Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

judiciary.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

501–510 of 646 posts

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#501

Post by xyzzy4 »

arcticbull wrote: post #490
dalbasal wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you take an absolutist, principled or binary view, then most imprisonment is a torture of some sort. It causes severe psychological distress. That's what a prison is. The differences are in the nuance, and you might call those subjective. This was an extradition hearing, not a trial. This seems to have given the judge room to justify a nuanced conclusion that doesn't extend far past this case. IDK if there's much…

> If you take an absolutist, principled or binary view, then most imprisonment is a torture of some sort. It causes severe psychological distress. That's what a prison is. The differences are in the nuance, and you might call those subjective. That's what prison in America is, but that's not what prison either has to be, or is everywhere else in the world. If your goal is to torture people, America's system is very e…

It could also be race related - the US has a lot more minorities than Norway.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#502

Post by Aromasin »

ChuckNorris89 wrote: post #500
arcticbull wrote: post #490

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you take an absolutist, principled or binary view, then most imprisonment is a torture of some sort. It causes severe psychological distress. That's what a prison is. The differences are in the nuance, and you might call those subjective. That's what prison in America is, but that's not what prison either has to be, or is everywhere else in the world. If your goal is to torture people, America's system is very e…

Wow, I had no idea recidivism in Norway was that high. I expected something like 5%. Basically 1 in 5 ex convicts return to crime.

It's generally higher than that depending on the data you use too. Most statistics you see are based on 1-2 year recidivism rates, so if they end up in prison at a later date then that's not included. For example, the UK keeps data of up to 9 years. It increases from 46% to 78% during that time period, so really almost 4 in 5 people return to crime.

Another thing to note is some base it on reconviction, instead of reimprosonment, which obfuscate the data again.

A decent summary of some research done in 2020 in recidivism rates: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/recidivis...

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#503

Post by MauranKilom »

jariel wrote: post #433
lol768 wrote: post #11

Reading the judgement the key points are on pages 116 onwards and the extradition is denied under section 91(3) of the EA 2003 which reads: > The condition is that the physical or mental condition of the person is such that it would be unjust or oppressive to extradite him. The judge states: > it is my judgment that there is a real risk that he will be kept in the near isolated conditions imposed by the harshest SAMs…

"Mr. Assange’s mental health would deteriorate causing him to commit suicide with the “single minded determination” of his autism spectrum disorder." This would be entirely speculative for an MD let alone a Judge who doesn't really know what 'autism' is. So it's possibly a good outcome but based on bad legal proceedings. We're supposed to be 'advanced countries' why can't we get simple things right?

That's what expert witnesses reported, not some thought the judge just came up with. I recommend reading the actual ruling if you want to understand how the judge came to this conclusion.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#504

Post by africanboy »

h_anna_h wrote: post #439
africanboy wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm very sad to say this, but HN as a Place to discuss is not up to the standards people say it is. I'm being downvoted for basically stating the obvious and, worse than that, by people that do not stop a second to think about what other people wrote. I'm not putting Assange on trial, I'm not a judge, this is not a tribunal, I was just clarifying what he's been accused of! Having said that: yes, if you are the driver…

Sure but I don't know how this is relevant to what I said. > Having said that: yes, if you are the driver in a Bank robbery, you can get arrested for "basically driving a car" Driving in a bank robbery is different to basically just doing some calculations. It might be a crime but it should not be one. Regardless though I would claim that even if he tried to physically get into buildings and steal documents in order…

Driving is driving

Doing some calculations is doing some calculations

Driving for bank robbers or doing some calculations for the mob can be a crime, if driving or doing calculations was helping them to commit a crime and you knew it.

> even if he tried to physically get into buildings and steal documents in order to expose warcrimes I would say that they should let him free.

That's your opinion.

I'm not saying you are wrong in principle, but that's not how law works.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#505

Post by lawnchair_larry »

arcticbull wrote: post #490
dalbasal wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you take an absolutist, principled or binary view, then most imprisonment is a torture of some sort. It causes severe psychological distress. That's what a prison is. The differences are in the nuance, and you might call those subjective. This was an extradition hearing, not a trial. This seems to have given the judge room to justify a nuanced conclusion that doesn't extend far past this case. IDK if there's much…

> If you take an absolutist, principled or binary view, then most imprisonment is a torture of some sort. It causes severe psychological distress. That's what a prison is. The differences are in the nuance, and you might call those subjective. That's what prison in America is, but that's not what prison either has to be, or is everywhere else in the world. If your goal is to torture people, America's system is very e…

As we know, correlation doesn’t mean causation. Recidivism may have nothing to do with prison conditions for all we know. The link you provided even says that numerous other factors have more of an impact on recidivism.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#506

Post by megous »

tsimionescu wrote: post #351
runarberg wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don’t the charges at least need to be credible?

IFF the legal system of the country seeking extradition is trust-worthy and offers the same guarantees of human rights as the UK one, why would the charges need to be credible at all? The accused could be sent to that country, with the expectation that the trial would quickly go in the accused's favor. Of course, they do have to be charges for something which would be illegal in some way in the UK as well. If the US…

I wonder about this. Let's say that in the US I'd have a budget of about $3000 to spend on the trial, without having to completely ruin my savings.

Would that be enough for housing, airline tickets (back to europe), and the trial/lawyers/bail/court fees in the US?

If frivolous extradition/trial would ruin me financially, I'd rather extradition procedure took the credibility/frivolousness of charges into account...

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#507

Post by MauranKilom »

africanboy wrote: post #146
EvaK_de wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except his autism spectrum disorder isn't going to get better.

But the symptoms could.

They already did, thanks to the provisions of his current imprisonment. The ruling is based on those provisions almost surely removed upon extradition, guaranteeing that his "symptoms" would reappear. To put it extremely mildly.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#508

Post by africanboy »

Talanes wrote: post #470
africanboy wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm very sad to say this, but HN as a Place to discuss is not up to the standards people say it is. I'm being downvoted for basically stating the obvious and, worse than that, by people that do not stop a second to think about what other people wrote. I'm not putting Assange on trial, I'm not a judge, this is not a tribunal, I was just clarifying what he's been accused of! Having said that: yes, if you are the driver…

>I'm being downvoted for basically stating the obvious Because "stating the obvious" is rarely a productive mode of discussion. People are trying to discuss the nuance of the topic, but you have a very hard-lined view that leaves little room to actually discuss anything.

I'm from a country where the law is the law and ignorance of the law is no excuse.

I've read "Dei delitti e delle pene" (on crimes and punishments) from Cesare Beccaria many times.

I truly believe what Montesquieu said "every punishment which does not arise from absolute necessity is tyrannical"

That's why I also believe that justice means letting the judicial system do its job and prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that someone is guilty or let him go.

We can discuss about what we believe is right or wrong, but that won't change the reasons why Assange is being prosecuted.

It's up to the court now to prove him guilty or declare him an innocent man.

When I say I'm stating the obvious I'm not expressing any opinion on Assange's actions, I'm only saying what are the charges.

We can agree or disagree with them, but we can't undo what's already happened.

He's accused of allegedly helping Mannings to commit a crime.

That's all I've said.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#509

Post by h0l0cube »

bagacrap wrote: post #321
AlexandrB wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's possible to make this argument about Afghanistan, but Iraq was completely unrelated to 9/11.

there certainly was a connection, if not a logical one

There's a connection to the gulf war, but that's about it. The threat of WMDs was a concoction. And Iraq is Shia majority, whereas the Wahhabi jihadists and the Taliban, the incubator for the 9/11 terrorists, are supported by Sunni majority countries with completely different and consequential views on their religious texts. After Iraq was 'liberated' from Saddam, a Sunni leader, Iran, another Shia majority country, has been able to take political control of the country.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#510

Post by dillondoyle »

lol768 wrote: post #11

Reading the judgement the key points are on pages 116 onwards and the extradition is denied under section 91(3) of the EA 2003 which reads: > The condition is that the physical or mental condition of the person is such that it would be unjust or oppressive to extradite him. The judge states: > it is my judgment that there is a real risk that he will be kept in the near isolated conditions imposed by the harshest SAMs…

what's extra horrible is solitary is used for 'protection' and mental health. e.g. if you report fear for your life (common in US prisons if you don't want to play the gang game) they throw you into the SHU. It's barbaric as punishment, disgusting for supposed health reasons
Post reply on HN