7 ms·

Assange, the law of limitation, and the next eight days

63 points by AndrewDucker 11y ago

belorn 11y ago
This is now a prime example in what happens when politics gets involved with justice. The police interviewed everyone involved, including Assange. The district chief prosecutor looked at it and concluded to drop it. Almost a month later, even through there had been no new information available, the political assigned director of Public Prosecution decided to reopen the case and immediately issues a international arrest warrant for Assange who by then had left the country. Assange then later goes into political refugee, while prosecutor refuses to continue with the case for political reasons, which then created a deadlock. A Swedish judge then order the prosecutor to continue with the case, but by then its too late to start diplomatic negotiations to get into the embassy and the case falls through to the statue of limitations. If the choice had been between the possibility of incompetent police and prosecutor that might cause a criminal go free, or the political mess above, I rather go with the first option. The accused, the potential victims, and the tax payers has all been suffering from this case and the only beneficiary aspect has been the diplomatic relation between Sweden and US. That outcome should be a clear sign that justice and politics do not belong together.
- deanCommie 11y ago
  I completely agree with your point in the specific case, but completely disagree in general. Justice IS political. Justices either run for office as political public figures or are appointed by political public figures. The justice system is an attempt to apply a subset of morality for the betterment of society, which is ultimately a subjective political exercise.
  - seren 11y ago
    I don't disagree with your premise, but I can't think of any place outside of the US were judges are running for office and elected. In most places, they are more akin to some sort of civil servant, from an administration independent of the executive and legislative branch.
    - anirul 11y ago
      In switzerland (or at least Geneva) judges are elected.
  - toyg 11y ago
    > Justices either run for office as political public figures or are appointed by political public figures Mon dieu, Baron de Montesquieu must be spinning in his grave! :) One of the key principles of modern government is (or rather, should be) total independence of the judicial system from political pressure. In practice this is hard to achieve. In the US it turned into a "parallel democracy" with elected judges, who might not answer to regular politicians but are politicians themselves; in Europe it's usually a fundamentally-administrative career path, however in various countries it's more or less influenced by political winds (after all, an efficient Government or Parliament will want someone to actually enforce laws that get passed). Still, there is a clear ideal of purity and independence that original constituents were striving for (usually as a reaction to the arbitrary power of kings and popes), and our failings in reaching it now does not mean we will never reach it. On your more general point, rather than "justice" I'd rather refer to "law enforcement". Yes, law enforcement is political: it enforces laws written by ruling interests to perpetuate such interests (be those moral, economic, of class or whatever). The degree and intensity of enforcement for any given rule is eminently political. However, "justice" itself is not necessarily the same thing. At the end of the day, man is not perfect; a system will always be required to address this problem and its consequences. The existence of such a system is not just political but essential to society itself. Pre-political forms of society, where the tribe leader ruled uncontested by virtue of pure physical strength, likely still involved the administration of justice to a certain degree. In a way, the emergence of political structures themselves is an answer to the problem of obtaining justice (who defines what is just? How does he define it? How does he enforce it? and so on).
  - JoachimS 11y ago
    As long as you mean judges, prescutors in Sweden then NO, they are not elected to their positions like politicians.
deanCommie 11y ago
Regardless of what you think of Assange (personal take: flawed personality but ultimately heroic)... Regardless of what you think of the charges against him (personal take: No way to know for sure, but gut feel is he made poor choices and wound up in the grey area of undesired sexual experiences that our society is currently struggling with how to properly define. In our natural humane desire to protect potential victims we are defaulting to deeming it "sexual assault", but the reality is more complex as the assaulter is not even fully aware of their state)... You have to admit it's super fucked up that Sweden is unable to charge someone with a crime if they can't interview them first? What if the suspect is a non-communitative deaf mute? Seems like some law should be changed somewhere.
- hahainternet 11y ago
  > Regardless of what you think of Assange (personal take: flawed personality but ultimately heroic)... Probably a rapist?
  - gadders 11y ago
    Worth reposting the link from the article which explains what Assange actually did (or was alleged to have done): http://jackofkent.com/2012/09/the-detail-of-the-accusations-against-assange/ http://jackofkent.com/2012/09/the-detail-of-the-accusations-...
    - rayiner 11y ago
      Worth quoting too: > As they drank tea, he started to fondle her leg which she welcomed. Everything happened fast. Mr Assange ripped off her clothes and at the same time broke her necklace. She tried to put her clothes on again, but Mr Assange had immediately removed them again. She had thought that she did not really want to continue, but it was too late to tell Mr Assange to stop as she had consented so far. Accordingly she let Mr Assange take off all her clothes. Thereafter they laid down on the bed naked with AA on her back and Mr Assange on top. Mr Assange wanted to insert his penis into her vagina, but she did not want him to do that as he was not using a condom. She therefore squeezed her legs together in order to avoid him penetrating her. She tried to reach several times for a condom which Mr Assange had stopped her from doing by holding her arms and bending her legs open and trying to penetrate her with his penis without a condom. > Indeed she was concerned he had not put a condom on. She felt his penis with her hand to check he had really put it on. She felt that the edge of the condom was in the right place on the root of his penis. They therefore continued to have sex, as she said that she thought that she just wanted to get it over with. After a while AA noticed that Mr Assange had pulled his penis out of her and started to arrange the condom. Judging by the sound AA thought he was removing the condom. He then penetrated her again and continued sexual intercourse. > When she started to move her body she noticed something was seeping out of her vagina and understood it must be his semen. AA told the police she was convinced that Mr Assange, when he pulled out of her, broke the condom by the glans and then continued the intercourse until he ejaculated. > Her statement then describes in some detail the conduct that forms the basis of Offence 4. She fell asleep, but was woken up by his penetration of her. She immediately asked if he was wearing anything. He answered to the effect that he was not. She felt it was too late and, as he was already inside her, she let him continue. She had never had unprotected sex. He then ejaculated inside her. Not a "grey area of undesired sexual experience" here. Just straight up exceeding the scope of consent. EDIT: downvoted by either the pro-rape crowd or the anti-copyright infringement crowd.
agd 11y ago
Pretty outrageous that the prosecutor hasn't questioned him in London by now. This has been a huge police cost and is a great disservice to the alleged victims who would surely want the case to progress quickly. I haven't seen any plausible reason why the prosecutor couldn't question him in London, especially given the exceptional circumstances of the case. edit: Yes, I have seen the reasons put forward by the SPA mentioned in the article, but these complications were easily foreseeable and it is clear the Swedish prosecutor did not allow enough time to resolve them. Indeed the prosecutor claimed until this march (at which point she changed her mind) that it would be completely impossible to interview Assange at the embassy.
- dodgyfella 11y ago
  The only exceptional circumstance is Assange's arrogant assertion that he deserves special treatment. No reason why the Swedish justice system should kowtow to his demands.
- PJDK 11y ago
  This is covered in the article. Sweden has now (as of March) said they would be willing to interview in London. http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/Media/News-in-English1/The-prosecutor-requests-to-interview-Assange-in-London/ http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/Media/News-in-English1/The... http://www.thelocal.se/20150618/swedish-prosecutor-cancels-assange-meeting http://www.thelocal.se/20150618/swedish-prosecutor-cancels-a...
  - Bohahahaha 11y ago
    What everyone with that point of view means is this: the prosecutor has had 5 years to fix a potential complex setup but waited for the very last minute.
- elemeno 11y ago
  The article covered that about half way down - the short version is that the Swedish authorities tried to interview him in London but Ecuador wouldn't let him be interviewed by the Swedish authorities unless Sweden agreed on a pre-condition that they couldn't lawfully agree to. > In March 2015, however, the SPA changed its position and requested to interview Assange in London. A spokesperson for Assange welcomed the development and said Assange wanted to be interviewed. > This was followed in June 2015 by a formal request to the English and Ecuadorean authorities. > But the SPA were not able to proceed as Ecuador did not give the requisite permissions. The trip to London by a Swedish prosecutor had to be abandoned.
dodgyfella 11y ago
Disappointing, but at least they might still be able to nail him for the remaining rape charge. Hopefully his victims will eventually be able to see justice, despite his cowering behind the walls of the Ecuadorian embassy with spurious claims of political asylum.
gadders 11y ago
It does seem unbelievable that you can in essence go on the lam for five years and then you're free to carry on your life as before.
- Zenst 11y ago
  Agreed and very much a case of using the letter of the law to abuse the spirit of the law and in this case, avoid it. He has argued all along that if he left he would be whisked away for nefarious trials by America and if that was the case then this 5 year date of his hiding will make no difference. Unless he just wanted to avoid the trial for whatever reason. Still for a trial you need a victim and in this case, that victim was not Assange and we have a trial and victim who will not see justice or any form of trial - fair or not. So can imagine how they feel about this.
  - gadders 11y ago
    Even if we leave aside the specifics of the Assange case, I still find it astonishing as a general principle.
    - Zenst 11y ago
      More so when if this was TAX evasion then Sweden have no time limit, which is really putting how messed up this is into perspective.
    - kiiski 11y ago
      Is five years evading law enforcement really that much better than ~1 year in prison? (One year based on the fact that the five year limit only applies if the maximum penalty is at most 2 years[1], and presumably a first timer would not spend the whole 2 years in prison (and the actual sentence in this case might be below 2 years anyway)) The general principle, as far as I know, is based on the idea that the need for punishment is lessened by time. [1] https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preskription#Preskriptionstider_i_Sverige https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preskription#Preskriptionstide...
Bohahahaha 11y ago
Well waiting 5 years and then switching to strategy B (interview in London) 1-2 months before the last possible moment was obviously not the best strategy for the (potential) victims.
joesmo 11y ago
Although this particular case is highly political and likely fabricated, the tragedy of such a law of limitation applying to rape is sickening. That's not just in Sweden, but many other jurisdictions, including most of the US states. The real question here isn't about Assange--that's an uninteresting political aside. The real question is why do states have a statute of limitations on a crime that's sometimes a lot worse than murder and in the best cases, only slightly less bad? Yes, a statute of limitations is incredibly useful for petty crimes like stealing and other small things like that. We're talking here about rape and sexual assault though. As far as I can see, this is still a reflection on how poorly our societies treat women, even in the west. Perhaps the fact that the men in charge don't want to acknowledge the horror of rape? Women, however, are not the only ones getting raped. I truly cannot fathom the reason for this horrific limitation on justice, and I think if men being raped was more of a problem (outside prisons and jails where the authorities generally refuse to accept it happens) we would have no such limitations on rape or sexual assault.
- kiiski 11y ago
  As I've understood, the accusation for rape in this case is for Assange starting to have sex with the alleged victim while she was sleeping, without wearing a condom (the "not wearing a condom" is the key part here; otherwise it apparently would have been technically illegal, but "consentual" in practical terms). Are you really saying that that is "only slightly less bad" than murder? The 5 year limit, btw, only applies to the accusations for "Unlawful coercion" and "Sexual molestation" (times two). The rape accusation will remain open for another five years (unless the prosecutor decides to drop it).
  - joesmo 11y ago
    Yes, having sex with someone while she/he is sleeping is rape and yes, as far as statute of limitations, it should be treated like murder. The only reason to not make the punishment the same is that it would entice rapists to kill their victims. I think if you ask someone who has been raped how they'd compare that to murder, it'll be pretty damn close. Even ten years is ridiculous for such a crime in a society that condemns this. What you're saying is that our societies don't really condemn this crime and it's not a big deal to ruin someone else's life by forcibly having sex with them. That's horrific, IMO, but seems to be the majority opinion.
Bohahahaha 11y ago
If I went to my professor at university complaining that I waited 5 years and then could not solve the challenges b/c of not enough time left, he would just laugh at my assumption that I'm not responsible for the fu
Bohahahaha 11y ago
Most people here think this article is about Assange being guilty or not. It's not.

63 points by AndrewDucker 11y ago

This is now a prime example in what happens when politics gets involved with justice. The police interviewed everyone involved, including Assange. The district chief prosecutor looked at it and concluded to drop it. Almost a month later, even through there had been no new information available, the political assigned director of Public Prosecution decided to reopen the case and immediately issues a international arrest warrant for Assange who by then had left the country. Assange then later goes into political refugee, while prosecutor refuses to continue with the case for political reasons, which then created a deadlock. A Swedish judge then order the prosecutor to continue with the case, but by then its too late to start diplomatic negotiations to get into the embassy and the case falls through to the statue of limitations. If the choice had been between the possibility of incompetent police and prosecutor that might cause a criminal go free, or the political mess above, I rather go with the first option. The accused, the potential victims, and the tax payers has all been suffering from this case and the only beneficiary aspect has been the diplomatic relation between Sweden and US. That outcome should be a clear sign that justice and politics do not belong together.

deanCommie 11y ago
I completely agree with your point in the specific case, but completely disagree in general. Justice IS political. Justices either run for office as political public figures or are appointed by political public figures. The justice system is an attempt to apply a subset of morality for the betterment of society, which is ultimately a subjective political exercise.
- seren 11y ago
  I don't disagree with your premise, but I can't think of any place outside of the US were judges are running for office and elected. In most places, they are more akin to some sort of civil servant, from an administration independent of the executive and legislative branch.
  - anirul 11y ago
    In switzerland (or at least Geneva) judges are elected.
- toyg 11y ago
  > Justices either run for office as political public figures or are appointed by political public figures Mon dieu, Baron de Montesquieu must be spinning in his grave! :) One of the key principles of modern government is (or rather, should be) total independence of the judicial system from political pressure. In practice this is hard to achieve. In the US it turned into a "parallel democracy" with elected judges, who might not answer to regular politicians but are politicians themselves; in Europe it's usually a fundamentally-administrative career path, however in various countries it's more or less influenced by political winds (after all, an efficient Government or Parliament will want someone to actually enforce laws that get passed). Still, there is a clear ideal of purity and independence that original constituents were striving for (usually as a reaction to the arbitrary power of kings and popes), and our failings in reaching it now does not mean we will never reach it. On your more general point, rather than "justice" I'd rather refer to "law enforcement". Yes, law enforcement is political: it enforces laws written by ruling interests to perpetuate such interests (be those moral, economic, of class or whatever). The degree and intensity of enforcement for any given rule is eminently political. However, "justice" itself is not necessarily the same thing. At the end of the day, man is not perfect; a system will always be required to address this problem and its consequences. The existence of such a system is not just political but essential to society itself. Pre-political forms of society, where the tribe leader ruled uncontested by virtue of pure physical strength, likely still involved the administration of justice to a certain degree. In a way, the emergence of political structures themselves is an answer to the problem of obtaining justice (who defines what is just? How does he define it? How does he enforce it? and so on).
- JoachimS 11y ago
  As long as you mean judges, prescutors in Sweden then NO, they are not elected to their positions like politicians.

deanCommie 11y ago

Regardless of what you think of Assange (personal take: flawed personality but ultimately heroic)... Regardless of what you think of the charges against him (personal take: No way to know for sure, but gut feel is he made poor choices and wound up in the grey area of undesired sexual experiences that our society is currently struggling with how to properly define. In our natural humane desire to protect potential victims we are defaulting to deeming it "sexual assault", but the reality is more complex as the assaulter is not even fully aware of their state)... You have to admit it's super fucked up that Sweden is unable to charge someone with a crime if they can't interview them first? What if the suspect is a non-communitative deaf mute? Seems like some law should be changed somewhere.

hahainternet 11y ago
> Regardless of what you think of Assange (personal take: flawed personality but ultimately heroic)... Probably a rapist?
- gadders 11y ago
  Worth reposting the link from the article which explains what Assange actually did (or was alleged to have done): http://jackofkent.com/2012/09/the-detail-of-the-accusations-against-assange/ http://jackofkent.com/2012/09/the-detail-of-the-accusations-...
  - rayiner 11y ago
    Worth quoting too: > As they drank tea, he started to fondle her leg which she welcomed. Everything happened fast. Mr Assange ripped off her clothes and at the same time broke her necklace. She tried to put her clothes on again, but Mr Assange had immediately removed them again. She had thought that she did not really want to continue, but it was too late to tell Mr Assange to stop as she had consented so far. Accordingly she let Mr Assange take off all her clothes. Thereafter they laid down on the bed naked with AA on her back and Mr Assange on top. Mr Assange wanted to insert his penis into her vagina, but she did not want him to do that as he was not using a condom. She therefore squeezed her legs together in order to avoid him penetrating her. She tried to reach several times for a condom which Mr Assange had stopped her from doing by holding her arms and bending her legs open and trying to penetrate her with his penis without a condom. > Indeed she was concerned he had not put a condom on. She felt his penis with her hand to check he had really put it on. She felt that the edge of the condom was in the right place on the root of his penis. They therefore continued to have sex, as she said that she thought that she just wanted to get it over with. After a while AA noticed that Mr Assange had pulled his penis out of her and started to arrange the condom. Judging by the sound AA thought he was removing the condom. He then penetrated her again and continued sexual intercourse. > When she started to move her body she noticed something was seeping out of her vagina and understood it must be his semen. AA told the police she was convinced that Mr Assange, when he pulled out of her, broke the condom by the glans and then continued the intercourse until he ejaculated. > Her statement then describes in some detail the conduct that forms the basis of Offence 4. She fell asleep, but was woken up by his penetration of her. She immediately asked if he was wearing anything. He answered to the effect that he was not. She felt it was too late and, as he was already inside her, she let him continue. She had never had unprotected sex. He then ejaculated inside her. Not a "grey area of undesired sexual experience" here. Just straight up exceeding the scope of consent. EDIT: downvoted by either the pro-rape crowd or the anti-copyright infringement crowd.

agd 11y ago

Pretty outrageous that the prosecutor hasn't questioned him in London by now. This has been a huge police cost and is a great disservice to the alleged victims who would surely want the case to progress quickly. I haven't seen any plausible reason why the prosecutor couldn't question him in London, especially given the exceptional circumstances of the case. edit: Yes, I have seen the reasons put forward by the SPA mentioned in the article, but these complications were easily foreseeable and it is clear the Swedish prosecutor did not allow enough time to resolve them. Indeed the prosecutor claimed until this march (at which point she changed her mind) that it would be completely impossible to interview Assange at the embassy.

dodgyfella 11y ago
The only exceptional circumstance is Assange's arrogant assertion that he deserves special treatment. No reason why the Swedish justice system should kowtow to his demands.
PJDK 11y ago
This is covered in the article. Sweden has now (as of March) said they would be willing to interview in London. http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/Media/News-in-English1/The-prosecutor-requests-to-interview-Assange-in-London/ http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/Media/News-in-English1/The... http://www.thelocal.se/20150618/swedish-prosecutor-cancels-assange-meeting http://www.thelocal.se/20150618/swedish-prosecutor-cancels-a...
- Bohahahaha 11y ago
  What everyone with that point of view means is this: the prosecutor has had 5 years to fix a potential complex setup but waited for the very last minute.
elemeno 11y ago
The article covered that about half way down - the short version is that the Swedish authorities tried to interview him in London but Ecuador wouldn't let him be interviewed by the Swedish authorities unless Sweden agreed on a pre-condition that they couldn't lawfully agree to. > In March 2015, however, the SPA changed its position and requested to interview Assange in London. A spokesperson for Assange welcomed the development and said Assange wanted to be interviewed. > This was followed in June 2015 by a formal request to the English and Ecuadorean authorities. > But the SPA were not able to proceed as Ecuador did not give the requisite permissions. The trip to London by a Swedish prosecutor had to be abandoned.

dodgyfella 11y ago

Disappointing, but at least they might still be able to nail him for the remaining rape charge. Hopefully his victims will eventually be able to see justice, despite his cowering behind the walls of the Ecuadorian embassy with spurious claims of political asylum.

gadders 11y ago

It does seem unbelievable that you can in essence go on the lam for five years and then you're free to carry on your life as before.

Zenst 11y ago
Agreed and very much a case of using the letter of the law to abuse the spirit of the law and in this case, avoid it. He has argued all along that if he left he would be whisked away for nefarious trials by America and if that was the case then this 5 year date of his hiding will make no difference. Unless he just wanted to avoid the trial for whatever reason. Still for a trial you need a victim and in this case, that victim was not Assange and we have a trial and victim who will not see justice or any form of trial - fair or not. So can imagine how they feel about this.
- gadders 11y ago
  Even if we leave aside the specifics of the Assange case, I still find it astonishing as a general principle.
  - Zenst 11y ago
    More so when if this was TAX evasion then Sweden have no time limit, which is really putting how messed up this is into perspective.
  - kiiski 11y ago
    Is five years evading law enforcement really that much better than ~1 year in prison? (One year based on the fact that the five year limit only applies if the maximum penalty is at most 2 years[1], and presumably a first timer would not spend the whole 2 years in prison (and the actual sentence in this case might be below 2 years anyway)) The general principle, as far as I know, is based on the idea that the need for punishment is lessened by time. [1] https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preskription#Preskriptionstider_i_Sverige https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preskription#Preskriptionstide...

Bohahahaha 11y ago

Well waiting 5 years and then switching to strategy B (interview in London) 1-2 months before the last possible moment was obviously not the best strategy for the (potential) victims.

joesmo 11y ago

Although this particular case is highly political and likely fabricated, the tragedy of such a law of limitation applying to rape is sickening. That's not just in Sweden, but many other jurisdictions, including most of the US states. The real question here isn't about Assange--that's an uninteresting political aside. The real question is why do states have a statute of limitations on a crime that's sometimes a lot worse than murder and in the best cases, only slightly less bad? Yes, a statute of limitations is incredibly useful for petty crimes like stealing and other small things like that. We're talking here about rape and sexual assault though. As far as I can see, this is still a reflection on how poorly our societies treat women, even in the west. Perhaps the fact that the men in charge don't want to acknowledge the horror of rape? Women, however, are not the only ones getting raped. I truly cannot fathom the reason for this horrific limitation on justice, and I think if men being raped was more of a problem (outside prisons and jails where the authorities generally refuse to accept it happens) we would have no such limitations on rape or sexual assault.

kiiski 11y ago
As I've understood, the accusation for rape in this case is for Assange starting to have sex with the alleged victim while she was sleeping, without wearing a condom (the "not wearing a condom" is the key part here; otherwise it apparently would have been technically illegal, but "consentual" in practical terms). Are you really saying that that is "only slightly less bad" than murder? The 5 year limit, btw, only applies to the accusations for "Unlawful coercion" and "Sexual molestation" (times two). The rape accusation will remain open for another five years (unless the prosecutor decides to drop it).
- joesmo 11y ago
  Yes, having sex with someone while she/he is sleeping is rape and yes, as far as statute of limitations, it should be treated like murder. The only reason to not make the punishment the same is that it would entice rapists to kill their victims. I think if you ask someone who has been raped how they'd compare that to murder, it'll be pretty damn close. Even ten years is ridiculous for such a crime in a society that condemns this. What you're saying is that our societies don't really condemn this crime and it's not a big deal to ruin someone else's life by forcibly having sex with them. That's horrific, IMO, but seems to be the majority opinion.

Bohahahaha 11y ago

If I went to my professor at university complaining that I waited 5 years and then could not solve the challenges b/c of not enough time left, he would just laugh at my assumption that I'm not responsible for the fu

Bohahahaha 11y ago

Most people here think this article is about Assange being guilty or not. It's not.