3 ms·

I think you missed my point. My point is that a crime was not committed, based on the present facts. The law itself criminalizes a non-crime. I'm not saying

by nirvana 14y ago

I think you missed my point. My point is that a crime was not committed, based on the present facts. The law itself criminalizes a non-crime. I'm not saying trials are unnecessary, I'm pointing out there isn't any dispute on the basic facts of the case. In almost every trial there is- the prosecution says he did it, the defendant says he didn't. Here both sides say the same thing about what happened. IT is the law that is the crime, but the law will not be put on trial if there is a trial. (They don't even do that in the USA anymore, even though that was the foundation of our system.)

kalleboo 14y ago
You don't need facts to be in dispute for there to be a case. E.g. in a patent lawsuit nobody's debating that Android doesn't have slide to unlock. The debate is if it's an infringement. Similarly, here the trial isn't what he did, it's if what he did was unlawful. Obviously someone thinks it was, and someone doesn't.
rprasad 14y ago
It's good to know that you, single-handedly, have decided that no crime was committed based on an incomplete knowledge of all of the facts of the case. There is a reason we have criminal trials: it is to allow for the exposition of all of the facts of the case, not just the ones selectively released by the prosecution or defense. And, based on my reading of the facts currently available, it sounds like Assange may have been guilty of rape by fraud, if he misled either of the women about why he was not using protection. As to your final, comment: even a cursory glance at the news will suggest how ridiculously untrue it is. Laws, even those that have been on the books without issue for decades, are regularly challenged by defendants in the U.S. The trial court then holds a hearing on the law itself. Only after the challenge to the law has been resolved does the case proceed to trial on the substantive issues.

by nirvana 14y ago

kalleboo 14y ago

You don't need facts to be in dispute for there to be a case. E.g. in a patent lawsuit nobody's debating that Android doesn't have slide to unlock. The debate is if it's an infringement. Similarly, here the trial isn't what he did, it's if what he did was unlawful. Obviously someone thinks it was, and someone doesn't.

rprasad 14y ago

It's good to know that you, single-handedly, have decided that no crime was committed based on an incomplete knowledge of all of the facts of the case. There is a reason we have criminal trials: it is to allow for the exposition of all of the facts of the case, not just the ones selectively released by the prosecution or defense. And, based on my reading of the facts currently available, it sounds like Assange may have been guilty of rape by fraud, if he misled either of the women about why he was not using protection. As to your final, comment: even a cursory glance at the news will suggest how ridiculously untrue it is. Laws, even those that have been on the books without issue for decades, are regularly challenged by defendants in the U.S. The trial court then holds a hearing on the law itself. Only after the challenge to the law has been resolved does the case proceed to trial on the substantive issues.