Julian Assange extradition judge refuses request for delay

That doesn't make any sense. The punishment for skipping bail is potentially forfeiting the amount of the bail money.
If someone's guilty, you don't need to punish them for skipping bail, because they're already going to be arrested and punished for the original crime. If, on the other hand, someone is found innocent, then there's no point punishing them for skipping bail, they never did anything worth being punished in the first place.

The inherent built-in punishment of skipping bail is, already, being held in prison until the trial can be concluded. If, on the other, the charges are dropped, then they're no longer being accused of something, there is no reason to have them in prison.

What possible purpose does specifically punishing them for skipping bail, and treating that as a separate crime, serve?

If they did indeed manage to get away and never be found again, in that potentiality they'd never receive the punishment anyway, and if they are caught, they will be brought to trial for the original crime. Unless it is determined there was inadequate evidence for an original crime in the first place, and in that case any punishment for skipping bail becomes pointless.

By punishing those who skip bail, you are really only dissuading the innocent from skipping bail, not the guilty. (In some ways it's a lot analogous to gun control, that way)

 

They were only able to "agree to it with the suspect" because Assange agreed to turn himself in in the first place.

Again, what you say makes no sense and is illogical.

 

I thought you were arguing against punishment for skipping bail. Wouldn't the same argument apply to the loss of bond? Anyway, what if the suspect doesn't care about the money, say if it was given to them by some "supporters" they don't really care about?

The same as any other legal punishment; deterrent.

Unless they avoid capture for long enough to sit out a statue of limitations. Or long enough for the quality of evidence to deteriorate and make it harder for them to be convicted. Or the fact that they're free and unmonitored is sufficient to intimidate witnesses without them taking direct action.

Well, he was initially arrested and detained. Then supporters raised sufficient bail money for him so he was granted a bail agreement. He followed the bail conditions through out the various judgements and appeals and only after he stood to loose his last possible appeal did he breach it.

 

What? Why should someone who's innocent be deterred from skipping bail?

And if they're guilty, they're already going to get punishment anyway when caught. If they know they're going to serve many years in prison, I think we can agree a little extra punishment is going to do nothing to deter them, they'll try to escape.

Again, what sounds logical to you on the surface is, in fact, completely illogical.

 

Ultimately because he feared he would then subsequently lose an appeal in Sweden not to be extradited to the US.

There was no point in punishing him for skipping bail. Anyone that would spend 7 years in an embassy fearing for their individual liberty would not have been deterred by 1 year in prison.

 

Obvious there is some inherent punishment in any enforcement system. I'm just saying there's no reason to create specific additional punishment, that is what is outrageous.

Assange was sentenced after the arrest warrant from Sweden had been dropped.

But now it has been reinstated again, so maybe now we are back all over again to the beginning. Except this time the US is clearly seeking to have him extradited.

 

That is a valid point, but on the other hand, it has not even been determined in court yet whether the allegations in Sweden might have had any validity.

I'd be okay sentencing him for breach of bail if it could be shown, at least publicly demonstrated in some way, that the allegations in Sweden may have had some actual basis in fact and that Assange, by fleeing bail, escaped the statute of limitations on those charges.
That hasn't been shown yet.
And surely those women in Sweden must believe Assange has already suffered enough punishment, even if in a way self-imposed.

Again, potentially valid point, but there's not the slightest bit of indication that may have been the case here.
The women alleged "victims" were in another country, the very place he sought to avoid. And everyone knew exactly where Assange was, his whereabouts were pretty much confined to a single room.

 

Then they get to go free. They have one chance. If they throw it away, then the authorities will be after them again.
That's really the case with any accused criminal released on bail.
If it's a very serious crime and they're really guilty, they're going to run for their lives. A little extra punishment isn't going to deter them. If it's a minor crime, we as a society can afford to let them run free for a while and be a fugitive. They will still be wanted and subject to arrest if found.

If someone else is willing to put up the bail money, then that bail money can be used to help pay for the inconvenience of tracking them down.

 

Because it is in the interests of society that innocent people suspected of a crime are taken through the legal process and formally found not guilty. In cases where a crime has been committed but the wrong suspect identified, the longer that process goes one, the longer the real criminal remains free to escape and/or reoffend. It also weakens the whole criminal justice system if people, even those who turn out to be innocent, just go free because they don’t want to face a trial.

So? If that had happened, it would be a perfectly legitimate and legal step which would then go through the Swedish legal system. Assange isn’t special, however much he and his worshippers imagine him to be. He shouldn’t get to pick and choose which laws he has to follow because he might not like the consequences of his actions.

I admit that Assange is an irrational person and deterrence often doesn’t work in those cases. It isn’t all about him though.

I could understand a rational debate about the best form of punishment for skipping bail. I can’t understand your position that one form of punishment is perfectly justifiable and acceptable yet another slightly different form of punishment is “outrageous”.

It was dropped because he jumped bail. That was the reason he did it, to evade the legitmate legal process. Why are you defending his selfish arrogance?

BECASUE HE JUMPED BAIL. You can’t complain about the legal process not being completed when you’re actively defending that actions that prevented them from being completed.

Please! Don’t pretend you give a damn about those women.

Again, it isn’t all about Assange. A principle you apply to him can be used by anyone else, innocent or guilty. As I said from the outset, you’re focusing on the single case and I’m trying to get you to understand the wider consequences of the principles you’re proposing.

So the rich and influential get to manipulate the legal system while the poor and alone suffer. If you’re not rich yourself, you’re a fool.

 

And that's why authorities will go after them and arrest them if they skip bail. So long as there are still criminal charges against them.

Why is it so important to take accused people through the legal process if they will be found not guilty?

 

What? How would that all be allowing the rich to manipulate the system?
If the rich flee bail, they are still subject to arrest and a fugitive.

How's that much worse than just being out on bail like they would normally be?

(i.e. Now you seem to be talking about the bail system itself, not the issue of whether or not they should be separately punished for skipping bail)

 

Do you understand what I'm saying or not? Accused people who jump bail should not be separately punished for jumping bail. Potential loss of the bail money, and them held in prison until trial (after they are eventually apprehended again) is inherent punishment enough.

Yes, anyone who jumps bail for any reason, that should not be considered a specific crime.

And going even beyond that, I further believe they should have all their bail money returned to them if it is later proven there was inadequate reason for them to be arrested and held on bail in the first place.

 

This core issue is that Assange and his supporters do not trust the legal process, a legal process that is/would be taking place in other countries, besides the one Assange is from, or in, or actually accused of committing a crime in.

He's wasn't originally accused of criminal misconduct in the UK, so why should the UK be the one to punish him for jumping bail??

Why don't safeguards exist where the UK can prevent Sweden from extraditing him to the US if the UK extradites him to Sweden?

All these multiple extradition treaties create a potential tangled web, where extradition to one country is tantamount to passing on legal jurisdiction to that other country to be able to extradite to a third country, a country the accused might never have even been to before, or actually committed a real crime in.

 

Assange supporters do not believe he should have to be subject to the Swedish legal system jurisdiction in that way.
Actual prosecution for any alleged crimes committed in Sweden though is hypothetically no problem, and essentially a non-issue (relatively speaking) in and of itself.

However, if the UK court held that they were determined to extradite him, but the only issue was whether to extradite him to the US or Sweden, then Assange supporters would of course drastically prefer he be sent to Sweden.

If extradition to one country is tantamount to extradition to another country, where it is believed injustice will be carried out, then there is valid basis for opposing extradition to the first country.

This could be true even in the case where an actual law was broken by that person in the first country.

 

You’re essentially asking “What is the point of the legal system?” there. We don’t know whether a suspect is guilty or not before a trial, that’s the whole point of having it.

I already explained that. If they have no concern about losing the money, they can use the delay of jumping bail to weaken the case against them, either by direct intervention or sitting out a statute of limitations (which is exactly what Assange did). They could also flee to a country with no extradition treaty and avoid justice indefinitely (which is exactly what Assange tried to do).

Yes, because many of your arguments against a specific punishment are arguments against bail in general. I don’t think you’ve made a rational argument distinguishing and separating the two elements.

So what? This isn’t a popularity contest and Assange still isn’t a special case. If the UK and Swedish legal systems can’t be trusted, you should be arguing for everyone facing those systems to be set free. His nationality is irrelevant. If you visit a country, you are subject to the laws of that country.

Because he signed a legal contract agreeing that he would face that punishment in event of him breaching the conditions.

They do exist. That would be a valid consideration and one I have no doubt it was presented by his lawyers. The UK courts clearly didn’t find it to be a significant enough risk to refuse the extradition request though.

We’re talking about bail. Issues with the concept and practicalities of extradition strike me as an entirely different topic. It can only serve as a distraction in this context. Yet again, it isn’t all about Assange.

 

Yes, and... ?

I don't see how this statement connects in a relevant way to what we are discussing.

That's why an arrest warrant is issued. Something that will happen again if the defendant jumps bail.
If they jump bail (and the government still has reason to believe they committed the crime) then they try to arrest them again and this time they don't get granted bail before the trial.

What's your problem with that?

 

I disagree with you. One country specifically punishing someone on a criminal charge for something originating from another country. I have a problem with that.
Even if one believes he should be specifically punished for jumping bail, one can still see that Sweden should be the one to do that. He still hasn't even been brought to Sweden or been faced with the charges/evidence there. And yet the UK has already sentenced him?

You don't see a problem??

 

Imagine you visit Singapore on vacation. You're only there for 2 days. Then 6 months later you get a notice that Singapore is accusing you of spitting out a piece of gum on the street. (Considered a serious crime in Singapore, one of the peculiar things in their society) Are you okay if Singapore is able to extradite you to North Korea if you know North Korea really wants to get their hands on you? (You've never stepped foot in North Korea, but they are accusing you of a crime, without giving evidence)
Are you okay if your country forced you to go to Singapore, where your fate will then be in their hands? (Whether they decide to send you off to North Korea)

That's basically the Assange analogy. I don't know if that hypothetical illustration will at all help you understand.

 

Only if they get caught and only if something doesn’t happen while they’re on the run to weaken or invalidate their case. Again, your argument here is that jumping bail isn’t a problem at all, not that it should only be punished in one way but not another.

The extradition request comes from another country but the process of deciding whether to accept it is entirely under the jurisdiction of the country receiving the request. It is the UK Assange gave the finger to, the UK legal system Assange unilaterally declared himself above and UK tax-payers’ money he wasted doing it. It is entirely within the moral rights of the UK to punish him and discourage others from doing the same.

He still hasn't even been brought to Sweden or been faced with the charges/evidence there.[/quote]BECAUSE HE JUMPED BAIL! How could Sweden punish him for that when he did it to (successfully) avoid facing justice in Sweden?!?

Yes. The problem is that you don’t believe Assange should be facing any legal process for anything and are trying to twist the law, logic and reality to make that a viable conclusion.

I obviously wouldn’t be happy about it but it would be legally legitimate all the same (not withstanding that I doubt Singapore has an extradition treaty with North Korea). You can’t make all the people happy all the time.

 

Considering the fact that they are going to let people out on bail in the first place, it's not a problem.

What is your logical connection between that being "a problem" and claiming that there needs to be a separate punishment for it?

 

Maybe that's where the problem lies. Just because something is ostensibly "legally legitimate" does not necessarily mean someone should be expected to automatically comply with it.
Especially when we are talking about the legal systems in other separate countries that person is not in.

A person shouldn't have to be exposed to all the legal jurisdictions in the entire world!
There is a principle of sovereignty and individual civil liberties and protections.

But it can be argued those safeguards are inadequate.

In some cases, an extradition to another country could be tantamount to a death sentence. But only a fraction of those procedural safeguards are there, within that country choosing to extradite the person.

 

Again, that’s an argument that bail isn’t necessary at all. If you see no point in legal punishment, what would be the point in the loss of bond? Your stated objection is merely to the scale of punishment but you’ve made no argument on that basis.

Not necessarily, but you’d need a damn good reason not to. If people were free to ignore the law if we simply don’t really agree with it or because we fear (or claim to fear) some long term negative consequence, nobody would need follow any law at all.

Assange was free to present a defence against his extradition to Sweden, would have been free to present a defence against the sexual assault accusations and, were it to happen, would have been free to present a defence against extradition to the US. He seemed to accept that process as acceptable right up to the point he lost, which just strikes me as blind arrogance. Assange still isn’t special.

So you’re making an argument against the fundamental concept of extradition, between any countries and in any circumstances? This is some way from your initial stated objection too. Again, I feel you’re trying to cut a path that leads to Assange being entirely free without considering the wider consequences of the legal structures and principles that would require.

Maybe it could. I’ve not seen anyone try yet.

I know it’s specifically prohibited for anyone to be extradited from the UK if they face a possible death penalty. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if Sweden has a similar principle.

 

The situation and issues are not nearly as complicated as you might think. The UN has ruled in his favor several times, pointing out his illegal treatment by British authorities.

If you have not yet seen this, it is the best treatment of the story. https://www.abc.net.au/4corners/sex-lies-and-julian-assange/4156420

 

Occasionally shooting an admiral or general every once in a while would probably be as effective as pardoning Assange. It is beginning to look like the FF were right about the threat to liberty posed by a standing military.

"[T]he manipulation of physical resources is often significant for the message it gives as much as for its direct physical consequences. For that reason Voltaire noted (referring to the unfortunate Admiral Byng, who was shot for failing to engage the French with sufficient zeal), the English think it well from time to time "to kill an admiral, to encourage the rest."" THE PREVALENCE OF DECEIT, F. G. Bailey, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY 1991. p 102.

 

Link doesnt work