Gary McKinnon

[andrewducker]

Can anyone explain to me, in nice simple English, why we shouldn't be extraditing a convicted hacker to the country where he commited the crime?  It really does seem like an open and shut case to me, and I'm baffled why some people seem to think it's wrong.

I'm clearly missing something - can someone explain it to me?

Comments

[meihua.livejournal.com]

I'm not saying you do, but if you hold the position that extradition should be available to both countries, you should oppose the extradition of Gary McKinnon. The existing treaty is essentially one-way, in that UK citizens can be extradited to the US but not vice versa.

[andrewducker]

That's not actually true. You can be extradited _without evidence_ to the USA, (and Australia, Canada and New Zealand) - everywhere else in the world they need to have enough evidence to convict.

And it has now been ratified - it was ratified in 2006, three years after we put it into action ourselves. which means it's reciprocal, and has been for three years.

See here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_Act_2003

[meihua.livejournal.com]

Mmkay, maybe I'm wrong there. I've been told by people who know about laws and stuff that, practically speaking, the US can extradite and we can't. But I don't have direct evidence to back that up.

[lebeautemps.livejournal.com]

Extradition should be reciprocal, yes. My source confirms that this has been the case for some time - as well as the Act itself, there are long-standing guidelines as to the process, which sound completely sensible and even-handed for both sides.

Apart from whether this chap will get a fair hearing, there is a financial principle: if this chap has committed a crime and if the victims of that crime want to bring charges, or have charges brought on their behalf, shouldn't it the victim country that pays for the costs of prosecution? The alternative is that the UK Taxpayer foots the bill for a UK-based case which is not reasonable.