Police stop guarding embassy refuge of Julian Assange • Hacker News Board

Re: Police stop guarding embassy refuge of Julian Assange

#81

Post by CyberDildonics » Tue, Oct 13, 2015, 7:41 PM UTC

dogma1138 wrote: post #75

CyberDildonics wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US wants him badly. It insinuates the rape allegations were to get him extradited to Sweden where he would then be extradited to the US.

I think we have different definitions of what "badly" means when we are talking about the full might of the United States, if they wanted him badly Cathryn would've been making zero-dark-frothy by now. Also the rape charges pre-date most of the embarrassing leaks on Wikileaks, not to mention that a trial in Sweden of all countries is not the place you threaten some one with, and the US-Swedish extradition treaty make…

The US isn't going to go assassinate a high profile world famous journalist. Everyone would suspect them.

It would be an enormous risk and an even bigger disaster of international diplomacy to kill an Australian without trial. Grow up.

Re: Police stop guarding embassy refuge of Julian Assange

#82

Post by icebraining » Wed, Oct 14, 2015, 7:38 AM UTC

talmand wrote: post #79

olavk wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you commit a murder, the victim is dead and can't raise charges. You can still be prosecuted.

Although I think that's an excellent example of a reason for the state to press charges, I think it's rather obvious that's a different matter. I would imagine one could argue that the victim in the case is potentially the state itself. I'm thinking more along the lines that there is a clear cut victim of the alleged crime that refuses to file charges and the state does it in their stead. It would seem that the lack…

Of course, if the victim claims the crime didn't happen, it obviously makes it harder to prove it did, and the prosecutor will take that into account when deciding if the case should be brought to trial.

But there are important reasons why one wouldn't press charges despite having suffered the crime; a few of the obvious ones include fear of retaliation, being unwilling to be in the presence of the perpetrator(s), lying to protect them, etc. And despite that refusal, there still may there be enough evidence to prove it happened.

Re: Police stop guarding embassy refuge of Julian Assange

#83

Post by talmand » Wed, Oct 14, 2015, 1:32 PM UTC

icebraining wrote: post #82

talmand wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Although I think that's an excellent example of a reason for the state to press charges, I think it's rather obvious that's a different matter. I would imagine one could argue that the victim in the case is potentially the state itself. I'm thinking more along the lines that there is a clear cut victim of the alleged crime that refuses to file charges and the state does it in their stead. It would seem that the lack…

Of course, if the victim claims the crime didn't happen, it obviously makes it harder to prove it did, and the prosecutor will take that into account when deciding if the case should be brought to trial. But there are important reasons why one wouldn't press charges despite having suffered the crime; a few of the obvious ones include fear of retaliation, being unwilling to be in the presence of the perpetrator(s), ly…

Sure, if there is evidence beyond the victim then I can see the case moving forward. But I'm deliberately speaking of situations where often the only evidence is from the victim, which is often common with rape cases. Which is what started the whole thread and my initial question. It's just that I keep getting hypothetical cases outside that original context.

Re: Police stop guarding embassy refuge of Julian Assange

#84

Post by minority-one » Wed, Oct 14, 2015, 2:44 PM UTC

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #72

minority-one wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're being serious then I'll give you a serious answer. Exempli gratia, let's pretend I was raped. I should be able to reify my victimhood and sell it to a lawyer, thereby transferring to that lawyer the right to extract compensation from the perpetrator. Now there's a market for it and the price is whatever a lawyer is willing to pay. You will quickly see a market form around it. This was done in Medieval Icela…

Did you perhaps mean "monetise" and not "refiy"? Incidentally, you've just created a market for rape, and persuaded rich people that rape is just fine because they can afford pay off most victims. For very rich people, that means practically all possible victims. For poor people, that means practically all possible victims because they can't afford to pay anyone anyway. Is this really a workable view of criminality a…

I really meant reify, as in "turn an abstract thing into a marketable thing". Monetize would mean something else.

> Is this really a workable view of criminality and justice?

It worked for 400 years in Medieval Iceland. If you are interested in debating this I'd like to hear from you why you think that what you say would happen if this was in place, in fact did not happen when this was in place.

Re: Police stop guarding embassy refuge of Julian Assange

#85

Post by appleflaxen » Sat, Oct 17, 2015, 2:10 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #46

appleflaxen wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure if you are being facetious, but that's actually exactly the right question to ask. Not only would it be great to explicitly know the exact number, but that number should be the same no matter who the victim (or perpetrator) is.

Wait, doesn't that logic essentially inoculate hedge fund managers and private equity barons from rape prosecutions? That can't possibly be right.

I think you and I agree. I'm saying the opposite of "hedge fund managers get special treatment":

> that number should be the same no matter who the victim (or perpetrator) is.

Meaning: if you are wealthy, law enforcement pays $20,000 to investigate and prosecute the person who raped you. If you are a hobo, law enforcement pays $20,000 to investigate and prosecute the person who raped you.