2 ms·
Interfering with diplomatic staff is also illegal. I understand that everybody apparently wants to see Assange burn at the stake for being a sexual predator (no
by madaxe_again 12y ago
Interfering with diplomatic staff is also illegal. I understand that everybody apparently wants to see Assange burn at the stake for being a sexual predator (not that the evidence is terribly substantive...), but that's not a justification for an act of war.
- alex_hitchins 12y ago> (not that the evidence is terribly substantive...) What evidence do you want/expect to see? Genuinely intrigued as so what burden of proof is deemed necessary in this situation.
- madaxe_again 12y agoThe burden of proof is always on the prosecutor - they have to prove you guilty, not the other way around.
- alex_hitchins 12y agoSorry, my point wasn't clear. What evidence would be needed for 'social consensus' to see this as a 'valid' trial and not some made up charge? Part of me thinks that if this was a made up charge to get him to the USA, they would want to ensure they had solid evidence to prosecute.
- DanBC 12y agoFor a criminal prosecution to be successful the prosecutor needs to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused did it. But to bring a prosecution the English prosecutors use a "balance of probabilities" test. As a random member of the public I want to know that the evidence they have is at least balance of probabilities before they bring a prosecution. The higher burden of proof is for the people at court to test. It's not for me to test the evidence against that higher burden of proof.