[I'm specifically not talking about Assange here but a generalised situation.]
So, if there's a suspected rapist (someone accused of rape for example) who has been on the run for years then you wouldn't bother to take them to court as you'd consider their sentence to be served out whilst on the run?
Would you apply this to all crimes? How do you determine the length of "sentence" without having a court case? Or is it just "well, he says it wasn't a bad rape and he's been hiding out for a few months let's call it even"??
The 'statute of limitations' for a crime needs to be much longer than the crime's potential maximum sentence.
Paying a high cost now is necessary to avoid the well connected from being able to bypass the justice system in the future. It's not just about this one case; that can be seen as a flaw in precedence based systems.
But as soon as you generalize the situation, the objection is much less relevant.
Assange is obviously not trying to evade justice, or "on the run". He reported to the Swedish authorities when he was first accused and wanted for questioning and then only left Sweden after they allowed him to. When he was in house arrest in the UK, he was reporting to the police every week and was being totally cooperative with the authorities. He has also repeatedly suggested that the questioning be done over Skype or by having the prosecutor visit him in the UK, which is standard practice for crimes of similar graveness in Sweden. Only after he was supposed to be extradited did he become a "fugitive" and hid in the embassy.
Furthermore, the women that could be the victims don't even want him to be persecuted, although the situation here is not clear-cut, as they could just say that to escape some retributive online justice, and since rape and similar crimes are considered crimes against the state and are persecuted by the state regardless of whether the victim wants that or not.
In a generalized rape or another similar crime, you would probably have a crime that is more obvious and has more proof, a victim that wants justice, and a criminal that is actively avoiding justice from the very beginning. You have none of that here.
Also, I don't know if that applies to all crimes or just to rape, but I find it rather funny that he cannot by persecuted "in absentia".
>The 'statute of limitations' for a crime needs to be much longer than the crime's potential maximum sentence.
No, they need to be set based on how far back the evidence can hold and how well someone can make a reasonable defense. Especially in cases that have begun leaning towards guilty until proven innocent.
Wouldn't that mean that when new techniques establish evidence that you'd need to change the law - that seems wrong, to base the law on technical limitations. Of course you still need to be evidence based in establishing whether there is even a case to answer.
All criminal cases in non-corrupt courts in the West have a presumption of innocence.
>that seems wrong, to base the law on technical limitations
Why? The point is to ensure that the defendant can receive a fair trial. With video and DNA evidence, shouldn't there be a longer limit than if there is only a single witness testimony?
I don't see it that way. What I meant however was that the application of justice in the future shouldn't be restricted because now of _apparent_ limitations in evidence collection.
For example if a rape victim doesn't get a rape-kit done does that mean that after a few months you declare the rapist to have served their time whilst at-large [obviously at that point you haven't determined legally if there was a rape] if a rape-kit is done then you give them 25 years when they could be held accountable before a court? The evidence doesn't have a bearing on the purpose of holding the criminal accountable.
It's always possible that a new technique could arrive to gather evidence or a new source of evidence - a hidden personal diary, say - turns up.
>For example if a rape victim doesn't get a rape-kit done does that mean that after a few months you declare the rapist to have served their time whilst at-large
No, you declare that without any concrete evidence, there is no way to have a fair trial, and thus it is a waste to pursue the case. If some new form of evidence comes up, it gets written into law about its statute of limitations, and if the cold case is now within the statute of limitations, the new form of evidence can be used (but there cannot be any witness testimony or other evidence that is considered past the statute of limitations).
As it currently stands, we place far too much weight on eyewitness testimony years after the fact that results in innocent people going to prison.
If someone else accused of the crime was in a similar predicament - actively willing to speak to the prosecutor, but not willing to be extradited for questioning as the state may pursue them for other matters - then I imagine we'd apply the same reasoning, believing that we should perform the questioning as invited to rather than extraditing them.
That is plausible, e.g. we would not extradite a person for one offence if it was likely the offender would then be charged with a capital offence. However, you need quite a lot more than the accused's assertion that this might happen. Under what Swedish statute might Assange be unjustly extradited to the US (and indeed, for breaking which US law? They haven't actually charged him with anything because I don't think he's done anything illegal there).
Roman Polanski serves a good example of the US pursuing someone accused of rape internationally with no statute of limitations. Of course Roman has son implicit support in Hollywood, being a famous director and all, but that has not stopped their efforts to apprehend him.
Polanski's situation is a bit different - he was charged, pleaded guilty, then fled the country before he was sentenced. The statute of limitations only sets a time limit for when a case can be initiated, not for when it must be completed, and Polanski's case from 1977 is still pending.
I don't know what the Swedish limits are, but in Finland the "right the charge a person of a crime" (whatever it would be called in English) will expire in:
- never, if the maximum sentence would be life
- 20 years, if the max is more than 8 years
- 10 years, if the max is 2-8 years
- 5 years, if the max is 1-2 years
- 2 years, if the max is less than 1 year or a fine
- if the crime was a "serious sexual crime
against a child" it will expire at earliest
when the victim turns 28
no because they could be extradited back to sweden if there was sufficient evidence of their crime. This is a particular situation where extradition is not possible.
