Has anybody ever died from waterboarding?

[Tom Sawyer]

I don't have any answer for you but I am just shocked to hear there is such a law. My being unfamiliar with the Swedish judicial system doesn't help either. Many states here recognize jury nullification as proper. My state even has it in the state constitution - jurors are expected to not only decide on the case but to decide whether the law itself should exist. The jury can all agree that the accused did what the charges say but also agree that the law is absurd so return a verdict of "not guilty".

The logic behind the law is that it should be pointless to threaten rape victims. If there´s nothing the victim can do to stop the process there´s no point in threatening her to withdraw her report of the crime. This was a problem prior to the law being passed. I used to think it was a good idea, until now... when I´ve realized the bizarre effects it can have.

Technically they´ve moved rape from the individual to the state. So if you rape somebody the plaintif is the government. The victim is reduced to a witness.

That's ... dumb. I understand the rationale, but it's a pretty dumb rationale. She does, at least, get to testify for the defence, correct? Tell the jury that nobody was assaulting her?

 

[skepticalbip]

The logic behind the law is that it should be pointless to threaten rape victims. If there´s nothing the victim can do to stop the process there´s no point in threatening her to withdraw her report of the crime. This was a problem prior to the law being passed. I used to think it was a good idea, until now... when I´ve realized the bizarre effects it can have.

Technically they´ve moved rape from the individual to the state. So if you rape somebody the plaintif is the government. The victim is reduced to a witness.

That's ... dumb. I understand the rationale, but it's a pretty dumb rationale. She does, at least, get to testify for the defence, correct? Tell the jury that nobody was assaulting her?

The Swedish judicial system is a mystery to me. It sounds like, from Dr.Z's post, that rape was like a tort case until the change. In the US, rape has always been a crime under state law - it has always been the state that prosecuted rather than the victim. I'm unsure what Dr.Z is describing. Surely, the victim's testimony must be necessary or the Swedish system is even stranger than the OP made it sound.

ETA:
Dr.Z, Does Sweden have jury trials or is it something like a tribunal system? So far, your description sounds like the inquisition where the assumption is guilt unless the accused can prove innocence before a tribunal.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The logic behind the law is that it should be pointless to threaten rape victims. If there´s nothing the victim can do to stop the process there´s no point in threatening her to withdraw her report of the crime. This was a problem prior to the law being passed. I used to think it was a good idea, until now... when I´ve realized the bizarre effects it can have.

Technically they´ve moved rape from the individual to the state. So if you rape somebody the plaintif is the government. The victim is reduced to a witness.

That's ... dumb. I understand the rationale, but it's a pretty dumb rationale. She does, at least, get to testify for the defence, correct? Tell the jury that nobody was assaulting her?

The prosecutor can chose to attack her character. To make her testimony untrustworthy, in order to convict the not-rapist of rape. Which happens... often. It´s an inbuilt problem of this insane system. Yeah... real dumb.

 

[DrZoidberg]

That's ... dumb. I understand the rationale, but it's a pretty dumb rationale. She does, at least, get to testify for the defence, correct? Tell the jury that nobody was assaulting her?

The Swedish judicial system is a mystery to me. It sounds like, from Dr.Z's post, that rape was like a tort case until the change. In the US, rape has always been a crime under state law - it has always been the state that prosecuted rather than the victim. I'm unsure what Dr.Z is describing. Surely, the victim's testimony must be necessary or the Swedish system is even stranger than the OP made it sound.

ETA:
Dr.Z, Does Sweden have jury trials or is it something like a tribunal system? So far, your description sounds like the inquisition where the assumption is guilt unless the accused can prove innocence before a tribunal.

We also have an assumption of innocence unless evidence can be presented to prove guilt. But we don´t have a jury of peers. On the lowest level of our courts the jury is politicians. usually pensioners who used to be politically active. On higher instances they´re of course all lawyers. But it leads to weird results. Especially when it comes to sex cases involving young people. They´re so culturally removed from how young people today behave that they make silly judgements. I think a jury of peers is a better system.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

That's ... dumb. I understand the rationale, but it's a pretty dumb rationale. She does, at least, get to testify for the defence, correct? Tell the jury that nobody was assaulting her?

The prosecutor can chose to attack her character. To make her testimony untrustworthy, in order to convict the not-rapist of rape. Which happens... often. It´s an inbuilt problem of this insane system. Yeah... real dumb.

Da fuck?

I had a number of pithy responses I started typing but, to be honest, I really have absolutely no response to that.

 

[fromderinside]

Da fuck?

I had a number of pithy responses I started typing but, to be honest, I really have absolutely no response to that.

Its a man's world. That lawyer would be using a Balls out move.

 

[skepticalbip]

The prosecutor can chose to attack her character. To make her testimony untrustworthy, in order to convict the not-rapist of rape. Which happens... often. It´s an inbuilt problem of this insane system. Yeah... real dumb.

Da fuck?

I had a number of pithy responses I started typing but, to be honest, I really have absolutely no response to that.

Double fuck...

Definitely a different system. Attacking the character of the victim is the defense attorney's bailiwick here.

Here, if the "victim" says she wasn't victimized then the prosecution has no case, no matter how much the system wants to hang someone.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The prosecutor can chose to attack her character. To make her testimony untrustworthy, in order to convict the not-rapist of rape. Which happens... often. It´s an inbuilt problem of this insane system. Yeah... real dumb.

Da fuck?

I had a number of pithy responses I started typing but, to be honest, I really have absolutely no response to that.

I´m not defending this system, but any legal system has unwanted and unintended side effects around the edges. ...or any system at all really. So it´s not like there´s a perfect system out there. The Swedish government has decided that this price is worth paying for this system. I disagree of course.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Da fuck?

I had a number of pithy responses I started typing but, to be honest, I really have absolutely no response to that.

I´m not defending this system, but any legal system has unwanted and unintended side effects around the edges. ...or any system at all really. So it´s not like there´s a perfect system out there. The Swedish government has decided that this price is worth paying for this system. I disagree of course.

That's not really an "unwanted and unintended side effects around the edges" anymore than "regrettable civilian casualties" are an unwanted and unintended side effects around the edges of a cop deciding to drive his car through a crowded marketplace in order to chase down a criminal.

The guy getting charged for consentual activities is the unwanted and unintended side effects around the edges of trying to implement a system where there's a history and victims not wanting to file charges. You're going to get some innocent people charged under a system like that and it's a legitimate argument as to whether or not that is worse than an alternative system where more guilty people are not charged.

Actually attacking the character of the alleged victim in order to get a conviction, however, is something completely different. That's a case of the prosecutor going over the line and doing something morally repugnant in order to maintain his conviction percentage. It makes him the bad guy.

One potential defence may be to relate the waterboarding to other aspects of BDSM, such as auto-erotic asphixiation, where people have actually died. Are the police charging people who engage in that? If not, what's their justification for bringing charges here?

 

[skepticalbip]

Da fuck?

I had a number of pithy responses I started typing but, to be honest, I really have absolutely no response to that.

I´m not defending this system, but any legal system has unwanted and unintended side effects around the edges. ...or any system at all really. So it´s not like there´s a perfect system out there. The Swedish government has decided that this price is worth paying for this system. I disagree of course.

Yes. It is just a matter of the difference in basic principles. The basis of the US system is that it is better for a guilty person to go free than an innocent person suffer the result of conviction. The basis of the Swedish system is apparently that is it better for an innocent person to suffer the result of a conviction than a guilty person go free. Neither system is perfect. Neither system guarantees justice in all cases.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I´m not defending this system, but any legal system has unwanted and unintended side effects around the edges. ...or any system at all really. So it´s not like there´s a perfect system out there. The Swedish government has decided that this price is worth paying for this system. I disagree of course.

That's not really an "unwanted and unintended side effects around the edges" anymore than "regrettable civilian casualties" are an unwanted and unintended side effects around the edges of a cop deciding to drive his car through a crowded marketplace in order to chase down a criminal.

The guy getting charged for consentual activities is the unwanted and unintended side effects around the edges of trying to implement a system where there's a history and victims not wanting to file charges. You're going to get some innocent people charged under a system like that and it's a legitimate argument as to whether or not that is worse than an alternative system where more guilty people are not charged.

Actually attacking the character of the alleged victim in order to get a conviction, however, is something completely different. That's a case of the prosecutor going over the line and doing something morally repugnant in order to maintain his conviction percentage. It makes him the bad guy.

One potential defence may be to relate the waterboarding to other aspects of BDSM, such as auto-erotic asphixiation, where people have actually died. Are the police charging people who engage in that? If not, what's their justification for bringing charges here?

Please immigrate to Sweden and become a politician. We need less insane politicians. It is a problem over here.

Auto-erotic asphixiation is legal. Completely and utterly legal. Which makes this court case all the more bizarre.

 

[DrZoidberg]

As it happens, the media has gotten hold of this story now. It´s going to explode. More people than me are angry about this.

 

[Underseer]

Bullshit. A quick search of the internet yields  waterboarding:

Waterboarding can cause extreme pain, dry drowning, damage to lungs, brain damage from oxygen deprivation, other physical injuries including broken bones due to struggling against restraints, lasting psychological damage, and death.[1] Adverse physical consequences can manifest themselves months after the event, while psychological effects can last for years.[2]

Victims of waterboarding are at extreme risk of sudden death due to the aspiration of vomitus.

... the psychological effects can last long after waterboarding ends (another of the criteria under 18 USC 2340), and that uninterrupted waterboarding can ultimately cause death.[1]

Congestion, sometimes of the heart or lungs, sometimes of the brain, not unfrequently [sic] ensues; and death, in due season, has released some sufferers from the further ordeal of the water cure.

Alleg stated that he did not break under his ordeal of being waterboarded.[122] He also stated that the incidence of "accidental" death of prisoners being subjected to waterboarding in Algeria was "very frequent".[39]

Ah! So you want to give the terrorists backrubs?

Why do you hate America? Why do you hate our freedom?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I've got to say, this lends credence to Derec's claims regarding Sweden's rape laws.

I don't see much of a problem with Sweden's rape laws other than one of translation. What is being translated as "rape" would better be translated as "sexual offense". They aren't pretending that some of the things like the "rape" that involved not using a condom is equivalent to forced sex but rather both fall under a bigger term.




As for whether anyone has died from waterboarding, they certainly have from cold fluffy water boarding!

 

[fromderinside]

I've got to say, this lends credence to Derec's claims regarding Sweden's rape laws.

I don't see much of a problem with Sweden's rape laws other than one of translation. What is being translated as "rape" would better be translated as "sexual offense". They aren't pretending that some of the things like the "rape" that involved not using a condom is equivalent to forced sex but rather both fall under a bigger term.




As for whether anyone has died from waterboarding, they certainly have from cold fluffy water boarding!

Sense of humor detected. Congrats! ...and noted.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

According to this guy:

http://www.democracynow.org/2007/11/5/french_journalist_henri_alleg_describes_his

And suddenly, as I have explained it — I think it was the third time — I just fainted. And I heard them after a while saying, "Oh, he’s coming back. He’s coming back." They didn’t want me to die at once, and I knew afterwards, a long time afterwards, that many of the people who went under that waterboarding, as you call it, after having had some moments of fainting, some of them would die, drowned, "asphyxier," as we say in French. It’s completely — it’s impossible to breathe, so they die, as if they were drowned, and this kind of "accident," as they call, was very frequent.

Algerian prisoners frequently died accidentally when being waterboarded by the French.

If you're going to argue that waterboarding isn't dangerous, the prosecutor reading out that one counterexample will severely undermine your case. Apparently, the reason that it seems to be the kind of thing that could easily unintentionally kill the person you're doing it to is because it is. The notion that waterboarding is a safe activity is one which most jurors would start out having a hard time buying and one bit of testimony talking about accidental deaths from it is all they'd need to confirm this pre-existing bias and make them ignore pretty much everything else you have to say. You might want to avoid this type of defence entirely.

Focus on the consent angle. The prosecutor might attack the woman while she's testifying about how she was into it, but she's a masochist so she might just like that.