1. The Nature of the Crime ("Rape")
First, it's essential to clarify the legal context before drawing parallels with other jurisdictions. I recall a previous discussion here—perhaps with you, Dr Z, or someone else—where the definition of
"rape" in Sweden was a topic.
The current Swedish law has a very broad definition, focusing on
lack of consent and acts considered as rape do not align to what is called rape here. While this is a progressive legal standard, throwing the word "rape" around to an audience accustomed to the narrow definitions in places like the US or UK can be unintentionally misleading as a means of challenging them.
We need to understand the
specific act for which Yazied Mohamed was convicted to assess the judges' findings reasonably. For example, if the act was on the lower end of the spectrum (e.g., non-consensual touching/exposure that meets the definition of rape but is not
penetrative), while still a terrible thing, it would offer a different context for the court's "severity" assessment than a prolonged, violent penetrative act.
2. The Court's Reasoning: More Than Just "Duration"
Second, the headlines and the quotes in the AOL article are misleading because they cherry-pick a phrase out of the court's full sentence. The claim that he "will not be deported... due to the 'duration of the incident,' " or that the act "did not last long enough," is an inaccurate
quote-mine.
The actual
Swedish text from the Court of Appeal was:
Med hänsyn till den aktuella gärningens karaktär och varaktighet finner hovrätten att brottet visserligen är allvarligt men att det inte varit fråga om ett sådant synnerligen grovt brott som kan föranleda ett beslut om utvisning av Yazied Mohamed.
My translation (emphasis added):
Considering the nature and duration of the current act, the Court of Appeal finds that the crime is indeed serious but that it was not a particularly serious offense that could lead to a decision on the deportation of Yazied Mohamed.
The court’s decision to deny deportation was based on
two factors: the
"nature" (
karaktär)
AND the
"duration" (
varaktighet) of the act. The court determined that, based on both factors, the crime did
not meet the very high threshold of a "particularly serious offense" (
synnerligen grovt brott) required by law to deport a refugee.
The key takeaway is that the court was not simply clocking the minutes, but assessing the
overall severity (nature + duration) of the specific criminal act against a strict legal standard for revoking a refugee's status.
All that said, I will state that I probably would be okay with his deportation under most circumstances of what all this vagueness might mean once we have all the facts with just a very few possible exceptions. I just don't think it is worth it to discuss conclusions of rulings without knowing the full facts.
Finally, Derec, I doubt you use AOL for your news. So where'd you get this sensationalist news article?
