Poll: Should Gary McKinnon be extradited to the US for hacking?
- Thread starter Wiggins
- Start date
I hope you've never warezed anything belonging to a US copyright holder lest you be whisked off to face trial in a US court eh
If I did I would have no complaints.
Then again, I don't think the US would extradite me for that unless I was some warez baron.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Feb 2007
- Posts
- 13,445
- Location
- London
yeah sorry , i may have worded it wrong
Permabanned
- Joined
- 10 Dec 2008
- Posts
- 4,080
- Location
- London
The only trouble I have with it is the fact that it will be a 'kangaroo court'.
Give him a fair trial in a neutral country. If he's found guilty -- off to the US for special man-friend time...
Give him a fair trial in a neutral country. If he's found guilty -- off to the US for special man-friend time...
Why do you think that? The US system isn't all that far removed from ours (it being based on ours in the first place).
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.
We already practise that principle under UK law. One example is child sex tourism, you can be prosecuted in Britain, for doing something in another country which is legal THERE, but illegal here. Even though you didn't actually do it here.
I think it is the thin end of the wedge.
As far as I am aware if it isn't a crime in this country you cannot be extradited to another country. So that pretty much stops the slippery slope argument.
You think prosecuting people for child sex tourism is the thin end of the wedge?
Out of interest, can a British citizen get prosecuted for using Marijuana in Amsterdam?
I think if you adhere to the law in your current jurisdiction, in a legal sense you haven't committed a crime.
Or do you think an American citizen who has sex with a 17 year old in the UK, should be arrested and tried on charges of underage sex upon their return to the US?
I don't know. I expect even if the law allows for this possibility, the CPS wouldn't bother because even being caught using it in this country you are only likely to receive a caution anyway.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 10 Dec 2008
- Posts
- 4,080
- Location
- London
Because there's so much pressure on the case.
Exactly the same as if Bin Laden was caught alive and went to trial in the US. You really think the US could -- after all the effort -- have a verdict of 'On hearing the evidence we find you .. 100% Innocent. OK, feel free to pop back to Afghanistan Bin Laden -- sorry for the bother ... it really was a terrible mistake we made .. oops accept our apologies ... '
!
Just simply couldn't happen. Hence kangeroo court .. only 1 verdict actually possible .. almost pointless to have the trial ...
Of course not. You can't get prosecuted for driving at 80 on an autobahn just because the speed limit is 70 in the UK either, that's why all these places have different laws, and not the same ones.
Child sex is one of the single most emotive subjects we could possibly try to talk about, the fact is that there are different laws in different countries regarding the age of consent.
Some countries have no defined age of consent, some have different ages depending on where you live. In the USA for example it varies from state to state.
Madagascar has an age of consent of 21 years of age - anyone here who has had sex with a 16, 17, 18, 19 or 20 year old would be viewed as a paedophile in the eyes of madagascan law.
Who is right and who is wrong?
Some countries have no defined age of consent, some have different ages depending on where you live. In the USA for example it varies from state to state.
Madagascar has an age of consent of 21 years of age - anyone here who has had sex with a 16, 17, 18, 19 or 20 year old would be viewed as a paedophile in the eyes of madagascan law.
Who is right and who is wrong?
You have though, you have commited the crime of going abroad to have sex with an underage child. That is the UK law you are breaking not the law in the country you visit to have sex with children.
Probably very difficult to do in the US because there is no national age of consent, it is a state by state issue (with the majority being 16). If individual states have a law saying "You cannot go abroad and have sex with people under the age of consent in our state" then it is possible that they could get convicted on their return.
I don't understand how this holds true then:
Why is it different for having sex with a 15 year old in Spain when it's not illegal there?
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.
The difference is that the law you are breaking is actually a UK law and the law of the home country has no impact on it.