I'm pretty sure that the answer to the "why now?" question is that the Swiss are giving us Polanski so that we'll leave at least some of the bank accounts alone.

The Swiss didn't have a choice once the paperwork was in their hands - they have to adhere to the extradition treaty we have with them, and there is no exception in that treaty that gives them the option to not hand him over. (Unlike, France - our extradition treaty with France allows them to refuse to send their own citizens.)

So, I'm not sure where the banking would come in, although you may have information I don't. I would think it's just as likely that the recent documentary on the case that caused RP to press that the case be closed was the root cause.

I guess where I come out on the Polanski matter is --

I'm not comfortable with the "forget about it, it was 32 years ago" argument. If Polanski hadn't run, it would have ended 32 years ago. And by now, the whole affair would probably be little more than a footnote in Hollywood history.

I'm not comfortable on either side of "the victim says to let it alone" argument. I can't ignore her feelings completely. But letting the victim control whether to prosecute or not sets a bad precedent.

I can't accept the "he's suffered enough by being in exile for 32 years" argument. He's lived a pretty comfortable life in the country where he's a citizen and traveled pretty freely to at least a couple of other countries where he owns homes. And been able to continue making movies, at least to the extent of winning an Oscar.

I understand that one reason the judge wanted to ignore the agreement is that an Assistant D.A., not involved with the case, gave the judge additional information ex parte. That really disturbs me. Ex parte contact with a judge about a case is a big no-no for a litigator.

Maybe the answer is to go with the plea agreement on the original rape, or at least to prohibit the prosecution from offering any arguments that Polanski should be punished more severely than the agreement provided. Not because the original rape was "no big deal" -- when you're in your 40s, you'd better know that 13-year-olds are off limits. But because of the misconduct in the District Attorney's office.

Then prosecute the flight. Where growing up under the Holocaust should probably be a factor in determining the punishment but not a complete defense.

The conclusion that the only way Polanski could have dealt with the loss of his plea bargain is flight is just wrong. And to conclude that Polanski should *never* be punished for child rape because he might have gone to jail for it in the 70s is monstrous.

Where growing up under the Holocaust should probably be a factor in determining the punishment but not a complete defense.

I don't understand how this is a factor. Do formerly abused children, for example, who grow up to be serial killers or rapists get that factored in? When it comes to their punishment?

But letting the victim control whether to prosecute or not sets a bad precedent.

There's a reason, after all, that Polanski himself wasn't allowed to determine whether or not Charlie Manson should be prosecuted, and/or determine Manson's sentence.

IJS.

Do formerly abused children, for example, who grow up to be serial killers or rapists get that factored in? When it comes to their punishment?

Both mitigating and aggravating factors are often introduced at sentencing. (I don't know what the California rules are, specifically.)

Both mitigating and aggravating factors are often introduced at sentencing. (I don't know what the California rules are, specifically.)

Okay then. I still don't see how surviving the Holocaust makes raping a child okay, though.

I could see it as a mitigating factor for him running away. Not really for the original crime unless the argument is that his judgment is just fucked up over all.

I don't think it's unreasonable to say that a Holocaust survivor might have a pathologically different view of jailtime than your average man on the street, and that his experiences there, at least in part, were what prompted him to flee the country. It's not an excuse but it is a factor.

(In the flight charges ONLY, not the rape, which is a separate case.)

What Sparky said. The argument I've heard is that he lived so long under arbitrary governments that, when some question came up whether the judge would increase the punishment, he ran because he assumed it was another arbitrary action.

It certainly isn't enough to give him a pass. And not something to make a huge difference in the punishment. But something that, if I were a judge, I'd want to add into the mix.

And yes, it's only on the flight issue. Not the child rape issue. Apologies for not being clearer on that point.