2 ms·
> if country A thinks that someone from country B has commited a crime against them then they should come to that country and prove it in a court without being
by Nursie 5y ago
> if country A thinks that someone from country B has commited a crime against them then they should come to that country and prove it in a court without being able to add additional charges
Generally if someone wants to extradite from the UK to the US (for instance) there will be extradition hearings to decide whether the request is reasonable, whether there is a case to answer, and things will be guaranteed in line with the rights of the UK individual - for instance if the crime in the US could be punished with death, the UK will require that be taken off the table before extradition. They would also seek assurances of the treatment of their citizen.
The exact resolution to this -
> for example, 20 years instead of 4 years and additionally he can be charged with crimes that are not a crime in his country and wouldn't allow to extradite him
Is likely contained in the treaties between countries. It seems to me that such a treaty should absolutely have a "that's not even a crime here" provision, but I have no real idea if they do.
The problem with internet crime in particular is the question of where it was committed. If I sit here in my office in Australia, log on to a compromised server in South America somewhere, and from there I compromise an American individual's home PC and empty their bank account, where is the crime taking place? Where the perp is, or where the victim is? It's not that straightforward.
- codedokode 5y ago> for instance if the crime in the US could be punished with death, the UK will require that be taken off the table before extradition. I am surprised that anyone can be fooled by this. If USA cannot sentence someone to death, they still can sentence him to 500 years in prison which is basically the same and doesn't violate any agreements. > Is likely contained in the treaties between countries. It seems to me that such a treaty should absolutely have a "that's not even a crime here" provision, but I have no real idea if they do Obviously there is no such rules. The article mentions that if the owner of the server would get extradited from North Korea to USA he could get more strict punishment.
- Nursie 5y ago> If USA cannot sentence someone to death, they still can sentence him to 500 years in prison which is basically the same It's not considered the same by countries which (for instance) have indefinite detention for the worst offenders, but do not have the death penalty. > Obviously there is no such rules. The article mentions that if the owner of the server would get extradited from North Korea to USA he could get more strict punishment. As I said, that's likely to come down to the individual treaties. But in this case it was considered a crime in his home nation, just not anywhere near as serious a crime.