Poll: Should Gary McKinnon be extradited to the US for hacking?

Should he?

  • Yes

    Votes: 232 19.5%

  • No

    Votes: 823 69.3%

  • I don't like poles

    Votes: 132 11.1%
  • Total voters
    1,187
The guy did wrong and openly admits that - the crime was effectively committed on US soil therefore it makes sense for him to extradited. However, why is this extradition agreement one way traffic surely this agreement should be scrapped until there is an equal and fair agreement for the UK. The proposed amount of time is crazy for the crime committed. It simply comes down to sloppy security - some very embarrassed people and a chance to set an example to save face. And as for the Aspergers defence that is crazy also. If he has Aspergers then he has an Autistic Spectrum Disorder - the emphasis being on spectrum it can be quite disabling it can be quite insignificant. It's not a black and white thing. His case was reviewed on its merits and his disease manifestation.
 
dirtydog said:
So if I go to Germany with the intention of driving at 120mph on the autobahn, I have broken UK law? No I don't think I have.
Click to expand...

No you haven't because there is no UK law stating you cannot go to Germany and drive 120mph on the autobahn (unless you are very careful though you will probably break a german law as most of the autobahns have speed limits these days).

For sex tourism the law you are breaking is a UK law.
 
Child Sex Tourism is an addendum. Paedophilia is not really the same as driving a bit faster is it? Odd discussion, unrelated.
 
RDM said:
No you haven't because there is no UK law stating you cannot go to Germany and drive 120mph on the autobahn (unless you are very careful though you will probably break a german law as most of the autobahns have speed limits these days).

For sex tourism the law you are breaking is a UK law.
Click to expand...
But is it a fair law that controls what an adult does in another legal jurisdiction? UK law has no jurisdiction once you set foot off British soil.

I don't think anyone can really argue that it is a just principle.
 
maustin said:
However, why is this extradition agreement one way traffic surely this agreement should be scrapped until there is an equal and fair agreement for the UK.
Click to expand...

It isn't one way, there is a slight discrepency in level of proof and that is purely down to the US constitution. If the situation was reversed there would be more than enough evidence to support an American Gary being extradited to the UK. However there is no real need for hackers as we just tend to leave the information on a train instead.
 
Moley said:
It matters a lot. What if - for example - hacking wasn't a crime in this country?

Would you expect him to be extradited to america in that case?

If so, how long before we start sending people abroad for things that are crimes in other countries but not this that don't involve the internet?

It's a slippery slope....

EDIT: Just to be clear, I think he's an idiot and definately guilty but he committed the offence in this country and should be tried and punished in this country.
Click to expand...

I mean in this case then, this case it makes sense to send him to the USA, don't know about any other ones
 
RDM said:
It isn't one way, there is a slight discrepency in level of proof and that is purely down to the US constitution. If the situation was reversed there would be more than enough evidence to support an American Gary being extradited to the UK.
Click to expand...

Well your definition of slight and mine must be rather different.

RDM said:
However there is no real need for hackers as we just tend to leave the information on a train instead.
Click to expand...

:D Good point!
 
RDM said:
No you wouldn't. You would be viewed as someone that has had sex with someone under the age of consent in the eyes of madagascan law. It is going to be a VERY unusual 20 year old for peadophile to be the right description.
Click to expand...

Yes, you are probably right but if in foreign countries they have a different definition of "children" to us and as such push up the age of consent you can see how they might view the English as rotten - and of course it wouldn't be unusual for 16 year olds to still be classed as children would it?
 
dirtydog said:
But is it a fair law that controls what an adult does in another legal jurisdiction? UK law has no jurisdiction once you set foot off British soil.

I don't think anyone can really argue that it is a just principle.
Click to expand...

I believe that there are quite a few laws in the UK that have universal jurisdiction so it isn't all that unusual.

dirtydog said:
I think the subject of jurisdiction is on topic; McKinnon carried out his act of hacking under British jurisdiction.
Click to expand...

Only if you consider jurisdiction as a purely physical thing. In this case the law seems to suggest that it is the digital presence that matters for jurisdiction. So doing a DOS attack from somewhere outside of the UK would not make you immune to prosecution in the UK.

Moley said:
Yes, you are probably right but if in foreign countries they have a different definition of "children" to us and as such push up the age of consent you can see how they might view the English as rotten - and of course it wouldn't be unusual for 16 year olds to still be classed as children would it?
Click to expand...

It was the word "peadophile" that is the problem. Despite the Daily Mail it does have a specific meaning and few if 16 year olds will fall under that meaning.
 
No, why should be be punished for making someone look stupid.
If they're too stupid to keep out one bloke and his computer they're the ones who should be in the ****, it's their national security.
 
I get around said:
No, why should be be punished for making someone look stupid.
If they're too stupid to keep out one bloke and his computer they're the ones who should be in the ****, it's their national security.
Click to expand...

I love this attitude, classic example of "complete and utter crap". :D

I'm off to rob a bank - but it's their fault if I manage to do it for not buying enough guns or a good enough security system.
 
I wouldn't have a problem with the evil mastermind and international terrorist Gary McKinnon being tried in a court in a relatively civilised country like the UK.

However in the good old Christian Fundamentalist USofA where one Government official said that he "would like to see him 'fry'" and others have suggested that he was a terrorist who carried out the "biggest ever military computer hack", I really don't think he would be likely to get a fair trial or reasonable sentence.

Add into the equation that he was offered a plea bargain which the US said it felt free to ignore if it felt like it and it is difficult to have much faith in their system.


Incidentally, I guess that senior teenage American legal officers have never heard of the "Chaos Computer Club", Markus Hess or Karl Koch.
 
RDM said:
It was the word "peadophile" that is the problem. Despite the Daily Mail it does have a specific meaning and few if 16 year olds will fall under that meaning.
Click to expand...

Isn't the meaning someone who finds children sexually attractive? Aren't 16 year old's still classed as children?

:confused:
 
jp_bl_68 said:
Prepubescent children.
Click to expand...

It's not limited to prepubescent children though - post-pubescent adults can be classed as victims of paedophilia too.

Interestingly enough according to Hansards there is no legal definition of a paedophile...

Lords Hansard said:
Lord Robertson of Oakridge asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether a legal definition has been established for the term “paedophile".[HL4023]

Lord Bassam of Brighton: As my noble and learned friend Lord Williams of Mostyn explained in answer to the question asked by the noble Lord on 14 October 1997 (WA 113), there is no legal definition of the word “paedophile" in English law. However, there are a number of offences under which those who sexually abuse children can be prosecuted.

This area of the law is being examined as part of the current sexual offences review which has, as one of its principal aims, to make recommendations on clear and coherent offences that will protect the individual, particularly children and the more vulnerable, from abuse and exploitation. I cannot predict the outcome of this review but it is not clear whether there would be any merit in importing the use of the word “paedophile" into English law and attempting to define it.
Click to expand...

EDIT: Surprised at the part in bold. Not sure what to make of it really.
 
I suppose it means that current laws are sufficient to deal with those that abuse children and the vulnerable. Bringing the word 'paedophile' into things could only confuse matters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom