Roman Polanski: Poland Rejects U.S. Extradition Request

At least some good news today: Poland has rejected the U.S. request to extradite 82 year old director Roman Polanski for a crime committed almost 40 years ago.

At a hearing in Krakow, Judge Dariusz Mazur ruled that turning over Mr. Polanski would be an “obviously unlawful” deprivation of liberty and that California would be unlikely to provide humane living conditions for the filmmaker, who is 82.

He was also critical of the U.S. judge and prosecutors in the case, saying if he behaved like they did, he'd lose all respect. [More...]

“I’m terrified by the statements of some of my colleagues in the U.S.,” he said, citing a report last year that a Los Angeles judge had planned to have Mr. Polanski “cool his heels in jail” if he returned to the United States by delaying a ruling on a proposed deal under which the judge would limit his sentence to 42 days served by the filmmaker in 1977-78. (The deal did not materialize.)

“If I were to behave like them, I’d lose the respect of all my subordinates here,” Judge Mazur said. “I do not find any logical, rational explanation as to why the U.S. is pursuing the extradition.”

Polanski was obviously pleased with the ruling:

“I am happy that I trusted the Polish justice system.” He praised the judge as “incredibly well-informed,” adding, “Frankly, I was moved.”

Switzerland similarly rejected a request for Polanski's extradition in 2010. Enough already. The Los Angeles DA's office looks more foolish with each attempt.

All of our coverage of the Roman Polanski extradition efforts is accessible here.

< U.S. Announces (Non-Combat) Boots on Ground in Syria | Saturday College Football Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Looks like the Polish judge (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by oculus on Fri Oct 30, 2015 at 08:48:41 PM EST
    accepted the "documentary" as the "truth" of the matter.

    Good for Poland (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Oct 31, 2015 at 06:56:28 AM EST

    And then skips town and illegally evades the lawful consequences of his actions for going on 40 years.

    Ya, I can see why some aren't happy with him.

    I wouldn't call them "lawful (none / 0) (#18)
    by McBain on Thu Nov 05, 2015 at 08:01:12 PM EST
    consequences"  A deal was made. He was going comply with the law but the judge bowed to political pressure or something and killed the deal.  This is why I said California had it's chance.

    Time to give it up California (none / 0) (#2)
    by McBain on Fri Oct 30, 2015 at 09:22:04 PM EST
    You had your chance at justice in this matter 40 years ago and you blew it.  Game over.  

    You do realize defendant fled the jurisdiction (none / 0) (#3)
    by oculus on Fri Oct 30, 2015 at 10:32:25 PM EST
    prior to the sentencing hrg.?

    Maybe you missed it (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by MO Blue on Fri Oct 30, 2015 at 11:01:01 PM EST
    McBain has selective criteria for who needs to obey the law.

    Death is totally justified punishment from fleeing from the law for some and totally justified for others.


    you are correct (none / 0) (#4)
    by nyjets on Fri Oct 30, 2015 at 10:37:03 PM EST
    And I have ZERO sympathy for Polanski.
    However, he left in part because the judge and prosecutor tried to sidestep the justice system.
    I do not approve of Polanski leaving the country, but I do understand it.
    For that reason, as much as I will always dislike Polanski for his alleged crimes, I blame the judge and prosecutor for this current mess and I will always dislike them more. IF he had just done their jobs. Polanski would be a felon, justice would have been done, and this mess would never had happened.

    We'll never know how the Los Angeles (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by oculus on Fri Oct 30, 2015 at 11:29:40 PM EST
    County Superior Court judge would exercise his or her discretion, given defendant's failure to appear.

    are you mad at Polanski? (2.00 / 1) (#10)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Sat Oct 31, 2015 at 10:34:36 AM EST
    The crime occurred back in the 70s.  The man has been a fugitive for 30 some years . . . it is publicly known that he did a bad thing . . .   He has had no criminal conduct known to us before or since, other than the crime and fleeing.

    Everybody does bad things of some type and most people do more than one.  The victim in this case has publicly forgive him and expressed that forgiveness and her request that California and the US stop pursuing him.

    Judges and the system today are inclined to give harsher sentences than in 1978.

    California prisons and jails are overcrowded and underfunded . . . they can barely take care their people . . .  Repeated lawsuits and court orders barely manage to reverse or slow down the problems in the underfunded California prisons, and you perhaps wish to add an elderly man to the mix?

    And, Swiss authorities detained him . . .

    There are all kinds of injustice and stupidities being done in the world and some of the injustices done are being done right here in the US by US courts or by US congress or by the combination of courts and congress.  


    An interesting LAT article regarding sentencing (none / 0) (#8)
    by oculus on Fri Oct 30, 2015 at 11:43:01 PM EST
    in  Los Angeles' cases similar to Polanski's:



    hummmm . . . (none / 0) (#12)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Sat Oct 31, 2015 at 11:29:38 AM EST
    Lets see here . . .

    Possibility one:
    There is no God . . . and we are animals and the animal Polanski ran afoul of the law . . . and there is no reason to have sympathy for the animal Polanski other than the possible fact that you and I are both animals also

    Possibility two:
    There is a God . . . and there is a fellow who runs around claiming to have all power and to at times do miracles . . . and this same fellow says he forgives and has forgiven all kinds of wrong including murder . . . and this fellow is more inclined to forgive those who admit their wrongs . . .

    Possibility three:
    There is a God and God knows the future and we are predestined to do as God foreknows.  Before each of us were born, we were predestined to do exactly as we do.  We should pity those who do stupid things and just crushed and cursed for them.

    Possibility four:
    Polanski is a cursed animal and you are a responsible man.  You and Polanski are morally different because he ran afoul of the law and you have not yet.  Then, in 10 to 40 years, perhaps both of you have died, and you and Polanski discover that the law of man no longer applies to either of you and there is another set of laws.

    Ok . . . how are you going to do under the different set of laws that applies to people who are no alive on the earth?


    So ny, do you dislike Polanski's (none / 0) (#13)
    by fishcamp on Sat Oct 31, 2015 at 12:41:38 PM EST
    Films as well?

    hmmmmmmmmmmm (none / 0) (#6)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Fri Oct 30, 2015 at 11:09:46 PM EST
    Oh for criminy's sake. (none / 0) (#11)
    by Chuck0 on Sat Oct 31, 2015 at 10:46:15 AM EST
    Even the victim has publicly said give it up. She has repeatedly stated she'd by happy the case be dropped. How does this serve public or the victim to keep spending time and money on this case?

    It's a prosecutor thing (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Oct 31, 2015 at 02:57:01 PM EST
    You wouldn't understand



    Did I miss something. The victim reached a civil (none / 0) (#15)
    by oculus on Sat Oct 31, 2015 at 11:28:35 PM EST
    settlement with the defendant. He may or may not have payed her the entire settlement. How is she required to spend time and or money attributable to the criminal case against defendant?  

    She isn't required to do anything (none / 0) (#16)
    by McBain on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 12:54:50 AM EST
    but she would prefer the case to be dropped.  She has stated she's tired of being the victim.  She would prefer to put this behind her not have to deal with it in any way. She's even gone so far as to forgive Polanski, which angers some people.  I say, good for her.