Hacker News Reader

Comment by nbadg | Hacker News Reader

People in this thread keep talking about "reasonable doubt", which is the standard of proof in the US criminal justice system (vs "preponderence of the evidence" in the civil system), but that standard only applies to a conviction, *not* to the decision by the prosecutor to bring charges.

Assuming we take the OP's story at face value (obviously something you wouldn't do in a courtroom!), surely there's enough evidence here for a case, even if the defendant isn't, at the end of the day, convicted? Or is Sweden more averse to questionable cases than the US? At least according to this thesis [1], the difference in conviction rate between Sweden and the US doesn't seem to be large enough to support that idea.

[1] https://dc.etsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4835&context...

View on HN

> Or is Sweden more averse to questionable cases than the US?

Formally I think it is. A Swedish public prosecutor should not prosecute unless they “can look forward to a conviction”. So formally, they should not try a case where they are not relatively confident that the court will convict.

Also, Sweden doesn’t have a jury system. There are “amateur judges” (“nämndemän”). In the first court (“tingsrätten”) the case is typically heard by one magistrate and two “amateur judges”. But on appeal it’s typically three magistrates and two “amateur judges”. Finally, the court has to explain its reasoning in a written verdict. In combination this makes it harder to get convictions in complicated cases with circumstantial evidence.

That sounds very similar to the German system (I'm a US-born German permanent resident, hence familiarity with both systems).

I'd be curious to see some kind of sociological studies about risk aversion amongst criminal prosecutors. Clearly an acquittal (and the associated trial) is still a huge burden to a person, so a strong motivation to only take cases you're confident you'll win makes sense to me. But especially in situations where the circumstantial evidence is so strong, I think most people in the US would consider it unjust not to pursue a trial at all.

To be completely honest, the first thing that crosses my mind is that the prosecutor might be a racist, since the story is (it seems) about an immigrant family. To be clear: I have absolutely no reason to suspect that. But something about the situation sounds off to me, and that's definitely one of the first questions that start lurking in the back of my mind.

Long story long: the optics here definitely aren't good.

> To be completely honest, the first thing that crosses my mind is that the prosecutor might be a racist, since the story is (it seems) about an immigrant family.

My mind too. But maybe only half: The names are only mentioned once or twice, but the author's name seems to be Tang, which sounds definitely foreign in a Swedish context. The wife's name, Kim, may not be very common in Sweden, but definitely not unheard of, so she could well be native.

So perhaps only a half-immigrant family. With the victim a foreigner from far away[1] and the not-prosecuted perpetrator a Swede... Which makes it look even more racist.

___

[1]: Maybe this wouldn't have happened to a Dane or Norwegian. And Finns hardly count as immigrants at all.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com