3 ms·
This sounds like a clever point, but really isn't. Extradition requires that the crime is also a crime under the local laws. The argument is being made (quite
by ErrantX 15y ago
This sounds like a clever point, but really isn't. Extradition requires that the crime is also a crime under the local laws.
The argument is being made (quite rightly I think) is that what he did was not illegal under British law.
So perhaps it is a good comparison :)
- jcampbell1 15y agoIf he committed no crime under British laws, I guarantee he would not have been eligible for extradition. The article is so thin on substance that it is hard to formulate an intelligent opinion on the matter. Edit: I just skimmed the PDF, and the kid argued that he shouldn't be extradited for three reasons: 1) Not illegal in both countries 2) US copyright punishment is "unjust or oppressive" 3) An extradition would be "disproportionate" relative to the crime. I agree with points #2 and #3, but not #1. I think #3 is the strongest argument. Copyright infringement is not a severe enough impediment to other's natural freedoms to merit sending a citizen to a foreign country to face charges.
- ErrantX 15y agoAbsolutely. In this case I think it is possible to argue (rather than it being cut and dried) about the legality in the UK - at least to a reasonable degree. If the judge decides it is then, fine, that's what he rules :) I agree; #3 is the most compelling. If anything it's the same reason the CPS declined a UK prosecution (because to do so would be disproportionate).
- jcampbell1 15y agoThis whole thing is nuts. A case where there are proportionally as many UK victims as US victims, but the UK declines to prosecute should not be eligible for extradition. It does't pass a stink test, nor a "disproportionate" test.
- arethuza 15y ago"Extradition requires that the crime is also a crime under the local laws." We should perhaps also require that the likely punishment be comparable.