Because cooperation with the government is a factor a judge may consider (and, practically speaking, will always consider) in reaching a sentence.
Also bear in mind that the 124 years is only a theoretical maximum. It is virtually certain that it will be much less than that. The 124 years assumes that the sentences for each charge run sequentially. This is possible, but they almost always are actually ordered to run concurrently, making it much less. And even then, most judges sentence nearer to the bottom of the theoretical range than the top.
Ah, well that was a bit of clumsy and quite un-lawyerly writing on my part: I have direct personal experience with the ways judges handle cases like this, but not this particular case. Well played, though.
Well, you'd think. But it often doesn't work that way -- I once worked for a firm that won $400M in fees from RIM on a contingent fee basis representing an Apple-like company. But these arrangements will almost always be specially negotiated, so who knows what the actual arrangement is.
Yeah, but the plaintiffs lawyers are very often paid on a contingent fee basis, even if it is a large firm that normally bills by the hour. But, then again, for a case like this Apple and their law firm are sure to have pre-negotiated a custom billing package, and who knows what that is.
Yeah, but usually only the defendant pays the hourly rate. If you're the plaintiff you pay a contingent percentage fee unless your lawyer thinks you'll lose (or you have some other alternative fee arrangement).
It's possible but very unlikely. Their lawyers are not in-house and, that being the case, lawyers for the plaintiff will usually be paid on a contingent-fee basis, meaning they get a percentage of the winnings. It's possible they're paid by the hour, but it wouldn't be typical. (Bear in mind also that Apple probably has at least two firms representing them: a big litigation firm, a trial specialist, and possibly also a third local firm retained for ease of filing and familiarity with the local procedures.)
Source? How about IAAL and I deal closely with federal judges daily. If you don't believe me, walk own to your nearest federal courthouse and watch a plea. They're open to the public.
Well, the case was not really that complex once it got to the jury. Simplifying the jury's task is the point of a lot of the legal maneuvering that goes in before and during the trial. It's true that the jury verdict form was really long, but mostly that is because each question had to be asked once for each Samsung product at issue. Here's the form: http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/1307288/1890_finalverdictform.pdf
But, yeah. You disagree with the verdict (based, I'd wager, on very little information), so the jury must have been stacked.
And you think anyone cares that much about this one guy's sentence? I assure you, on the basis of my quite direct personal experience, at least in this case (and in every other case I've been involved in) there is no such pressure.
This is almost certainly not the case at the federal level. Sentencing decisions are made by judges, not prosecutors, and judges really don't seem to care about election cycles. (They themselves are not up for reelection, after all.) And this phenomenon you posit of politicians pressuring judges does not exist, I can assure you. (IAAL, and I work closely with federal judges.)
Keep in mind that this is true at the federal level, but perhaps not true at the state level where judges are sometimes elected.
I assume the plea bargain he agreed to stipulates the exact prison sentence that he is going to receive.
This is actually not legally possible. Sentencing decisions are solely up to the judge. In fact, when a defendant pleads guilty, a judge asks the defendant whether he was promised any particular sentence by the prosecutors to make sure he says "no." If the answer is "yes" the sentence can be invalidated.
Well, the prosecutors can't actually control his sentence. That is exclusively up to the judge. But a judge will certainly take the degree of cooperation into account (and the recommendation of the government) so if he has more cooperating to do, best to do it before the sentencing decision is made, no? (Especially if you're already out on bond.)
This is really informative. Thanks for all the effort. I'm not sure that all this lends much support to the hypothesis that Assange reasonably fears that Sweden will extradite him to the U.S., but given what you've said I certainly don't blame Assange for not wanting to have to face prosecution in Sweden on the rape charges themselves.
Care to tell us more about that agreement? Like...what it's called or where I can read it? I Googled this and found nothing (in fact, all I found was evidence to the contrary: that extradition from Sweden would be harder). In the meantime, my suspicion is that you are just making this up.
I've heard that and it may be true. I don't know. But either way, having done it once changes very little. If it is unclear whether such an interview is legal, then authorities probably worry (rightly) that if they conduct an interview outside the U.K., then any eventual conviction could be open to legal challenge. This might have the benefit of settling the legality of extraterritorial interviews, but the risk to the Swedish prosecutors of having the potential conviction thrown out is not one I'd want to risk if I were them.
Could you detail the extraordinary behavior of the Swedish authorities for those of us who haven't been following this story especially carefully? All I've heard is that they refuse to interview him in the U.K. which, to me, does not seem extraordinary at all (since it is not clear in Sweden that it would be legal to do so, and therefore doing so would leave any potential conviction open to legal challenge).
1) The very passage you quote supports the conclusion that Sweden has stopped rendition flights that originate on Swedish soil and are conducting investigations to make sure they don't happen again.
2) You conveniently fail to mention that immediately following the passage you quote from wikipedia about Sweden is another passage detailing similar involvement by the British.
3) Extraordinary rendition != extradition. My understanding is that the U.S. is prepared to charge Assange with an actual crime (conspiracy to violate the espionage act, I think.. though it's hard to know since the charges haven't actually been brought yet). If they do that (and it seems to me they could), then there is absolutely no doubt that Britain would extradite him at least as fast as the Swedish, and there would be no need to bother with extraordinary rendition.
I don't think you've answered the real question. If his real fear is extradition to the U.S., why is the risk higher in Sweden than in the U.K., where he has voluntarily remained for quite some time? I (and apparently others) would have expected the opposite. But if that's the case, Assange needs a new explanation for fighting extradition to Sweden, doesn't he?
Meanwhile, Sweden has always had a policy of not interviewing suspects outside the country. It is apparently controversial among Swedish legal experts whether doing otherwise would be legal under Swedish law.
If both these things are true (and I think they are) then while Assange seems to have no good reason to fear extradition to Sweden, Sweden seems to have a perfectly good reason FOR seeking it. No?
Here is what I don't understand: if the U.S. wanted them to, the U.K. could have detained and extradited him at least as easily as Sweden could. So why the fear that Sweden would extradite but not the U.K.?
If there is no reason to believe that Sweden is more likely to extradite to the U.S. than the U.K. (my intuition is that, in fact, the opposite is the case) then I'm skeptical about Assange's real reasons for fighting extradition to Sweden.
By not letting inflamatory language affect my gut response, I can concentrate on the supposed science at hand, which currently appears to be bogus.
No, by overlooking the significance of the word "legitimate" and instead congratulating yourself on your own "scientific" worldview, you are totally missing the point. We all know that the science is "bogus." That much is obvious. What is actually interesting (alarming, shocking) is there there is a sitting member of congress who seems to think that there is a large group of "rapes" out there that are not legitimately called rapes. We are left to wonder exactly what category he had in mind, but in light of my view (and the views of many others) that under-recognition of rape is the problem, not over-recognition, the conclusion suggests itself that this man might be deplorable and not fit to serve as a U.S. congressman.
I can see some getting upset because of the presumption of a context suggesting decriminalization of some currently criminal activity, but I would not jump to that conclusion absent further reserach into the author's motives.
I think where we disagree is in the size of the leap required. In my experience with people who seem to agree with Akin, "legitimate" means exactly what it sounds like it means. A legitimate rape is a real rape. Any other "rape" is not really a rape at all.
Just because something is less depraved does not make it less unacceptable. But by making the definition of a word so all-encompassing, it dilutes its impact in referring to the most vile circumstances.... I'd really prefer the notion of the crime of "sexual assault" with varying degrees thereof, with "rape" being the most serious.
I think the real problem we face is not diluting the impact of the word in extremely violent cases, but in failing to communicate the seriousness of other (most) rapes.
Disclosing that he discovered her adultery qualifies as "acting in such a way", because a "reasonable" woman would fear his reaction.
It sounds like you've gone through some really awful things, and I'm sorry to hear it. But, I very much doubt this is true. There appear to be no reported Washington State case where this has happened. (I checked.) (IAAL, but don't rely on anything I say as legal advice. I'm not licensed to practice in the state of Washington.)
See, I'm an engineer. A scientist. What's in a name? "Legitimate" in that context is just as good as anything else. Of course, it is an unfortunate term politically.
The problem with the word choice is not just political. I hate to be the one to tell you this, but words mean things. One is not just as good as any other and one's choice among the available words tells the listener something about the thoughts happening inside your head. That is what communication is for. An honest slip of the tongue I'm willing to overlook, but I don't think that's what happened here. I think Akin accidentally told us the truth of what he believes.
I grew up with the last of these as the mental image of rape. All the others might very well be exploitation, assault, even sexual assault, sleazy and wrong, but they do not rise to the same level of violence, depravity and the body's possible reaction.
Why do we have to use your preconceptions as the baseline for the development of our criminal law? I think that your "mental image" is precisely the problem exactly because it defines out of existence all but the most heinous (and, I might add, rare) offenses. Why do that if what we're actually trying to punish is making a woman have sex with you without your consent, and not just battery?
Slashdot Mirror
Because cooperation with the government is a factor a judge may consider (and, practically speaking, will always consider) in reaching a sentence.
Also bear in mind that the 124 years is only a theoretical maximum. It is virtually certain that it will be much less than that. The 124 years assumes that the sentences for each charge run sequentially. This is possible, but they almost always are actually ordered to run concurrently, making it much less. And even then, most judges sentence nearer to the bottom of the theoretical range than the top.
Ah, well that was a bit of clumsy and quite un-lawyerly writing on my part: I have direct personal experience with the ways judges handle cases like this, but not this particular case. Well played, though.
Well, you'd think. But it often doesn't work that way -- I once worked for a firm that won $400M in fees from RIM on a contingent fee basis representing an Apple-like company. But these arrangements will almost always be specially negotiated, so who knows what the actual arrangement is.
I don't really disagree with any of this. Though I'd encourage you to take a look at the verdict form. It's really pretty simple.
Yeah, but the plaintiffs lawyers are very often paid on a contingent fee basis, even if it is a large firm that normally bills by the hour. But, then again, for a case like this Apple and their law firm are sure to have pre-negotiated a custom billing package, and who knows what that is.
Yeah, but usually only the defendant pays the hourly rate. If you're the plaintiff you pay a contingent percentage fee unless your lawyer thinks you'll lose (or you have some other alternative fee arrangement).
It's possible but very unlikely. Their lawyers are not in-house and, that being the case, lawyers for the plaintiff will usually be paid on a contingent-fee basis, meaning they get a percentage of the winnings. It's possible they're paid by the hour, but it wouldn't be typical. (Bear in mind also that Apple probably has at least two firms representing them: a big litigation firm, a trial specialist, and possibly also a third local firm retained for ease of filing and familiarity with the local procedures.)
Source? How about IAAL and I deal closely with federal judges daily. If you don't believe me, walk own to your nearest federal courthouse and watch a plea. They're open to the public.
It's a little complicated but, basically, if the suit is for damages the 7th Amendment guarantees a jury trial if the plaintiff wants one. For (a LOT) more, have a look at this: http://iplj.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Article-THE-RIGHT-TO-A-JURY-TRIAL-IN-ACTIONS-FOR-PATENT-INFRINGEMENT-AND-SUITS-FOR-DECLARATORY-JUDGMENT.pdf
Well, the case was not really that complex once it got to the jury. Simplifying the jury's task is the point of a lot of the legal maneuvering that goes in before and during the trial. It's true that the jury verdict form was really long, but mostly that is because each question had to be asked once for each Samsung product at issue. Here's the form: http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/1307288/1890_finalverdictform.pdf
But, yeah. You disagree with the verdict (based, I'd wager, on very little information), so the jury must have been stacked.
If they have a typical fee arrangement it will be 30-40%.
And you think anyone cares that much about this one guy's sentence? I assure you, on the basis of my quite direct personal experience, at least in this case (and in every other case I've been involved in) there is no such pressure.
This is almost certainly not the case at the federal level. Sentencing decisions are made by judges, not prosecutors, and judges really don't seem to care about election cycles. (They themselves are not up for reelection, after all.) And this phenomenon you posit of politicians pressuring judges does not exist, I can assure you. (IAAL, and I work closely with federal judges.)
Keep in mind that this is true at the federal level, but perhaps not true at the state level where judges are sometimes elected.
I assume the plea bargain he agreed to stipulates the exact prison sentence that he is going to receive.
This is actually not legally possible. Sentencing decisions are solely up to the judge. In fact, when a defendant pleads guilty, a judge asks the defendant whether he was promised any particular sentence by the prosecutors to make sure he says "no." If the answer is "yes" the sentence can be invalidated.
Well, the prosecutors can't actually control his sentence. That is exclusively up to the judge. But a judge will certainly take the degree of cooperation into account (and the recommendation of the government) so if he has more cooperating to do, best to do it before the sentencing decision is made, no? (Especially if you're already out on bond.)
This is really informative. Thanks for all the effort. I'm not sure that all this lends much support to the hypothesis that Assange reasonably fears that Sweden will extradite him to the U.S., but given what you've said I certainly don't blame Assange for not wanting to have to face prosecution in Sweden on the rape charges themselves.
Care to tell us more about that agreement? Like...what it's called or where I can read it? I Googled this and found nothing (in fact, all I found was evidence to the contrary: that extradition from Sweden would be harder). In the meantime, my suspicion is that you are just making this up.
I've heard that and it may be true. I don't know. But either way, having done it once changes very little. If it is unclear whether such an interview is legal, then authorities probably worry (rightly) that if they conduct an interview outside the U.K., then any eventual conviction could be open to legal challenge. This might have the benefit of settling the legality of extraterritorial interviews, but the risk to the Swedish prosecutors of having the potential conviction thrown out is not one I'd want to risk if I were them.
Could you detail the extraordinary behavior of the Swedish authorities for those of us who haven't been following this story especially carefully? All I've heard is that they refuse to interview him in the U.K. which, to me, does not seem extraordinary at all (since it is not clear in Sweden that it would be legal to do so, and therefore doing so would leave any potential conviction open to legal challenge).
1) The very passage you quote supports the conclusion that Sweden has stopped rendition flights that originate on Swedish soil and are conducting investigations to make sure they don't happen again.
2) You conveniently fail to mention that immediately following the passage you quote from wikipedia about Sweden is another passage detailing similar involvement by the British.
3) Extraordinary rendition != extradition. My understanding is that the U.S. is prepared to charge Assange with an actual crime (conspiracy to violate the espionage act, I think .. though it's hard to know since the charges haven't actually been brought yet). If they do that (and it seems to me they could), then there is absolutely no doubt that Britain would extradite him at least as fast as the Swedish, and there would be no need to bother with extraordinary rendition.
I don't think you've answered the real question. If his real fear is extradition to the U.S., why is the risk higher in Sweden than in the U.K., where he has voluntarily remained for quite some time? I (and apparently others) would have expected the opposite. But if that's the case, Assange needs a new explanation for fighting extradition to Sweden, doesn't he?
Meanwhile, Sweden has always had a policy of not interviewing suspects outside the country. It is apparently controversial among Swedish legal experts whether doing otherwise would be legal under Swedish law.
If both these things are true (and I think they are) then while Assange seems to have no good reason to fear extradition to Sweden, Sweden seems to have a perfectly good reason FOR seeking it. No?
Here is what I don't understand: if the U.S. wanted them to, the U.K. could have detained and extradited him at least as easily as Sweden could. So why the fear that Sweden would extradite but not the U.K.?
If there is no reason to believe that Sweden is more likely to extradite to the U.S. than the U.K. (my intuition is that, in fact, the opposite is the case) then I'm skeptical about Assange's real reasons for fighting extradition to Sweden.
Oh, I missed this:
By not letting inflamatory language affect my gut response, I can concentrate on the supposed science at hand, which currently appears to be bogus.
No, by overlooking the significance of the word "legitimate" and instead congratulating yourself on your own "scientific" worldview, you are totally missing the point. We all know that the science is "bogus." That much is obvious. What is actually interesting (alarming, shocking) is there there is a sitting member of congress who seems to think that there is a large group of "rapes" out there that are not legitimately called rapes. We are left to wonder exactly what category he had in mind, but in light of my view (and the views of many others) that under-recognition of rape is the problem, not over-recognition, the conclusion suggests itself that this man might be deplorable and not fit to serve as a U.S. congressman.
I can see some getting upset because of the presumption of a context suggesting decriminalization of some currently criminal activity, but I would not jump to that conclusion absent further reserach into the author's motives.
I think where we disagree is in the size of the leap required. In my experience with people who seem to agree with Akin, "legitimate" means exactly what it sounds like it means. A legitimate rape is a real rape. Any other "rape" is not really a rape at all.
Just because something is less depraved does not make it less unacceptable. But by making the definition of a word so all-encompassing, it dilutes its impact in referring to the most vile circumstances. ... I'd really prefer the notion of the crime of "sexual assault" with varying degrees thereof, with "rape" being the most serious.
I think the real problem we face is not diluting the impact of the word in extremely violent cases, but in failing to communicate the seriousness of other (most) rapes.
Disclosing that he discovered her adultery qualifies as "acting in such a way", because a "reasonable" woman would fear his reaction.
It sounds like you've gone through some really awful things, and I'm sorry to hear it. But, I very much doubt this is true. There appear to be no reported Washington State case where this has happened. (I checked.) (IAAL, but don't rely on anything I say as legal advice. I'm not licensed to practice in the state of Washington.)
See, I'm an engineer. A scientist. What's in a name? "Legitimate" in that context is just as good as anything else. Of course, it is an unfortunate term politically.
The problem with the word choice is not just political. I hate to be the one to tell you this, but words mean things. One is not just as good as any other and one's choice among the available words tells the listener something about the thoughts happening inside your head. That is what communication is for. An honest slip of the tongue I'm willing to overlook, but I don't think that's what happened here. I think Akin accidentally told us the truth of what he believes.
I grew up with the last of these as the mental image of rape. All the others might very well be exploitation, assault, even sexual assault, sleazy and wrong, but they do not rise to the same level of violence, depravity and the body's possible reaction.
Why do we have to use your preconceptions as the baseline for the development of our criminal law? I think that your "mental image" is precisely the problem exactly because it defines out of existence all but the most heinous (and, I might add, rare) offenses. Why do that if what we're actually trying to punish is making a woman have sex with you without your consent, and not just battery?