Would you like [Assange being prosecuted for sexual assault in Sweden] to happen before an extradition to the USA?

I don't have any preference; it could happen before, during, or after.  I don't think the order matters.

Ok, so it does sound like you would support Sweden using its legal system to prosecute an ordinary person via the courts who is accused of sexual assault.  This is good, and feels like something that nearly everyone can agree upon.  Can you confirm I'm not putting words in your mouth (or if I am, that you agree with them)?

If so, can you help me understand why you support Sweden prosecuting an ordinary person, but you do not support them prosecuting Assange?

Regarding mediation for those accused of murder, I think that sounds like a very different system than the one we have right now.  Would you agree that given that it doesn't exist right now, justice is better served by using the system we currently have, than doing nothing at all?  Basically, given:

A: Your ideal mediation system

B: Our current justice system

C: Nothing

If someone is accused of killing someone else, even if you think A would be the best, if A is not available (and it's currently not), would you agree that B is better than C?

-david

On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 5:39 PM Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, Jul 5, 2021, 8:24 PM David Barrett <dbarrett@expensify.com> wrote:

Ok, so you can netiher confirm nor deny that you would like Sweden to pursue its case of sexual assault against Assange?  Maybe to

Would you like this to happen before an extradition to the USA?

step back further in search of a common ground, if Assange were not the founder of Wikileaks, and instead were some generic, non-controversial plumber (ie, fixing real leaks) named Bob.  Woud you like Sweden to pursue sexual assault charges against Bob?

I probably usually would, but atm I am pretty confused about it.  It's hard for me to remember my own opinions when they are challenged, so I can get confused about other stuff.

I don't understand the relation of the point to the topic.  I usually remember my views based on values and experiences, and then logically derive opinions for specific scenarios.

I support doing things people are familiar with (like legal systems); too much fast change could hurt people used to the old ways.  I do not support sexual violence.  I do not support forced punishment.

What's important is to keep everyone safe, and work for everyone's needs together.

This is not specific to Assange, but mediation has no jury and no judge, which is pretty different.  What do you consider the core points of similarity making it seem no different to you?

Again, in a civil suit, mediation works because no crime was committed: two people are just settling a personal disagreement.  This is quite different than if someone, for example, kills someone with no living family or friends, no next of kin.  The aggrieved party is dead; nobody is there to speak up for them.  Can you help me understand in your mind how this killer would be brought to justice via mediation?  If the victim is dead, who brings forth evidence?  If there is no jury nor judge, who evaluates the evidence and renders a verdict?

The two parties are guided to listen to each other in such a way that the injustice is made right.  The killer is led to spend time understanding what other people's views of killing are, what it is like to have someone die, to have someone murder in the community.  Those concerned with killing spend time learning why the killer did so, and eventually what things are going on in society that led to it.  The parties learn to hold understanding of each other.

The process continues until everyone is satisfied with a just course of action.

Evidence can help, but it's not always needed because if somebody has a concern, it's included whether or not they can back it up.

The result is agreed upon by everyone present, for just a few people a mediator could propose it, for many people there are ways to have the people brainstorm and solve it.  But it's not the focus: it can often just come on its own after the difficulties are worked through.

People all have their own opinion about what course of action is just, but these opinions are usually formed without including the experiences of the others present, so they mutate as they relate with each other.

People who care about killing being dealt with are present.  If nobody cares whether people murder, then the law is outmoded, although I might be pretty scared if that happened within my lifetime.

Again, I'm just really trying to find some very basic common ground scenario that we agree upon, to build from there.

I think I found some last email (idea of supporting abstract justice, order), would you agree with that?

-david

PunkStasi mentioned the general injustice of the legal system.  Not sure how to bring that idea in.

 

On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 5:04 PM Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, Jul 5, 2021, 7:45 PM David Barrett <dbarrett@expensify.com> wrote:

You say you want to investigate all the criminal things: how is it "equality under the law" in the slightest to focus only on Assange and not all the things he revealed that could inform his proceedings?

I'm in total support of prosecuting whatever crimes have been revealed by Assange.  But this thread isn't about those; it's about prosecuting Assange for the crimes raised against him. 

Are you sure?  The thread is about a report saying a witness was lieing, in my universe.

This is part of a series of harmful and powerful things that have happened to Assange.  These things could be investigated and prosecuted.

What is fair?

How is it "equality under the law" to bring him to trial without fair opportunity to form a defense?

He has had nearly a decade to prepare a defense.  However, even ignoring all that,

You mean before he was arrested?

there are literally millions of people who prepare a defense after they have been arrested -- that is not something unique to Assange, that's basically the common case. 

This is true, although it's also true that it makes it incredibly hard to do, to be in jail or prison while needing to compose the most important evidence-backed essay of your life.

We rarely hear of these things until somebody popular is imprisoned.

People don't typically have the luxury of preparing a defense before arrest; only Assange does because he has fled the law for years. 

It does make sense here since the charges could imprison him for the rest of his life.  It would also be the only way to make a truly fair trial, to have fairness in the opportunity for making a case.  Maybe not the most salient point, but good to bring to light.

Not Biden: that should be normal for due process.  I don't know the laws to know that well, but there's probably one there already. 

Are you suggesting there should be a legal process that results in innocent people being pardoned?  I think there is: *it's called the courts*.  I'm genuinely struggling to

This relates to charging people frivolously.

understand what you are suggesting, and I truly do want to.  You on one hand seem to be wholly opposed to our current court system trying Assange, and clamoring for an

You have repeatedly said this, and I have repeatedly directly disagreed.  I would feel more comfortable if I were quoted directly.

alternate system that -- so far as I can tell -- is no different than the court system you are criticizing.

This is not specific to Assange, but mediation has no jury and no judge, which is pretty different.  What do you consider the core points of similarity making it seem no different to you?

I would love to find even a single point of common ground on which to build.

I mentioned this earlier, kind of getting to know each other's feelings and values.  I think with more points of connection we could really sort this out.

I really feel kind of scared.  We have such a habit of disagreeing here and that hasn't always been the case.  It sounds like you might feel upset around assange not reaching usa trial, and I might feel upset around him suffering so much?  Upsetness is hard, but maybe its based on shared values for justice and order.

We really value justice and order.  I'm sure I'd be more clear with myself that I appreciated legal proceedings when it was clear to me they were providing this.

You said "we would charge him with sexual stuff _after_ the higher stakes stuff was resolved if needed" -- so just to confirm I understand this.  You are saying you support Sweden pursuing sexual assault claims against Assange once he is released from UK prison, assuming they continue rejecting the US claims for extradition?

I support the non-legal, positive meaning of the word justice for assange and everybody else.  That can include the legal justice systems or not.

You ask me a lot of very specific, ballot-like questions that I would really need more information about the situation to have a clear opinion on.

If I don't want sweden to charge assange, will you somehow prevent it?

-david