McKinnon to be extradited

[AtW]

Found it myself; I thought "plea bargaining" was something that only happened in TV dramas.

The LibDems have commented on it better than most online sites I can find:

"Representing McKinnon in the House of Lords on 16 June 2008, David Pannick QC told the Law Lords that the prosecutors had said McKinnon faced a possible 8–10 years in jail if he contested the charges (there were seven counts), but only 37–46 months if he co-operated and went voluntarily to the US. McKinnon also claimed that he had been told that he could serve part of his sentence in the UK if he co-operated. He had rejected the plea bargain offer because the Americans would not guarantee these concessions."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_McKinnon

He'd be out in 2 years, probably less - I don't know how exactly he wanted the Americans to "guarantee" him that, maybe kiss his arse or something: as far as I can see they traced him and got him, he is lucky they offered him plea bargain at all in the first place.

It is common to get longer prison term if charges are contested - it is the case in the UK, so all this "blackmail" claims is a joke - what do you want prosecutors to beg criminal to plea bargain?

[PM-Junkie]

Perhaps the know-alls on CUK might like to reflect on the fact that forming their opinion by combining their political and demographic bias with the garbage they read in the press, and then passing themselves off as some kind of expert, merely makes them look foolish.

The debate shouldn't be what this guy did or didn't do, because let's face it unless you have actually spoken to this guy you are not going to know the facts (and perhaps not even then)....the debate should be this utterly farcical treaty "we" have signed with the USA. And the nature of that treaty is undeniable because you can read the treaty itself.

When you look at what Blair/Brown and their cronies have done over the last 12 years (wars, treaties, allegedly suspicious deaths etc), they shouldn't even be allowed to stand at the next election let alone stand a chance of winning it.

[centurian]

He has effectively been blackmailed by the US authorities to plead guilty

Blackmail is an overreactive term to something that is a normal part of the US legal system, especially given that it happens here as well. If you plead guilty at the outset in the UK, the judge will almost certainly give you a lower sentance.

The main difference between the US and UK "plea bargains" is
a) In the US, the difference between the "plea" sentance is a non plea sentance is a significant amount.
b) It's far more visible what's happening, although be under no illusions it happens in the UK.
c) The consequences of turning down the deal are more evident.

[threaded]

Blackmail is an overreactive term to something that is a normal part of the US legal system, especially given that it happens here as well. If you plead guilty at the outset in the UK, the judge will almost certainly give you a lower sentance.

The main difference between the US and UK "plea bargains" is
a) In the US, the difference between the "plea" sentance is a non plea sentance is a significant amount.
b) It's far more visible what's happening, although be under no illusions it happens in the UK.
c) The consequences of turning down the deal are more evident.

Yes, so what tends to happen in America is if you're poor you'll plead guilty because the risks and costs involved in pleading not guilty are pretty onerous.

That's not justice. Extraditing anyone anywhere that has such a justice system feels wrong.

[centurian]

Yes, so what tends to happen in America is if you're poor you'll plead guilty because the risks and costs involved in pleading not guilty are pretty onerous.

And how different is it here. What do you think a formal caution is ? Or a fixed penalty notice ? It's a plea bargain. With disclosure rules, cautions have effectively become "a conviction without punishment" nowadays anyway.

Jimmy Carr got off on various motoring offences because he could afford "Mr Loophole".

You don't have to take the deal. But it's no good whingeing about getting a tougher sentance aftewards.

That's not justice. Extraditing anyone anywhere that has such a justice system feels wrong.

Utter codswallop. The US justice system isn't perfect, but it meets standards of a fair system.

[AtW]

If you plead guilty at the outset in the UK, the judge will almost certainly give you a lower sentance.

In this case I think the guidance is to give 33% less sentence, in the USA it appears to be around 50%, this would also help get out after serving half the time in jail also, thus effectively he would have had 25% of the time in USA he most certainly deserved to get: this what was US prosecutors were confident they can prove and did not want to go much more than that as it would be waste of taxpayers money, right now however he raised stakes so high that it forces hand on the other side to go and prove other crimes he may have committed.

There is just one person to blame for his predicament - he himself is responsible for it.

--

Now the treaty is indeed one sided and should not have been enacted in it's current form.

Before you bash USA for their attitude to criminals consider that they at least go after them, where as UK allows criminals buy football clubs (like him for example) and otherwise launder massive amounts of money with no questions asked.

Did UK care about bankers on it's soil involved in Enron faud? No! But USA got some of them despite their best efforts and as soon as they landed there they pleaded guilty whilst insisting they were innocent when they were still here.

Source: http://www.channel4.com/news/article...uilty+/1116447

In this case guy doesn't even pretend he is guilty - he should have been on the first plane there as soon as made clear public statement about his involvement in it.

[minestrone]

I also don't buy his "autism" thing - it's a total lie IMO.

He is a very bad cause to support fighting extraditions.

So you have a medical degree and you have had a chance to examine him?

[AtW]

So you have a medical degree and you have had a chance to examine him?

He claims autism. According to Wikipedia - "Autism is a disorder of neural development that is characterized by impaired social interaction and communication, and by restricted and repetitive behavior."

I do not have a medical degree, just like most of those on the jury won't have it when they get faced with similar question.

I've seen him giving interviews, he did very very well, he runs public campaign, talks to many people - I am not a doctor, but if this is how commuications and social interaction is impared by autism then I would not mind having one myself.

A simpler answer of course is that he is a liar and clutching straws, which would have been fine if it wasn't at taxpayers expense, but even if it wasn't, he is a terrible choice to support in correct fight against one sided laws: he is a confessed criminal who does not deny what he did, if he disputes damage figures then he should be doing in in US court.

[minestrone]

He claims autism. According to Wikipedia - "Autism is a disorder of neural development that is characterized by impaired social interaction and communication, and by restricted and repetitive behavior."

I do not have a medical degree, just like most of those on the jury won't have it when they get faced with similar question.

I've seen him giving interviews, he did very very well, he runs public campaign, talks to many people - I am not a doctor, but if this is how commuications and social interaction is impared by autism then I would not mind having one myself.

A simpler answer of course is that he is a liar and clutching straws, which would have been fine if it wasn't at taxpayers expense, but even if it wasn't, he is a terrible choice to support in correct fight against one sided laws: he is a confessed criminal who does not deny what he did, if he disputes damage figures then he should be doing in in US court.

Yes but they will have a doctor that will be questioned in front of them on the condition and if that condition describes what the person has.

You are diagnosing someone who you have never met and you admit that you have no training to do so. Better yet you are quoting stuff from wikipedia to back up your diagnosis.

[TheFaQQer]

He claims autism. According to Wikipedia - "Autism is a disorder of neural development that is characterized by impaired social interaction and communication, and by restricted and repetitive behavior."

I do not have a medical degree, just like most of those on the jury won't have it when they get faced with similar question.

I've seen him giving interviews, he did very very well, he runs public campaign, talks to many people - I am not a doctor, but if this is how commuications and social interaction is impared by autism then I would not mind having one myself.

A simpler answer of course is that he is a liar and clutching straws, which would have been fine if it wasn't at taxpayers expense, but even if it wasn't, he is a terrible choice to support in correct fight against one sided laws: he is a confessed criminal who does not deny what he did, if he disputes damage figures then he should be doing in in US court.

He suffers from Aspergers, a high-functioning form of autism. Your (as ever) insightful and expert views on another subject show just how little you know.

Medically, there is a whole range of illnesses that cover the autistic spectrum, from Rainman to high functioning sufferers. It's not a particularly pleasant thing to deal with, either as sufferer or family member.

Having seen your communication and social skills at work, then maybe you would indeed be blessed if you suffered from high functioning autism. However, bear in mind that autism is not something that is black and white - it's not like having flu.