Vault Citizen said:
SteewpidZombie said:
Vault Citizen said:
SteewpidZombie said:
I dunno if I can agree with Britain on this one. Because he hacked the American Military, I think it would be fair to at-least give him a trial under a American court. BUT! Before people flip shit at me! I would support an alternative of him serving his sentence or punishment in Britain under the British legal system.
So basically he would get a American Trial for committing crimes against the United States, but his punishment must be carried out by the British system, and any ruling against him would have to fall within British Legalities.
Which means that if in America they gave him a Death Sentence, he would probably only get a Life Sentence in Britain if they don't believe in death sentencing.
The courts are currently considering whether or not to bring charges against him so he could still receive punishment, and no we haven't had the death penalty for decades over here.
I'm glad he hasn't been extradited, I don't believe he truly understood what was doing and I don't trust the US to not give him a dramatically disproportionate punishment.
One really good result of this is that extradition will now be sorted by the courts, who are, in my opinion the best people to sort it out.
While I do agree he may not have known what he was doing, I'd at-least charge him with some sort of minor felony such as illegal use of gathering information. Because if he can go and hack a Military's computer system on THAT kind of level, he must still have something going on in his brain that allows him to function on a normal level.
So while I can see the United States taking a extreme stance against him in a court of law, I think it's the only 'Fair' way to at-least get both sides to have a mutually satisfied conclusion. Even if it's just bringing in a few American Lawyers and having them present a case in a British court. So long as the case is presented by, and explained by a American legal team, I'm sure that they'd be fine with the British courts deciding on the actual charges IF they decided to press any.
Because if Mental Disability were a strong defense, then people would be able to get away with Murder and Theft all the time. It'll probably come down to assessing how much damage he actually caused, and figuring out whether or not he should be held directly responsible. Maybe the U.S. will even overlook the entire case if Britain is willing to financially compensate the U.S. for the number of computers that were completely rendered useless.
I'm sure people would still see it as a victory for Britain in defending the rights of it's people, and protecting a citizen from being taken away by a foreign power.
Personally I'd like to know if the US presented any proof that their damage assessment was accurate.
Why would we pay out for the computers? Even if the damage wer proven we didn't bust up the computers, America will just have to settle for what punishment he is given.
Britain wants to protect the guy who is obviously guilty of committing a crime against a foreign nation, which would normally land someone into YEARS of imprisonment. It'd be the same if an American hacked the British military, and yet the United States let him off the hook.
So if you want to maintain peaceful ties with foreign nations, while still protecting your own citizens, sometimes you have to appeal to the foreign power. Americans want him tried for committing a crime against America, while Britain wants to protect him and charge him in his own country. BUT if Britain decides not to charge him with anything, Americans are going to be REALLY pissed, and it could result in the next American citizen who commits a crime in Britain being let off the hook as a result of animosity.
It all comes down to trying to make EVERYONE happy. If one side feels wronged, then it damages their relations and might have a long term impact on the opinions on how foreign laws should be treated. So if Britain decides not to punish the guy PERIOD, then they'll probably have to make some sort of compromise such as paying for the damaged computers.
Think of it as a personal crime. If someone wrecked your computer, or hacked into your personal information, and some stupid laws were protecting the criminal. You would atleast want to have your computer replaced, and your information to never get leaked.