5 ms·

If https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_Sweden#Legislation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_Sweden#Legislation is to be believed, six years imprisonment i

If https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_Sweden#Legislation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_Sweden#Legislation is to be believed, six years imprisonment is the maximum penalty for rape. At this point they could credit the majority of his sentence for time served.

Tomte 10y ago
Certainly not. He is not under any kind of arrest, but freely and voluntarily visiting his Ecuadorean friends. Why should that count towards any prison term? BTW, I don't think Assange would really face prison in Sweden. My best guess of what would have happened had he been extradited to Sweden: An interview, being held a few weeks, then released to a country of his choosing. He is inside the embassy because he likes the martyrdom that his followers clearly recognize. Not because there is any factual reason for it.
- stale2002 10y ago
  If that is the case, then why has the British government spent millions of dollars guarding the embassy? Seems like am aweful lot of money for such a small crime that you are making it out to be.
  - acdha 10y ago
    What government cheerfully accepts the precedent that you can dodge legitimate exercise of government authority like this? I mean, the U.S. Post Office will send armed officers after someone for mail fraud in even small amounts – not because it costs less than the crime but to serve as a deterrent for anyone else who might try it in the future.
    - stale2002 10y ago
      Ahh, so they are doing it as a deterrent. But perhaps there is other things that they are trying to deter people from doing. Like, maybe they want to deter people from pissing off powerful governments by leaking and embarrassing world leaders? Mind you, multiple American leaders have called for him to be arrested. Maybe the giant elephant in the room has more than a little to do with why the government is spending so much money and effort trying to arrest him.
- MertsA 10y ago
  According to https://justice4assange.com https://justice4assange.com Sweden regularly questions people within the EU yet they have refused to question Julian Assange even though they are free to interrogate him inside the embassy whenever they want. Sweden refuses to interview him there even though in the 4 years that he's been holed up in the embassy Swedish authorities have interviewed 44 other people in the UK. They also refused to promise to not extradite him to the USA where he would most likely be convicted of espionage and possibly executed. If you were in his shoes do you think you would step outside given the circumstances? The UK has also stated that even if the Swedish investigation was closed they would still arrest Assange the minute he steps outside. Why wouldn't the UK extradite Assange to the USA if given the opportunity?
  - kbenson 10y ago
    It's possible they refuse to interview him there because that's possibly the first step to an international incident. As it is now, they can claim they he's providing barriers to an interview. If they actually interviewed him and decided he needed to be taken unto custody, they would then actually have to address that he's under asylum in an embassy, and possibly come under local pressure to pressure Ecuador to release him. If they refuse, it escalates back and forth until someone backs down and loses face. If they've already received confirmation that Ecuador will not give him up, I can see not interviewing him as what they see as the best option to prevent that situation.

Tomte 10y ago

Certainly not. He is not under any kind of arrest, but freely and voluntarily visiting his Ecuadorean friends. Why should that count towards any prison term? BTW, I don't think Assange would really face prison in Sweden. My best guess of what would have happened had he been extradited to Sweden: An interview, being held a few weeks, then released to a country of his choosing. He is inside the embassy because he likes the martyrdom that his followers clearly recognize. Not because there is any factual reason for it.

stale2002 10y ago
If that is the case, then why has the British government spent millions of dollars guarding the embassy? Seems like am aweful lot of money for such a small crime that you are making it out to be.
- acdha 10y ago
  What government cheerfully accepts the precedent that you can dodge legitimate exercise of government authority like this? I mean, the U.S. Post Office will send armed officers after someone for mail fraud in even small amounts – not because it costs less than the crime but to serve as a deterrent for anyone else who might try it in the future.
  - stale2002 10y ago
    Ahh, so they are doing it as a deterrent. But perhaps there is other things that they are trying to deter people from doing. Like, maybe they want to deter people from pissing off powerful governments by leaking and embarrassing world leaders? Mind you, multiple American leaders have called for him to be arrested. Maybe the giant elephant in the room has more than a little to do with why the government is spending so much money and effort trying to arrest him.
MertsA 10y ago
According to https://justice4assange.com https://justice4assange.com Sweden regularly questions people within the EU yet they have refused to question Julian Assange even though they are free to interrogate him inside the embassy whenever they want. Sweden refuses to interview him there even though in the 4 years that he's been holed up in the embassy Swedish authorities have interviewed 44 other people in the UK. They also refused to promise to not extradite him to the USA where he would most likely be convicted of espionage and possibly executed. If you were in his shoes do you think you would step outside given the circumstances? The UK has also stated that even if the Swedish investigation was closed they would still arrest Assange the minute he steps outside. Why wouldn't the UK extradite Assange to the USA if given the opportunity?
- kbenson 10y ago
  It's possible they refuse to interview him there because that's possibly the first step to an international incident. As it is now, they can claim they he's providing barriers to an interview. If they actually interviewed him and decided he needed to be taken unto custody, they would then actually have to address that he's under asylum in an embassy, and possibly come under local pressure to pressure Ecuador to release him. If they refuse, it escalates back and forth until someone backs down and loses face. If they've already received confirmation that Ecuador will not give him up, I can see not interviewing him as what they see as the best option to prevent that situation.