Is five years evading law enforcement really that much better than ~1 year in prison? (One year based on the fact that the five year limit only applies if the maximum penalty is at most 2 years[1], and presumably a first timer would not spend the whole 2 years in prison (and the actual sentence in this case might be below 2 years anyway))

The general principle, as far as I know, is based on the idea that the need for punishment is lessened by time.

[1] https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preskription#Preskriptionstide...

> Is five years evading law enforcement really that much better than ~1 year in prison?

No, clearly not, especially considering the circumstances of the evasion is similar to a Swedish prison. He probably doesn't have a playstation in the Embassy, but he could have had one in his prison cell.

The only reason Assange submitted himself to being locked up into the embassy for 5 years is because he truly fears extradition to the US. In my opinion, rightly so. Remember Sweden allowed secret CIA extraordinary rendition, aka torture flights only a few years before the Assange event[1].

[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05...

You don't truly believe that the UK, being "cousins" and with all the "special relationship", would be a less probable actor to allow this dreaded extraordinary rendition, do you?

More so when if this was TAX evasion then Sweden have no time limit, which is really putting how messed up this is into perspective.