
Assange, the law of limitation, and the next eight days - AndrewDucker
http://jackofkent.com/2015/08/assange-the-law-of-limitation-and-the-next-eight-days/
======
belorn
This is now a prime example in what happens when politics gets involved with
justice. The police interviewed everyone involved, including Assange. The
district chief prosecutor looked at it and concluded to drop it. Almost a
month later, even through there had been no new information available, the
political assigned director of Public Prosecution decided to reopen the case
and immediately issues a international arrest warrant for Assange who by then
had left the country. Assange then later goes into political refugee, while
prosecutor refuses to continue with the case for political reasons, which then
created a deadlock. A Swedish judge then order the prosecutor to continue with
the case, but by then its too late to start diplomatic negotiations to get
into the embassy and the case falls through to the statue of limitations.

If the choice had been between the possibility of incompetent police and
prosecutor that might cause a criminal go free, or the political mess above, I
rather go with the first option. The accused, the potential victims, and the
tax payers has all been suffering from this case and the only beneficiary
aspect has been the diplomatic relation between Sweden and US. That outcome
should be a clear sign that justice and politics do not belong together.

~~~
deanCommie
I completely agree with your point in the specific case, but completely
disagree in general.

Justice IS political. Justices either run for office as political public
figures or are appointed by political public figures. The justice system is an
attempt to apply a subset of morality for the betterment of society, which is
ultimately a subjective political exercise.

~~~
seren
I don't disagree with your premise, but I can't think of any place outside of
the US were judges are running for office and elected. In most places, they
are more akin to some sort of civil servant, from an administration
independent of the executive and legislative branch.

~~~
anirul
In switzerland (or at least Geneva) judges are elected.

------
deanCommie
Regardless of what you think of Assange (personal take: flawed personality but
ultimately heroic)...

Regardless of what you think of the charges against him (personal take: No way
to know for sure, but gut feel is he made poor choices and wound up in the
grey area of undesired sexual experiences that our society is currently
struggling with how to properly define. In our natural humane desire to
protect potential victims we are defaulting to deeming it "sexual assault",
but the reality is more complex as the assaulter is not even fully aware of
their state)...

You have to admit it's super fucked up that Sweden is unable to charge someone
with a crime if they can't interview them first? What if the suspect is a non-
communitative deaf mute?

Seems like some law should be changed somewhere.

~~~
panglott
What's fucked up? Sweden's justice system seems to be far superior to the
US's—both in taking very seriously charges of sexual assault that would
probably be ignored in the US, and in taking very seriously the rights of the
accused.

Assange has squandered his chance to clear his name, and sure seems to be at
the least a creepy dude.

~~~
Bohahahaha
A 'comparison' to the US can't prove that Swedens system is not f __u __but
only that the US might be even more so.

------
agd
Pretty outrageous that the prosecutor hasn't questioned him in London by now.
This has been a huge police cost and is a great disservice to the alleged
victims who would surely want the case to progress quickly.

I haven't seen any plausible reason why the prosecutor couldn't question him
in London, especially given the exceptional circumstances of the case.

edit: Yes, I have seen the reasons put forward by the SPA mentioned in the
article, but these complications were easily foreseeable and it is clear the
Swedish prosecutor did not allow enough time to resolve them. Indeed the
prosecutor claimed until this march (at which point she changed her mind) that
it would be completely impossible to interview Assange at the embassy.

~~~
alkonaut
Did you read the article? It's not normally acceptable to demand to be
questioned in another country, and when the prosecutor agreed to make an
exception, a new (and impossible) condition was added. This is what the author
of the article called "calling the bluff".

~~~
agd
Yes I have read the article.

The Swedish prosecutor has had at least 3 years to organize questioning in the
embassy but has left it until the last moment. Now it appears there is not
enough time to sort out the (obviously complex) details. Whose fault it that?

The obvious counter-argument to 'calling the bluff' is that the prosecutor has
kept the case in limbo for 5 years and then left it too late to organise
questioning at the embassy. This allows the prosecutor to save face, and
maximises Swedish US relations.

~~~
youngtaff
Since when have suspected sexual offenders been the ones to set the rules on
when and where they're interviewed?

Assange has played his supporters and the 'Sweden are going to extradite me to
the US' line to avoid facing being questioned over his behaviour

~~~
agd
Assange is not setting the rules. The Ecuardorians set the rules for
questioning in their embassy and the Swedish have no rules against questioning
suspects abroad if necessary.

~~~
youngtaff
Assange is trying to set the rules…

He only claimed asylum when British courts rules he should go to Sweden.

If he was innocent why did he argue against going to Sweden?

He was in greater risk of being extradited to the US from the UK than he was
from Sweden!

~~~
pgeorgi
> If he was innocent why did he argue against going to Sweden?

Because if he was innocent, why should some random person in Sweden, in office
or not, be allowed to mess up his travel schedule, just because they want him
for "questioning"?

If St. Kitts and Nevis were to file an Interpol Red Notice tomorrow, seeking a
person going by the alias "youngtaff" on hackernews: would you drop everything
and fly there to sort out whatever mess they've made?

------
joesmo
Although this particular case is highly political and likely fabricated, the
tragedy of such a law of limitation applying to rape is sickening. That's not
just in Sweden, but many other jurisdictions, including most of the US states.
The real question here isn't about Assange--that's an uninteresting political
aside.

The real question is why do states have a statute of limitations on a crime
that's sometimes a lot worse than murder and in the best cases, only slightly
less bad? Yes, a statute of limitations is incredibly useful for petty crimes
like stealing and other small things like that. We're talking here about rape
and sexual assault though. As far as I can see, this is still a reflection on
how poorly our societies treat women, even in the west. Perhaps the fact that
the men in charge don't want to acknowledge the horror of rape? Women,
however, are not the only ones getting raped. I truly cannot fathom the reason
for this horrific limitation on justice, and I think if men being raped was
more of a problem (outside prisons and jails where the authorities generally
refuse to accept it happens) we would have no such limitations on rape or
sexual assault.

~~~
kiiski
As I've understood, the accusation for rape in this case is for Assange
starting to have sex with the alleged victim while she was sleeping, without
wearing a condom (the "not wearing a condom" is the key part here; otherwise
it apparently would have been technically illegal, but "consentual" in
practical terms). Are you really saying that that is "only slightly less bad"
than murder?

The 5 year limit, btw, only applies to the accusations for "Unlawful coercion"
and "Sexual molestation" (times two). The rape accusation will remain open for
another five years (unless the prosecutor decides to drop it).

~~~
joesmo
Yes, having sex with someone while she/he is sleeping is rape and yes, as far
as statute of limitations, it should be treated like murder. The only reason
to not make the _punishment_ the same is that it would entice rapists to kill
their victims. I think if you ask someone who has been raped how they'd
compare that to murder, it'll be pretty damn close.

Even ten years is ridiculous for such a crime in a society that condemns this.
What you're saying is that our societies don't really condemn this crime and
it's not a big deal to ruin someone else's life by forcibly having sex with
them. That's horrific, IMO, but seems to be the majority opinion.

------
Bohahahaha
Most people here think this article is about Assange being guilty or not. It's
not.

------
Bohahahaha
Well waiting 5 years and then switching to strategy B (interview in London)
1-2 months before the last possible moment was obviously not the best strategy
for the (potential) victims.

------
Bohahahaha
If I went to my professor at university complaining that I waited 5 years and
then could not solve the challenges b/c of not enough time left, he would just
laugh at my assumption that I'm not responsible for the f __u __

------
gadders
It does seem unbelievable that you can in essence go on the lam for five years
and then you're free to carry on your life as before.

~~~
Zenst
Agreed and very much a case of using the letter of the law to abuse the spirit
of the law and in this case, avoid it.

He has argued all along that if he left he would be whisked away for nefarious
trials by America and if that was the case then this 5 year date of his hiding
will make no difference. Unless he just wanted to avoid the trial for whatever
reason.

Still for a trial you need a victim and in this case, that victim was not
Assange and we have a trial and victim who will not see justice or any form of
trial - fair or not. So can imagine how they feel about this.

~~~
gadders
Even if we leave aside the specifics of the Assange case, I still find it
astonishing as a general principle.

~~~
kiiski
Is five years evading law enforcement really that much better than ~1 year in
prison? (One year based on the fact that the five year limit only applies if
the maximum penalty is at most 2 years[1], and presumably a first timer would
not spend the whole 2 years in prison (and the actual sentence in this case
might be below 2 years anyway))

The general principle, as far as I know, is based on the idea that the need
for punishment is lessened by time.

[1]
[https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preskription#Preskriptionstide...](https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preskription#Preskriptionstider_i_Sverige)

~~~
draugadrotten
> Is five years evading law enforcement really that much better than ~1 year
> in prison?

No, clearly not, especially considering the circumstances of the evasion is
similar to a Swedish prison. He probably doesn't have a playstation in the
Embassy, but he could have had one in his prison cell.

The only reason Assange submitted himself to being locked up into the embassy
for 5 years is because he truly fears extradition to the US. In my opinion,
rightly so. Remember Sweden allowed secret CIA extraordinary rendition, aka
torture flights only a few years before the Assange event[1].

[1] [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2005/05...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2005/05/20/AR2005052001605.html)

~~~
Tomte
You don't truly believe that the UK, being "cousins" and with all the "special
relationship", would be a less probable actor to allow this dreaded
extraordinary rendition, do you?

------
dodgyfella
Disappointing, but at least they might still be able to nail him for the
remaining rape charge.

Hopefully his victims will eventually be able to see justice, despite his
cowering behind the walls of the Ecuadorian embassy with spurious claims of
political asylum.

