4 ms·

I don't agree. If the prosecutor isn't going after this, there must be a lack of conclusive evidence. As I remarked elsewhere, if the pill bottle was in fact K

I don't agree. If the prosecutor isn't going after this, there must be a lack of conclusive evidence. As I remarked elsewhere, if the pill bottle was in fact KCl, there is no certain evidence pinning the vitamin D on the wife. It's obvious that it's her, but it's not proven. Consequently a private prosecution would be useless. Also, private prosecutions for these kinds of things are unheard of, just as they are in the US. If things are as I believe, it is not going to be possible to secure a conviction. There's reason for the very strongest suspicions, but still a step away from what's required for a conviction.

nbadg 2y ago
> just as they are in the US. This is incorrect. Far from unheard of, the civil justice system in the US is, in fact, frequently used as a secondary route of recourse by private persons, regardless of the existence or outcome of a criminal prosecution. The legal test used to determine liability (in civil justice) is different from the legal test used to determine culpability (in criminal justice), and therefore, you can also have mixed outcomes. Furthermore, civil law in the US focuses on "making the plaintiff whole", vs criminal law which focuses on sanctioning the defendent. As a result, civil cases might be the only way in which a victim of a crime could get any form of compensation from the perpetrator. One extremely high-profile case in the US was, of course, that of OJ Simpson [1], who was found not guilty of murder in a criminal case, but liable in a civil one, for the exact same action. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_trial_of_O._J._Simpson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_trial_of_O._J._Simpson
- impossiblefork 2y ago
  Yes, but private prosecutions in Sweden are not civil cases. Civil cases we have, just as you do, and they were very accessible, but private prosecutions are something different.
  - Brian_K_White 2y ago
    Since it was in quotes I assumed that was a euhemism.
    - shiroiushi 2y ago
      Yeah, I thought they were referring to vigilantism.
  - tialaramex 2y ago
    Right. A prosecution is about whether somebody committed a crime, the standard required is "Beyond Reasonable Doubt" and the consequence is punishment, for example a fine, prison time or, if you're barbarians, physical punishment such as whipping or execution. O J wasn't send to jail as a result of the civil lawsuit, he went to jail because he's a crook.
  - giantg2 2y ago
    In the US they're called private criminal complaints. For more serious crimes, they usually require the prosecutor's office to approve then handle them. They almost always decline though.
  - nbadg 2y ago
    I'm not familiar with the Swedish justice system, so it's still a little unclear exactly what you're referring to. But if you mean a true private prosecution [1], these aren't so much "unheard of" in the US as just outright forbidden federally (and in most states). This gets very complicated very quickly though, because each state in the US has its own set of rules, procedures, statutes, constitutions, and court systems for handling justice re: state crimes. At any rate, sorry for the misinterpretation. To be completely honest, I wasn't even aware that private prosecution was an actual thing, I assumed it was just a mistranslation or colloquialism for a civil tort case. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_prosecution#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_prosecution#United_Sta...
bjornsing 2y ago
> Also, private prosecutions for these kinds of things are unheard of, just as they are in the US. They are uncommon, but not unheard of. For example, the parents of Johan Asplund privately prosecuted a man for his murder [1]. But sure, if you think the only useful outcome is a conviction for attempted murder, then I agree that seems unlikely. In any case the first step should be to appeal the prosecutor's decision to drop the case. The right to private prosecution in US federal cases was removed following the 1981 Supreme Court decision in Leeke v. Timmerman. 1. https://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/vasternorrland/enskilt-atal https://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/vasternorrland/enskilt-ata...
bjornsing 2y ago
> I don't agree. If the prosecutor isn't going after this, there must be a lack of conclusive evidence. If the prosecutor has done their job properly, then yes. > It's obvious that it's her, but it's not proven. I think in most countries this would be a contradiction in terms. But sure, in Sweden this can happen and could well be a fair description of the situation. Largely this happens because we don't have the jury system. So, at least on appeal, a few career judges hear the case and one of them has to write a judgement detailing why they think it's proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. When it becomes difficult to do that (without the judge in question "making a fool of themselves" in the eyes of other career judges) people tend to be acquitted. Many of them probably would have been convicted by a jury.
- impossiblefork 2y ago
  We have the nämndemän, which are sort of jury. But there is still reasonable doubt. It is in fact possible, if unlikely, that she didn't do. I think it's very unlikely, and it's unfortunate that we can't convict, but we have not proven that she poisoned him with vitamin D, and there is no direct evidence that she did.
  - bjornsing 2y ago
    > We have the nämndemän, which are sort of jury. I don't agree. On appeal there are only two "jurors" ("nämndemän"), and they can be outvoted by the three career judges. Also, a real jury doesn't have to explain their reasoning in writing. The difference is huge in this kind of case. > But there is still reasonable doubt. It is in fact possible, if unlikely, that she didn't do. I think it's very unlikely, and it's unfortunate that we can't convict, but we have not proven that she poisoned him with vitamin D, and there is no direct evidence that she did. Hard to say without knowing the contents of that small brown bottle and how it was procured. One reason I would consider private prosecution is to find out.
    - impossiblefork 2y ago
      It must have been tested. If it weren't KCl, then why would there be no prosecution? If it were vitamin D, it'd be a very short hearing. >I don't agree. On appeal there are only two "jurors" ("nämndemän"), and they can be outvoted by the three career judges. Also, a real jury doesn't have to explain their reasoning in writing. Yes, but is that actually good? Isn't it better to have reasoned judgements? That people explain carefully, why they've determined things as they have, so that their reasoning can be questioned? If there's an unaccountable jury which doesn't have to justify itself, then I can't trust the judgements of the courts. They need to justify themselves, because we have set them there as representatives for ourselves. But surely the prosecutor has tried to figure out how the brown bottle was obtained? Surely questions about this were asked during interviews. Also, do you really think it's good for people to come to these kinds of unjustified conclusions, and convict people for things for which there is in fact no evidence?

nbadg 2y ago

> just as they are in the US. This is incorrect. Far from unheard of, the civil justice system in the US is, in fact, frequently used as a secondary route of recourse by private persons, regardless of the existence or outcome of a criminal prosecution. The legal test used to determine liability (in civil justice) is different from the legal test used to determine culpability (in criminal justice), and therefore, you can also have mixed outcomes. Furthermore, civil law in the US focuses on "making the plaintiff whole", vs criminal law which focuses on sanctioning the defendent. As a result, civil cases might be the only way in which a victim of a crime could get any form of compensation from the perpetrator. One extremely high-profile case in the US was, of course, that of OJ Simpson [1], who was found not guilty of murder in a criminal case, but liable in a civil one, for the exact same action. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_trial_of_O._J._Simpson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_trial_of_O._J._Simpson

impossiblefork 2y ago
Yes, but private prosecutions in Sweden are not civil cases. Civil cases we have, just as you do, and they were very accessible, but private prosecutions are something different.
- Brian_K_White 2y ago
  Since it was in quotes I assumed that was a euhemism.
  - shiroiushi 2y ago
    Yeah, I thought they were referring to vigilantism.
- tialaramex 2y ago
  Right. A prosecution is about whether somebody committed a crime, the standard required is "Beyond Reasonable Doubt" and the consequence is punishment, for example a fine, prison time or, if you're barbarians, physical punishment such as whipping or execution. O J wasn't send to jail as a result of the civil lawsuit, he went to jail because he's a crook.
- giantg2 2y ago
  In the US they're called private criminal complaints. For more serious crimes, they usually require the prosecutor's office to approve then handle them. They almost always decline though.
- nbadg 2y ago
  I'm not familiar with the Swedish justice system, so it's still a little unclear exactly what you're referring to. But if you mean a true private prosecution [1], these aren't so much "unheard of" in the US as just outright forbidden federally (and in most states). This gets very complicated very quickly though, because each state in the US has its own set of rules, procedures, statutes, constitutions, and court systems for handling justice re: state crimes. At any rate, sorry for the misinterpretation. To be completely honest, I wasn't even aware that private prosecution was an actual thing, I assumed it was just a mistranslation or colloquialism for a civil tort case. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_prosecution#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_prosecution#United_Sta...

bjornsing 2y ago

> Also, private prosecutions for these kinds of things are unheard of, just as they are in the US. They are uncommon, but not unheard of. For example, the parents of Johan Asplund privately prosecuted a man for his murder [1]. But sure, if you think the only useful outcome is a conviction for attempted murder, then I agree that seems unlikely. In any case the first step should be to appeal the prosecutor's decision to drop the case. The right to private prosecution in US federal cases was removed following the 1981 Supreme Court decision in Leeke v. Timmerman. 1. https://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/vasternorrland/enskilt-atal https://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/vasternorrland/enskilt-ata...

bjornsing 2y ago

> I don't agree. If the prosecutor isn't going after this, there must be a lack of conclusive evidence. If the prosecutor has done their job properly, then yes. > It's obvious that it's her, but it's not proven. I think in most countries this would be a contradiction in terms. But sure, in Sweden this can happen and could well be a fair description of the situation. Largely this happens because we don't have the jury system. So, at least on appeal, a few career judges hear the case and one of them has to write a judgement detailing why they think it's proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. When it becomes difficult to do that (without the judge in question "making a fool of themselves" in the eyes of other career judges) people tend to be acquitted. Many of them probably would have been convicted by a jury.

impossiblefork 2y ago
We have the nämndemän, which are sort of jury. But there is still reasonable doubt. It is in fact possible, if unlikely, that she didn't do. I think it's very unlikely, and it's unfortunate that we can't convict, but we have not proven that she poisoned him with vitamin D, and there is no direct evidence that she did.
- bjornsing 2y ago
  > We have the nämndemän, which are sort of jury. I don't agree. On appeal there are only two "jurors" ("nämndemän"), and they can be outvoted by the three career judges. Also, a real jury doesn't have to explain their reasoning in writing. The difference is huge in this kind of case. > But there is still reasonable doubt. It is in fact possible, if unlikely, that she didn't do. I think it's very unlikely, and it's unfortunate that we can't convict, but we have not proven that she poisoned him with vitamin D, and there is no direct evidence that she did. Hard to say without knowing the contents of that small brown bottle and how it was procured. One reason I would consider private prosecution is to find out.
  - impossiblefork 2y ago
    It must have been tested. If it weren't KCl, then why would there be no prosecution? If it were vitamin D, it'd be a very short hearing. >I don't agree. On appeal there are only two "jurors" ("nämndemän"), and they can be outvoted by the three career judges. Also, a real jury doesn't have to explain their reasoning in writing. Yes, but is that actually good? Isn't it better to have reasoned judgements? That people explain carefully, why they've determined things as they have, so that their reasoning can be questioned? If there's an unaccountable jury which doesn't have to justify itself, then I can't trust the judgements of the courts. They need to justify themselves, because we have set them there as representatives for ourselves. But surely the prosecutor has tried to figure out how the brown bottle was obtained? Surely questions about this were asked during interviews. Also, do you really think it's good for people to come to these kinds of unjustified conclusions, and convict people for things for which there is in fact no evidence?