General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWading into the Assange and rape debate: Why hasn't Sweden charged him?
I'm not clear on why Sweden hasn't charged Assange. Why do they need to interview him if what he did is rape or sexual assault? I'm not saying it wasn't, but since when do prosecutors need to get the purported rapists side of the story before bringing charges? Why did the Swedish authorities refuse to question him in England?
Forgive me for doubting the integrity of this investigation.
Raster
(20,998 posts)Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)the accused is not charged following the initial arrest but before the trial. The "interview" is interrogation before a magistrate in the presence of counsel prior to formal charges being filed and a date for trial being set; this corresponds to indictment under common law.
A lot of the questions people are asking seem to be based on fundamental ignorance of the differences between common law and civil law procedures.
CabCurious
(954 posts)That they don't do things in the order we're used to in the USA.
They do some series of investigations before making any incitements. Assange defenders also point out, rightly, that this appeared to have been dropped for almost a month before they picked it up again with greater "enthusiasm" than before. That certainly warrants suspicion.
However, the fact remains that 2 women accuse him of creepy sexual coercion and he's fleeing.
cali
(114,904 posts)I think you mean indictments.
It's been 2 years, and they could have interviewed him in England.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)again, you are ignorant of Swedish legal procedures. See the following:
It is not true that Assange is only wanted for questioning. The next step in the Swedish proceedings is to conduct a second interview with him before making a decision whether to formally charge him. The prosecutor is presently disposed to charge him, unless any new evidence emerges that might change her mind.
If a decision is taken to formally charge him, Assange would face trial within two weeks of that decision being made. It is difficult to see how this could happen if the final interview takes place in the Ecuadorian embassy in Knightsbridge. Even if he were interviewed in the embassy, if a decision was then taken to formally charge him, it is somewhat difficult to believe that Assange would suddenly renounce his claim to asylum in Ecuador.
In these circumstances it is difficult to see why Sweden would or should agree to interview Assange in London rather than continue to push for extradition so that they can follow their usual procedures in due course. No other fugitive from justice gets to bargain with the authorities about the way in which their case will be dealt with. I don't see why Assange should be any different.
http://storify.com/anyapalmer/why-doesn-t-sweden-interview-assange-in-london?utm_campaign=&utm_medium=sfy.co-twitter&awesm=sfy.co_e56c&utm_content=storify-pingback&utm_source=t.co
CabCurious
(954 posts)And as much as I think Assange is an unprincipled creep, there are valid suspicions about the handling of this case.
And there is no question that many governments are enjoying watching him squirm.
CabCurious
(954 posts)And no, Sweden doesn't have to come to England to interview him to prove their sincerity.
They shouldn't have to, especially since it's rather obvious they intend to charge him.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)From what I have read, it is being done by the book and Sweden's legal process is well regarded