Roman Polanski: Evil Wins the Day In Switzerland
by Jeffrey Scott ShapiroIn the Roman Polanski case, Switzerland is on the side of evil. And evil has won.
One week ago today, on Monday, July 12 we learned that Switzerland would not extradite director Roman Polanski back to the United States to face sentencing for a crime he has already pleaded guilty to – having unlawful sexual intercourse with a 13-year old girl after he drugged her in 1977.
Most Americans know the story.
The Oscar winning director of “Chinatown,” “The Pianist,” and “Rosemary’s Baby,” was accused of luring the girl to Jack Nicholson’s house while the actor was out of town under the guide of having a modeling shoot with the child. Once the girl arrived, Polanski allegedly gave her champagne and part of a Quaalude, and then had sexual intercourse with her.
Some Americans have argued that the crime happened so long ago that prosecutors should simply move on.
Actress Whoopi Goldberg once insinuated what Polanski did may not fit the legal definition of rape in some countries – which actually turned out to be inaccurate.
Others have suggested that because Polanski’s mother was killed in a Nazi concentration camp and his wife Sharon Tate was murdered by Charles Manson’s cult he should be shown compassion.
All of those people are wrong though.
What Roman Polanski did was a cruel, disturbing, selfish act that tormented the life of a young girl and has haunted her throughout her womanhood.
A possible victim of Stockholm Syndrome or perhaps just emotionally exhausted, the victim herself has recently withdrawn her long standing adamant requests to see Polanski sentenced, and now says she just wants the case to go away so she can put it behind her.
Certainly, she deserves compassion and respect. But if we put this case behind us without seeing justice done then it’s only a sending a message to other sexual predators, celebrities and wealthy people who commit crimes that justice delayed is justice denied.
For decades the Swiss have helped people evade justice under the pretense they are neutral. They are not neutral.
They illegally shielded money the Nazis stole from the Jews during the Holocaust. It is widely known they help people who hide money they’ve stolen from fraudulent transactions, and in this case, they are an accessory after the fact in helping Polanski evade justice for raping a child.
Switzerland is evil.
Their policies of so-called neutrality are evil and they are cowardly. I can’t think of anything more cowardly than hiding behind the guise of neutrality when a crime has been committed against an innocent person or people. There is no gray. There is good and there is evil. It is in fact black and white.
As a former prosecutor who now selectively practices criminal defense, I often hear other criminal defense lawyers justify their actions when they represent defendants who are guilty of violent crimes – something I won’t do. They say that they do it for the system, that everyone deserves a good defense and that they’re not the ones who committed the crime.
But anyone with a moral conscience knows those are all pathetic excuses. Anytime anyone uses their own power to shield evil – or refuses to use the power they have to stop it, they are committing an act of evil themselves.
When someone makes an innocent person suffer they deserve to suffer themselves through the civil system of justice we have created. Without consequences, a message is sent to the perpetrator and other would-be perpetrators that it’s okay to hurt someone again.
Objectivist philosopher Ayn Rand once wrote that, “Whenever good and evil compromise, evil always wins.” She was right. In this case, Switzerland has compromised their morality and responsibility to the global community to extradite a convicted child rapist.
Evil has won.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
23 Comments
Time to send Dog the Bounty Hunter to Switzerland. Wouldn't that be a great episode? Seeing Polanski sitting in the van and Dog praying for him.
As much as we may be pissed at Switzerland, the truth is if the L.A. D.A. had handled the case properly–and the American laws pertaining to Polanksi's crime been harsher–this would have been taken care of 33 years ago. American justice f* cked it up, leading to the current mess.
"Their policies of so-called neutrality are evil and they are cowardly."
When it comes to good and evil, sides must be chosen. To say you take no side, is to side with evil.
In no way does Shapiro refer to the actual reasons, why Switzerland denied Polanski's extradition. It had nothing to do with the crime itself, but with the extradition request by the US authorities and their unwillingness to fully cooperate with Swiss authorities. And the international ordre public is also conveniently ignored in most discussions. Months ago, when Polanski was arrested, European law experts already mentioned, that this is the reason, why Switzerland would eventually deny extradition. It's interesting that Shapiro, a former attorney, who should have learned that one has to abide by the *laws*, not by one's emotions, can now only retreat to arguments of morale, polemics and defamation in light of the fact that all the Swiss authorities did was consider the laws relevant to Polanski's extradition request, *including* the extradition treaty between Switzerland and the US. (So much for the "neutrality" argument, Mr. Shapiro.) I personally would have welcomed Polanski's extradition, but there is nothing "evil" about Switzerland's actions. They simply followed the rules, and like the original case, the US authorities messed this thing up big time. But we should not be a whiner about it like Shapiro.
Excellent – and well writtten.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Attributed to Edward Burke.
Switzerland is certainly doing something here – they are enabling evil to thrive.
I was reading a story about this on the internet last week. Don't remember where or who the author was, but it stated that the reason the Swiss refused extradition was because they demanded some paper work on the case to review it in making the decision.
So the Swiss called the state dept. and they said they'd handle it, but they never called the prosecutors in California who would have only been too happy to oblige. So the prosecutors didn't send it, the Swiss never got it, case closed.
The US state department squashed it.
If the Swiss won't do what's right I think it's time to send in a Predator Drone to deliver justice. It works in Afghanistan and Pakistan it can also work in Switzerland.
All I need to know and what the Swiss also know is that Polanski plead guilty to having unlawful sexual intercourse with a 13-year old girl and then fled the country before he had paid his debt to the state. Under that alone he should have been sent back to face justice, not let his rapist ass go because someone didn't send the right paper work.
See it's really simple, he raped a young girl and didn't stay to face justice. Send him back. But they didn't, they looked for any excuse to deny the extradition, found one and let the self confessed rapist, pedophile go free.
Well, I'm sure the child raping director is breathing easier, and so are those weird hollywood individuals. They will all flock to make his next "masterpise"!
If you say so.
I've never trusted the Swiss.
Well I just did (actually I didn't say it I actually typed it – haha).
But hey, that's just my humble opinion and I don't expect everyone to agree.
CBS reports the actual reason is that the LA prosecutors refused to provide sealed trial transcripts to the Swiss. What business does Switzerland have determining if the California verdict was one they would agree with before turning Polanski over? If Charles Manson escaped to Switzerland after his verdict, would Swiss officials need to review sealed trial transcripts before returning him to the U.S.?
Easy. The new treaty between Switzerland and the US states that a person is only to be extradited, if the sentence the person has to face is above 6 months. So the Swiss authorities naturally wanted to know if the 42 days that Polanski had been under psychological evaluation back in the 70s, were and are considered the actual sentence. There was a testimony by one of the original attorneys pertaining to this matter. It was not about the Swiss needing to "agree" (or not agree) with the verdict, but a simple matter of fact that needed to be cleared up. But the prosecutors didn't agree to hand these documents over to the Swiss. Therefore it was the US authorities themselves who prevented the Swiss from acting according to the extradition treaty.
New York Times reported that because Polanski fled before sentencing, his plea agreement was void and he faced sentencing on all six original charges, which could result in many years of jail time. So naturally, the 42 days of psychological evaluation were irrelevant. What else you got?
I know, but an opinion reported in the NYT is no basis for saying that "the 42 days of psychological evaluation [are] irrelevant". It isn't a basis for anything, because it's just some stuff written on a piece of newspaper. A journalist can't look into a crystal ball and decide what the LA judge would eventually rule. So only the facts count, and the 42 days obviously are relevant, because there is an attorney's testimony on that matter, and the Swiss authorities wanted to have access to these documents. And then there's also the exact opposite published opinion, namely that Polanski would have just appeared in the LA court, they would have formally declared the 42 days sentence, and he would have been a free man. But again… all of that is mere opinion, speculation. What if. Irrelevant. Fact is that the Swiss wanted to have access to the documents in order to have something to work with, and they didn't get them. So under the extradition treaty (and the intl'l ordre public by the way) they had no other choice but to dismiss the US request.
As a naturalized American of Swiss decent, I am disapointed to see the quick judgment passed on the Swiss community as a whole because of a inappropriate decision made by a few. Though the neutrality of the swiss can be argued, they generally are not vicious evil people. You may have even met a few and survived. That being said, I disagree with the decision, be it a technicality or not, I was pretty sure down the line categorizing of people based on gender, race etc. is frowned upon. Thought this might fit the category…
"For decades the Swiss have helped people evade justice under the pretense they are neutral. They are not neutral."
So what makes me most evil, agreeing for the most part with republicans? Being a citizen of the Imperialistic US of A intent on forcing my way of life on everyone I meet? or… maybe I should just be ashamed of where and to whom I was born, Evil people that they were, Mom and Dad.
Hard to see how all this animosity from all sides will ever turn into something productive.
And another racist. No wonder you call yourself Attila. BigHollywood is being invaded by barbarians.
"As a former prosecutor who now selectively practices criminal defense, I often hear other criminal defense lawyers justify their actions when they represent defendants who are guilty of violent crimes … Anytime anyone uses their own power to shield evil they are committing an act of evil themselves."
Whoa. You certainly have the right to refuse to represent someone, but to argue that an attorney is an evil person because he or she represents someone who is eventually proven guilty is going way too far. The US Constitution guarantees that criminal defendants have the right to an attorney. Does that mean the Constitution is aiding and abetting evil?
Merely representing someone who is proven guitly does not make an attorney evil. It's the MANNER in which that attorney represents that defendant that determines the goodness of the attorney. An attorney who tries to slime the victim or play the race card would certainly qualify as evil. Whereas, an attorney who simply tried to find the truth and cross-examine the State's evidence against the defendant would not be evil.
And who is to say Prosecutors cannot be evil themselves? There is certainly such a thing as "malicious prosecution" and "selective enforcement". For example, choosing to prosecute the KKK for voter intimidation while ignoring voter intimidation from the New Black Panther Party is selective enforcement.
Sorry Mandy, I should have fleshed out my last comment. The New York Times reported that Steve Cooley, the district attorney of Los Angeles County, maintains that since Polanski fled after entering his guilty plea, but before his sentencing, the plea bargain was void and Polanski was facing all six original charges. Those charges together carried multiple years of potential jail time. So your original argument that the Swiss needed sealed testimony to determine if the 42 days of psychological evaluation should count to leave Polanski with a less than six months remaining on his sentence, and thus not be subject to extradition, does not hold water. If Polanski had waited to be sentenced, and that sentence did not adhere to what was agreed to in the plea bargain, and he fled, the Swiss might have had a better position to demand sealed testimony about the plea bargain agreement. But Polanski voided that agreement by fleeing. In the words of our fearless leader, the Swiss acted stupidly. Polanski, guilty as hell, free as a bird.
"Switzerland is evil."
I don't know WHERE people get the idea that this blog engages in needless hyperbole…
Since when was the Swiss a race?
You must be logged in to post a comment.