3 ms·

In this case we're talking about crimes that were committed in the UK, and handing a mentally-ill person over to a foreign government where he has fuck-all chan

In this case we're talking about crimes that were committed in the UK, and handing a mentally-ill person over to a foreign government where he has fuck-all chance of receiving a sentence that the UK would consider proportional to the offences. The UK government does have a burden of responsibility to its citizens, even ones who have committed crimes. But again. The guy was sat in his bedroom in the UK throughout the assumed criminal activity. From where I'm standing this fails even the 'reasonable suspicion' test unless the State Department is alleging that McKinnon somehow made a trip to the US that isn't currently in evidence to perform his attacks.

tptacek 16y ago
This argument suggests that it's impossible for someone "in their bedroom" in the UK to commit a crime that warrants a trial in the US. That's not how UK law works and it's not how US law works. Note that the UK is also a signatory to treaties with the rest of Europe that stipulate the same thing as the US stipulates. If that's what you believe, that's fine, but there's no middle ground for us to come to, no understanding for us to build here. I'm willing to entertain the issue of hardship (hardship is something taken into consideration in US sentencing, after all), but the idea that crimes are unreal or have special jurisdiction simply because they occur on computer networks is hard for me to even consider. Meanwhile, the rest of your argument boils down to, "I believe the UK criminal justice system is so much better than the US criminal justice system that we shouldn't extradite there". Uh, ok. For over 100 years your country has been a signatory to a treaty that disregards any such belief. Who's to say this is even a factually viable argument? The rights of the accused in the US and the UK are different. In particular, criminal defendents in the US are protected by the 5th Amendment (courts in the UK can make negative determinations based on your refusal to testify against yourself) and the 4th Amendment (the US has a formal presumption that searches are unreasonable unless shown otherwise). Sentencing in the UK may be more lenient for computer crime offenders, but McKinnon may also be easier to convict there.

tptacek 16y ago

This argument suggests that it's impossible for someone "in their bedroom" in the UK to commit a crime that warrants a trial in the US. That's not how UK law works and it's not how US law works. Note that the UK is also a signatory to treaties with the rest of Europe that stipulate the same thing as the US stipulates. If that's what you believe, that's fine, but there's no middle ground for us to come to, no understanding for us to build here. I'm willing to entertain the issue of hardship (hardship is something taken into consideration in US sentencing, after all), but the idea that crimes are unreal or have special jurisdiction simply because they occur on computer networks is hard for me to even consider. Meanwhile, the rest of your argument boils down to, "I believe the UK criminal justice system is so much better than the US criminal justice system that we shouldn't extradite there". Uh, ok. For over 100 years your country has been a signatory to a treaty that disregards any such belief. Who's to say this is even a factually viable argument? The rights of the accused in the US and the UK are different. In particular, criminal defendents in the US are protected by the 5th Amendment (courts in the UK can make negative determinations based on your refusal to testify against yourself) and the 4th Amendment (the US has a formal presumption that searches are unreasonable unless shown otherwise). Sentencing in the UK may be more lenient for computer crime offenders, but McKinnon may also be easier to convict there.