site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6mo ago (text post)   3237 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for May 17, 2024

Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Odd stuff I find interesting in the Swedish legal system:

  • We have something called "free sifting of evidence". This means courts can use evidence no matter how it was gathered; even if the police themselves commit crimes or had no reasonable suspicion whatsoever this is a separate matter and won't get the evidence "thrown out" or the like.

  • The Swedish "jury" (in district courts) consists of three lay judges appointed by the political parties (generally old people with nothing better to do). They can acquit the accused person if two of them disagree with the real judge, and convict if all three disagree. This almost never happens, so there's a longstanding debate to get rid of the entire system. It mostly results in somewhat regular scandals where the jury acquits people for really flimsy reasons when two of them happen to be ideologues or confused oddballs that never should have been appointed in the first place.

  • Defamation cases do not take the truth into account. It is e.g. illegal to write that somebody is a murderer if you're doing it to damage his reputation; that he actually happens to be recently convicted of first-degree murder is irrelevant. This absolutely gets weaponized by both the left and right; there's organizations on both sides of the culture war (e.g. "Näthatsgranskaren", "Förtalsombudsmannen"...) that specialize in more or less mass-reporting their enemies to the police when they see potentially "defamatory" stuff on the internet. It also had a pretty significant chilling effect around the time of the #metoo stuff, as women who wrote online about their experiences were slapped with significant fines if the person they wrote about was identifiable, regardless of the truth of the accusation.

  • Except for cases concerning freedom of expression, the government violating the constitution is not actually a crime and there is no official mechanism like having the supreme court address violations. The citizens are simply supposed to punish the government in the next general election.

I'd characterize this less as "interesting" and more as "proof that Sweden is a third world country."

Defamation cases do not take the truth into account. It is e.g. illegal to write that somebody is a murderer if you're doing it to damage his reputation; that he actually happens to be recently convicted of first-degree murder is irrelevant.

How do they determine intent? In a ‘MeToo’ case the line between the primary intent being trying to damage someone’s reputation and to report on an unpleasant experience is surely fine.

Presumably if one could have reported the experience without naming the perpetrator (or making it obvious who it was), but chose not to.

This is a very interesting write up and I thank you for it.

Regarding the evidence standards in the first point - how is this not constantly abused by police?

Regarding the last point (which kind of answers my first question) - Again, it's just this insane reality that even the wealthiest European's (Scandi's) have long ago decided that at high standard of living is worth the wholesale trade of fundamental liberty.

We have something called "free sifting of evidence". This means courts can use evidence no matter how it was gathered; even if the police themselves commit crimes or had no reasonable suspicion whatsoever this is a separate matter and won't get the evidence "thrown out" or the like.

It is the US that is the outlier with its strong exclusionary rule (so the rights of guilty criminals are well-protected) and strong qualified immunity (so the rights of innocent people are not). Most civil law countries have no exclusionary rule and no qualified immunity at all. Most Commonwealth countries have weaker exclusionary rules - for example Canada only excludes illegally-obtained evidence if admitting it would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

Regarding the evidence standards in the first point - how is this not constantly abused by police?

If a policeman commits a crime when looking for evidence he'll potentially be charged with misconduct (in addition to whatever else he did, like battery or burglary). A particularly egregious case from the top of my head was this one where the policeman was later convicted, fined, and fired.

the wholesale trade of fundamental liberty.

I think the idea here is that if the government ignores the constitution, then any law you have to address it can just be ignored as well and it's up to the citizens to fix it by whatever means are necessary. The important thing here is if this actually works, or in practice results in constant low-level constitutional violations that people ignore; personally I don't think so. I helps a bit that the Swedish constitution isn't as hairy as the American one – the exception being freedom of expression where boundaries can be unclear / debated, which is indeed the parts that do have legal systems in place to decide that.

(Another fun legal thing I forgot to mention is that the king (or regent) is immune from prosecution. This question comes up from time to time as the king pretty frequently gets caught speeding and potentially drunk driving, but the police always has to just let him go.)

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats