There are reports this week detailing a 1993 agreement of Roman Polanski to pay Samantha Geimer $500,000 in damages for raping her when she was thirteen. It is an interesting twist in the case because Geimer later said that she forgave Polanski and advocated that charges be dropped. The agreement came 16 years after the rape when Polanski was living as a fugitive and trying to come home.
He pleaded guilty in 1977 to having unlawful sex with a minor.
What is equally striking is that he failed to pay for the money for three years and owed her an additional $100,000 in interest. It is still not known if he owes her any of the money. It appears that 12 years after the crime, Geimer had filed a claim for payment to damages.
Polanski also does not come across as particularly guilt-ridden in an interview in 1979 when asked about the case. While saying how much he loved living in Paris as a fugitive, he explained to “If I had killed somebody, it wouldn’t have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But… f—ing, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to f— young girls. Juries want to f— young girls. Everyone wants to f— young girls!” Well, I can certainly see what all of the celebrities feel so strongly about dropping all charges against him, here. That would make the half of million dollars as a cost of doing business as a pedophile.
In a 2003 op-ed, Geimer described the crime:
I met Roman Polanski in 1977, when I was 13 years old. I was in ninth grade that year, when he told my mother that he wanted to shoot pictures of me for a French magazine. That’s what he said, but instead, after shooting pictures of me at Jack Nicholson’s house on Mulholland Drive, he did something quite different. He gave me champagne and a piece of a Quaalude. And then he took advantage of me.
It was not consensual sex by any means. I said no, repeatedly, but he wouldn’t take no for an answer. I was alone and I didn’t know what to do. It was scary and, looking back, very creepy.
For the full story, click here.
“to themselves deny”
Berliner,
It’s more complicated than the French having the ability to deny themselves extradition as a matter of local law. I never said they were not within their rights to deny extradition from France. But only France. Perhaps I should have been more specific. The agreement on extradition between the European Union and the United States of America went into effect in 2003. France, as a member state, has to abide by this agreement. That they do not extradite is not an issue because Article 18 provides that the Agreement shall not preclude the conclusion, after its entry into force, of bilateral agreements on extradition between a Member State and the United States of America consistent with the Agreement. Consistent does not mean identical nor does it limit a member state from itself having stricter standards. Yet. Your EU member states still retain much of their native law. That will erode as the mechanics of federation gain greater hold of time through accumulated jurisprudence. But I digress.
This is why he was picked up in Switzerland. Their process is consistent with the agreement, but friendlier to extradition than French law. Roman’s lapse of judgment on traveling will come down to the battle over your own intra-member extradition in addition to this layer of the EU agreement with the US.
This is far from given that Polanski will stay in France or the EU. In fact, I say better than even odds he is extradited.
I point to the recent English hacker case where the person in question fought extradition after being caught poking around military servers. It went all the way through the EU process before it was decided in favor of the US.
And if it seemed like I was just bagging on the French on the “being difficult” issue? Yeah. I was. The French are a traditional comedy target. I’ve got just enough English in me to consider them the natural enemy. (That was a joke just so there is no misunderstanding. My real natural enemy are the willfully stupid.)
Berliner,
I was going to post something smartassed. However, seeing the error of my hasty thought process. I googled up “extraterritorial jurisdiction” and guess what. You taught me something. I did not know that this extended to foreign countries as well. I knew that it did in Texas. But here is more info. Thank you.
I am a Ctrl C and Ctrl V here. I hope this is ok and that I am not considered a troll. lol. I did have a fear of sleeping under a bridge though.
“France had extraterritorial jurisdiction over that matter.”
Extraterritorial jurisdiction or ETJ is the legal ability of a government to exercise authority beyond its normal boundaries.
Any authority can of course claim ETJ over any external territory they wish. But for the claim to be effective in the external territory (except by the exercise of force) it must be agreed either with the legal authority in the external territory, or with a legal authority which covers both territories. When unqualified, ETJ usually refers to such an agreed jurisdiction, or it will be called something like “claimed ETJ”.
link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterritorial_jurisdiction
Common conditions of extradition
By enacting laws or concluding treaties or agreements, countries determine the conditions under which they may entertain or deny extradition requests. Common bars to extradition include:
* Failure to fulfill dual criminality – generally the alleged act for which extradition is sought must constitute a crime punishable by some minimum penalty in both the requesting and the requested parties.
* Political nature of the alleged crime – most countries refuse to extradite suspects of political crimes.
* Possibility of certain forms of punishment – some countries refuse extradition on grounds that the person, if extradited, may receive capital punishment or face torture. A few go as far as to cover all punishments that they themselves would not administer.
* Citizenship of the person in question – some countries refuse extradition of own citizens, holding trials for the persons themselves. In some cases, such as that of Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, the suspect will not face criminal charges at all.
Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition
Thank you again.
Buddha Is Laughing,
“The simple answer is the French courts lack personal and subject matter jurisdiction over the original crime. The crime did not take place in France nor against a French citizen and it’s not violation of French law in question.”
The crime was committed by a French citizen who was now residing in France. According to French law this means that, yes, France had extraterritorial jurisdiction over that matter.
Alan,
Are you embarrassed for him too?
TruthNotKnown is more apt.
TruthBeKnown wrote: “I would not be surprised in the least if the great majority of the bloggers on this site support this creep.”
This is one of the weakest and most transparent attempts at manipulation I have seen in a long time. As Krugman said today, “the emotional maturity of a 13 year old”.
Berliner,
The simple answer is the French courts lack personal and subject matter jurisdiction over the original crime. The crime did not take place in France nor against a French citizen and it’s not violation of French law in question. A French ruling means nothing against the charges at bar here. It’s like asking Australia to hold a trial for a crime that happened in Vancouver. That the French have a non-extradition policy is irrelevant to the justificatory issues other than they refused to turn him over. Anything they have to say beyond that is just lips moving. All it really illustrates is that the French aren’t interested in pursuing felons in a serious manner. It’s not like he’s a terrorist subject and likely to be tortured. There is no cloud over the facts of this case. He’s a criminal felon on the run just like a bank robber or a murderer. There is no ambiguity about the charges against him nor does he face the death penalty.
There is no valid reason not to turn him over for trial other than the French are being difficult asses. It is not like they have a reputation for that or anything.
TruthbeKnown vomited this:
I would not be surprised in the least if the great majority of the bloggers on this site support this creep.
What we will probably see is that the bloggers will be few as opposed to if the rapist was a Catholic priest, a black man, a white man or a Hispanic.
Let us watch and see.
And this:
It’s still early.
I am embarrassed for you.
“I’m still not sure why any “ally” of ours would have refused to send the sick pedophile rapist back to stand trial.”
Because in France, like in most continental European countries, extraditing a citizen is unconstitutional.
Otherwise “irregular renditions” to less scrupelous nations remain loopholes in the protection of citizen rights.
But all these nations have some procedure to trial citizens for crimes committed abroad. It is my understanding that French law requires the request of a foreign authority for that.
But the Californian authorities obviously never made that request. Probably because they already had a Californian trial, and where uninterested in a French re-trial.
“My way or no way” on both sides of the Atlantic.
For the benefit of the obtuse and willfully ignorant, the last paragraph is pure snark. I didn’t think the site would read snark and /snark as html code, even if enclosed in the correct symbols. I should’ve figured it would – but I didn’t.
Let this liberal chime in as well. Roman Polanski did a sick and twisted act, both criminal and immoral. I would love to see him pay for his crime. Rape isn’t funny. Do you hear that all you McCain supporting Republicans out there?
The only issues I have with this case are:
1) The length of time since the crime was committed. I don’t know if Polanski is the same person now that he was when the crime was committed. In a better world, he would have been extradited to the USA for trial decades ago. I’m still not sure why any “ally” of ours would have refused to send the sick pedophile rapist back to stand trial.
2) The victim in this case doesn’t want charges pressed. She’s put the incident behind her. Every time this issue comes up again, her life is thrown into the ghoulish spotlight of American celebrity. The state has an interest in seeing the man punished for what he did, but I’m not sure that it’s worth the turmoil, pain and anguish that it will cause the victim in this case.
Why, oh why don’t conservatives have any compassion for the victim? Is it because only victims who agree with them are worthy of compassion?
Somehow I do not think that when ol’ Tex Ritter’ (or Mike Douglas) sang about ‘The Men in My Little Girl’s Life’ he was *ever* referring to “men” like Mr. P.
I know what kinda frontier/country justice Tex, Roy, Hoppy, and Gene–if they were alive–would give the Roman P weasel.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XddpVDYqf3g
The men in my little girl’s life
The men in my little girl’s life
It seems like only yesterday when I heard my little girl say
“Daddy, there’s a boy ouside, his name is Rod.
He wants to play in our backyard
Can he daddy? Can he daddy? Oh please daddy.”
Is it really so long ago she’d come to me and wanna know
“Dad, there’s a boy outside, his name is Lee.
He wants to carry my books for me.
Can he daddy? Is it alright, dad? He’s got freckles, dad.”
The men in my little girl’s life
The men in my little girl’s life
Then came pony tails and jeans and my little girl was in her teens
“Popsie, there’s a boy outside, his name is Tom.
He wants to take me to the prom.
OK, popsie? He’s cute, popsie. We’ll be home early, popsie.”
Before I knew it time had flown and how my little girl had grown
Now it was “Father, there’s a boy outside, his name is Eddie.
He wants to know if we can go steady.
Can we, father? Yes, father. Oh, can we borrow the car, pop?”
Yes it seems only yesterday I heard my lovely daughter say
“Dad, there’s a boy outside, his name is Jim.
He asked me if I’d marry him. I said yes, dad.
Got something in your eye, dad? I love him, dad.”
The men in my little girl’s life
The men in my little girl’s life
A child, an adolescent, a young lady, a wife
And oh yes, there’s another man in my little girl’s life
“Hi dad, there’s a boy outside, his name is Tim.
I told him Grampa was gonna babysit him.
Thanks, dad. Bless you, dad. Good night, dad.”
The men in my little girl’s life
The men in my little girl’s life
Half a Million in 93′ sounds more like a better divorce settlement than most General Motors wife’s get in 93. Damn….
It’s still early.
song about a 13-year old girl:
I would not be surprised in the least if the great majority of the bloggers on this site support this creep.
Yet, of four posts thus far, none have defended the man. I would not consider Mr Turley’s post a defense of him, either.
So, you are correct. Let us wait and see you become embarrassed by your pitiful claim.
I would not be surprised in the least if the great majority of the bloggers on this site support this creep.
What we will probably see is that the bloggers will be few as opposed to if the rapist was a Catholic priest, a black man, a white man or a Hispanic.
Let us watch and see.
“Despite Professing His Love for Young Girls.”
****************
Well he’s not exactly Maurice Chevalier you must admit.
I think the dude needs to go to prison for his chance at some “unlawful sex”.
But I must ask for clarification, Mr Turley.
You said, “There are reports this week detailing a 1993 agreement of Roman Polanski to pay Samantha Geimer $500,000 in damages for raping her when she was thirteen.
Then, later the plea was, “He pleaded guilty in 1977 to having unlawful sex with a minor.”
What is the difference? Is there a difference?
Poanski’s actions were indefensible and like rats leaving a sinking ship, his defenders will abandon him the more this story is played in the media. $500,000 is a drop in the bucket for him so really meaningless as a demostration of remorse. The more we ,the public, hear of this story the more outrage we become, not only about the rape but the obvious disregard for our laws by his attempt (and success) of escaping justice for 32 years while living the life of wealth and privilege. Eventhough we created this monster by attending and praising his movies, his actions conflict with our basic understanding of fairness and justice. It will be interesting to see if his celebrity will allow him to recieve undo leniencey or even escape justice all together. If our past is any indication all he has to do is make a few “contributions” to the right people and his troubles will be over