Run, Scum.

[Trolldor]

Well done Sweden, let a sex offender go free!

[The Dawktor]

Just because they both begin with Sw doesn't mean they're the same!

[Trolldor]

Swden, Switzerland, like there's a fucking difference. Lots of snow, chocolate and watches.

[The Dawktor]

Swden, Switzerland, like there's a fucking difference. Lots of snow, chocolate and watches.

Lovely, leggy blondes on one side and high-altitude Germans on the other

[Hermit]

When Polanski was convicted of statutory rape (all other charges were dropped in course of a plea bargain initiated by the victim's lawyers who wanted to preserve her anonymity) in 1977, judge Laurence J. Rittenband determined that Polanski's sentence for his offense is to be a 90-day psychiatric evaluation at Chino State Prison. When Rittenband indicated his intention not to leave it at that after Polanski's release, by declaring his intention in a private and secret meeting with the prosecution that more jail time was in order, the judge basically broke the Fifth Amendment of the US constitution which basically states that you can't be charged and sentenced for the same crime twice.

If you want to apportion blame for the travesty of justice, (in my view Polanski was guilty of rape regardless of the age of the victim, and he was sentenced to 90 days' worth of psychiatric assessment in a prison and released after 42 for his crime,) place it at what happened 33 years ago, not at what the Swiss government decided last week.

[cowiz]

The Piano Player is a fucking great movie.

[Trolldor]

When Polanski was convicted of statutory rape (all other charges were dropped in course of a plea bargain initiated by the victim's lawyers who wanted to preserve her anonymity) in 1977, judge Laurence J. Rittenband determined that Polanski's sentence for his offense is to be a 90-day psychiatric evaluation at Chino State Prison. When Rittenband indicated his intention not to leave it at that after Polanski's release, by declaring his intention in a private and secret meeting with the prosecution that more jail time was in order, the judge basically broke the Fifth Amendment of the US constitution which basically states that you can't be charged and sentenced for the same crime twice.

If you want to apportion blame for the travesty of justice, (in my view Polanski was guilty of rape regardless of the age of the victim, and he was sentenced to 90 days' worth of psychiatric assessment in a prison and released after 42 for his crime,) place it at what happened 33 years ago, not at what the Swiss government decided last week.

I'll damn well blame the Swiss if I want to. He raped a teenage girl, he doesn't deserve any rights.

[Hermit]

When Polanski was convicted of statutory rape (all other charges were dropped in course of a plea bargain initiated by the victim's lawyers who wanted to preserve her anonymity) in 1977, judge Laurence J. Rittenband determined that Polanski's sentence for his offense is to be a 90-day psychiatric evaluation at Chino State Prison. When Rittenband indicated his intention not to leave it at that after Polanski's release, by declaring his intention in a private and secret meeting with the prosecution that more jail time was in order, the judge basically broke the Fifth Amendment of the US constitution which basically states that you can't be charged and sentenced for the same crime twice.

If you want to apportion blame for the travesty of justice, (in my view Polanski was guilty of rape regardless of the age of the victim, and he was sentenced to 90 days' worth of psychiatric assessment in a prison and released after 42 for his crime,) place it at what happened 33 years ago, not at what the Swiss government decided last week.

I'll damn well blame the Swiss if I want to. He raped a teenage girl, he doesn't deserve any rights.

Polanski is in fact entitled to the rights as set down in the US Constitution, the fifth amendment to which reads in part: "No person shall be ... subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy ..." He was tried and convicted. The judge who convicted him in the first instance then expressed the intention try and convict him a second time on the same charge. I agree with you that the original sentence was ridiculously inadequate in regard to the gravity of the offense Polanski was found guilty of, but I disagree that the blame for that should be sheeted home to the Swiss government 33 years later. The Swiss - quite properly in my view - took the view that unless it receives documentation from the relevant US court that judge Rittenband's sentencing of Polanski was never intended to be punishment in full, it will assume that it was. Despite its request for such documentation the Swiss ministry of law has never received such, and having similar double jeopardy provisions as the ones laid out in the fifth amendment of the US constitution, really had no choice but to release the convicted rapist.

If any blame can be apportioned for this travesty of justice, it can only be laid at the feet of how the case was prosecuted in 1977/78. Your anger comes 32 years too late, and furthermore is aimed at the wrong protagonists.

[Meekychuppet]

When Polanski was convicted of statutory rape (all other charges were dropped in course of a plea bargain initiated by the victim's lawyers who wanted to preserve her anonymity) in 1977, judge Laurence J. Rittenband determined that Polanski's sentence for his offense is to be a 90-day psychiatric evaluation at Chino State Prison. When Rittenband indicated his intention not to leave it at that after Polanski's release, by declaring his intention in a private and secret meeting with the prosecution that more jail time was in order, the judge basically broke the Fifth Amendment of the US constitution which basically states that you can't be charged and sentenced for the same crime twice.

If you want to apportion blame for the travesty of justice, (in my view Polanski was guilty of rape regardless of the age of the victim, and he was sentenced to 90 days' worth of psychiatric assessment in a prison and released after 42 for his crime,) place it at what happened 33 years ago, not at what the Swiss government decided last week.

I'll damn well blame the Swiss if I want to. He raped a teenage girl, he doesn't deserve any rights.

Oh dear.

[Pappa]

When Polanski was convicted of statutory rape (all other charges were dropped in course of a plea bargain initiated by the victim's lawyers who wanted to preserve her anonymity) in 1977, judge Laurence J. Rittenband determined that Polanski's sentence for his offense is to be a 90-day psychiatric evaluation at Chino State Prison. When Rittenband indicated his intention not to leave it at that after Polanski's release, by declaring his intention in a private and secret meeting with the prosecution that more jail time was in order, the judge basically broke the Fifth Amendment of the US constitution which basically states that you can't be charged and sentenced for the same crime twice.

If you want to apportion blame for the travesty of justice, (in my view Polanski was guilty of rape regardless of the age of the victim, and he was sentenced to 90 days' worth of psychiatric assessment in a prison and released after 42 for his crime,) place it at what happened 33 years ago, not at what the Swiss government decided last week.

I'll damn well blame the Swiss if I want to. He raped a teenage girl, he doesn't deserve any rights.

Oh dear.

Should we use him to test new drugs on, or cosmetics or bleach? What's the LD50 of a Polanski? Maybe we could harvest his organs and give them to good people. Or maybe we could hand him over to the US, stick him in solitary for 10 years then release him, then try him again for the same crime but punish him with nipple electrodes. Can we tattoo rapist across his head? He obviously deserves it.

[Trolldor]

When Polanski was convicted of statutory rape (all other charges were dropped in course of a plea bargain initiated by the victim's lawyers who wanted to preserve her anonymity) in 1977, judge Laurence J. Rittenband determined that Polanski's sentence for his offense is to be a 90-day psychiatric evaluation at Chino State Prison. When Rittenband indicated his intention not to leave it at that after Polanski's release, by declaring his intention in a private and secret meeting with the prosecution that more jail time was in order, the judge basically broke the Fifth Amendment of the US constitution which basically states that you can't be charged and sentenced for the same crime twice.

If you want to apportion blame for the travesty of justice, (in my view Polanski was guilty of rape regardless of the age of the victim, and he was sentenced to 90 days' worth of psychiatric assessment in a prison and released after 42 for his crime,) place it at what happened 33 years ago, not at what the Swiss government decided last week.

I'll damn well blame the Swiss if I want to. He raped a teenage girl, he doesn't deserve any rights.

Polanski is in fact entitled to the rights as set down in the US Constitution, the fifth amendment to which reads in part: "No person shall be ... subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy ..." He was tried and convicted. The judge who convicted him in the first instance then expressed the intention try and convict him a second time on the same charge. I agree with you that the original sentence was ridiculously inadequate in regard to the gravity of the offense Polanski was found guilty of, but I disagree that the blame for that should be sheeted home to the Swiss government 33 years later. The Swiss - quite properly in my view - took the view that unless it receives documentation from the relevant US court that judge Rittenband's sentencing of Polanski was never intended to be punishment in full, it will assume that it was. Despite its request for such documentation the Swiss ministry of law has never received such, and having similar double jeopardy provisions as the ones laid out in the fifth amendment of the US constitution, really had no choice but to release the convicted rapist.

If any blame can be apportioned for this travesty of justice, it can only be laid at the feet of how the case was prosecuted in 1977/78. Your anger comes 32 years too late, and furthermore is aimed at the wrong protagonists.

Actually, no, it's not.
The swiss aren't bound by the US constitution.

[devogue]

Should we use him to test new drugs on, or cosmetics or bleach? What's the LD50 of a Polanski? Maybe we could harvest his organs and give them to good people. Or maybe we could hand him over to the US, stick him in solitary for 10 years then release him, then try him again for the same crime but punish him with nipple electrodes. Can we tattoo rapist across his head? He obviously deserves it.

Sounds good.

[Meekychuppet]

When Polanski was convicted of statutory rape (all other charges were dropped in course of a plea bargain initiated by the victim's lawyers who wanted to preserve her anonymity) in 1977, judge Laurence J. Rittenband determined that Polanski's sentence for his offense is to be a 90-day psychiatric evaluation at Chino State Prison. When Rittenband indicated his intention not to leave it at that after Polanski's release, by declaring his intention in a private and secret meeting with the prosecution that more jail time was in order, the judge basically broke the Fifth Amendment of the US constitution which basically states that you can't be charged and sentenced for the same crime twice.

If you want to apportion blame for the travesty of justice, (in my view Polanski was guilty of rape regardless of the age of the victim, and he was sentenced to 90 days' worth of psychiatric assessment in a prison and released after 42 for his crime,) place it at what happened 33 years ago, not at what the Swiss government decided last week.

I'll damn well blame the Swiss if I want to. He raped a teenage girl, he doesn't deserve any rights.

Polanski is in fact entitled to the rights as set down in the US Constitution, the fifth amendment to which reads in part: "No person shall be ... subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy ..." He was tried and convicted. The judge who convicted him in the first instance then expressed the intention try and convict him a second time on the same charge. I agree with you that the original sentence was ridiculously inadequate in regard to the gravity of the offense Polanski was found guilty of, but I disagree that the blame for that should be sheeted home to the Swiss government 33 years later. The Swiss - quite properly in my view - took the view that unless it receives documentation from the relevant US court that judge Rittenband's sentencing of Polanski was never intended to be punishment in full, it will assume that it was. Despite its request for such documentation the Swiss ministry of law has never received such, and having similar double jeopardy provisions as the ones laid out in the fifth amendment of the US constitution, really had no choice but to release the convicted rapist.

If any blame can be apportioned for this travesty of justice, it can only be laid at the feet of how the case was prosecuted in 1977/78. Your anger comes 32 years too late, and furthermore is aimed at the wrong protagonists.

Actually, no, it's not.
The swiss aren't bound by the US constitution.

They are if they are tried in America.

[Coito ergo sum]

Apparently, the Swiss let him go because our wonderful US Justice Department would not provide the Swiss with information they needed to satisfy themselves that Polanski had not actually already served his time. Since the Justice Department refused the Swiss request, the Swiss denied the extradition. Justice must have been too busy dropping other matters.

[colubridae]

Should we use him to test new drugs on, or cosmetics or bleach? What's the LD50 of a Polanski? Maybe we could harvest his organs and give them to good people. Or maybe we could hand him over to the US, stick him in solitary for 10 years then release him, then try him again for the same crime but punish him with nipple electrodes. Can we tattoo rapist across his head? He obviously deserves it.

Sounds good.

What's good enough for the SS is good enough for polanski.