3 ms·

I disagree. Proportionality is a very important principle. Precedents and laws are appropriate. I'm not sure how important precedents are in Swedish law though

by netcan 12y ago

I disagree. Proportionality is a very important principle. Precedents and laws are appropriate. I'm not sure how important precedents are in Swedish law though. First, we need limits against abuse of the law and legal system. I imagine Assange's representatives will be arguing that this is what is going on here. Being free of all proportionality restrictions allows bodies and individuals within the legal system the ability to pursue other agendas (say, strategic or diplomatic relations with the US) by abusing the legal system. If you put enough resources into investigation you can probably put anyone in jail. At the very least, you can disrupt their life dramatically with lengthy processes. Second, there's the practical issue of resources. Indictments are abandoned regularly because court systems are backlogged, expensive and limited in resources. Prosecuting 100 minor indictments per year needs to be weighed against timely prosecution of more serious crimes. This is triage, prioritizing resources (court days) in the face of limited resources. This is a strange case. Assange is accused of "non-consensual behaviour within consensual sexual encounters." This crime/law unique to Sweden. Very few people have been prosecuted under for it. Swedish authorities did not treat the case very seriously when they first investigated it and didn't make much effort to keep him in the country, apparently happy to let him leave the country. That aside, resources are always limited. Say you have a serious sexual harassment case. It takes place in a University. Prosecuting it require, extradition and millions in resources. Is the public better served by prosecuting the crime or staffing an entire police unit dealing specifically with sexual harassment cases in Universities? The costs are comparable, and the latter will result in tens or hundreds of convictions, far more deterrence and far more justice. I think it's entirely appropriate to refer to proportionality in cases like this. For certain crimes like large scale racketeering, corruption, murder, rape, and others proportionality is irrelevant. There are few limits that make sense for prosecuting a serial killer or a corrupt government minister.

saosebastiao 12y ago
I'm not anywhere informed enough to disagree, but all I can think about is Al Capone. He was ultimately taken down for tax evasion, but his crimes were widely known to be much worse. He merely took great care to have enough plausible deniability that he couldn't be charged for his worse crimes.
- Canada 12y ago
  What crimes has Assange committed that are worse than what this Swedish prosecutor is accusing him of?
- netcan 12y ago
  I consider that an argument in favor of proportionality, not against. It illustrates how legal systems can be abused. The Al Capone case is ultimately a failure in rule of law, of sorts. If he was indeed the gangster that Al Capone the pop character was, the police failed to catch and prosecute him for those crimes. In light of that failure, they basically abused laws (and maximum sentences) to convict him for a different crime. We are open to that sort of abuse so long as prosecutors and police have big discretionary powers. If the average jail term for crime X is 1 year on parole, but the maximum sentence is 10 years in prison and the prosecutor plays a big role in determining which one it will be… that's open to abuse. If a prosecutor really wants you but can't prove your guilt, she can get you for something small and push for an oversized sentence. This basically bypasses the rule of law. In any case, I don't think the Al Capone investigation would have violated the proportionality principle. He was being investigated (I assume) for murder, racketeering and the like. That merits a big investigation. It failed, but it wasn't disproportionate. The only thing that was disproportionate was the sentence relative to the (proven) crime. Maybe the scale of the prosecution itself too. Police were investigating a major criminal. That investigation should be (and will be) well resourced.
  - saosebastiao 12y ago
    Thanks for the response, I hadn't thought of it that way.
xorcist 12y ago
Precedents are important in Swedish law too, but they don't at all play the central role they do in Anglo-Saxon / Commonwealth law. Swedish law is, not surprising, closer to German / Central European in that sense. There's a whole tree of Wikipedia articles available for those easily amused by these things.
peteretep 12y ago
> This is a strange case. Assange is accused of "non- > consensual behaviour within consensual sexual > encounters." This crime/law unique to Sweden He's accused of rape. There is a good summary: http://jackofkent.com/2012/06/assange-would-the-rape-allegation-also-be-rape-under-english-law/ http://jackofkent.com/2012/06/assange-would-the-rape-allegat...

by netcan 12y ago

saosebastiao 12y ago

I'm not anywhere informed enough to disagree, but all I can think about is Al Capone. He was ultimately taken down for tax evasion, but his crimes were widely known to be much worse. He merely took great care to have enough plausible deniability that he couldn't be charged for his worse crimes.

Canada 12y ago
What crimes has Assange committed that are worse than what this Swedish prosecutor is accusing him of?
netcan 12y ago
I consider that an argument in favor of proportionality, not against. It illustrates how legal systems can be abused. The Al Capone case is ultimately a failure in rule of law, of sorts. If he was indeed the gangster that Al Capone the pop character was, the police failed to catch and prosecute him for those crimes. In light of that failure, they basically abused laws (and maximum sentences) to convict him for a different crime. We are open to that sort of abuse so long as prosecutors and police have big discretionary powers. If the average jail term for crime X is 1 year on parole, but the maximum sentence is 10 years in prison and the prosecutor plays a big role in determining which one it will be… that's open to abuse. If a prosecutor really wants you but can't prove your guilt, she can get you for something small and push for an oversized sentence. This basically bypasses the rule of law. In any case, I don't think the Al Capone investigation would have violated the proportionality principle. He was being investigated (I assume) for murder, racketeering and the like. That merits a big investigation. It failed, but it wasn't disproportionate. The only thing that was disproportionate was the sentence relative to the (proven) crime. Maybe the scale of the prosecution itself too. Police were investigating a major criminal. That investigation should be (and will be) well resourced.
- saosebastiao 12y ago
  Thanks for the response, I hadn't thought of it that way.

xorcist 12y ago

Precedents are important in Swedish law too, but they don't at all play the central role they do in Anglo-Saxon / Commonwealth law. Swedish law is, not surprising, closer to German / Central European in that sense. There's a whole tree of Wikipedia articles available for those easily amused by these things.

peteretep 12y ago

> This is a strange case. Assange is accused of "non- > consensual behaviour within consensual sexual > encounters." This crime/law unique to Sweden He's accused of rape. There is a good summary: http://jackofkent.com/2012/06/assange-would-the-rape-allegation-also-be-rape-under-english-law/ http://jackofkent.com/2012/06/assange-would-the-rape-allegat...