7 ms·

I don't understand how civilized countries can even consider extraditing anyone to the US in light of the known deficiencies of the US justice and prison system

I don't understand how civilized countries can even consider extraditing anyone to the US in light of the known deficiencies of the US justice and prison system. I don't know about NZ, but for example in Germany the maximum sentence for intentional, commercial copyright infringement is 5 years, whereas in the US it seems to be a life-long confinement in some federal maximum security prison where apparently inmates are sometimes even raped - or so, I've heard, quite shocking if that's true. Moreover, this guy has never set a foot inside the US, and the US do often not extradite people for much more serious crimes. On top of that, many federal US prisons violate basic human rights, as even some US experts occasionally admit. For example, Marion prison in Colorado was on a permanent lockdown for 23 years, because two prison guards were killed.[1] That means that all inmates were in strict solitary confinement for 23 years, no matter whether they had anything to do with these murders or not. NZ should offer the US to sue Doctcom in New Zealand or wherever his company resided in. He can then spend a few years in prison, if he's really guilty, and justice is served. [1] http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2013/10/23/marion_prison_lockdown_thomas_silverstein_how_a_1983_murder_created_america.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2013/10/23/marion_prison_lo...

tellarin 10y ago
I agree that the US prison system has many human rights issues, but Kim's extradition was approved due to the fraud and racketeering charges, not due to the copyright infringement accusations. No idea how it works if he's extradited and the US tries to prosecute him for the copyright infringement cases though.
- shambolic 10y ago
  The fraud and racketeering charges are a sham, manufactured to work around the non-extraditable copyright infringement charges.
- rndgermandude 10y ago
  "He [NZ Judge David Harvey] also confirmed that the charges in the indictment relating to money laundering, racketeering and wire fraud are not separate criminal acts but dependent on the claim of criminal secondary copyright infringement." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megaupload_legal_case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megaupload_legal_case which links the actual legal documents
- Chathamization 10y ago
  It's worth pointing out that such charges can stem from a pretty wide variety of actions. Look at Aaron Schwartz - he had access to JSTOR and tried to download all the files there. So they block his IP, and he spoofed his ID and tried again. They charged him with wire fraud for this.
laxentasken 10y ago
Money talks, thats why.
wbhart 10y ago
"NZ should offer the US to sue Doctcom in New Zealand or wherever his company resided in." The US already seized all his assets, and even denied him funds to defend himself, claiming he was a fugitive from justice (even though he hadn't gone anywhere). They also suggested that if funds were used to pay legal expenses, then those reimbursed (even US legal experts) could be considered part of the "criminal conspiracy". Moreover, they seized all the servers the business used to operate their business, not just infringing content, and then refused to maintain those servers, even for the purpose of preserving evidence Dotcom and co could use to defend themselves in the US. They don't want to sue him, because they already have everything. They want him, in a US prison, probably for the rest of his life.
- charlesdm 10y ago
  If the US government doesn't win this however, wouldn't they have to return most of his frozen assets?
  - wbhart 10y ago
    I imagine Dotcom will actually sue for damages if he wins.
    - StavrosK 10y ago
      He got extradited on bogus and far-fetched premises, I don't think he's going to win. The US wouldn't pull all these strings to get him extradited just so he could have a fair trial.
  - al_chemist 10y ago
    After all they've done, you still think they can lose?
    - charlesdm 10y ago
      Given he didn't have the resources to properly defend himself because they intentionally froze his assets (which in itself, is an unacceptable practice I think), I don't think so. Maybe a group of 2-3 judges in an appellate court will decide that protecting democracy is more important than "whoring out" (excuse my language) to US interests. It's a slippery slope, and all you need is one precedent. I don't like the guy at all, but this is just unacceptable in every way. Pathetic performance by the US really, if you can't even take on someone in a correct and ethical way, on equal footing.
mtgx 10y ago
> On top of that, many federal US prisons violate basic human rights, as even some US experts occasionally admit. This could be an interesting strategy to force the US to abide by international human rights treaties. You may not be able to take the U.S. to court over human rights violations, but the judiciary in other countries could start refusing to extradite people to the U.S., thus getting the U.S. government to take the issue more seriously. Of course, this would require that the judges in other countries kind of all agree to do this.
- mysticmarvel 10y ago
  The UK already refuses to extradite for criminal proceedings where the death penalty is a possibility. It must specifically be denied as an option for sentence prior to extradition being arranged. Having said that, what I've heard about the federal prison system makes me think that a coupe of injections and a permanent nap might actually be more humane. /s
veidr 10y ago
As an American, it's disheartening to see other advanced democracies succumbing to the same type of cancers that ruined my country. You either have the rule of law, or you don't. These farcical legal contortions to allow extradition are an embarrassment to New Zealand. Sadly, though, my American experience suggests that it's something most people will just slowly get used to. Eventually, the idea that the rule of law applies even in cases where powerful corporate lobbies are on one side, and there are none on the other side, starts to seem quaint. Although I confess I don't fully understand why American corporate interests can throw around such weight in New Zealand -- in this judgement, or in the original paramilitary raid on Dotcom's home, either. What's the hidden leverage?
- Chathamization 10y ago
  Also worth noting how arbitrary the rule of law has become in the U.S. There are a lot of little edge cases that are technically illegal but millions of people do them and they are generally ignored. However, if the government decides to go after you they'll examine every single tiny thing you've done to see if they can find something they can trump up charges for. The charges are often pretty shaky, by they threaten you with decades of prison time if you don't plead guilty. Most people agree because they're rather the certainty of a few years of probation or a year of house arrest than the possibility 20 years in prison.
  - mi100hael 10y ago
    https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229 https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp...
- fixermark 10y ago
  The US is NZ's third-largest trade partner. As of 2012, the US had $44 billion invested in NZ, which is about 30% of the NZ GDP between 2010-2015.
  - djsumdog 10y ago
    NZ is also the home of Wetta Digital (you'd be surprised how many major Hollywood films are animated in Wellington on the Wetta sound stages. They're not just the LoTR company), tons of mobile game companies (including PikPok, who Adult Swim contracts all their games through) and Rocket Labs (Auckland Rocket startup). The big one there is Wetta though. That's one reason the MPAA carries so much weight there. (Wetta is a shit shop btw. I wouldn't suggest taking their contracts. They work people 80+ hours a week during a production cycle. Unless you really love your work, it's a terrible environment).
greeneggs 10y ago
Sorry, I'm not up to speed on copyright infringement penalties in the US. Do you have examples of people who have been given life imprisonment for criminal copyright infringement? As I read it, the Wikipedia page says max five years for a first offense and max ten years for a second or subsequent offense. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_Copyright_Law_in_the_United_States#Legal_definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_Copyright_Law_in_the_...
- jpeanuts 10y ago
  Not the example you requested, but the threat of it, from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz#Arrest_and_prosecution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz#Arrest_and_prosec... > federal prosecutors filed a superseding indictment adding nine more felony counts, which increased Swartz's maximum criminal exposure to 50 years of imprisonment and $1 million in fines.[13][101][102] During plea negotiations with Swartz's attorneys, the prosecutors offered to recommend a sentence of six months in a low-security prison, if Swartz would plead guilty to 13 federal crimes.
  - ubernostrum 10y ago
    You want to read some of Popehat's articles on sentencing guidelines. Here's one that walks through the process: https://www.popehat.com/2013/03/26/cloudy-with-a-chance-of-shitty-journalism/ https://www.popehat.com/2013/03/26/cloudy-with-a-chance-of-s... Here's another, more hyperbolic one, showing how a claimed "facing 67 years" turns out to be more like "facing 24 months, and probably less than that": https://www.popehat.com/2013/02/05/crime-whale-sushi-sentence-eleventy-million-years/ https://www.popehat.com/2013/02/05/crime-whale-sushi-sentenc... But the short version is that describing a criminal case as "facing up to 50 years" is like describing a lottery ticket as "worth up to 50 million dollars", and you should probably believe both statements about equally until the sentencing happens (for the criminal case) or the winning numbers are drawn (for the lottery ticket).
    - EdHominem 10y ago
      It can be 67 years at the whim of the DA. The maximum punishment is very real and they're just itching to use it. If it was an unbiased roll of the dice that would be one thing, and the average and the distribution would be meaningful. But when it's arbitrary it doesn't matter what anyone else got, only what you'll get. And if you have any complaints about your treatment, etc, you're immediately in the full-penalty group.
gst 10y ago
Should have left the country and moved to Germany while he had the chance. Afaik Germany doesn't extradite its own citizens. Question to the legal experts here: Assuming he manages to board a German ship and to enter international waters (while officially not allowed to leave NZ). Would this be sufficient, or would international treaties allow NZ or the US to intercept that ship?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

tellarin 10y ago

I agree that the US prison system has many human rights issues, but Kim's extradition was approved due to the fraud and racketeering charges, not due to the copyright infringement accusations. No idea how it works if he's extradited and the US tries to prosecute him for the copyright infringement cases though.

shambolic 10y ago
The fraud and racketeering charges are a sham, manufactured to work around the non-extraditable copyright infringement charges.
rndgermandude 10y ago
"He [NZ Judge David Harvey] also confirmed that the charges in the indictment relating to money laundering, racketeering and wire fraud are not separate criminal acts but dependent on the claim of criminal secondary copyright infringement." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megaupload_legal_case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megaupload_legal_case which links the actual legal documents
Chathamization 10y ago
It's worth pointing out that such charges can stem from a pretty wide variety of actions. Look at Aaron Schwartz - he had access to JSTOR and tried to download all the files there. So they block his IP, and he spoofed his ID and tried again. They charged him with wire fraud for this.

laxentasken 10y ago

Money talks, thats why.

wbhart 10y ago

"NZ should offer the US to sue Doctcom in New Zealand or wherever his company resided in." The US already seized all his assets, and even denied him funds to defend himself, claiming he was a fugitive from justice (even though he hadn't gone anywhere). They also suggested that if funds were used to pay legal expenses, then those reimbursed (even US legal experts) could be considered part of the "criminal conspiracy". Moreover, they seized all the servers the business used to operate their business, not just infringing content, and then refused to maintain those servers, even for the purpose of preserving evidence Dotcom and co could use to defend themselves in the US. They don't want to sue him, because they already have everything. They want him, in a US prison, probably for the rest of his life.

charlesdm 10y ago
If the US government doesn't win this however, wouldn't they have to return most of his frozen assets?
- wbhart 10y ago
  I imagine Dotcom will actually sue for damages if he wins.
  - StavrosK 10y ago
    He got extradited on bogus and far-fetched premises, I don't think he's going to win. The US wouldn't pull all these strings to get him extradited just so he could have a fair trial.
- al_chemist 10y ago
  After all they've done, you still think they can lose?
  - charlesdm 10y ago
    Given he didn't have the resources to properly defend himself because they intentionally froze his assets (which in itself, is an unacceptable practice I think), I don't think so. Maybe a group of 2-3 judges in an appellate court will decide that protecting democracy is more important than "whoring out" (excuse my language) to US interests. It's a slippery slope, and all you need is one precedent. I don't like the guy at all, but this is just unacceptable in every way. Pathetic performance by the US really, if you can't even take on someone in a correct and ethical way, on equal footing.

mtgx 10y ago

> On top of that, many federal US prisons violate basic human rights, as even some US experts occasionally admit. This could be an interesting strategy to force the US to abide by international human rights treaties. You may not be able to take the U.S. to court over human rights violations, but the judiciary in other countries could start refusing to extradite people to the U.S., thus getting the U.S. government to take the issue more seriously. Of course, this would require that the judges in other countries kind of all agree to do this.

mysticmarvel 10y ago
The UK already refuses to extradite for criminal proceedings where the death penalty is a possibility. It must specifically be denied as an option for sentence prior to extradition being arranged. Having said that, what I've heard about the federal prison system makes me think that a coupe of injections and a permanent nap might actually be more humane. /s

veidr 10y ago

As an American, it's disheartening to see other advanced democracies succumbing to the same type of cancers that ruined my country. You either have the rule of law, or you don't. These farcical legal contortions to allow extradition are an embarrassment to New Zealand. Sadly, though, my American experience suggests that it's something most people will just slowly get used to. Eventually, the idea that the rule of law applies even in cases where powerful corporate lobbies are on one side, and there are none on the other side, starts to seem quaint. Although I confess I don't fully understand why American corporate interests can throw around such weight in New Zealand -- in this judgement, or in the original paramilitary raid on Dotcom's home, either. What's the hidden leverage?

Chathamization 10y ago
Also worth noting how arbitrary the rule of law has become in the U.S. There are a lot of little edge cases that are technically illegal but millions of people do them and they are generally ignored. However, if the government decides to go after you they'll examine every single tiny thing you've done to see if they can find something they can trump up charges for. The charges are often pretty shaky, by they threaten you with decades of prison time if you don't plead guilty. Most people agree because they're rather the certainty of a few years of probation or a year of house arrest than the possibility 20 years in prison.
- mi100hael 10y ago
  https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229 https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp...
fixermark 10y ago
The US is NZ's third-largest trade partner. As of 2012, the US had $44 billion invested in NZ, which is about 30% of the NZ GDP between 2010-2015.
- djsumdog 10y ago
  NZ is also the home of Wetta Digital (you'd be surprised how many major Hollywood films are animated in Wellington on the Wetta sound stages. They're not just the LoTR company), tons of mobile game companies (including PikPok, who Adult Swim contracts all their games through) and Rocket Labs (Auckland Rocket startup). The big one there is Wetta though. That's one reason the MPAA carries so much weight there. (Wetta is a shit shop btw. I wouldn't suggest taking their contracts. They work people 80+ hours a week during a production cycle. Unless you really love your work, it's a terrible environment).

greeneggs 10y ago

Sorry, I'm not up to speed on copyright infringement penalties in the US. Do you have examples of people who have been given life imprisonment for criminal copyright infringement? As I read it, the Wikipedia page says max five years for a first offense and max ten years for a second or subsequent offense. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_Copyright_Law_in_the_United_States#Legal_definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_Copyright_Law_in_the_...

jpeanuts 10y ago
Not the example you requested, but the threat of it, from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz#Arrest_and_prosecution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz#Arrest_and_prosec... > federal prosecutors filed a superseding indictment adding nine more felony counts, which increased Swartz's maximum criminal exposure to 50 years of imprisonment and $1 million in fines.[13][101][102] During plea negotiations with Swartz's attorneys, the prosecutors offered to recommend a sentence of six months in a low-security prison, if Swartz would plead guilty to 13 federal crimes.
- ubernostrum 10y ago
  You want to read some of Popehat's articles on sentencing guidelines. Here's one that walks through the process: https://www.popehat.com/2013/03/26/cloudy-with-a-chance-of-shitty-journalism/ https://www.popehat.com/2013/03/26/cloudy-with-a-chance-of-s... Here's another, more hyperbolic one, showing how a claimed "facing 67 years" turns out to be more like "facing 24 months, and probably less than that": https://www.popehat.com/2013/02/05/crime-whale-sushi-sentence-eleventy-million-years/ https://www.popehat.com/2013/02/05/crime-whale-sushi-sentenc... But the short version is that describing a criminal case as "facing up to 50 years" is like describing a lottery ticket as "worth up to 50 million dollars", and you should probably believe both statements about equally until the sentencing happens (for the criminal case) or the winning numbers are drawn (for the lottery ticket).
  - EdHominem 10y ago
    It can be 67 years at the whim of the DA. The maximum punishment is very real and they're just itching to use it. If it was an unbiased roll of the dice that would be one thing, and the average and the distribution would be meaningful. But when it's arbitrary it doesn't matter what anyone else got, only what you'll get. And if you have any complaints about your treatment, etc, you're immediately in the full-penalty group.

gst 10y ago

Should have left the country and moved to Germany while he had the chance. Afaik Germany doesn't extradite its own citizens. Question to the legal experts here: Assuming he manages to board a German ship and to enter international waters (while officially not allowed to leave NZ). Would this be sufficient, or would international treaties allow NZ or the US to intercept that ship?

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]