I think we understand the concept. In the U.S., too, the prosecutor acts on behalf of the government, not the victim. But in the U.S., if the victim subsequently says "It was just a misunderstanding" or "I was angry, he cheated on me" or "I won't testify," that's pretty much the end of the case. In Sweden, can the victim be compelled to testify? Can her initial report to the police be used at trial by itself? Can the defendant be convicted without the victim's testimony? (In your example, if you decided that to avoid the hassle of testifying against a pickpocket, you might "remember" that you dropped your wallet or left it somewhere.) If these women say "The guy is a jerk, but I'm not sending him to prison," can the prosecutors pursue it anyway? Related question: Do Swedish criminal trials use juries, or is the verdict determined by a judge or panel of judges?
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Julian Assange: rapist or not?
- Thread starter egslim
- Start date
- Status
I think we understand the concept. In the U.S., too, the prosecutor acts on behalf of the government, not the victim. But in the U.S., if the victim subsequently says "It was just a misunderstanding" or "I was angry, he cheated on me" or "I won't testify," that's pretty much the end of the case. In Sweden, can the victim be compelled to testify? Can her initial report to the police be used at trial by itself? Can the defendant be convicted without the victim's testimony? (In your example, if you decided that to avoid the hassle of testifying against a pickpocket, you might "remember" that you dropped your wallet or left it somewhere.) If these women say "The guy is a jerk, but I'm not sending him to prison," can the prosecutors pursue it anyway? Related question: Do Swedish criminal trials use juries, or is the verdict determined by a judge or panel of judges?
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
Why would it matter if Sweden could decide not to pursue charges? The fact that they legally can pursue charges and clearly want to is sufficient.
That's what I'm asking about. If the victims decide not to cooperate, can Sweden pursue charges anyway? That would be very difficult in the U.S. And if the Swedes can't realistically obtain a guilty verdict but pursue charges anyway, it raises questions about a political, rather than a legal, motive.
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
Even in the USA victims can be forced to testify.
It is rare, however.
ETA: And I have seen no indication that the victims are anything except willing to see him convicted. Have you?
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2008
- Messages
- 18,095
They seemingly believe that they can. As they are the ones with the information, including Assange's interviews, they are in the position to make that call. It could be that the original statements support each other and support that the actions were illegal. One way to find out would be a trial. That also happens to be the way Sweden and the UK has gone about finding out such questions of law for a long time now.
Any action could raise questions about a political motive. Dropping charges could raise questions about a political motive (What do they have on Sweden?). Being consistent with a political motive (which I don't agree this case is) isn't evidence that it's all politically motivated. Being consistent with one hypothesis in addition to others doesn't support that one hypothesis above the others.
Pure speculation, based on the initial reports that they only went -- together -- to the police after he refused their request that he take an HIV test. It's at least possible that they might decide that whatever happened doesn't merit a prison sentence for him and a certain amount of public criticism for them.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/assange_rape_victims_just_wanted_TKlpf8bZSZtgyP1fTpGjlO
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...style-revealed-Jemima-Khan-look-away-now.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/jaccuse-sweden-britain-an_b_795899.html
Here_to_learn
Illuminator
Sweden uses Lay JudgeWPs instead of a jury.
[quote="Wikipedia]In first- and second-tier Swedish courts, both in the general and the administrative hierarchy, lay judges (nämndemän) sit alongside professional judges in district and appellate general and administrative courts, but decide virtually no civil cases. Lay judges are always in the majority in district courts, whereas the professional judges are in the majority in the appellate courts.[/quote]
This sounds like the system that convicted Amanda Knox. How many professional judges and how many lay people serve on the jury? Is a unanimous verdict required? How often do the lay people refuse to go along with what the professional judges wants to do?
Here_to_learn
Illuminator
I would recommend you to start reading here:
http://www.domstol.se/Funktioner/English/
http://www.domstol.se/Funktioner/English/The-Swedish-courts/District-court/The-tasks-of-lay-judges/
In the lower courts there are several lay judges, but only one professional, if the case is appealed (which we can safely assume...) it's the other way around. In the highest court there are no lay judges.
Alt+F4
diabolical globalist
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2006
- Messages
- 10,017
How many cartwheels has Assange done while waiting for extradition?
Come on people, you know this was coming!
I'm not comparing the two defendants, just noting that legal systems around the world differ substantially from ours, and the combination professional and layperson jury system is one we may be familiar with from that case. I think it's disturbing whenever the state can have it's own representative in the jury room.
barium
Thinker
- Joined
- May 9, 2005
- Messages
- 139
The womens attorney did write in DN (newspaper) that the appeal was requested by him on order from his clients.
http://www.dn.se/debatt/manga-felaktigheter-i-artikeln-om-assange(swedish)
What other sources who get their info from the Assange PR machine say is irrelevant in light of that.
There's no jury room. There's no jury. It doesn't work that way. The lay judges are on the panel of judges and have an equal say to professional judges in determining both matters of fact and matters of law.
Last edited:
superfreddy
Muse
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2009
- Messages
- 828
Many poster in here have saidthat the US has no interest in Assange. Why would the Washington Post speculate that by giving Assange asylum, Ecuador could suffer economic consequences as retaliation from the US?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...6b4ca2-e8b0-11e1-936a-b801f1abab19_story.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...6b4ca2-e8b0-11e1-936a-b801f1abab19_story.html
superfreddy
Muse
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2009
- Messages
- 828
Are you saying it's all baseless speculation?
Most respected journalists care to speculate based on some facts and this is the WP, not the National Inquirer.
Here_to_learn
Illuminator
I'm no sure I read it that way, but I may very well be wrong.
They do point out that "But he’s also certainly aware that the United States has neither charged the WikiLeaks founder with any crime nor demanded his extradition."
I thought their reasoning was more like this:
(1) Rafael Correa seems to believe that US is trying to get hold of JA.
(2) He offers JA asylum.
(3) Since he believes (1), he should expect that US will be irritated with him thanks to (2).
(4) Since he is aware that the the US could hurt Ecuadors trade, he should expect that due to (3), they would do that.
So then it's not about what Washington Post thinks, but how they wonder about how Rafael Correa is thinking?
DreadNiK
A typical atypical
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2005
- Messages
- 909
I think that actually what is or should be up for debate is the degree of interest the US has in Assange, and whether it is leading them to apply any degree of pressure to any parties involved in ensuring the UK continues to ensure Assange does not leave the country except in handcuffs on his way to Sweden. My guess, most political pressure in the form of a mild and deniable leaning on all three countries involved, with no real anticipation of an extradition to the US any time soon, but it'll keep him more accessible if they ever changed their minds were he to be imprisoned in Europe than free in Ecuador (but for the particularly conspiracy minded, surely it'd be doable to send a team in to abduct him from Ecuador?)
Last edited:
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
I would say that in the context of this discussion, many posters here have said that the US doesn't have the kind of interest in Assange that would justify fleeing from a rape investigation in Sweden.
I think most of us would agree that the US probably has some interest in Assange, and that Ecuador might find itself in an awkward position if the US decides to request his extradition at some point in the future.
I think baseless speculation is usually a valid interpretation. You may be investing the editorial board of the WP with rather more respectability than they actually deserve.
Anyway, you're the one who introduced the editorial into the discussion--did you see them present any sound basis for their speculation?
It could be that Ecuador also doesn't think Assange has much to fear from the US, and so they can safely carry out a little PR stunt without the US punishing them.
Last edited:
- Status