Julian Assange: rapist or not?

[Laeke]

Wow, so countries could save themselves millions a year just by asking you to tell them if someone is guilty or not. Perhaps you should advertise your services.

Then again, the thread is called "rapist or not", so it does invite opinions on the matter of evidence.

 

[uke2se]

Then again, the thread is called "rapist or not", so it does invite opinions on the matter of evidence.

Well, the original topic was about whether what Assange was accused of could be called rape or not. Three courts have determined that it can.

 

[Laeke]

Well, the original topic was about whether what Assange was accused of could be called rape or not. Three courts have determined that it can.

That is not what the (the 2 year old) OP by egslim said:
My intention for this thread is to focus on the question if mr Assange committed rape or not, based on the available information of what happened between the women and him.

I realize, and in fact agree that this is a dead horse, that in 2 years the numbers of issue discussed must have changed a lot and that message boards are generally not better suited than courts

 

[uke2se]

That is not what the (the 2 year old) OP by egslim said:
My intention for this thread is to focus on the question if mr Assange committed rape or not, based on the available information of what happened between the women and him.

I realize, and in fact agree that this is a dead horse, that in 2 years the numbers of issue discussed must have changed a lot and that message boards are generally not better suited than courts

Fair enough. I interpret it a bit differently, but that's ok.

 

[theprestige]

On that original question, there seem to be three distinct (but slightly overlapping) camps in this thread:

1. What was described is rape, and Swedish law rightly recognizes this, in Swedish courts and in the court of public opinion.

2. What was described isn't necessarily rape, but what matters in this case is Swedish law. If it's rape in Sweden, then Assange should answer for it in Swedish courts.

3. What was described isn't rape, and Swedish law is a ass, and Assange has nothing to answer for.

4. Rape and the law aside, what was described is probably a lie, part of a plot by the US government to persecute Assange because of Wikileaks without actually doing the obvious thing of persecuting him for Wikileaks.

 

[Here_to_learn]

On that original question, there seem to be three distinct[...]

For large values of 3


Anyway, I think my standpoint is something like:

Did he commit rape (the question in the OP):
IF the description of what happened is correct, one of the actions is rape according to Swedish law (and also according to English law). In my view the only valid way decide is to let the process run it's course.

Is JA a rapist (the question in the title of the thread):
If he gets convicted for rape in the court.

 

[tsig]

For large values of 3


Anyway, I think my standpoint is something like:

Did he commit rape (the question in the OP):
IF the description of what happened is correct, one of the actions is rape according to Swedish law (and also according to English law). In my view the only valid way decide is to let the process run it's course.

Is JA a rapist (the question in the title of the thread):
If he gets convicted for rape in the court.

He's a fugitive from justice and should go to Sweden to answer the charges.

 

[theprestige]

For large values of 3

Oh man

Anyway, I think my standpoint is something like:

Did he commit rape (the question in the OP):
IF the description of what happened is correct, one of the actions is rape according to Swedish law (and also according to English law). In my view the only valid way decide is to let the process run it's course.

Is JA a rapist (the question in the title of the thread):
If he gets convicted for rape in the court.

See, I see a distinction between the crime of rape and the act of rape. The crime is essentially the question of whether the state can justify using force against someone because of the acts they committed. It's about what the state can show, not what act was actually committed.

I think it's entirely possible for someone to commit the act of rape ("be a rapist"), independently of whether the state can show that it is justified in using force against them for that act.

I'd say that if the allegations are true, Assange is a rapist, even if the court can't show it well enough to justify acting against him for it. Ultimately, only Assange and his accusers really know.

 

[Here_to_learn]

See, I see a distinction between the crime of rape and the act of rape. [...] Ultimately, only Assange and his accusers really know.

Mm, yea, I thought about that also, and I can understand your argument.

However, I think that the "innocent until proven guilty" presumption is important, and to call someone a rapist even though there is not enough evidence to prove that he/she is guilty of the crime is to diminish the value of the legal system.

 

[Democracy Simulator]

Assange DNA not found on broken condom:

http://www.smh.com.au/world/no-assange-dna-on-torn-condom--report-20120916-260vs.html

Which begs the question - was this 'evidence' fabricated?

 

[BenBurch]

Assange DNA not found on broken condom:

http://www.smh.com.au/world/no-assange-dna-on-torn-condom--report-20120916-260vs.html

Which begs the question - was this 'evidence' fabricated?

Not finding DNA is not evidence that the condom was not used, just that no DNA was on it that could be recovered.

 

[alex04]

He's a fugitive from justice and should go to Sweden to answer the charges.

There aren't any charges, but yes he should return to Sweden.

This whole thing is a beat-up, though. It doesn't help having the tin-hatters on one side, and the pitchforks on the other. Both are just as ridiculous.

 

[theprestige]

Mm, yea, I thought about that also, and I can understand your argument.

However, I think that the "innocent until proven guilty" presumption is important, and to call someone a rapist even though there is not enough evidence to prove that he/she is guilty of the crime is to diminish the value of the legal system.

I've thought about that, too. I think we should be careful about accusing people of crimes, and treating them as if they were guilty, if our grounds for doing so are weak--or even, often, if the grounds for doing so are strong.

However, I think the purpose of the legal system is to restrain the government's use of force against its citizens. Thus a finding of "not guilty" by the courts simply means that the state has no justification for using force against him. It doesn't mean that he's not guilty. And it doesn't mean that the only factor in our judgement of his guilt should be whether the state found him guilty.

One extreme example would be the organized crime boss, who either by legally gaming the system or by outright corrupting the system, walks free even though all decent people agree that he is guilty and should be imprisoned.

 

[Democracy Simulator]

Not finding DNA is not evidence that the condom was not used, just that no DNA was on it that could be recovered.

At least we can say that not finding DNA evidence, does not support the case of the prosecution.

I'd like to hear an expert's view on the likelihood that a used condom would contain no recoverable DNA from its user.

 

[theprestige]

At least we can say that not finding DNA evidence, does not support the case of the prosecution.

I guess the prosecution will just have to make the best case they can without it, when it goes to court. Oh, wait, I forgot: It can't go to court because Assange is a fugitive from justice.

I'd like to hear an expert's view on the likelihood that a used condom would contain no recoverable DNA from its user.

Maybe Assange's lawyer can call an expert witness on this matter when the case goes to court.

Oops. I forgot again. Fugitive from justice.

 

[nathan]

There aren't any charges

Oh for crying out loud. The accusations are listed in the EAW. I quoted them in post http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8606170#post8606170. Sweden would like to charge JA with those crimes. They've convinced 3 UK courts he has a case to answer -- his legal team has convinced none.

JA has not been formally charged with them precisely because he absconded from Sweden and now has jumped bail from the UK. To say 'there aren't any charges' without clarifying is being economical with the truth.

 

[nathan]

"innocent until proven guilty".

I know it's the standard idiom, but it does suggest he will be found guilty. The more correct phrasing is 'innocent unless proven guilty'

 

[Here_to_learn]

'innocent unless proven guilty'

Good point. Thank you.

 

[Paninaro]

Well, I hope you are happy with that, but since you are not interested in a serious dialogue, I won't respond to the rest of your post or any following, except for commenting that you still don't seem to understand that the UK courts was a hearing regarding the EAW. This means that they should check for dual criminality, but it is not their job to examine the evidence. Still, they have looked at more than they usually do, and still came to the conclusion that he should be extradited.

Evaluating the evidence is for the Swedish courts to do, assuming that he actually ends up there.

Evaluating the evidence is also the task of the prosecutor and she (Eva Finné) did find that the evidence was not enough to proceed. What we have seen of the evidence, which is quite a lot, suggests that she was right. The suspicion that Marianne Ny re-opened the investigation for others reasons than just an objective evaluation of the evidence can not be dismissed, especially given the legal-political climate in Sweden regarding questions surrounding sex offense cases and the demands of feminist groups within and outside the legal system to change laws to protect victims of sex offenses better.

 

[uke2se]

Evaluating the evidence is also the task of the prosecutor and she (Eva Finné) did find that the evidence was not enough to proceed. What we have seen of the evidence, which is quite a lot, suggests that she was right. The suspicion that Marianne Ny re-opened the investigation for others reasons than just an objective evaluation of the evidence can not be dismissed, especially given the legal-political climate in Sweden regarding questions surrounding sex offense cases and the demands of feminist groups within and outside the legal system to change laws to protect victims of sex offenses better.

Like I've said before, there's a thread about this in the conspiracy theories section of the forum. That thread is open for wild allegations and pure speculation like this.