allow Polanski to return to the U.S. without the threat of jail time, but Polanski declined to do because the judge supposedly imposed the condition that the hearing be televised. (The truthfulness of that claim remains a subject of dispute.)

It wasn't Lance Ito, was it?

[snopes]

Originally Posted by Ryda Wong, EBfCo.

Which, to me, indicates that the man really isn't interested in paying for what he did or in displaying the proper sense of remorse. Which, to me, indicates that he's not reformed and is, as such, still a danger.

Or perhaps, given the history of his case (including the judge's garnering publicity for himself by inappropriately discussing it on television while it was still in process), he had good reason to believe he wasn't going to be treated fairly, no matter what he was promised.

[Ryda Wong, EBfCo.]

Originally Posted by snopes

Or perhaps, given the history of his case (including the judge's garnering publicity for himself by inappropriately discussing it on television while it was still in process), he had good reason to believe he wasn't going to be treated fairly, no matter what he was promised.

I don't think that excuses him whatsoever from paying for what he did.

If the trial is unfair, there is an appeals process.