The stunning decision could end the United States’ three-decade pursuit of Polanski, unless he travels to another country that would be willing to apprehend him and weigh sending him to Los Angeles. France, where he has spent much of his time, does not extradite its own citizens, and the public scrutiny over Switzerland’s deliberations may dissuade other nations from making such a spectacular arrest.

The Swiss government said it had sought confidential testimony given on Jan. 26 by Roger Gunson, the Los Angeles attorney in charge of the original prosecution against Polanski. Washington rejected the request.

”Mr. Polanski can now move freely. Since 12:30 today he’s a free man,” Justice Minister Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf declared.

My guess is that the realpolitik here is that the U.S. was not really making it worth the Swiss’s while in other respects – often extraditions involve some external bartering – but who knows.  I don’t know why they would need this confidential testimony.  But the U.S.-Swiss extradition treaty – which you may find here – does allow considerable leeway to the Swiss authorities.  I’m not sure if Polanski would be considered “convicted in absentia” – I think he was only sentenced in absentia – but in which case the Swiss can reject the extradition if they feel the rights of the person sought are not properly protected.  (See art. 7.)  The Swiss authorities are allowed to request further documentation in any event (art. 10), but I’m not sure that necessarily includes any documents about prosecutorial misconduct per se, which is perhaps why the United States refused to furnish the testimony.

More on this later.

England’s description of the atmosphere at Abu Ghraib conjures up images of a rowdy frat party. But she’s the one whose face and name are most recognizable. I’m sure more people know her name than the name of Specialist Charles Graner, who fathered England’s child and was pictured in a number of other Abu Ghraib photos. She’s not a sympathetic character; don’t get me wrong. But I am unable to condemn her as evil without condemning her comrades, her chain of command, or the entire U.S. military. No officer higher in rank than a sergeant was convicted of wrongdoing at Abu Ghraib. I see England as a cog in the military machine, which distorted the nature of the prisoners’ mistreatment by blaming a few bad apples for the abuse and letting those individuals take the hits. I don’t see her performance of sexual degradation as anything out of the ordinary; sexualized aggression is an accepted convention of military culture. The military capitalized on England’s sex by using it as a weapon against its enemies. All of this does disturb me but I think England is primarily a scapegoat.

“England’s sense of persecution is so advanced at this stage that the question of whether or not she is contrite has almost no meaning,” wrote Emma Brockes in The Guardian. Seemingly unrepentant – and unreflective – about the role she played in the infamous photos, she explains that “you’re the good guys and they’re the bad guys…” to justify the ritualized humiliation. But isn’t that how members of the military are supposed to approach their missions? Isn’t that how a lot of American civilians feel about their place in the world? A majority of Americans approve of torture. They just don’t want to see the pictures.

I wonder who’s sending England hate-mail. To those who opposed the war, England is a symbol for the illegitimacy of the entire operation. She’s an easier and more vulnerable target than Donald Rumsfeld. But that’s not fair. And what about those Americans who advocate torture? Don’t any of them have a job they can offer her?

All of which is to say that whilst I’m not a fan of Lynndie England, I am more upset by the culture that allowed the abuses at Abu Ghraib to happen, and that continues to punish the low-ranking England for crimes she didn’t orchestrate – at least not on her own. No, it’s not OK if “everyone else is doing it,” but I won’t pretend that England had the option to refuse. Her obedience made her a good candidate for military service in the first place, and ironically, would make her a good candidate for some low-skill, low-profile job now.

Via gloomy50 @ Flickr.

The National Prison Rape Elimination Commission, a creation of the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003, spent five years studying prison rape and has recently proposed standards for eliminating it. The report is a sad, disturbing read.

Not only does sexual assault make the environment within correctional facilities more dangerous and insecure, it leaves devastating mental, emotional and physical scars on individuals who are eventually released from prison. It is a hindrance to rehabilitation and successful re-entrance to the community. And often, we – the public – are financing it. In a survey conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, more prisoners reported abuse by staff than by other inmates. Victims and witnesses are bullied to keep quiet, and even when they do speak out, their reports are often dismissed. It is not entirely unsurprising to me that authoritarian-types who hold power over confined individuals would sadistically abuse that power, but it’s sickening nonetheless.

Naturally, certain members of the imprisoned population are more at risk than others. Those who lack experience in correctional facilities, inmates who are small in stature, and young prisoners are frequent targets of sexual abuse by other prisoners. The sexual abuse rate is higher for imprisoned youth than for adult prisoners; youth incarcerated with adults are at the most risk. Whilst girls represented 15 percent of confined youth in 2006, they made up 36 percent of all victims in substantiated incidents of sexual assault that year.

Non-heterosexual and gender-nonconforming individuals are at extremely high risk for abuse. Male-to-female trans people are typically placed in men’s facilities when they are imprisoned. As you might expect, the results are not pretty. Lesbian and bisexual women are disproportionately represented among women who reported being sexually assaulted; male officers pose a particularly high danger. Research indicates that some officials believe that homosexuality equals consent to sex acts with other men; in turn they may ignore those incidents. So, rape myths are impediments to justice for those in the prison system as well as those outside. Inmates with physical and mental disabilities or illnesses are more vulnerable, as well. Being imprisoned exacerbates oppression for those who are already marginalized.

The standards set by NPREC focus on prevention, detection and response to sexual assault. Priorities include educating inmates about their rights, instituting stricter hiring policies, efficient supervision, commitment to zero tolerance and banning cross-gender searches except in emergencies. I think bringing gay, trans and disability rights activists, juvenile advocates, and sexual abuse experts from diverse backgrounds into the fold at correctional institutes is an important step in achieving the goal of reducing prison rape and better serving victims when it occurs. Last week’s report does stress the necessity of taking inmates’ risk factors into account when placing them in cells and programs. I am glad people are having a conversation about this issue and I hope this report leads to some real action.