British hacker loses appeal against extradition

[Scott Free]

Oh sure... whatever.

So you guys are maintaining the legal system in the US, Britain and Canada are the same :roll:

Leeway to modify sentences is entirely different than making the sentences.

 

[tracy]

I never said the systems were the same. I said that it is generalizing to say judges have no leeway in sentencing criminals in the US. They do.

 

[Scott Free]

I thought they had a lot less than apparently they do. Thanks for showing me that.

 

[scratch]

I never said the systems were the same. I said that it is generalizing to say judges have no leeway in sentencing criminals in the US. They do.

With all due respect to you: American judges have leeway and usually chose the low end, hence the revolving door at prisons.

 

[tracy]

With all due respect to you: American judges have leeway and usually chose the low end, hence the revolving door at prisons.

So according to you the sentences are light and according to Scott Free they are excessive....

 

[scratch]

So according to you the sentences are light and according to Scott Free they are excessive....

Rather dichotomous.

 

[FUBAR]

One of the main contentions with this is that a person being extradited works only one way. For some stupid reason the British government is happy to send its citizens to the USA but the US refuses to send their citizens that commit crimes in the UK to the UK for trial.


CrunchGear » Archive » UK Hacker is doing all he can not to get extradited to the US

Nasa Computer Hacker Gary McKinnon Faces Extradition | Technology | Sky News

Gary McKinnon: The hacker facing 70 years in prison - Technology & Gadgets, Life & Style - Belfasttelegraph.co.uk

And being threatened with a seventy year sentence with no parole is hardly pointing to a fair trial. I certainly wouldn't trust the American legal system giving him a fair trial...

 

[tracy]

"In a last ditch effort Gary McKinnon, the UK hacker who allegedly hacked in to the Pentagon, is now taking his case to the European Court on Human Rights. McKinnon feels that his human rights were violated when the U.S. offered him a plea-bargain (something the UK courts to not do) to get a lighter sentence. He felt that by accepting this he would be opting himself out of a fair trial. Of course, he’s already admitted he did the crimes, having left a melodramatic note on the system saying among other things:

“I am SOLO. I will continue to disrupt at the highest levels…”
​

Since he didn’t take the plea-bargain he now faces 8-10 years in a medium- or high-security U.S. prison if he gets extradited. So I don’t blame him for trying to keep it in the EU, but it looks like he’s prolonging the inevitable at this point."

From the above link... How stupid. Ego always has a price. I wonder what sort of plea bargain he was offered if the full sentence is only 8-10 years. A plea bargain with time off for good behavior may have been a pretty good deal.

 

[Scott Free]

How stupid. Ego always has a price. I wonder what sort of plea bargain he was offered if the full sentence is only 8-10 years. A plea bargain with time off for good behavior may have been a pretty good deal.

It isn't stupid to reject a plea bargain; your assuming he's guilty. Obviously he isn't going to get a fair trial since he has already been threatened and offered a plea bargain; it's obvious the US government is assuming he is guilty too, something a civilized countries don't do. The prosecuter should be interested in seeing if he's guilty not winning their case.

No wonder the US has become such a ****hole and little wonder too they incarcerate more of their population than any other country in the world.

 

[tracy]

I'm not assuming anything. He admits he's guilty. Did you actually read the article?

 

[Zzarchov]

Ok,

Here is my beef, He never went to the US.

Any crime he committed he committed IN the United Kingdom, not in the USA. The USA was the victim, that's nice. It can send its representatives to give evidence at this trial in the country in which he both resides and committed the offence.

And the Internet isn't some new spin and debate about where the crime takes place.

Common law (including the UK and the USA) has already set precedent about what happens if you shoot a man from across a jurisdictional boundary. The crime takes place where the shooter was standing, not where the victim was standing.

Extraditing this guy to face punishment in the US for a crime he committed in the UK (where he is a citizen of) is a direct violation of his human rights.

It would be like if a Canadian killed an American citizen in Toronto, extraditing him to Texas so he can get the death penalty.

 

[tracy]

It's not that simple anymore Zzarchov. A Canadian who molests children in Thailand can now be charged and tried in Canada even if none of his victims were Canadian and none of the crimes he committed occured in Canada (several countries have similar laws now).

 

[lone wolf]

Sounds like the Brits are on for it. It saves them the expense of a trial ... and Uncle Sam has his example....

 

[Blackleaf]

I could bet £100 that if it was an American who hacked into Britain's Ministry of Defence computers the US would refuse to extradite him to Britain.

Because of this Britain should have refused to extradite this man.

The extradition process between Britain and the US is very unfair towards Britain and favours the US.

 

[Blackleaf]

I'm not assuming anything. He admits he's guilty. Did you actually read the article?

I though that in the US, which has adopted mostly the English Legal System, a person is innocent until proven guilty.

Just because he says he's guilty is no actual proof that he's guilty.

 

[lone wolf]

Innocent until proven guilty was one of the casualties of 9/11

 

[tracy]

I though that in the US, which has adopted mostly the English Legal System, a person is innocent until proven guilty.

Just because he says he's guilty is no actual proof that he's guilty.

A person is innocent in a court of law until proven guilty. I'm not on the jury, so I can take his word for it that he did it. Anyone with an ounce of common sense can see that.

 

[Zzarchov]

It's not that simple anymore Zzarchov. A Canadian who molests children in Thailand can now be charged and tried in Canada even if none of his victims were Canadian and none of the crimes he committed occured in Canada (several countries have similar laws now).

Yes, but thats only if he's IN canada.

Im not saying the US can't arrest him if he ever arrives on their shores.


But to go with your example, thats like busting a Thailand citizen out of Thailand prison and bringing him to Canada to face charges.

Or,

Saudi Arabia demanding you be extradited to Saudi Arabia to face charges of drinking alcohol in your own home, in Canada.

 

[tracy]

I don't think that's a fair comparison. Drinking alcohol is allowed here and there is absolutely no Saudi connection to it and there is no extradition treaty that would allow extradition for it. He's also not being busted out of any prison like in your Thai example.

If it's covered in their extradition treaty and the crime he committed was against the US and actually occured in the US and his own country is willing to send him to face trial.... I don't see the problem. By your logic, if he hired someone to kill an American on American soil while he was in Britain, he shouldn't face extradition because his part of the act occured in Britain. The actual crime occured in the US.

 

[Zzarchov]

No, his crime , according to british law, and id bet US law as well, occurred in Britain.

In the hitman example, yes, he would face trial in Britain. That is where the crime of conspiracy to commit murder occurred.

And the crime is not the same in the US and Britain. In one place the criminal penalty is a few months to a few years, in the other it could include the death penalty.

The Extradition is an unjust and I would bet, illegal extradition.

He commited a crime in the UK against the USA. Its no different than throwing a rock at the US embassy. The USA is the defendant and as a UK citizen in the UK in violation of UK law he should be tried in the UK.

If I slap the US ambassador in Canada, I would expect to be charged in Canada under Canadian law. Not extradited to the USA because the victim is a US agent.