home

Late Night : Disappear

I know, I've been MIA from blogging almost all week. There's just been too much going on at work and I haven't been online. It's 9:30 and I'm just getting home -- and about to start sifting through 300 emails and checking the news. I will be around here tomorrow.

I hope I haven't missed anything major, this is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Game 3 - Los Suns vs. Los Espuelas And Other Sports Matters | Fighting For Your Citizenship >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Polanski (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Lupin on Sat May 08, 2010 at 03:21:32 AM EST
    I posted this comment in a thread dated May 2, having come to it through google, but as it didn't generate any replies (understandably), I'm taking the liberty of reposting it below.

    Writing as a French jurist, I would like to know if anyone here knows why, after Polanski (a French citizen) left the US to go home, the State of California did not file a criminal complaint against him in France?

    The French Penal Code is very clear: La loi pénale française est applicable à tout crime commis par un Français hors du territoire de la République. Elle est applicable aux délits commis par des Français hors du territoire de la République si les faits sont punis par la législation du pays où ils ont été commis.

    In other words, French criminal law applies to any French citizen for offenses committed outside of France if said offenses are punishable by law in the country where they were committed.

    Personally, I believe Mr. Polanski had the right to remove himself from an obviously corrupt California justice system, just as a number of Americans who may have committed offenses in Mexico opt to return to the US in order to avoid being judged and/or sentenced in that country, because of the reputation (deserved or not) of its justice system.

    As a French citizen, Mr. Polanski had the inalienable right to be tried and, if found guilty, sentenced in France.

    Had Mr. Polanski been tried in France for the original crimes he had been charged with (France does not recognize plea bargains), since the minor in question was under 15, the minimum sentence he would have received, pretty much automatically, would have been 5 years, plus heavy fines. Possibly more, depending on circumstances.

    This would have been a slam dunk, unlike extradition which was DOA, which the DA had to know, since many countries do not extradite their own citizens. (Had Polanski been an American citizen seeking refuge in France, France would of course have extradited him.)

    So my question is, why did the DA chose to not pursue the appropriate course of action?

    thank you for your question (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Jeralyn on Sat May 08, 2010 at 09:52:37 AM EST
    It's nice to have a French jurist here. Unfortunately, I don't have an answer to your question. And it raises many other questions -- such as, in France, would a trial require witnesses? I doubt the 15 year old would have wanted to travel to France to testify against him. And who would pay the cost of the police and other witnesses traveling to France? I assume France allows witnesses to be cross-examined.

    As for your assumption about Mexico, I think it's incorrect, at least for drug offenses. Most don't voluntarily return to the U.S. for trial, they are extradited against their will. (A trial in Mexico would be preferred because they don't have mandatory minimums sentences like we do, the sentence would be shorter and they can be let out sooner. It's Americans who don't want to be tried in Mexico and end up in a Mexican jail.)

    Parent

    Polanski (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Lupin on Sat May 08, 2010 at 11:29:07 AM EST
    Hypothetically, what would have happened is that either the State of California and/or the victim would have filed a criminal complaint against Mr. Polanski with the "Procureur de la République" (State Prosecutor).

    Such a complaint could have been filed at any time during ten years from the alleged crime, after which there is a "prescription" (statute of limitations run out).

    In this case, the complaint would have been a translation by a Court-registered translator of the charges and the evidence filed and collected by the California DA.

    The State Prosecutor then would have had three choices:
    a) dismiss the complaint (unlikely)
    b) open an investigation, in which case a Juge d'Instruction (Investigating Magistrate) would have been appointed
    c) move straight ahead to a criminal trial

    I can't honestly say which of b or c might have happened. I'm inclined to say b in order to collect additional evidence and have an independent (ie: independent of US authorities) investigation.

    The powers of an Investigating Magistrate are vast, and he has the budget to do his job. So, at that point, witnesses could have been deposed, even in the US. Witnesses might be compelled to testify if the French Magistrate asks for a commission rogatoire which would then follow diplomatic channels back to the US; presumably the State of California would work in concert with him.  All the prosecution costs would be born by the French Government.

    The defense would have the same rights and access, but at their own expense.

    The trial would have been conducted before a Cour d'Assises which features a jury made up of 12 people, 9 citizens drawn at random from the electoral lists and the three trial judges.

    Cross examination by lawyers does not happen in France and all questions to any party including the accused must ostensibly be asked by the Court.

    We also do not have plea bargaining (at least not officially). I don't think we did back then.

    As I said below, this would be a relatively simple case, since it would have relied entirely on determining whether or not Mr. Polanski had sex with the minor. Article 227-25 of the Penal Code is simple: any sexual relation with a minor under 15 is forbidden, period.

    That said, my original point was not to redo the Polanski trial, or even to judge him, but to speculate why such an obvious avenue of redress was not pursued.

    I find it quite mind-boggling.

    Parent

    What "15 year old"? (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat May 08, 2010 at 01:26:43 PM EST
    I doubt the 15 year old would have wanted to travel to France to testify against him [Polanski].

    Polanski's victim, Samantha Geimer, was a 13 year old girl.

    Parent

    by the time the trial got underway (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Jeralyn on Sat May 08, 2010 at 02:09:02 PM EST
    in France, she'd have been 15. Trials don't happen right away, there's pre-trial motions and the U.S. didn't realize he was in France or issue an arrest warrant until 1978 (she was 14 then.)

    Parent
    I will proceed at the risk of being preemptively discredited by Jeralyn's flippant allegation that "some people want to see Polanski get life in prison plus cancer". Frankly, I would be more than happy to settle for the applicable sentences had Mr. Polanski been convicted under the French Penal Code. It certainly appears that he would have been subject to more substantial penalties than the American judicial system has deemed to date.

    Regarding the primary offense of 'unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor' (for want of a better description) -- in addition to the 5 year prison sentence you originally mentioned, there is also a significant monetary fine:

    ARTICLE 227-25
    The commission without violence, constraint, threat or surprise of a sexual offence by an adult on the person of a minor under fifteen years of age is punished by five years' imprisonment and a fine of €75,000.

    I also found the following exacerbating conditions quite interesting since some may be applicable in the Polanski case:

    ARTICLE 227-26
    The offence set out under article 227-25 is punished by ten years' imprisonment and a fine of €150,000:
    ° when it was committed by a person abusing the authority conferred by his position;
    ° when it was committed by two or more persons acting as perpetrators or accomplices;

    There is also the matter of a prison sentence and monetary fine for supplying/plying a minor with drugs:

    ARTICLE 227-18
    The direct provocation of a minor to make unlawful use of drugs is punished by five years' imprisonment and a fine of €100,000.

    Had Mr. Polanski been convicted in France, under the foregoing conditions, the worst -- or best case scenario -- depending on one's perspective, would have been a maximum of 15 years in prison plus a fine of 225,000 Euros. File under: 'things that make you go hmmm'.

    Parent

    Flippant? (none / 0) (#37)
    by squeaky on Mon May 10, 2010 at 01:57:51 PM EST
    I will proceed at the risk of being preemptively discredited by Jeralyn's flippant allegation that "some people want to see Polanski get life in prison plus cancer".

    You need to get out more.

    I believe that most US citizens would agree: After they hang Polanski in Switzerland, they can return him in a maple-walnut box to Hollywood to receive the adulation the Hollywood nuts are crying for him to receive.

    link

    Tar & Feather Rapist, Roman Polanski!

    link

    Parent

    Flippant about cancer. Go fly a kite yourself ;-) (none / 0) (#39)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon May 10, 2010 at 02:28:36 PM EST
    Jeralyn Coined The Phrase (none / 0) (#41)
    by squeaky on Mon May 10, 2010 at 03:31:57 PM EST
    ... what are they gonna do... give him life plus cancer?

    As I said, maybe you should get out more... lol

    Parent

    Jeez, leweez - irony imaired much? (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon May 10, 2010 at 08:38:59 PM EST
    I know it was Jeralyn who made the cancer comment -- and it was her I referred to as being "flippant".

    I suggested you "go fly a kite" because you had told me to "get out more" in a prior comment.  Now I'm tired of all this splainin.  

    BTW, I get out more than you, since I, 'evidentially', have a lot less time to lollygag here at TL ;-)

    Parent

    Not Only Made The Comment (none / 0) (#43)
    by squeaky on Mon May 10, 2010 at 09:26:58 PM EST
    But used several times before, Polanski. Not the least bit flippant, but right on the money.

    Parent
    Mr. Polanski entered a (none / 0) (#7)
    by oculus on Sat May 08, 2010 at 10:59:44 AM EST
    change of plea in Los Angeles County Superior Court.  There was no trial.  Later he failed to appear for sentencing.  

    Parent
    I really like their song about the carousel. (none / 0) (#1)
    by oculus on Sat May 08, 2010 at 12:23:28 AM EST


    How Barbaric (none / 0) (#3)
    by squeaky on Sat May 08, 2010 at 09:27:59 AM EST
    Had Mr. Polanski been tried in France for the original crimes he had been charged with (France does not recognize plea bargains), since the minor in question was under 15, the minimum sentence he would have received, pretty much automatically, would have been 5 years, plus heavy fines. Possibly more, depending on circumstances.

    This would have been a slam dunk...

    At least in the US, there is presumption of innocence, and a fair trial ensues. Sounds like that in France, there is no such presumption, and based on hearsay, someone will, slam dunk, wind up in jail for 5 years.

    Polanski (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Lupin on Sat May 08, 2010 at 11:07:14 AM EST
    Of course not. We have the same presumption of innocence. We do not, however, have plea bargaining. So in effect, the only defense Mr. Polanski would have had would have been to deny that he had had sexual intercourse with the minor.

    Since I assume the prosecution could easily have established otherwise, then the Court would gave no choice but to impose no less than the mandatory sentence required by the Penal Code.

    I hope this clarifies my earlier comment.

    Parent

    Your entire commentary has been (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat May 08, 2010 at 01:34:19 PM EST
    entirely clear throughout -- although some people, especially defenders of Polanski, might wish that it weren't.

    Parent
    This is a reply to Lupin. (none / 0) (#16)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat May 08, 2010 at 01:36:18 PM EST
    But (none / 0) (#9)
    by squeaky on Sat May 08, 2010 at 11:09:55 AM EST
    As Jeralyn asked, wouldn't the witness have to go to France and testify?

    Clearly she would not have done that. In fact today she wants to have the whole case dismissed.

     

    Parent

    Polanski (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Lupin on Sat May 08, 2010 at 11:30:24 AM EST
    Not at all. The Juge d'Instruction would have compelled an investigation, and witnesses would have been deposed in the US.

    Parent
    Polanski (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Lupin on Sat May 08, 2010 at 11:31:27 AM EST
    And by witnesses I include other people in the house at the time who (according to the probation officer report) might have witnessed some of the events.

    Parent
    Sorry To Be Unclear (none / 0) (#13)
    by squeaky on Sat May 08, 2010 at 11:48:37 AM EST
    But by witness, I mean the girl who was allegedly buggered (sodomized).

    Because neither she, nor her family, would have cooperated with any of the steps you list in order to Prosecute Polanski. They wanted the case to go away, ergo plea bargain.

    Also I believe that the sodomy and sex with a minor laws in France were changed circa 1982. Were they the same in  1977 as they are now?

     

    Parent

    I think it does (none / 0) (#18)
    by Jeralyn on Sat May 08, 2010 at 02:18:16 PM EST
    if you are saying the trial in France would be conducted based on interviews, investigations and depositions and without cross-examination. That's not a trial in our system, that's the equivalent of a grand jury proceeding. One sided. Cross-examination is considered the greatest tool ever invented for ferreting out untruths in the courtroom. Under the 6th Amendment, defendants have the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses against them. You can't cross-examine a report. Some states, like Colorado, have even stronger constitutional protections, like providing the accused has the right to confront and cross-examine their witnesses "face to face."

    At depositions in France, does the lawyer for the accused have the right to question the person being deposed, or is the lawyer just allowed to be present? Does this work both ways, so that the accused could depose a witness and the government has no right to ask questions?

    Parent

    Polanski (none / 0) (#19)
    by Lupin on Sun May 09, 2010 at 01:05:30 AM EST
    In criminal matters, a juge d'instruction can compel a witness to testify, including using police powers to force a testimony; a juge d'instruction can also travel if the witness is unable (or reasonably unwilling) to do so. In the recent Johnny Halliday malpractice civil case, magistrates traveled to Los Angeles to interview various doctors at Cedars Sinai.

    The French justice system is not adversarial like yours; it is investigative, devoted to ferreting out the truth, whatever its source. As I said, the defense has the rights to challenge a witness, a testimony (which they often do) and present contrary evidence or mitigating circumstances.

    It is true that some of the laws were changed in the 1980s and I haven't researched what the sentence might have been like in 1978.

    If, hypothetically, the criminal complaint had been filed in 1978, and accepted, there is no doubt that the actual trial would have taken place no later than 1980, possibly 1979. A trial like that would probably not last more than one week, two at the most.

    After having said all that, my point here is not to argue the respective merits and faults of our justice systems. Our system has worked rather well since Napoleon and there hasn't been a massive amount of miscarriages of justice, etc., etc. So please take it for granted that a trial of Mr. Polanski in France would have been both fair and speedy.

    I will repeat that the only thing that could have gotten Mr. Polanski off the hook would have been if the girl had told the Magistrate that she had lied and she had not had sex with Mr. Polanski. That would have been considered exculpatory. In any other case scenario, Mr. Polanski would very likely have been found guilty.

    My original question, for which obviously no one has any answer, remains, why didn't the California authorities follow that course of action?

    Personally, I believe they did not want to go after Mr. Polanski at the time, which is why I also believe that, by not file charges against him within the 10 year French statute of limitations, they have now lost the right to go after him. I hope the Swiss authorities will deny their extradition request.

    I would like to revisit another point which got lost in the discussion: that of Mr. Polanski's inalienable right, as a French citizen, to be tried in France -- especially when confronted with a blatantly corrupt justice system in Los Angeles.

    That Mr. Polanski left the US jurisdiction does not strike me in the least as wrong. There was a publicized child custody case recently involving France and Russia. The facts were pretty much as follows:

    -- French husband, Russian wife marry (not sure where), have one daughter, start living in France

    -- They divorce; two procedures; French court allocates custody to father; Russian court to mother

    -- Russian wife somehow returns to Russia with child

    -- French father goes there, takes the child, returns to France

    -- Russian court condemns father in absentia, issues warrant, which can't be enforced

    -- Russian wife & buddy come to France, beat up husband, take the child back

    -- French court condemns mother, issues warrant; Each parent is now a fugitive from justice in the other's country.

    -- Romanian authorities somehow catch Russian wife & child before they cross into Russia & lock them up pending a resolution (being part of EU they have to enforce French warrant)

    -- Diplomats get involved & broker a custody deal between the two parties, accepted & signed, canceling all criminal charges on both sides, which can be enforced by tribunals of either country on equal footing.

    This is why the "he is a fugitive from justice" argument carries relatively little weight outside of the US context. Mr. Polanski was not an American and I do not consider he did anything wrong by removing himself from a questionable court.

    Hypothetically, had the DA immediately filed a criminal complaint in France, and had Mr. Polanski, in his desire to avoid doing time, left France as well, he would been the subject of two international warrants, none of which he could avoid in the west. I think the only possibility left to him would have been to return to live in then-Communist Poland, since he is also a Polish citizen by birth.

    Where the system failed is that he should gave been tried in France, where his likely fate would have ironically been more severe, but he wasn't because neither the victim nor the California authorities chose to pursue that course of action. Which was their right, of course.

    But at this point, as I said, to ignore French law, French statute of limitations, etc and attempt to reopen the case unilaterally, without going through diplomatic channels, is very wrong.

    Parent

    You are missing the fact the District Attorney's (none / 0) (#20)
    by oculus on Sun May 09, 2010 at 01:31:53 AM EST
    office in Los Angeles County did timely file a criminal complaint in Los Angeles County Superior Court.  Mr. Polanski elected to plead guilty to violation of California Penal Code section 261.5.  But he failed to appear for sentencing.  He could have had a jury trial but he accepted the plea bargain instead.

    Parent
    Polanski (none / 0) (#21)
    by Lupin on Sun May 09, 2010 at 02:58:16 AM EST
    You don't seem to be following what I've been saying at all.

    When Citizen of Country X allegedly commits a crime in Country Y, it is indeed commonplace for him to be tried in the country where the crime was allegedly committed, i.e.: Country Y.

    However, if said Citizen feels that he is not getting a a fair trial in Country Y, he may return to his home country, Country X, and be tried there.

    In order for that trial to happen, someone, usually the victim om the authorities of Country X then need to refile the same charges in Country X. Then a new investigation will take place and justice will follow its course.

    This last part is what did not (but should have) happened in the Polanski case.

    Sometimes there will be diplomatic exchanges between the two countries to sort out the situation.

    Some recent examples: there was a recent criminal case in Canada against a French woman who had tried to "kidnap" her child from his father (another conflicting custody case) which got successfully sorted out that way, with the woman being sent back to and sentenced in France. Also there was a case about French citizens trying to illegally adopt children from an African country -- not unlike the recent Haiti case in the US -- which also ended up in the same fashion.

    An example of a case which was not successfully sorted out was that of a French woman who's presently serving time in Mexico having been accused of being complicit in a series of gang murders. From what I've read of the facts, it does seem she was railroaded, but who knows.

    Anyway, the point I'm making is that your justice system is not the be-all and end-all of this sort of things when foreigners are involved (and conversely) and there are proper channels to sort it out.

    As I said, the statute of limitations of one set of law applicable to this case in this instance has run out, and I believe that extradition should be denied.

    Parent

    I'll agree our justice system can be (none / 0) (#22)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 09, 2010 at 03:40:04 AM EST
    very unfair to foreigners, particularly those who aren't in our country with proper documentation. First they get convicted, at a trial where while interpreters are present, it's unlikely all the discovery has been translated into their language. Then, after they get convicted, they have to do the time here, only to be deported upon ocmpletion of their sentence.

    We should go back to the days of the Wild West  when we had "sundown parole": where you told the DA, let my guy (or girl) plead and she'll be out of the country voluntarily by midnight, never to return. The last time I got one of those was probably around 1977, when Roman fled.

    One problem is, the law enforcement agencies all want a piece of the congratulations pie when they get a conviction. Too many agencies have to get credit. Back in the 70's, no one cared. We did it the "Lenny Bruce" way. Anyone remember his great line? "The only justice in the halls of justice is in the halls." Meaning the best deals get worked out in the hall right before going into the courtroom. A fair DA and a defense lawyer can make some magic in this 15 seconds of time they have to chat.

    Lupin, you are very welcome here. How'd you learn to  write such good English?  Keep in mind there's a few commeters here that would like to give him life in prison plus cancer. You don't have to respond to them, you've got allies here too.

    Did you write the DA's office and ask why they didn't do that?

    Parent

    In California, a convicted defendant (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by oculus on Sun May 09, 2010 at 12:27:33 PM EST
    sentenced to state prison who is also an undocumented immigrant is asked if he/she wants to serve the sentence in the state's custody or would prefer to be immediately deported.  Vast majority prefer to serve their time in CA and then be deported.  

    Parent
    Polanski (none / 0) (#23)
    by Lupin on Sun May 09, 2010 at 09:43:50 AM EST
    Jeralyn: Thank you for the kind reply. I'm 56, graduated with a Masters from the Sorbonne Law University in Paris in 1978, and worked for a number of years at the Los Angeles branch of Credit Lyonnais, hence the familiarity with some of your customs. I'll ready admit that criminal law is not my area of specialization, however.

    I do have a problem with the way the Polanski case is covered in the US media and blogs. I believe, as I said, that Mr. Polanski, as a French citizen, had the right to return to France and be tried there, especially if faced with a clearly corrupt system in Los Angeles.

    That was fleeing from AMERICAN justice, not justice altogether. Had Mr. Polanski been an American citizen, the French would have extradited him without any difficulties. But he was not. What the Americans should have done is (re)file the criminal complaint in France. They did not.  It is therefore their fault if justice wasn't served -- twice.

    I would much prefer it if a proper trial had been held in Los Angeles, or failing that, in Paris. I think the blame for that failure lies entirely on American shoulders. But at this point, I think the Los Angeles DA's office is behaving meretriciously and I hope the Swiss will not grant extradition.

    I realize that there is a conflict of jurisdictions at work here, but I fail to see why American justice should automatically be superior to French justice when it affects a French citizen, especially after the statute of limitations has run out.

    Parent

    I suppose Mr. Polanski could have (none / 0) (#25)
    by oculus on Sun May 09, 2010 at 12:12:36 PM EST
    gone to France before he was indicted by a grand jury in Los Angeles and subsequently charged by District Attorney in Los Angeles.  But he didn't.  And he did not choose to go to trial or to go to France before entering into the plea bargain.  He left after he changed his plea and before he was sentenced.  Are you suggesting that after Mr. Polanski failed to appear for sentencing the District Attorney's office should have asked the court to set aside the plea and, if the court granted that request, the DA's office should have requested a criminal complaint be filed in a French court?  

    Parent
    P.S. I have never advocated (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by oculus on Sun May 09, 2010 at 12:16:26 PM EST
    Mr. Polanski should get the death penalty.  And of course, that is not a possible sentence for violation of California Penal Code section 261.5.  As I recall, at present the maximum penalty is 3 yrs. in state prison, with possibiliy of probation.  Nor cancer.  I do think he sould either show up in court in L.A. for sentencing or agree to extradition if he is sincerely interested in resolving this criminal matter.

    Parent
    True (none / 0) (#27)
    by squeaky on Sun May 09, 2010 at 12:22:58 PM EST
    But you have consistently been an apologist for the corrupt LA court.

    What is ironic here, is that Lupin argues that Polanski should have served 5 years for a slam dunk case, in France.

    The only difference between your's and Lupin's stance is that Lupin clearly agrees that Polanski made the right choice to flee an obviously corrupt justice system in LA county.

    Oh and that he should get 3 years jail in LA, while Lupin's sees 5 years jail in France.

    Parent

    I think Lupin is confused on the procedural (none / 0) (#28)
    by oculus on Sun May 09, 2010 at 12:24:02 PM EST
    status of the case in LA County Superior Court.

    Parent
    Doesn't Seem Confused to Me (none / 0) (#30)
    by squeaky on Sun May 09, 2010 at 01:17:45 PM EST
    What he does not understand is that the US would be arrogant enough to allow ego to trump justice.

    Not to mention corrupt.

    Parent

    Oculus... (none / 0) (#34)
    by Lupin on Mon May 10, 2010 at 01:11:39 AM EST
    ...I am not confused at all.

    I just don't see why your legal system, especially when demonstrably corrupt, should trump ours.

    The victim is American. The perpetrator is French. They each have rights.

    Please explain why your proceedings, which are inadmissible under French law, should trump ours?

    Please explain why, when your system had a clear, universally accepted method of seeking redress, and failed to take advantage of it, they should be allowed to do so now?

    If the US wishes to continue to bully its way throughout the planet, totally disregarding the conventions that bind a civilized world, it should not whine like a baby when a few "funniners" decide to strike back.

    The Polanski case is a tiny matter in the greater scheme of things, but it is not winning you hearts and minds overseas.


    Parent

    Polanski (none / 0) (#32)
    by Lupin on Mon May 10, 2010 at 12:59:02 AM EST
    I'm not advocating anything in particular. What I am saying is, there should have been a criminal trial.

    I would have been happy for that trial to have taken place in LA.

    Had there been a verdict, and Polanski fled, there was/is a procedure (exequatur) to ask a French court to enforce that verdict in France. Assuming no wrongdoing during the trial, that would have been granted.

    Since there was no trial in LA, and plea bargaining is inadmissible in France, the only solution left, assuming you are interested in justice being served, was to refile criminal charges in France.

    Under our Penal Code -- whether I like it or not, I approve of it or not is irrelevant --, if the judges and jury had been convinced that Mr. Polanski had indeed had sexual relationship with a 13-year-old (even consensual), the minimum sentence, by Law, would have been 5 years.

    (I did some more research and I do think that that is correct.)

    Right now, in the eyes of the law in France, Mr. Polanski is INNOCENT. Let's keep that in mind. For the US to ask that a French citizen be extradited and sent back to the US when they had 10 years to make their case and failed to do so is properly egregious.

    Parent

    Polanski (none / 0) (#31)
    by Lupin on Mon May 10, 2010 at 12:38:42 AM EST
    In one word: Yes.

    That is the only way, and the standard accepted way, in international criminal matters, of pursuing the prosecution of an alleged criminal, drug lord, etc.

    To do otherwise and let the statute of limitations expire is, in the eyes of our legal system, abandoning (I'm not sure what the proper verb is) the prosecution.  It's like not filing an appeal. It extinguishes the case.

    Mr. Polanski's plea would be (have been) deemed inadmissible in all jurisdictions in the world which do not recognize plea bargaining. In other words, it has no legal value.

    Charges were filed, but no trial. Had there been a trial, and Mr. Polanski left, then the DA could have asked the French to enforce the verdict through an exequatur. That likely would have been granted. But since that didn't happen, the only proper way of continuing the prosecution (assuming one cares) was to refile charges in France.

    I hope this answers your question.

     

    Parent

    Why would CA DA's office ask France to retry (none / 0) (#38)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon May 10, 2010 at 02:24:15 PM EST
    the Polanski case -- given that the DA had already secured a guilty plea to the charge of "unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor".

    If memory serves, a grand jury had charged Polanski with six counts: rape by use of drugs; perversion; sodomy; lewd and lascivious acts upon a child under fourteen; and furnishing a controlled substance to a minor.

    Under the terms of the subsequent plea bargain, five of the initial charges were dismissed and Polanski pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor. He was sent to prison for ninety days for psychiatric evaluation -- which concluded after forty-two days. Upon his release, he fled to France before final formal sentencing.

    Is there precedent for the U.S. asking another country to retry a case after a case has proceeded to the final sentencing phase?

    Parent

    Statute of Limitations Over (none / 0) (#40)
    by squeaky on Mon May 10, 2010 at 03:25:01 PM EST
    10 years I believe.

    Parent
    Hot Topic 1977-79.. Heady Times (none / 0) (#24)
    by squeaky on Sun May 09, 2010 at 11:57:45 AM EST
    It is true that some of the laws were changed in the 1980s and I haven't researched what the sentence might have been like in 1978.

    The age of consent was 15.

    Male homosexual acts were illegal until 1791, when the ancient sodomy laws were dropped from the Criminal Code of that year. This continued to be the case under the Napoleonic Code of 1810. In 1942, the age of consent for homosexual acts was set at 21, while that for heterosexual acts was 13. The latter was increased to 15 in 1945. In 1978, the age for homosexual acts was lowered to 18. In 1981, it was lowered to 15, in line with that for heterosexual acts.

    Wiki

    Between 1977 and 1979, while a change in the French Penal Code was under discussion in the Parliament of France, a number of French intellectuals, including prominent names, signed petitions and open letters defending either the abolition of age of consent laws or the release of individuals arrested under charges of statutory rape.

    WiKi

    Parent

    Age of Consent (none / 0) (#33)
    by Lupin on Mon May 10, 2010 at 01:04:30 AM EST
    To cast some light, there was a very famous case, that of Gabrielle Russier, a female teacher who, in 1969, had an affair with a 17 yr old male student, was subsequently arrested, tried and sentenced to 13 months in jail, and committed suicide, provoking much indignation among the public.

    French wiki
    http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabrielle_Russier

    There was a 1071 film called MOURIR D'AIMER by André Cayatte (remade in 2009) that made the case a cause célèbre.

    IMDB:
    http://www.imdb.fr/title/tt0066101/combined

    Parent

    Wow (none / 0) (#35)
    by squeaky on Mon May 10, 2010 at 11:27:48 AM EST
    That is strange, as far as I can tell the age of consent was 15 in 1969, why did they jail Russier?

    Is there an exception to that rule, as there is in the Vatican State, that sets a higher age if one of the people having sex is in a state of dependance,  (employer, teacher,  advisor)?  

    Parent

    More fun and games at RNC headquarters (none / 0) (#4)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 08, 2010 at 09:37:19 AM EST
    Bickhart's deputy, Debbie LeHardy, was also fired yesterday, after some controversial RNC reimbursements billed as "office supplies." In one infamous instance, "LeHardy received a $450 reimbursement for a 'meal' at a Manhattan boutique that doesn't have a restaurant." link


    Aw, c'mon, maybe it was carryout (none / 0) (#6)
    by Cream City on Sat May 08, 2010 at 10:52:50 AM EST
    or ten lobster tails delivered to the boutique.:-)

    Parent