3 ms·
To be convicted of something he'd have to go to Sweden, something he's doing his level best to prevent. As a result the fact he's not been convicted is potenti
by Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
To be convicted of something he'd have to go to Sweden, something he's doing his level best to prevent.
As a result the fact he's not been convicted is potentially somewhat misleading as he's made it impossible to do so up to this point.
- papercrane 14y agoWhy can't he be tried in absentia?
- Tyrannosaurs 14y agoI don't know enough about Swedish law to know but I would say that I think being tried in absentia is both morally wrong and likely open to legal challenge. And what would be the point? He can't be punished as he's not there so why not just wait until you actually have him?
- papercrane 14y agoIn the general case I would agree, but there needs to be a point where you can say that every effort was made and opportunity given and that the accused has actively refused to participate in the trial. > And what would be the point? He can't be punished as he's not there so why not just wait until you actually have him? I can see your point here, but after some time I would think that it would become difficult to continue with the case. Witnesses get hard to track down, evidence lost, etc..
- lmm 14y agoTo be convicted he'd first have to be charged; the swedes are insisting that he is only wanted for questioning and will not be charged with anything (which seems somewhat at odds with the amount of effort they're putting into this).