Jump to content

Its OK to sodomize a drugged 13 yr old so long as


robaus

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 64
  • Created
  • Last Reply

"The Swiss government’s decision not to extradite Roman Polanski to Los Angeles means the famed director can now travel freely in Switzerland as well as France, where he has citizenship protections, and Poland and other countries that don't have extradition agreements with U.S.

 

But some legal experts said the Swiss justice ministry’s legal rationale for rejecting the extradition request could make other countries -- even those with extradition treaties -- think twice before arresting Polanski.

 

The Swiss government cited problems in the way Polanski’s case was handled in 1977 when he pleaded guilty to having sex with a 13-year-old girl. The Swiss argue that Polanski served 42 days -- and that it’s unclear whether that fulfilled his full sentence. Polanski fled the U.S. after the judge in case demanded that the director spend more time in prison.

 

Experts say the Swiss raise a number of issues about how Polanski was treated three decades ago by the U.S. justice system, and those issues could easily be cited if U.S. authorities ask another country to arrest and extradite Polanski.

 

"Switzerland apparently decided, 'We will not extradite someone back into this legal morass,' " said Robert Weisberg, a Stanford law professor. Because of all the legal issues, he described the extradition fight as "hopeless from the start."

 

Loyola Law School professor Stan Goldman agreed, saying U.S. authorities need to address those questions if they are serious about going forward with additional extradition efforts.

 

“What the Swiss government was saying was wait a minute, this strikes to the heart of the issue: Is he going to be sentenced to more time?†Goldman said.

 

Polanski’s attorneys have cited alleged backroom deals between Judge Laurence Rittenband and the prosecutors and defense attorneys in the case. Those meeting were the subject of an HBO documentary, leading Polanski to claim that Rittenband acted inappropriately.

 

On Tuesday, Polanski's attorneys asked for a third-party investigation getting to the bottom of what happened during those meetings."

 

-- Richard Winton

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well, 360 is a place to express our beliefs and opinions, and as dirty harry said, opinions are like assholes, everyone has one!!!

 

Phil, you've got a young daughter, right? If it was my daughter I would see red. I'd want to murder the motherfucker. I can understand you being protective as a father. You're probably a good one.

 

Polanski plead guilty to having sex with her, not 'raping' her. Yes, it is statuatory rape -- and he is guilty, but the guys on here who are saying that's the same as some predator snatching a pre-pubescent child and sexually assaulting them -- I don't think that is true. If I did, I'd like to see him have his balls ripped off then shot.

 

Look, my example was Jimmy Page and Lori Maddox. They openly slept together when she was 14, and who knows if it started when she was 13. Did he rape a child?

 

I think what Polanski did was wrong -- but there is a witch hunt out too. You've seen people here eager for his blood because he is 'rich.'

 

I don't know. You're right, I'm trying to walk a rational line and not get caught up in the hysteria. Not easy.

 

Not easy...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are walking a line, but it isn't a rational one. Because Polanski was rich, and paid off his victim, he was able to plea bargain the charge down to unlawful sex with a minor.

 

Forget the statutory rape. He raped the girl. She never consented to have sex with him! Why do you keep missing that point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are walking a line, but it isn't a rational one. Because Polanski was rich, and paid off his victim, he was able to plea bargain the charge down to unlawful sex with a minor.

 

Forget the statutory rape. He raped the girl. She never consented to have sex with him! Why do you keep missing that point?

 

He paid a settlement to the woman many years later. Not some pay-off at the time that enabled him to plea-bargain down. Look Shygye, that IS the point of contention, did he rape her? I'm not saying yes or no, I'm saying that cards are stacked against him.

 

That the victim has made several public appearances saying: 'can you please leave him alone now' doesn't do much for the case of a traumatic and violent rape. And she did this long after any settlement was reached, so it wasn't like her words were contingent on a cash out.

 

IF he is guilty of a brutal rape, castrate the fucker. I'm with you 100%.

 

I think there's a lot of people here (you included) who have no idea what went down on that day, yet the verdict is already decided. That's what bugs me.

 

No offense.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...