I can think of a number of differences between the cases (I'm not in a position to say which, if any, factored into the decisions of either the courts or the ho

I can think of a number of differences between the cases (I'm not in a position to say which, if any, factored into the decisions of either the courts or the home secretary): * McKinnon is a British citizen, Assange is not. * If proven, Assange's crimes were in Sweden. IMO, the jurisdiction(s) McKinnon should be subject to is less clear - he was in the UK, but the targeted network was in the US. * McKinnon was fighting extradition due to mental illness and protection of his human rights; Assange was fighting over EAW procedures/political extradition etc. (I can't remember the exact legal argument put forward). * Assange is to be extradited with the EU. Very broadly speaking, this means that the legal systems and human rights protections are more closely aligned (for example, both the UK and Sweden are subject to EU law, and both have ratified the ECHR). This influences both political and public perception of the extradition. * Various other political considerations (e.g. Assange's association with WikiLeaks). * The crimes of which they are accused - I suspect that accessing the US government network is perceived by the public to be largely a victimless crime (in that it is not possible to say a specific person was harmed by the actions), but sexual assault obviously is not. As far as I am aware, the courts reached effectively the same decision in both cases. The final decision is extradite or not is taken by the Home Secretary, so is to some extent a political decision.