>The "moral" course of events would be for him to receive a fair trial in the UK or Sweden concerning the rape and possibly the contempt of court charges.

Charges (which were ridiculous to begin with) were dropped.

>The "immoral" course of evens would be if he was extradited to the US or some other country, receive an unfair trial, or having to defend against other charges.

That's horrible, but what I expect. Extradition to a country that has the death penalty from a country that doesn't shouldn't be a thing.

Why were the charges ridiculous?

So the laws are extremely backwards but you aren't really sure about a single example to show that this claim is correct? Come on.

No. He put himself inside her without a condom after an consensual agreement was made that he would use a condom.

This was a dickish thing to do on his part (although far form rape). I think that the seven years he spent at the embassy are enough of a punishment. The only thing that I believe would be fair to have is monetary compensation to the victims.

He was in the embassy on his own free will. I can't rape some women and then hide under a rock for 5 years and come out claiming it's fine because I hid. Because that's not how stuff works.

As for rape, what he allegedly did was just that. You can make up your own meaning of the word but they are e completely irrelevant in this context.

> I can't rape some women and then hide under a rock for 5 years and come out claiming it's fine because I hid

Depending on the situation I think that it would be acceptable to remove some years (less than 5) from your sentence. (You would still have to pay the victim the full amount of money though)

> You can make up your own meaning of the word

This is exactly what you are doing. I do not know of anyone else who considers removing a condom during consensual sex to be rape.

There's no sexual misconduct victim, as charges were dropped.

And since charges were dropped, we should stop even remotely suggesting the subject is guilty.

Enough damage has been done to their image already through what seems to be extremely cheap accusations. Just imagine if this kind of character assassination happened to you, and you saw your life destroyed with no consequence to the perpetrator.

> There's no sexual misconduct victim, as charges were dropped.

One does not imply the other.

> And since charges were dropped, we should stop even remotely suggesting the subject is guilty.

I disagree, the courts are not the only entities that can decide the truth. Plus, the case was closed because he was in the embassy and they did not have access to him.

> extremely cheap accusations

Assange himself has admitted that he did indeed removed the condom.

> Just imagine if this kind of character assassination happened to you, and you saw your life destroyed with no consequence to the perpetrator

Then I would hope that I had people like me who are willing to speak factually to posts like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19641980 which my previous post was replying to. Also, as I said before, I believe that the fact that he stayed in the embassy for 7 years should be enough of a punishment for removing a condom. The only thing that I would add is monetary compensation to the victims.

>I can't rape some women and then hide under a rock for 5 years

Allegedly. Presumption of innocence and all that.

>and come out claiming it's fine because I hid.

The charges were dropped, thus these charges are not why he's in custody.

And apparently they selected the immoral option.