The shortest leash is the one connected to someone's wallet, and the Swiss are feeling the tug.  They will respond, lest their banksters get more prosecutions thrown their way when they touch down here.

Sad to say, I suspect Polanski will be extradited and spend the rest of his life in prison.  Whether he shortens that time by his own hand or not, I have no way of knowing.

Chalk this one down to another instance of Obama choosing to b*tch-slap another part of his base, this time the Hollywood folks who dumped huge sums of money into his campaign.  If I were more suspicious, I'd say he already has decided to be a one-termer - nobly going down in idealistic flames - and is scheming to set up the eternal profits of the insurance industry such that they put him on retainer for the rest of his post-defeat life.

Seriously, this isn't the biggest crime of the century or anything, but the only reason why Roman Polanski has been able to wander around Europe for the last several decades is because he's a rich celebrity.  Because it he was some factory worker accused of raping a 13-year-old girl, there's no way this would be the outcome.   None.  

That's why I think this case strikes such a chord with some people.  That and nobody would think it was no big deal if he had raped a 13 year old boy.  

I agree with all of the sentiment that he should not be given special treatment just because he is a famous Hollywood star, but does anyone believe he would be in this situation in the first place if he were not a famous Hollywood star?  He was so hated by the right that one of the first reactions to his wife's death at the hands of the Manson gang was that he brought it on himself by making Rosemary's Baby.  How were ordinary folks being treated in similar situations in 1977?  Was it anything like the slap on the wrist at the other coast that a certain political scion got for drunk driving around the same time (the point being that this was not uncommon treatment for a crime we now believe to be much more serious)?

he'd already plead guilty, 48 days was going to kill him? geez, he got off light. personally, he committed a heinous offense, not as bad as murder, but heinous nonetheless. if she was my daughter, he'd be lucky to have escaped in one piece.

I have always been a fan of Polanski's work. I feel he's an extremely talented director, but he obviously has some serious problems in his personal life, especially where women are concerned. However, I certainly don't feel that being a talented artist should exempt him from justice of his crimes.

The judge in that case had the authority to reject the plea bargain. Plea bargains are good faith offers made to defendants by the prosecution to avoid a trial and/or in exchange for cooperativeness in securing other convictions. When the case gets to court, however, the judge is in charge of the proceedings and plea bargains merely serve as "recommendations." The judge can use his own discretion in deciding whether or not to honor them.

If the judge had rejected the plea bargain, he would have had to specify new charges and require Polanski enter a plea to those. But since the judge accepted his guilty plea to "unlawful sex with a minor," he would have had to sentence Polanski in accordance with that crime. If the judge meted out a significantly harsher sentence, then Polanski would have had ample grounds for an appeal. Instead, Polanski cowardly fled the country before his sentencing could take place, so arguing what sentence he might have received is a moot point.

Last year's documentary claimed that the judge was going to railroad Polanski for life, but the fact is, he never sentenced Polanski so it's unclear. Also unclear was how Polanski would have known he was going to get the book before deciding to flee. The judge and prosecutor are both dead now, so they're unable to speak in their own defense.

Another thing: victim statements like the "forgiveness" expressed by Geimer are incidental to a violent crime case. It's not uncommon for rape victims to lose the will to follow through with prosecution of their attackers, especially when it involves court testimony or other public attention. As jbindc pointed out, victims do not call the shots in cases of violent crime. Once they've filed charges and involved the criminal justice system, they have no authority to terminate investigations or nullify criminal charges. As far as the justice system is concerned, Polanski's crimes are not private interactions between himself and his victim. Criminal acts, especially violent ones, are transgressions of the law against society at large. Otherwise, criminals could simply pay off their victims and continue their predations on society.

This is not a case of vengeance. If it were, the victim would be the only person deciding how the case should proceed. This is a criminal case involving a child rapist who also happens to be a famous and wealthy artist, who flaunted his disregard for the law by fleeing the country.

Regardless of Polanski's advanced age, justice has still not been served in this case. Why should the US courts give special treatment to Polanski and allow him to remain free? Simply because he's making movies that entertain people, garner praise and win awards?

Special concessions were already granted to Polanski because of his position within the  movie business and his wealth and fame. He was allowed freedom of travel outside the state of California and even outside the US, despite the seriousness of the charges against him and the fact that he holds citizenship in a country with a shaky extradition policy (France). He abused that privilege by running away from his sentencing.

I don't understand why they haven't made a more vigorous effort to apprehend him over the past 31 years. It's not like his whereabouts have exactly been a secret the entire time. You can suppose some arcane or duplicitous political reason for Switzerland's sudden cooperation in this case, but that's irrelevant to the case regarding Roman Polanski. Despite all the accolades, glowing reviews, Oscars, black-tie dinners, sublime intellectual discourse and artistic prestige, this guy administered alcohol and illegal drugs to sedate a 13-year-old girl, then forcibly took her virginity and violated her anally, despite her protests for him to stop. Polanski even confessed to doing these things. That's a serious crime even by generous standards, is it not?

Even those who dismiss the societal taboo against sex between a middle-aged man and an adolescent girl as an ageist convention cannot escape the fact that he drugged her using dangerous illegal substances and then raped her. That would have been an insidious sex crime even if he'd done it to a woman his own age.

I'm sorry if stating the particular facts of this case is deemed offensive by anyone, but I consider the crimes this man committed to be far more offensive then any words used to describe them.

Jaralyn, who I assume argues against determinate sentences, believes that a judge would have been guilty of some grand violation of the public trust had he exercised his discretion and rejected the plea deal the prosecutor in the case reached with Polanski and his lawyer.

Ms. TalkLeft, who I assume has absolutely no knowledge of the course of the victim's life since she was sexually abused at the age of thirteen, believes that it is significant that the now adult victim does not publicly call for Polanski's incarceration. Granted, Samantha Geimer has said:

I think he's sorry, I think he knows it was wrong. I don't think he's a danger to society. I don't think he needs to be locked up forever and no one has ever come out ever - besides me - and accused him of anything. It was 30 years ago now. It's an unpleasant memory ... (but) I can live with it.

From Wikipedia:

Polanski was initially charged with rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under 14, and furnishing a controlled substance (methaqualone) to a minor. These charges were dismissed under the terms of his plea bargain, and he pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.

Following the plea agreement, according to the aforementioned documentary, the court ordered Polanski to report to a state prison for a 90-day psychiatric evaluation, but granted a stay of ninety days to allow him to complete his current project. Under the terms set by the court, he was permitted to travel abroad. Polanski returned to California and reported to Chino State Prison for the evaluation period, and was released after 42 days.

The feature-length documentary exposes how hysterical media reportage and the illegal behaviour of presiding Judge Laurence J. Rittenband made a fair hearing of the case for Polanski and Geimer impossible.

Zenovich provides some background detail about the tragic circumstances of Polanski's early life--the murder of his Jewish parents, the Nazi occupation of Poland--and the terrible psychological impact of the murder of his pregnant actress wife, Sharon Tate, and four others in California in August 1969. Scandalously some section of the American media initially claimed that Polanski was involved in satanic drug rituals and suggested that he had murdered his wife.

Judge Laurence J. Rittenband Judge Laurence J. Rittenband briefs the media

Rittenband, who had presided over the Elvis and Priscilla Presley divorce and other celebrity cases, however, was determined to use the Polanski case to lift his public profile. The judge ignored recommendations from the parole board and two court-appointed psychiatrists that Polanski be given parole and conspired to try and imprison the filmmaker.

The judge, in fact, lied to defence and prosecution lawyers, held a press conference during the trial and privately discussed possible jail terms for Polanski with various outsiders, including a Santa Monica journalist who he invited into his chambers. It was under these conditions that the filmmaker decided to flee to Europe in February 1978, where he has lived ever since.

Because they had their sights on him for decades while he jeered them from his safe heaven in France - imagine that, France! - expect perp-walk abuses before leering media on the scale rarely seen in Hollywood before, medieval shackles, orange jump suits, court security thugs 10 cm away from him at all times always in leering menacing postures, remotely activated paralyzing belts on his back all the time, etc, etc. Total denial of any human dignity at every step of the process, including violations  of his personal physical inviolability at every possible opportunity. Standard fare in US courts, jails and prisons.

But topped off with many hours of prison raping as this is a well established tradition in  our prisons in cases like his. Delayed 30 years but finally delivered with a special care which will might be little hard for somebody his age, over 75.

So, one short reckless step across the border and all of the sudden he is totally at the mercy of one of the most overbearing, most mediaeval, merciless, vindictive, inhumane, vicious, prickly, legal system in the Western World.  

I predict he will be on his knees from the day one praying for a chance to return to the civility of his old Europe.

I am not saying sex with adolescents is acceptable. I am saying it doesn't warrant life imprisonment -- or anything close. The maniacal rage against older males who have sex with teenagers is the product of the conservative movement, and it was promoted in the late 70s and 80s as a political tool --  a strategy to re-align attitudes of white middle class young people toward authoritarianism. Yes, at the time of this offense, people like Polanski simply weren't seen as public enemy number one. That is, provided the kid they hit on was female. If it was an old man hitting on a male, then they made retching noises and killed them.

If you recall what was happening in those days, nobody much liked authority or the police. Richard Nixon had resigned in disgrace. The small but powerful right wing had just declared the "war on drugs", but "drugs" weren't really what they are today. In those days, "drugs" (marijuana and cocaine) was a political proxy for liberal attitudes, youthful sexual freedom, and all those things the conservatives hated. Even today's neocons, who preach greed and hate, were getting high then. The purpose of the whole sex pervert chase thing was to re-align white middle class young people with police authority, and since police authority was identified in those days with marijuana hatred, something had to be done to help cajole middle class young white people begin to identify with police authority again.

So, public enemy number one was switched from "pot-head" to "old male sex pervert". The police began lifting up on pot prosecution for middle class kids, and everybody became one big happy family under the new, improved social model where the number one national value was seeking to hang old horny males by the balls. The police regained their respect, and pot smokers started voting Republican and smoking their dope in the back of Mercedes Benz automobiles with a "Don't bust me -- I'm on your team -- Go after sex perverts" sign in the back window. They could even smoke with their police friends now, and trade stories about what they would do to an old horny man if he hit on them.

The drug laws and distribution networks were reorganized to take the heat off middle class white kids and put it back in the Black ghetto where it belonged, and everybody had a big party on Wall Street complete with police guards, cocaine and a new sense of national pride which involved absolute deference to authority (because, obviously, authority was now our friend).

Young people made a sport out of calling for more and more absurd sentences for old horny men, and the drug laws kept escalating in the ghetto (but not on Wall street). Everybody was happy. Everything went well. Until the ugly truth finally ate the bottom out of the whole system of reasoning.

I was seduced by a 44 year old when I was 15. I don't want that person nailed to tree. In some cases, some punishment is in order, but for the most part, these people just need therapy.

Roman Polanski's decision to return to his homeland rather than get caught up in a maniacal, nonsensical, politically motivated rage movement actually makes a lot of sense. If you were somewhere abroad and about to be hung for something that was a relatively minor offense in US, wouldn't you come home? How about forty lashes and having your head off for that Martini? Or maybe just catch the next plane back to New York?

Expressions of shock and anger are mounting internationally over the arrest Saturday night of Oscar-winning film director Roman Polanski. ...

"I think this is awful and totally unjust," French Culture Minister Frederic Mitterrand told reporters. "Just as there is an America which is generous and which we like," he added, "so there is an America which is frightening, and that is the America which has just revealed its face."

Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski announced that he was considering requesting clemency for Polanski from US President Barack Obama. French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said he had asked his Swiss counterpart to ensure that Polanski's rights are fully respected and that a "favorable solution" is rapidly found.

Calls for the release of Polanski have been combined with anger towards the US government and disgust over the Swiss government's compliance with US demands. ...

Since fleeing the US, Polanski has resided in France, while frequently visiting Poland, Germany and other countries where he felt he would not be subject to extradition to the US. He has continued to make films, including a film entitled The Ghost which he shot last spring in Babelsberg, Germany, near where he filmed The Pianist.

According to the New York Times, the film is "a thriller about a ghostwriter whose life is put in jeopardy after he uncovers secrets while completing the memoirs of a former British prime minister." Polanski's arrest could block release of the film.

Robert Harris, a British novelist who has been working with Polanski over the past several years, writing two screenplays, expressed outrage over the director's arrest. "I am shocked," he said in a statement, "that any man of 76, whether distinguished or not, should have been treated in such a fashion." He added, "It's hard not to believe that this heavy-handed action must be in some way politically motivated.".