In all fairness accused is not convicted. If convicted, any and all rapists should be jailed. But there's a number of conspiracy theories around his charges and there's enough concern that his trail would be railroaded for all the wrong reasons. What happened to innocent until proven guilty anyway?
What happened to innocent until proven guilty anyway?
Doesn't mean you can run away and avoid facing trial. For example, in Australia, if you flee from a Breath test (drunk driving) without being tested, your punishment is guaranteed to be as bad or worse than as if you were caught drunk driving. Presumption of innocence is a right granted to you as part of a legal system. When you refuse to operate within that legal system... you can't pick and choose the bits you want to apply to you.
To me the case is so murky- I would have no trouble believing that Assange was completely set up, but at the same time from his behaviour I would have no trouble believing he was guilty either. But as long as he avoids facing a trial, you can't just say "we must assume he is innocent". That is a right granted to you as part of a process where you will face a courtroom at some point.
I'm inclined to think that he acted like a douche (that is perfectly fine to assume based purely on the parts of the explanations that he has not contested), and wasn't set up but faced two women that wanted to cause him embarrassment, and that the two women got caught up in between the prosecutor and the lawyer appointed for them who both have possible political motives:
They're both known for wanting to substantially tighten rape laws in Sweden, and the lawyer in question is a partner in a law firm that also includes a former Swedish minister of justice from the time Sweden was complicit in illegal CIA renditions - as revealed by Wikileaks. Rather than a conspiracy, they might just have decided he was a convenient person to make an example of, score some political points on, and as an extra bonus he was someone they don't like.
Note that the above is not mutually exclusive with him actually being guilty of a crime. He could perfectly well be guilty and a victim of an overzealous prosecutor.
I really don't want to make a judgement either way. I do think that there's something fishy about the way the case has been pursued, though, but I'm inclined to think that a Swedish prosecutor with ambitions is sufficient - there's no need to infer outside interference.
Wanting to run from what seem likely to be kangaroo court proceedings doesn't imply guilt in my mind. Innocent until proven guilty isn't just a legal doctrine, it's also a philosophy that citizens of functioning democracies need to believe in fervently.
Presumption of innocence is not explicitly enshrined as a right in the US constitution. Rather, it's entered from other rights, like the 5th amendment. In the case of rape, many local US jurisdictions have weakened it in the interest of deterrence.
In all fairness, can we stop using the phrase "in all fairness"? In all fairness, it's just weasel words, and in all fairness the phrase reliably shows up several times in every Hacker News comment page.
