Getting away with raping children: right or wrong?

[js207]

Inspired by a thread next door in News about extradition, I found myself wondering where people stand on punishing crimes across borders. This is of course related to a genuine case, but not directly involved in the one that thread was about, so I thought I'd ask in a new thread how people feel - not about that specific case, but the general principle.

A 43 year old man drugs and rapes a 13 year old. However, he manages to escape across the border into another country. The core question is, should that second country be obliged to return him to the country where that crime was committed? (Assume for these purposes there is no doubt about guilt, fairness of trial etc: I just remembered that the age of consent is actually 13 in Spain, which is slightly scary and would complicate matters if drugs hadn't been involved as coercion, but I'd like to ignore that for now.)

I have my own views of course, but I'm interested in seeing how other people feel. If you'd committed the crime yourself, would you expect your own government to shelter you from the consequences, or send you back to face them?

[Thorne]

This particular type of crime, yes, I think extradition is appropriate. Basically, any type of crime where someone has been injured or killed, should definitely be extraditable. But the burden of proof has to be upon the country in which the crime occurred. Whether the act is a crime in the country in which the suspect has taken refuge should have no bearing on the case, in most instances. Although I can think of some cases where that might be a factor. The potential punishment for the crime should also be considered. A possible death penalty can be grounds for withholding extradition.

[js207]

I'd agree with most of that - extradition's usually limited to crimes more serious than a certain level (carrying X years in prison, for example) and as a practical matter, a government won't bother pursuing extradition for parking violations even if it could in theory. Whether it's a crime in both countries can be a useful safeguard though: countries like Saudi Arabia have strict religious laws against promoting or even practicing religions besides Islam, Thailand has laws against insulting their King, but I'd be shocked to see the US or UK extradite anyone for either of those. On the other hand, from a quick search it seems Spain has extradited men for sex with girls between 13 and 16 - perhaps on the basis "underage sex" is a crime even if the definition of underage differs.

I do object to the way my own government currently tries to stop others from using capital punishment, but currently it simply extradites on the condition that capital punishment will not apply. Not ideal: for one thing, it creates an incentive to flee across the border after committing a capital crime, for another, it's interference in another sovereign nation, which I feel is inappropriate. Not applicable here of course, since rape isn't a capital crime anyway.

"Burden of proof" is an interesting issue; the UK's requirement currently amounts to showing the same level of evidence that is required to justify arresting and charging someone within the UK, which seems about right: if there is good evidence but not quite enough to convict, they could be extradited, acquitted and then of course be free to leave again. Going to the length of cross-examining expert or eye witnesses as you would in the actual trial would be too high a barrier to set, I think.

[denuseri]

I say send him back and chop off his dong after drugging him and raping him just like he did the girl!

[ksst]

I'd agree with denu, completely.

[IAN 2411]

A 43 year old man drugs and rapes a 13 year old.
I think that most countries are mature enough to have laws that would say the girl is still an innocent. I think that most countries would be morally obliged to let the extradition go ahead if proof of guilt was shown.




I just remembered that the age of consent is actually 13 in Spain, which is slightly scary and would complicate matters if drugs hadn't been involved as coercion, but I'd like to ignore that for now.)

I know what you’re saying, but rape at any age is not consent with either male/female, and I find it is hard to ignore. It is life and soul destroying, and some people never get over the traumatic experience.

Be well IAN 2411

[sub_sequent]

Living in a country where urban legend has it that sex with a virgin is a cure for HIV-AIDS, and the rape of girls from 2 years onwards (as a cure) is, unfortunately, not unheard of, I'm with Denuseri and ksst on this one!

[lucy]

Yes, right, let's chop off dongs. Because, yanno, rape is about sex, really. Also, the middle ages were so much better. Yup, thassthetruth. And since we're at it, the fookin' homosexuals, let's put them in the gas chamber, coz that's a crime too. Or if it isn't, we should make it one, as it used to be.

And the jews. And those with crooked noses. And red haired women. Burn them all, the fuckers.

Apart from that: Rape is rape is rape, no matter the age of consent. So, yes, extradition is OK. But then again, I think fleeing into another country should never be reason not to be punished, no matter what the crime is.

[thir]

Inspired by a thread next door in News about extradition, I found myself wondering where people stand on punishing crimes across borders. This is of course related to a genuine case, but not directly involved in the one that thread was about, so I thought I'd ask in a new thread how people feel - not about that specific case, but the general principle.

A 43 year old man drugs and rapes a 13 year old. However, he manages to escape across the border into another country. The core question is, should that second country be obliged to return him to the country where that crime was committed? (Assume for these purposes there is no doubt about guilt, fairness of trial etc: I just remembered that the age of consent is actually 13 in Spain, which is slightly scary and would complicate matters if drugs hadn't been involved as coercion, but I'd like to ignore that for now.)


IF he is guilty - that is just it, isn't it? Who can you know that, until the case is on? There is far too much hysteria when the word 'child' is mentioned, and it does not benefit anyone, least of all the child.

[quote}
I have my own views of course, but I'm interested in seeing how other people feel. If you'd committed the crime yourself, would you expect your own government to shelter you from the consequences, or send you back to face them?[/QUOTE]

If I'd committed a crime, I'd probably try any trick to escape the consequences.

[thir]

I say send him back and chop off his dong after drugging him and raping him just like he did the girl!

I disagree with you and ksst entirely: there is a little matter of innocent until proven guilty!

[ksst]

Well, he'd have to be convicted first of course. But I tend to lose all reasonableness and sympathy on this issue. I'd never have the dispassion to be on such a jury. The above would possibly be too kind. Skip the drugging.

[Thorne]

Whether it's a crime in both countries can be a useful safeguard though: countries like Saudi Arabia have strict religious laws against promoting or even practicing religions besides Islam, Thailand has laws against insulting their King, but I'd be shocked to see the US or UK extradite anyone for either of those.
These were the kinds of things I was thinking of when I said, "in most instances." While I wouldn't expect the US or UK, or many other countries, extraditing someone for such crimes, would you expect, for example, the Suadi's to extradite a rapist, considering that rape does not appear to be a real crime there, unless you're the victim? As near as I can tell, their laws would require the rape victim to be extradited to Saudi Arabia, and forced to marry her rapist.

[denuseri]

I disagree with you and ksst entirely: there is a little matter of innocent until proven guilty!

Please note that for the purposes of this discussion the OP made the statement that guilt and a fair trial are conditionally taken care of ...IE guilt is certain, the fair trial is certain.

[denuseri]

Yes, right, let's chop off dongs. Because, yanno, rape is about sex, really. Also, the middle ages were so much better. Yup, thassthetruth. And since we're at it, the fookin' homosexuals, let's put them in the gas chamber, coz that's a crime too. Or if it isn't, we should make it one, as it used to be.

And the jews. And those with crooked noses. And red haired women. Burn them all, the fuckers.

Apart from that: Rape is rape is rape, no matter the age of consent. So, yes, extradition is OK. But then again, I think fleeing into another country should never be reason not to be punished, no matter what the crime is.

My original statement was not intended to be taken as seriously as your response so please forgive me if we have a miscommunication.

Though I do believe in some circumstance a little eye for an eye might make the would be rapist reconsider committing such a crime in future.

Chemical and physical castration are also possible but in some cases I do understand that the rapist "just cant help himself" in which case he needs to be fixed somehow or removed from society so he wont hurt anyone else.

I may be a bit biased but I would postulate from personal experience that when one is raped...it never goes away, you have it forever, so imho the punishment should be equatable to the crime.

[hoosakitty]

My original statement was not intended to be taken as seriously as your response so please forgive me if we have a miscommunication.

Though I do believe in some circumstance a little eye for an eye might make the would be rapist reconsider committing such a crime in future.

Chemical and physical castration are also possible but in some cases I do understand that the rapist "just cant help himself" in which case he needs to be fixed somehow or removed from society so he wont hurt anyone else.

I may be a bit biased but I would postulate from personal experience that when one is raped...it never goes away, you have it forever, so imho the punishment should be equatable to the crime.

Excuse me...taking advantage of children (i have two, they're barely ready to consent at 18)...drugging them in order to rape them....
Cutting off their diseased members is only the start in my mind. These children are permanently altered and relive the experience their entire lives. Its only fair that the rapist should be reminded of his crime every day...having to squat to pee ought to do the trick.

[ksst]

As near as I can tell, their laws would require the rape victim to be extradited to Saudi Arabia, and forced to marry her rapist.


Or be stoned.

[js207]

IF he is guilty - that is just it, isn't it? Who can you know that, until the case is on?

In the particular case this relates to, the rapist in question fled in between conviction and sentencing: he had already been found guilty (indeed, he admitted it and pled guilty to get a lighter sentence).


If I'd committed a crime, I'd probably try any trick to escape the consequences.

Of course - the question is, should your government help you in that effort, or hand you over for trial? Most Western governments take the second option, as do all the voters here so far except 1 "other", but the French and Russian governments go the first route.

[Thorne]

I wonder how resistant the French government would be if he had been a nobody instead of a famous director.

[thir]

In the particular case this relates to, the rapist in question fled in between conviction and sentencing: he had already been found guilty (indeed, he admitted it and pled guilty to get a lighter sentence).


Of course - the question is, should your government help you in that effort, or hand you over for trial? Most Western governments take the second option, as do all the voters here so far except 1 "other", but the French and Russian governments go the first route.

I am a little confused - are we talking about somebody already tried and found guilty in the first country, or somebody being extradited to be tried? I think that makes a difference.

[Thorne]

The case he's talking about, he accepted a plea bargain, pleading guilty to a reduced charge of unlawful sexual intercourse, after pleading not guilty to rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under 14, and furnishing a controlled substance to a minor. He was expecting to receive probation, but fled the US when he learned that he might still receive a jail sentence. So yes, he was convicted, but fled before sentencing.

(Is there some reason we aren't mentioning his name, js207?)

[lucy]

Roman Polanski comes to mind.

[js207]

I am a little confused - are we talking about somebody already tried and found guilty in the first country, or somebody being extradited to be tried? I think that makes a difference.

In this particular case, he'd already been convicted but escaped before being sentenced. Arguably, that is evidence in itself of his guilt for other purposes (if the victim wanted to sue him for it, for example, she could use this conviction as proof rather than starting from scratch with witnesses, evidence etc), but I would have thought the same would apply if he'd escaped before trial but enough evidence existed to put him on trial.

Thorne: yes, he had plea-bargained on one of the six charges, but since he fled before the end of the trial the other five remain outstanding and presumably will do until he either dies or returns to face trial. I've avoided mentioning the name to try to avoid this being a discussion of a particular individual: I wanted to focus on the broader question of extradition policy in general. As you asked, what if it had been someone other than a famous director ... supposing you or I raped (or murdered, or whatever) someone in one country, then fled to another, should that country shelter us? If it had been me, any developed country I can think of including my own would just ship me straight back for trial: my government makes it very clear that if I get myself arrested abroad, all they can, will and should do is ensure I have legal advice and a translator if necessary - and in my book, it would be morally as well as legally wrong for them to do any more than ensure I get a proper trial and defence.

Lucy: yes, that was one of the two cases which inspired this thread, but I wanted to avoid getting caught in the specifics of that particular case to address the more general moral question: should governments work for the interests of each individual citizen, or for justice - should they ensure there is a fair trial and the accused serves their sentence if applicable, or enable the suspect to escape the trial and/or sentence if there's a way to do so? In some cases that might be the only option - totalitarian regimes might not offer a fair trial at all, making no trial the lesser evil, but that's another situation entirely.

[MMI]

I haven't paid any attention to the cases alluded to, although I am aware of them. I will answer the hypothetical question originally posed.

Extradition is an important tool of justice in the modern world, and every country should be prepared to return fugitives to the jurisdiction where they stand accused, be they famous film directors, or directors of international financial institutions, or autistic child computer hackers - provided sufficient prima facie evidence exists to show there is a case that needs to be answered.

I pause when the fugitive is a national of the country he has fled to, and I would not return him if the crime he is accused of is not a crime in his homeland, or if the penalty on conviction is likely to be regarded (in the homeland) as inappropriate or unduly harsh (such as emasculation for child rape - see above; barbaric acts of revenge should never be part of a discussion about justice). I would also not return him (for political reasons rather than reasons of justice) if the country seeking extradition would not agree to extradite its own nationals accused of the same crime elsewhere, or if it were using the extradition process to circumvent proper procedure (e.g., seeking extradition in order to allow a third country to then apply for extradition in order to answer totally different charges).

I suppose the home country could offer to try the accused according to its own laws as an alternative, and if he were convicted, to be sentenced according to the same laws.

I also pause if the country is prepared to compromise its system of justice by saying, if you plead guilty to a lesser charge than the crime we think you really committed, we will give you a less harsh penalty ... especially if, after that compact has been made, and the accused has burnt his bridges by pleading guilty, the judiciary reneges on it by threatening a more severe penalty. After all, he might have been innocent, but saw no way of avoiding a guilty verdict in such a system.

I don't suppose I've said anything that hasn't already been covered, but I thought I'd state which side of the line I am on.

[Thorne]

Thorne: yes, he had plea-bargained on one of the six charges, but since he fled before the end of the trial the other five remain outstanding and presumably will do until he either dies or returns to face trial.
As I understand it, the plea bargain was an admission of guilt to have the other charges dropped. The trial was over, only the sentencing remained. Once he is returned, he'll be sentenced, not put on trial. Or perhaps he'll also be charged with flight to avoid prosecution.


I've avoided mentioning the name to try to avoid this being a discussion of a particular individual: I wanted to focus on the broader question of extradition policy in general.
That was my assumption, which is why I didn't name him either.


it would be morally as well as legally wrong for them to do any more than ensure I get a proper trial and defence.
And just as morally wrong to do any less.

[Thorne]

I also pause if the country is prepared to compromise its system of justice by saying, if you plead guilty to a lesser charge than the crime we think you really committed, we will give you a less harsh penalty ... especially if, after that compact has been made, and the accused has burnt his bridges by pleading guilty, the judiciary reneges on it by threatening a more severe penalty. After all, he might have been innocent, but saw no way of avoiding a guilty verdict in such a system.
I don't think that was the situation, at least in the case we've been alluding to. He pleaded guilty to the lesser charge in the HOPES of a sentence of probation. Such a plea bargain, if I understand the law correctly, usually cannot specify a specific sentence. At best, the prosecutors can only promise not to ask for a maximum sentence, or to recommend a certain sentence, but it's up to either the judge or a jury to actually impose sentence. In this case, when he learned that their was a POSSIBILITY of having prison time imposed, he fled. Sentence had never been imposed.


I don't suppose I've said anything that hasn't already been covered, but I thought I'd state which side of the line I am on.
It's so rare when you and I find ourselves on the same side of a line, too! :o

[lucy]

But Polanski's case is perfect to discuss this. Because he was arrested when he came to the Zurich Film Festival and the reaction of the cultural establishment was exceptionally fucked up: Yes, he did rape a young girl (anally, too) but he's such a good director and that's basically more important than the wellbeing of a young girl. They didn't of course say it like that, but that was the gist of it.
He was in jail for quite some time and then he was under house arrest in Gstaad for several months, while his case went through the justice system. He finally wasn't extradited because the USA failed to deliver all the necessary proof and documents. And yes, I totally believe that the Swiss Ministry of Justice didn't decide on the matter lightheartedly, because there was much at stake.

So, the causa Polanski isn't really a case of extradition or not but of the US judiciary system being unable to present a good case. They simply fucked it up.
Here's the official press release (http://www.news.admin.ch/message/index.html?lang=en&msg-id=34264)

[js207]

autistic child computer hackers

Not a McKinnon reference I hope - he's 45, and has Asperger's rather than full-blown autism.


I pause when the fugitive is a national of the country he has fled to, and I would not return him if the crime he is accused of is not a crime in his homeland, or if the penalty on conviction is likely to be regarded (in the homeland) as inappropriate or unduly harsh (such as emasculation for child rape - see above; barbaric acts of revenge should never be part of a discussion about justice). I would also not return him (for political reasons rather than reasons of justice) if the country seeking extradition would not agree to extradite its own nationals accused of the same crime elsewhere, or if it were using the extradition process to circumvent proper procedure (e.g., seeking extradition in order to allow a third country to then apply for extradition in order to answer totally different charges).

I believe most of them, like the UK, apply "dual criminality" criteria (i.e. it must be a crime in both countries) as well as requiring a fair trial and generally ruling out the death penalty before extradition can proceed, as well as restricting subsequent charges (extradite someone for X, you can't generally prosecute them for Y without getting the extraditing country's approval). "Chemical castration" can sometimes be used I think, but with the patient's consent as part of rehabilitation - I doubt anywhere Western would extradite to a country like Saudi which uses mutilation as punishment! Refusing to extradite to countries which themselves refuse to extradite if the positions were reversed seems quite reasonable - these treaties are usually mutual, though I don't know if we refuse to extradite to France or Russia because of their own refusals.


I also pause if the country is prepared to compromise its system of justice by saying, if you plead guilty to a lesser charge than the crime we think you really committed, we will give you a less harsh penalty ... especially if, after that compact has been made, and the accused has burnt his bridges by pleading guilty, the judiciary reneges on it by threatening a more severe penalty. After all, he might have been innocent, but saw no way of avoiding a guilty verdict in such a system.

The judiciary isn't reneging on anything: it's the prosecution who offer a deal, and all they can ever offer is that they will ask the judge for a particular sentence: the judge is still free to sentence as he sees fit, subject to whatever the law sets as minimum and maximum sentences for that offence, and of course both sides also have the right to appeal against the sentence if they feel it was too harsh or too lenient. (They can make guarantees about prison conditions, though, as in McKinnon's case to allay fears about ) Had the same circumstances occurred today, the outcome would have been very different. The prosecution in the 70s offered a very generous plea deal in order to avoid having to put the 13 year old victim on the stand to testify, because at that time forensic evidence wasn't as developed as now; in 2011, they'd have had the DNA match to convict with, and he'd have faced a statutory minimum sentence of 15 years.

Thorne: a jury acquittal is, with very rare exceptions, final thanks to double jeopardy (in the US); dropping charges, much less so. In particular, criminals here often get double jeopardy protection by "asking for other offences to be taken into account" in sentencing, which protects them since that offence is now covered by this sentence as well. Having run away before the court case was concluded with a sentence may well mean it's not too late for the prosecution to argue the other five charges after all. I've seen media reports saying both options, so it's hard to be sure unless they manage to get him extradited in the end.

Ironically, part of the original intended sentence was deportation, after an alarmingly brief jail sentence of a few months; to escape that, which would have meant the freedom to roam the whole EU, he has spent decades largely confined to France for fear of arrest and extradition attempts. With hindsight, perhaps he'd have been better staying to receive and serve the sentence instead!

[thir]

I wanted to focus on the broader question of extradition policy in general. As you asked, what if it had been someone other than a famous director ... supposing you or I raped (or murdered, or whatever) someone in one country, then fled to another, should that country shelter us? If it had been me, any developed country I can think of including my own would just ship me straight back for trial: my government makes it very clear that if I get myself arrested abroad, all they can, will and should do is ensure I have legal advice and a translator if necessary - and in my book, it would be morally as well as legally wrong for them to do any more than ensure I get a proper trial and defence.


I think this is a rather complex question.
If you are an US citizen, and commit a crime in another country and flee back to US, they will not extradite you.
Would other contries do that? Yes, some do, but some do not, depending on what they think of the laws in the country in which the crime took place. If there is a death penalty, for instance, I believe many countries, not in favour of the death penalty, do not extradite.
If the crime is something that is not a crime in your country, or if the country in question have a bad reputation, they may also not do it. For example a civil rights activist being requested extradited to a dictatorship of one sort or another.

I think you are simplifying the question rather a lot by assuming being guilt from the start. Usually you are, as you say, being extradited to a stand charge, and are therefore innnocent until proven guilty.

By suggesting child abuse you put the question with emphasis, but in truth it should not matter what the supposed crime is. Either it is ok to extradite, or it isn't.

[thir]

If you'd committed the crime yourself, would you expect your own government to shelter you from the consequences, or send you back to face them?

A question, in view of my profound ignorance of these matters: If you are not extradited, does that automatically mean that there is not trial??

[thir]

If you are an US citizen, and commit a crime in another country and flee back to US, they will not extradite you.


More confusion: info saying they don't, info saying they do. What is correct??

[thir]

In my attempts to try to understand extradition laws, I came across this:

"As described above, even a suspect who flees to a country without a formal extradition treaty with the US is not necessarily safe from extradition because of the possibilities of comity or waiver of specialty doctrine requirements. Further, the United States government can still have such the suspect illegally kidnapped, and as long he or she wasn't tortured en route (as in the Toscanino case, although not all US Circuits follow the Toscanino decision), the Ker-Frisbie doctrine is still satisfied thus leaving the suspect without any real legal recourse. I hate to say it, but in short, it's currently legal for the United States to illegally kidnap people all over the world. It may sound shocking, but it is fact, and not merely my opinion. The Ker-Frisbie line of Supreme Court decisions speak for themselves, and I encourage you to read them!"

http://www.freeexistence.org/us_extradition.html

[MMI]

js207: I was answering hypothetically and my references were to no-one in particular, but to an amalgam of half-remembered headlines in not-so-recent newspapers. I was aiming for emphasis rather than accuracy.

Chemical castration is only a small "improvement" on the surgeon's knife, and only a tiny step away from physical mutilation. I wouldn't condone any such punishment myself.

As for plea bargains, I accept what you say: the judge decides upon the sentence once a crime is proved. But isn't the prosecution then practising some kind of deception on the accused: offering a deal they can only ask for? No, wait. It's surely in the power of the prosecution to offer only sufficient evidence to convict on the lesser charge if they want to, especially in adversarial systems like America's or ours. That makes it perfectly possible for the prosecution to make sure the bargain is honoured.

[Thorne]

it's currently legal for the United States to illegally kidnap people all over the world.
It's legal in the US. But the case of the American bounty hunter, Duane Chapman, shows that those who do kidnap suspects from foreign countries can be prosecuted by those countries. The Mexican government eventually dropped the extradition efforts. That was a classic case of him doing something that was legal in the US, but not in Mexico.

[js207]

A question, in view of my profound ignorance of these matters: If you are not extradited, does that automatically mean that there is not trial??

Not necessarily: I believe some countries will hold a trial even without the accused being present. The US only allows a trial without the defendant present in a few circumstances (if he misbehaves in court, he can be removed by the judge's order; if they are minor charges, the court can allow you to waive your right to be present) but in general they must at least be there in person at the start: for example, McKinnon can't be tried without being taken to the court first, it seems, but if I were charged with a traffic violation from my visit to NY, I could deal with it from here in the UK without needing to fly back there. When France tried 'Carlos the Jackal', three of his co-accused were being tried in absentia, so their laws obviously allow that to a much greater extent.


More confusion: info saying they don't, info saying they do. What is correct??

They have extradited, in dozens of cases in the last few years to my country alone, so it certainly isn't the case that the US refuses to extradite their own citizens. France and Russia do refuse, though, which may be the source of that belief. Where a country objects to the death penalty (as mine does at present, despite public pressure to reverse this stance) the US will block the death penalty to ensure the extradition can go ahead, rather than let the suspect get off entirely.

[js207]

js207: I was answering hypothetically and my references were to no-one in particular, but to an amalgam of half-remembered headlines in not-so-recent newspapers. I was aiming for emphasis rather than accuracy.

Chemical castration is only a small "improvement" on the surgeon's knife, and only a tiny step away from physical mutilation. I wouldn't condone any such punishment myself.

The UK, Portugal and Israel have used it only on consenting patients, intended as treatment of an inability to control sexual urges rather than as a punishment, though Poland and some parts of the US provide for its use even without consent. Unlike surgery, it isn't permanent, either - indeed, at least one form is actually used for contraception as well. I certainly don't think the (female) friend of mine who used it while deployed in the Army regarded as mutilation. In fact, chemically speaking it is the female contraceptive pill, in a longer-acting form.

I do dislike the notion of blurring lines between punishment and treatment - on the other hand, there is a sort of therapy programme near here for paedophiles intended to stop reoffending, and I believe complying with that can be a condition of sentence or a mitigating factor in sentencing. Is that wrong? Is taking medication to block the hormones involved any worse than having therapy to deal with the urges better?


As for plea bargains, I accept what you say: the judge decides upon the sentence once a crime is proved. But isn't the prosecution then practising some kind of deception on the accused: offering a deal they can only ask for? No, wait. It's surely in the power of the prosecution to offer only sufficient evidence to convict on the lesser charge if they want to, especially in adversarial systems like America's or ours. That makes it perfectly possible for the prosecution to make sure the bargain is honoured.

It's not quite that simple - yes, the prosecution can stop you being convicted on a more serious charge than agreed, but they can't stop you getting a more serious sentence than they recommend. If you were facing murder charges in New York, for example, the sentence can be up to life without parole. Plead guilty to manslaughter instead, and the worst you could get is 25 years with parole after 8 1/3 - but your deal with the DA might also include them recommending that you get 15 year with parole possible after 5. The judge might ignore that recommendation and give a harsher sentence (or indeed a lighter one) - and of course either side can appeal, too - but you're still safe from anything more than 25, thanks to your plea bargain. Of course, your own lawyer would explain all of this to you before you formally accept the deal and enter the guilty plea. (England has slightly different rules: the judge can actually get involved to a limited extent, by indicating the sentence he'd be inclined to impose during the negotiation stage, as I detail on the plea bargaining thread here.)

Thir is sort of right - if I went vigilante and kidnapped Polanski from France and dumped him in the US, the fact he'd been kidnapped wouldn't enable him to escape again: he'd have to go and finish his trial and serve the resulting sentence. I would still have committed an offence under French law, though, and the French government could extradite me to face trial for it - it just wouldn't help Polanski. Nothing unusual about that: a bank robber captured because his getaway car is stolen while he's in robbing the bank is still caught, even though the car theft is illegal as well. It's only if the prosecuting authority has broken the court's rules that it can harm their case against you - illegally obtained evidence or a questionable confession can be excluded, for example.