MovieChat Forums > Luftslottet som sprängdes (2010) Discussion > Swedish Weirdness! Prosecuted for attemp...

Swedish Weirdness! Prosecuted for attempted murder when victim is dead?

posted 13 years ago by eYeDEF
4 replies | jump to latest

What a bizarre justice system.

In the US you have the right to face your accuser in court. If your accuser happens to die, then the DA is just shyte out of luck.

I always thought the right to face your accuser in court had long been established from English common law to protect defendants against scurrilous charges made by phantom citizens like occurred during the Inquisition. Anyone know how Swedes justify such a practice in our more enlightened era?

Some fellows get credit for being conservative when they are only stupid.
- Kin Hubbard

[–] HiroProtagonistYT 13 years ago

I'm pretty sure in the US attempted murder can be tried as both a civil or criminal case. In a criminal case, the government would be the accuser, so the fact that someone dies is irrelevant. Otherwise what would stop person x from killing person y since person y would no longer be alive to accuse person x?

[–] eYeDEF 13 years ago

"in the US attempted murder can be tried as both a civil or criminal case"

Actually in the US a civil case brought by a plaintiff would be called "wrongful death".

"In a criminal case, the government would be the accuser, so the fact that someone dies is irrelevant."

Wrong. The accuser would be the one assaulted, and thus accusing the defendant of assaulting him/her. Hence the eponymous term "accuser".

"Otherwise what would stop person x from killing person y since person y would no longer be alive to accuse person x?"

You clearly haven't thought this through. The very likelihood that person X would be caught as the primary suspect and successfully prosecuted for premeditated first degree murder, witness tampering, and everything else they can make stick is a pretty strong deterrent. Instead of 2-10 years they're looking at life behind bars. But in cases like organized crime, it would happen frequently enough that the US justice department has a program called "witness protection". You might have heard of it.

Like I was saying, here in the US defendants have a fundamental right to face their accuser. This is as it should be as it's only fair. That Swedish law would allow otherwise seems farcical.

[–] HiroProtagonistYT 13 years ago

As the government is the party which initiated the criminal case, it may continue the case even if the victim no longer wants to pursue the case if it does not need the victim to prove its case.

For example, a man walked into a night club, saw his wife with a lover, pulled out a gun and shot at his wife in front of many other customers. He missed. When the police officers arrived, the wife and numerous customers who witnessed the incident, gave the statements to the officers. The man was arrested, charged with attempted murder, and put in jail. The wife later felt guilty and wanted the man release from jail. What can she do? Not much! The government probably will not agree to dismiss the case as it already has other witnesses (other customers who witnessed the incident).

http://www.intolaw.com/Art-CivvCrim-Engl.htm

Substitue the wife feeling guilty and no longer wanting to pursue the case with Zala dying. Zala gave his statements to the police prior to his death, and that's all that was needed because the government takes care of criminal cases.

[–] eYeDEF 13 years ago

Thanks for that piece. It was interesting.

So following the quote you provided was this which seems more pertinent to what Elizabeth underwent:

"What if the man pulled out the gun and threatened to shoot his wife after she returned home and no one witnessed the incident? If the wife already gave the statement to the police officer(s) right after the incident but later felt guilty and no longer wanted to press charges against the man, the government may subpoena the wife to testify against the man. If the wife refuses to do so, she may be held in contempt of court. However, it is unlikely that the government will pursue the case without any other evidences."

I believe most reasonable courts would have thrown a case like this out in pretrial hearings.

I realize she refused to provide a statement until the day of the trial, making it appear she could very well be incompetent as the DA alleged. But the fact was that she wasn't even close to incompetent, and so her continued reticence was baffling.

There was no way to know that Bloomkvist would be able to come through for her like that. And she was smart enough to realize that had she provided a statement of self defense, with her father dead, she had a decent shot of acquittal. Elizabeth was bloodied and damaged herself from three gunshot wounds while fleeing him as the good doctor would surely have testified on the entry points of the bullets. Maybe the book had better insight on how she planned a credible defense so she wouldn't go back to the insane asylum.

Some fellows get credit for being conservative when they are only stupid.
- Kin Hubbard