Pirate Bay founders found guilty

[tompe]

Originally Posted by delphidb96

a conflict for a person who is an advocate for one side of an issue to be a judge in a case on the issue.

But it is unclear if this is the case.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by tompe

But it is unclear if this is the case.

The object is to not have any measurable conflicts. Whether or not the would actually affect the case is immaterial, as you can't see what going on any person's head. This case is particularly bad (should such conflict rules apply to Swedish law), inasmuch as the Judge himself eliminated jurors for exactly the same appearance of conflict.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by delphidb96

Ethically, it's a conflict. Morally, it's a conflict. Legally? Only in countries with no true legal standard is it NOT a conflict for a person who is an advocate for one side of an issue to be a judge in a case on the issue.

It doesn't matter whether TPB broke the law. There's no way a judge can rule impartially in this matter when the judge is an advocate for the opposing side.

Derek

If the Swedish system on this point is the same as the American system, there will be a methodology in place to determine if there is a conflict sufficient to warrant a new trial. Assuming that the judge was biased, it does not follow that he was wrong on the law. And the mere fact that he was a member of some copyright associations does not mean that he didn't conduct an unbiased trial.

The main problem is probably just that in such an emotionally charged case, it looks bad for the judge to be a member of those organizations.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

The object is to not have any measurable conflicts. Whether or not the would actually affect the case is immaterial, as you can't see what going on any person's head. This case is particularly bad (should such conflict rules apply to Swedish law), inasmuch as the Judge himself eliminated jurors for exactly the same appearance of conflict.

Actually, if you think about it, that could be seen as pointing to the exact opposite conclusion. He made sure that the jury itself was unbiased. That doesn't seem like the work of a biased judge...

[delphidb96]

Originally Posted by Harmon

Actually, if you think about it, that could be seen as pointing to the exact opposite conclusion. He made sure that the jury itself was unbiased. That doesn't seem like the work of a biased judge...

OR, it could be beautiful stroke of misdirection on his part to allow him to insert his own biases and conflicts of interest smack dab into the ruling. Hmmm...

What bothers me is all the apologists who're willing to not question his motives.

Derek

[Lemurion]

I don't know whether the judge conducted a fair or biased trial; I wasn't there. Quite frankly it doesn't matter. A judge needs to be held to a higher standard, and the fact that he dismissed jurors with similar associations means that he was not holding himself to that higher standard.

Also, when a case receives the amount of worldwide scrutiny this one did, it's important to avoid even the slightest hint of possible impropriety because there are people who will consider that hint positive proof of collusion, regardless of the facts. He should have recused himself.

With apologies to Derek, I'm not going to waste my time wondering about his motives or whether there was actual bias or impropriety because I don't care: The appearance was enough. He clearly had an apparent conflict of interest - he should have recused himself - he didn't.

[tirsales]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

With apologies to Derek, I'm not going to waste my time wondering about his motives or whether there was actual bias or impropriety because I don't care: The appearance was enough. He clearly had an apparent conflict of interest - he should have recused himself - he didn't.

At least those facts would have to be cleared BEFORE the trial.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

I don't know whether the judge conducted a fair or biased trial; I wasn't there. Quite frankly it doesn't matter. A judge needs to be held to a higher standard, and the fact that he dismissed jurors with similar associations means that he was not holding himself to that higher standard.

Also, when a case receives the amount of worldwide scrutiny this one did, it's important to avoid even the slightest hint of possible impropriety because there are people who will consider that hint positive proof of collusion, regardless of the facts. He should have recused himself.

With apologies to Derek, I'm not going to waste my time wondering about his motives or whether there was actual bias or impropriety because I don't care: The appearance was enough. He clearly had an apparent conflict of interest - he should have recused himself - he didn't.

I agree with this. But this situation is kind of new so it is hard to say what the higher court will say about it.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by tirsales

At least those facts would have to be cleared BEFORE the trial.

One of the lawyers point was that if he had told about it before the trial then the lawyers could have taken this into account and maybe coming to the conclusion that it did not matter. But since they were not told they want to have the sentencing thrown out.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

The object is to not have any measurable conflicts. Whether or not the would actually affect the case is immaterial, as you can't see what going on any person's head.

Sweden is a small country and in small town you always will get these kind of diffuse conflicts. So for practical purposes you cannot have a rule that do not allow any sort of connections.

[tirsales]

Originally Posted by tompe

Sweden is a small country and in small town you always will get these kind of diffuse conflicts. So for practical purposed you cannot have a rule that do not allow any sort of connections.

Nor is a connection necessarily a reason for a biased trial - but thats (in my eyes and without any reference to the laws in Sweden or Germany) even more reason to clear thus points openly and frankly before the trial begins. Thus I agree to this part

Originally Posted by tompe

One of the lawyers point was that if he had told about it before the trial then the lawyers could have taken this into account and maybe coming to the conclusion that it did not matter. But since they were not told they wan to have the sentencing thrown out.

[Greg Anos]

I wasn't fully explicit. The judge has connections with organizations supporting one side of the case, he eliminated potential jurors with the same kind of connections, supporting the other side of the case. That certainly has the appearance of bias.

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by tompe

Sweden is a small country and in small town you always will get these kind of diffuse conflicts. So for practical purposes you cannot have a rule that do not allow any sort of connections.

Diffuse connections are one thing: but membership in two copyright organizations with a seat on the board of one of them is more than a diffuse connection.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

I wasn't fully explicit. The judge has connections with organizations supporting one side of the case, he eliminated potential jurors with the same kind of connections, supporting the other side of the case. That certainly has the appearance of bias.

No, he eliminated a "peer judge" that was on the same side as himself (or the side that the opposition claims he is on).

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

Diffuse connections are one thing: but membership in two copyright organizations with a seat on the board of one of them is more than a diffuse connection.

The claim from the judge is that the at least one of the copyright organizations are neutral and is a discussion club. If you specialize in a certain area of the law it is natural that you are a member of organizations to increase your knowledge.

I personally think that the evidence does not support that the organizations are neutral.

But all people have opinions and that does not mean that these opinions influence how they do their work. I it really the case that if a judge has opinions about death penalty or what is the correct punishment that he cannot participate in a case in for example the US?