back to article Lauri Love and Gary McKinnon's lawyer, UK supporters rally around Marcus Hutchins

Marcus Hutchins’ British supporters believe his best chance of getting home within the next few years is to accept a plea deal with US prosecutors, some of them opined last night. Nobody present appeared to seriously believe that Hutchins is guilty, but knowledge of the US legal system's slant against defendants did not appear …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    But...

    Will the 'Prosecure to the Max' legion of US District Attourneys accept a plea of anything less than 25-life especially where he does jail time outside of a solitary in SuperMax prison? eg, come back here to serve his time...

    Somehow I doubt it.

    As was quoted in the BBC Podacst 'Beyond a Reasonable Doubt', 'He's spending six million on his defence, of couse he is going to get off'. He can't afford to fight this.

    The moral is clearly, don't go to Trump's USA if you have done anything worse than get a few parking tickets.

    1. kain preacher

      Re: But...

      A few things to get straight mate. In the US the prosecutor has no say so in what prison you go to. Secondly super max is only for violent offenders or people who commit repeat criminal offense behind bars. Thirdly isolation is for punishment when you screw up in prison the prosecutor can not ask for it. Lastly I don;t know why people in here seem to be caught up with this idea that every one will get these supper long prison sentence . First off the crime is accused of caps at 20 years. It's very rare for a first time offender to get the max for a non violent crime.,

      1. Tom 38

        Re: But...

        Lastly I don;t know why people in here seem to be caught up with this idea that every one will get these supper long prison sentence

        Because that is how US justice works; tariffs have very flexible ranges, and they charge you with something ridiculous and over the top that, if convicted, will keep you in prison for ages. They then follow up with a plea bargain offer for something much more reasonable, because that then counts as a "win" for both police and DA without any of that pesky evidence crap or convincing 12 other people.

        PS: Supper long prison sentences would massively reduce the overcrowding in prison cells.

        1. Ian Michael Gumby
          Trollface

          @Tom Re: But...

          PS: Supper long prison sentences would massively reduce the overcrowding in prison cells.

          But what will they give you for dessert ?

      2. kmac499

        Re: But...

        "First off the crime is accused of caps at 20 years."

        Where we come from that is a long time. But I suppose compared to the centruy plus terms some inmates are serving it's a breeze.

        1. kain preacher

          Re: But...

          I was a responding to the poster that suggest he was up for life.

        2. P. Lee
          Headmaster

          Re: But...

          >"First off the crime is accused of caps at 20 years."

          Next time, don't shout in your email.

      3. Sir Runcible Spoon

        Re: But...

        "Thirdly isolation is for punishment when you screw up in prison the prosecutor can not ask for it. Lastly I don;t know why people in here seem to be caught up with this idea that every one will get these supper long prison sentence ."

        Do you not recall the case of Chelsea Manning?

        1. kain preacher

          Re: But...

          attempting suicide was the reason they gave. And yes they do put people in isolation for that

      4. staggers

        Re: But...

        Err, you don't think 20 years is a super long sentence. You know, given that no one outside the continental USA thinks he has done anything wrong in the first place?

      5. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: But...

        Whether or not it's rare for a first time offender in the USA to get the maximum sentence for a non-violent crime or not is a matter I have no information and therefore no opinion on.

        I note, however, that sometimes in the USA you get cases such as that of Timothy Leary back in 1965, who got a sentence of 30 years, $30,000, and compulsory psychiatric treatment - as a result of taking responsibility for his daughter carrying a small amount of cannabis.

        That was Leary's first criminal offence (at least, the first one he'd been caught at), no violence was involved, and look at the sentence he got.

        (What Timothy did next got quite, erm, interesting, but that's a whole load of other stories)

        1. kain preacher

          Re: But...

          Well you got me there. The US had some fucked up drug laws up until the 90's

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            @kain preacher

            The US had some fucked up drug laws up until the 90's

            Do you think they are NOT fucked up now? AG Sessions is bringing back extra harsh sentences for drug crime, part of Trump's "get tough on crime" thing - since he is preaching the republican lie that crime is a huge problem (murders and all other violent crimes been declining steadily since the early 90s nationwide, though their alternative facts do not acknowledge this reality)

            Long sentences for marijuana are just stupid. What they ought to do is jail the doctors and pharmacists who are knowingly writing/accepting bogus prescriptions for people obviously addicted to opioid painkillers. Prescription drug abuse is the biggest problem right now, and the obvious way to attack it is to hit those supplying it to the street dealers and addicts. Unfortunately doctors and pharmacists are white, and prosecutors prefer to go after blacks and hispanics since they can't afford attorneys so it helps their 'numbers'.

            1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

              Re: @kain preacher

              murders and all other violent crimes been declining steadily since the early 90s nationwide

              Don't know about that. Was Chicago like Aleppo in the 90s? Currently it's just like Dodge city.

              One could say that violent offenders are now locked away (you know the headline "violent crime rate goes down in spite of soaring prison population" etc.) but then again, who trusts the prison industry?

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                @Destroy All Monsters

                https://espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/arthur-murderchicago.png

                Chicago's murder rate is still lower than it was, though it has risen a lot and may hit a new record if it keeps increasing at the recent rate. Even if keeps rising and becomes higher that doesn't change the fact that nationwide it has dropped massively since the peak in the early 90s. That some places see much bigger declines than average and others see much smaller declines - or even increases - is not unexpected. You won't get exactly the same percentage drop everywhere in the country.

      6. Uffish

        Re: A few things to get straight mate

        Granted, but nothing you have said makes me think that justice will be served in this case.

    2. Ian Michael Gumby
      Holmes

      @AC ... Re: But...

      The moral of the story is to first learn what you are talking about.

      The DAs always talk hard and the harder they talk, the more likely the case against the person is BS.

      They want him to take the plea deal because its a win for them and they can notch their belt and move on.

      The question is what evidence does the FBI have against him?

      In terms of getting an indictment, any evidence that is proffered is accepted at face value to be true. Its at trial when the defense team can take apart the evidence and convince a jury that he is innocent.

      Taking a plea deal is an admission of guilt in exchange for a lighter sentence.

      If they have real solid evidence, he should take the deal.

      If they don't. He shouldn't.

      If he's completely innocent, he shouldn't, and should fight it.

      With a felony conviction, he could be free to go back to the UK, however, he will have no career in IT, and could be limited where he could travel. Some countries will refuse him entry because of his conviction.

      I am not suggesting he is innocent or guilty, but that you need to understand the situation of what is real and what is not. You have a twisted fantasy of the guy being sent to supermax for a white collar crime.

      Gen Pop would be way more dangerous, depending where he is sent.

  2. Mephistro
    Unhappy

    Do you work in IT?

    Don't go there!

    1. 2460 Something
      Unhappy

      Re: Do you work in IT?

      That seems to be the real solution. The USA is just another oppressive regime and should be added to the do not travel list. Nobody should be hosting any IT related conferences there,

      1. FuzzyWuzzys
        Unhappy

        Re: Do you work in IT?

        "The USA is just another oppressive regime and should be added to the do not travel list."

        The second they put the strict regs in post 9/11 and started treating all non-US nationals as criminals I vowed to never set foot there again. I would love to see some of the sights again. a wander in Central Park on a sunny Sunday morning. New England in the Autumn. The wonderfully hospitable people of the south and midwest. Such a shame, beautiful country, wonderful people, diabolical government that simply doesn't want anyone to visit ever again.

    2. Uncle Slacky Silver badge
      Thumb Up

      Re: Do you work in IT?

      I think that advice applies no matter what you do.

    3. NonSSL-Login

      Re: Do you work in IT?

      Made a negative comment about the US on any social media or public forum? Don't go there....

      Say's a lot when citizens of first world countries would feel safer going to Afghanistan or Iraq than a trip to America.

  3. Anonymous Blowhard

    US Justice

    Innocent until forced into accepting a plea-bargain...

    1. Daedalus

      Re: US Justice

      The Feds, unlike State prosecutors, are not known for plea bargaining. He's toast.

  4. Haku

    Burn the witch!

    I got this weird feeling like I'm reading a news piece about a bunch of pitchfork weilding villagers who lynched the one outsider who came to defend them against an evil digital monster and decided his knowledge of the 'dark arts' meant he was to blame for something else they also couldn't understand.

    1. FuzzyWuzzys

      Re: Burn the witch!

      They have form, Salem isn't known for it's ice cream sales!

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    This is where our country should be stepping in, the evidence should be examined by the home secretary and they should be told to either try him or return him. I also believe that should work both ways and you should also be tried in the country where you committed the crime with recompense to the victim if appropriate regardless.

    Anything has to better than this one sided shambles we have now.

    Special relationship my arse.

    1. James O'Shea

      "This is where our country should be stepping in, the evidence should be examined by the home secretary and they should be told to either try him or return him."

      Good luck with that. The Feds have him, the UK gov has zero point zero repeating leverage. There is simply no way that the Feds can be forced to give Hutchins up short of sending the SAS to Las Vegas to bust him out.

      "I also believe that should work both ways and you should also be tried in the country where you committed the crime"

      that's not going to happen. For one thing, the legal systems are too different. For another, the Feds have him and HM Gov has absolutely nothing to trade for him. Literally all they can do is send someone from the nearest consulate to stand and watch the Feds do whatever they bloody feel like doing. HM Gov simply cannot do a damn thing.

      " with recompense to the victim if appropriate regardless."

      one problem that those who think the way you do have is that y'all managed to convince the UK gov to NOT extradite McKinnon and Love. This means that the Feds will be _certain_ that if they let Hutchins out of their grasp they'll never see him again. And they know, from previous examples (see, for example, the Frogs who blew up Rainbow Warrior) that odds are that there would be no trial in the UK if Hutchins were to be allowed out. For one thing, UK public opinion would crucify the gov if they tried... and both HM Gov and the Feds know this.

      Nah, he's fried.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Nah, he's fried

        Uh, careful. That's not the best expression to use in connection with the US of A. Not that it is likely happen in this case, but let's not give them any ideas, shall we?

      2. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
        Thumb Up

        Hell yeah

        sending the SAS to Las Vegas to bust him out

        FUND THIS!!

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Hell yeah

          Before you all stock up on big boots and balaclavas, it is worth pointing out he's in Milwaukee...

    2. h4rm0ny

      Whilst it's possible that they only acquired the information that he was a criminal during the convention, the more likely scenario is that they waited until he set foot in the USA because they knew that their evidence would either not be sufficient for the UK's justice system or alternately because it would expose a chain of evidence that was illegal (e.g. warrantless surveillance, unapproved spying on a European country). My money would be on the former, but I'd say either is much more likely than them just suddenly finding out he'd done something whilst there.

      So either way, it implies that the USA will not be handing over evidence to us with which to try him. If they had sufficient evidence / such evidence were legally acquired, then we have some pretty generous extradition treaties with the USA that they could have used. Note, I don't know whether he's guilty of wrongdoing or not - I've no way of knowing. But the above does imply there'd be no conviction in the UK.

    3. FuzzyWuzzys
      Happy

      "Special relationship my arse."

      No, no we still have a special relationship with the US, the sort that's like a 30st businessman and a 7st Thai hooker!

  6. Solarflare

    "98 per cent of people charged in America take a plea deal."

    Jesus, that statistic is terrifying. Land of the free indeed...

    1. Graybyrd
      Windows

      Re: "98 per cent of people charged in America take a plea deal."

      In a landmark 1970 case (Brady vs. United States) the US Supreme Court validated the plea bargain practice, which had since the beginning of the century grown to become commonplace. It has faced no serious challenge since, and it is generally accepted that without plea bargains, the US court system would collapse, overwhelmed under the burden of citizens demanding their perceived "Constitutional Right" to a jury trial, a right which is honored in theory but which--in practical terms--no longer exists. In essence, we, the American people, have accepted that it is preferable to sacrifice the rights of the innocent to more efficiently prosecute the guilty.

      After all, we assume, if charges are brought, one is probably guilty of the crime; thus a possible three or four years in jail awaiting trial is simply "pre-payment" on the sentence to come. Thus a prompt plea agreement avoids all that messiness, includes time served in the final sentencing, and prevents a judicial backlog.

      Moral of the story: do not, ever, be charged with a crime in the United States of America. It was once said that our system of justice grinds slow but exceedingly fine. Now, in this age, it grinds all within its grasp exceedingly fine, swiftly.

      1. h4rm0ny

        Re: "98 per cent of people charged in America take a plea deal."

        In addition to all of the above, it should be noted that the prison industry is worth $4.8bn in the USA per annum. Actual profits (i.e. excluding salaries) are around $700m per annum in return to investors. This creates an enormous incentive to incarcerate people. As felons are also denied their right to vote, that further reduces the ability to fight against the system through normal democratic means.

        Prison labour also provides a source of captive labour to be exploited. That makes money for the prison owners and also, as with slavery, suppresses local wages of non-convicts.

        We got our first private prisons in the UK in the 1990s and there have been attempts by the government since then to increase the allowance of prison labour. Prisoners can be paid less than £2 per hour.

        http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/plan-for-cheap-prison-work-may-cost-thousands-of-jobs-7815140.html

        1. Alan Brown Silver badge

          Re: "98 per cent of people charged in America take a plea deal."

          "Actual profits (i.e. excluding salaries) are around $700m per annum in return to investors. This creates an enormous incentive to incarcerate people. "

          Up to and including bent judges sentencing people in return for kickbacks.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal - and if you think that's an isolated case you're sadly mistaken.

      2. staggers

        Re: "98 per cent of people charged in America take a plea deal."

        Jesus. That, as stated earlier, truly IS terrifying.

        And as I've said in other posts, the US is going to hell in a handbasket. Although I think it's largely there now.

        I don't suppose I'll live to see it, but I can't help wondering if there won't be another American civil war. Both sides are heavily armed. Would troops shoot their own people (whites, obviously, since blacks demonstrably don't count).

        Back in the 70s, we had relatives in Ohio farming country. Back of beyond. Near the Canadian border. Family went there for holiday. At weekends everyone piled into the Winebago and went... to Canada. No border crossing rubbish. At the destination all the Canadians knew these were Yanks, they were all friends, and no passports were ever involved, because no official crossings were ever used. Canadians went the other way, too, to see bands and things like that. Authorities knew, didn't care. Because they knew that if something nasty was going on, they would be told.

        Those were the days. When authorities could be trusted by people and the authorities didn't view their own citizens as the enemy. In the US they say you can't fight city hall. Well, if politicians keep treating you like their servants, sooner or later something unpleasant will happen.

        Here in the UK we're probably too polite. But l can't help thinking something will happen over there.

        And I thought our justice system was crap, because we don't have a written constitution, so we keep being told.

        Having a written one doesn't seem to make a lot of difference.

      3. Uffish

        Re: "98 per cent of people charged in America take a plea deal."

        There is a painting in the Prado that corresponds to the descriptions given here of the American legal system.

        https://www.museodelprado.es/en/the-collection/art-work/saturn/18110a75-b0e7-430c-bc73-2a4d55893bd6

        1. DropBear

          Re: "98 per cent of people charged in America take a plea deal."

          "There is a painting in the Prado"

          Interesting, I had a different painting in mind thinking about US in general today, but apparently from the same painter - specifically, the one called "the sleep of reason produces monsters"...

      4. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: "98 per cent of people charged in America take a plea deal."

        Moral of the story: do not, ever, be charged with accused of a crime in the United States of America.

        FIFY. The moment you're in the claws of grandstanding legal wannabes, normal human beings don't stand a chance. Justice it ain't.

    2. Haku

      Re: "98 per cent of people charged in America take a plea deal."

      The US has more prisoners than any other country, including China.

      http://www.icpr.org.uk/media/41356/world_prison_population_list_11th_edition.pdf

      "There are more than 2.2 million prisoners in the United States of America, more than 1.65 million in China (plus an unknown number in pre-trial detention or ‘administrative detention’), 640,000 in the Russian Federation, 607,000 in Brazil, 418,000 in India, 311,000 in Thailand, 255,000 in Brazil and 225,000 in Iran."

      Most certainly the number one country in which you don't want to be accused of a crime.

      1. Mahhn

        Re: "98 per cent of people charged in America take a plea deal."

        "The US has more prisoners than any other country,"

        and most of them are in for possession of drugs....... not the ideal treatment.

      2. Mark 85

        @Haku -- Re: "98 per cent of people charged in America take a plea deal."

        I question those numbers. Does that include political prisoners or those undergoing "re-education"?

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: "98 per cent of people charged in America take a plea deal."

      Fake as all fuck. I've had my run ins with the law when I was a kid, (very old now) and know plenty of people that been in similar. They ONLY time I've seen anyone take a plea deal is when they were guilty and it worked to their own advantage. You watch to much TV/propaganda. Life in the US is not what you seam to think it is. I can't judge you're country, since I don't have experience there. No doubt some people just like to judge on limited information. The worst part of the US is the crappy news media (CNN, FOX, and so on) that almost only reports on things to cause fear and hate. Believe me, the media here rips on every country, making people think every place is terrible, including the UK. But I know better, people are people - not what the media want's me to believe/fear.

    4. Alan Brown Silver badge

      Re: "98 per cent of people charged in America take a plea deal."

      Add to that statistic that most states have laws on the books that convicted felons can't vote.

      IE: accept a plea deal and you're disenfranchised.

      This has been used to systematically disenfranchise the poor.

    5. Steve Evans

      Re: "98 per cent of people charged in America take a plea deal."

      Land of the locked up more like... Look at the proportion of the population they have locked up!

      To save you the trouble, 0.7%... Round about the same figure as they estimate for North Korea!

      European countries generally come in below 0.15%

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The US 'justice' system is corrupt

    Police shooting black folks.

    Poor people get locked up.

    The innocent are imprisoned.

    The rich go free.

    The jails are run for profit.

    My advice - avoid this corrupt, third-world, dangerous shithole.

    1. mrobaer
      Flame

      Re: The US 'justice' system is corrupt

      Police shooting black folks? Really?

      Whites make up the majority of the population (75% roughly) and Blacks are making up about 13% of the population. Each murder victim in the US was killed by someone of their own race 90% of the time. That being said, there is a much larger percentage of murder within the black population than there is any other.

      In 2015 there were 5,600 Black murder offenders, while there were 4,600 White murder offenders. Granted there were 4,800 "unknown" murder offenders, this still paints a grim picture of violence among the black population.*

      The rest of your points are pretty good ones. The rich might not always go free, but they certainly fair better than the poor. It makes me wonder why you threw the "police killing blacks" in there at all. If anyone is concerned about Black Lives Mattering, it should be a movement that starts in Black homes.

      * https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/tables/expanded_homicide_data_table_3_murder_offenders_by_age_sex_and_race_2015.xls

      1. Uffish
        Facepalm

        Re: Police shooting black folks? Really?

        Yes, really. Why the hell do you think the Black Lives Matter movement started?

        As for your woeful (wilful?) lack of understanding of crime rates and the origins thereof I can only say go back to kindergarten and work your way back up through the education system but pay attention this time. Perhaps after that you will have developed some reliable reasoning techniques.

        1. mrobaer
          FAIL

          Re: Police shooting black folks? Really?

          @Uffish

          Do you know that the police shoot more white people than they do black people? In fact, nearly twice as many so far this year. And guess what else, out of the several thousand homicide victims that were black, less than 200 of them were killed by police. Where is your outrage for the rest of the black victims?

          All I have understood from you is utter disdain for my point of view and then an insult upon my intelligence. You did not provide any counter argument at all.

          1. Mark 85

            Re: Police shooting black folks? Really?

            Spot on. During a recent weekend in Chicago, the number of blacks shot by blacks was 30+. The number of blacks shot by police... 0.

          2. Tom 38

            Re: Police shooting black folks? Really?

            Do you know that the police shoot more white people than they do black people? In fact, nearly twice as many so far this year.

            Twice as many! Why are they still complaining about #blacklivesmatter eh? Perhaps it has something to do with there being almost 6 times as many white people as black people in America?

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Broken system

    The unnamed co-conspiritor probably took a plea deal, to forego a tactically long sentence, for whatever they have been charged with. The result is naming Hutchens and doesn't matter if he's done anything wrong, it's just a part of the process of the plea bargain, doing anything that will help in your case.

    Just don't go the the US and stop using US unsocial media.

    This pleae tactic will become the norm here too, so much easier than proving a crime has been committed by a grunt and way better than expensive court cases, with the added benefit that the lemmings will think it's great that all the crims are being locked up.

  9. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

    "Nobody present appeared to seriously believe that Hutchins is guilty, but knowledge of the US legal system's slant against defendants did not appear to inspire confidence."

    That is a significantly damning indictment of the US legal system. You could easily imagine that same sentence as applying to one of the more dictatorial regimes where you, innocent or not, are forced to admit guilt and apologise publicly.

    1. Lars Silver badge
      Happy

      @ John Brown (no body)

      Don't worry, people here do not compare the US to the more dictatorial regimes like say North Korea but to western democracies, and there lies the problem.

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    perhaps visit an embassy and take refuge?

    that's what americans do when they go overseas...

  11. Pascal Monett Silver badge
    Stop

    "accept a plea deal"

    No. Never do that. Accepting a plea deal means two things : first of all, the prosecution (and everyone else) now has firm ground to believe that you're guilty and two, you set a precedent whereby anyone else accused of the same has that much more trouble being recognized innocent.

    Let's be clear : a plea deal is the prosecution convincing you that you'll get worse if you go in front of a judge.

    Where's the proof of that ? If you're innocent, you go before the judge and get your innocence recognized to the world.

    Of course, in the Land of the "Free", that means you need money. So, no money = you're fucked.

    It's the Land of the Free To Be Fleeced.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: "accept a plea deal"

      It's similar to people (especially young people) accepting a caution in the UK so they are "let off with a warning". Not realising that it counts as a criminal record that can really screw up your life and career prospects.

      ".... when applying for particular types of employment, for example, working with children or vulnerable adults, certain professions such as law, health care, and pharmacy, senior management posts within certain sectors and employment where matters of national security are involved...."

      "...Cautions will always remain on a person's record. ..."

      Source: https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/q562.htm

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: "accept a plea deal"

        The situation regarding cautions in the UK is not entirely straightforward. Yes indeed, if you've accepted a caution for a violent or sexual offence, that sticks forever and forever must be disclosed in circumstances where there is exemption from the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.

        But the full story is complex and explained by this page, which has a handy flowchart:

        https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q89.htm

        The page Lost all faith... linked to https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/q562.htm states regarding cautions:

        "Although it is not technically classed as a conviction (as only the Courts can convict someone) it can be taken into consideration by the Courts if the person is convicted of a further offence."

        "Cautions are covered by the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 and become spent immediately (apart from conditional cautions which will become spent after 3 months). Unless applying for particular types of work (see below), a person who has spent cautions does not have to disclose them to prospective employers, and employers cannot refuse to employ someone on the basis of spent convictions."

        https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q89.htm adds much more information, including:

        "Where a post is exempt from the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, the law protects people from having some old and/or minor convictions and cautions disclosed to employers but sexual and violent offences will always be disclosed, as well as any convictions that resulted in a custodial sentence, and all convictions if a person has more than one conviction. Regarding any other convictions and cautions: convictions are not shown after eleven years (in relation to persons 18 or over) or five and a half years (in relation to persons under 18), and cautions are not shown after six years (in relation to persons 18 or over) or two years (in relation to persons under 18)."

  12. Aodhhan

    The ignorant run amok

    Wake up... if you're innocent... you aren't taking a plea deal. This should let you know, 98% take a plea deal because they are guilty. Likely of something a lot worse than what the plea is.

    When someone from a foreign country in the USA on a VISA is charged with a felony the consulate of this country is notified.

    In this case where the FBI is involved and not local law enforcement, all evidence has been provided to his government's intel agencies.

    Also, sending someone through a trial in the USA costs the government quite a bit of money in administrative expenses alone. Arrest warrants from a grand jury aren't handed out like candy. They are difficult to get and require a lot of evidence.

    Yes the burden of proof is on the US Government; don't think for a moment they don't have this covered. He wouldn't be the first security professional who had a dark side to them.

    So wait for the hearing... allow the discovery process to take place. I'm sure his lawyer will publish the information.

    ...and stop watching moronic TV law / police dramas and believing it's all real. Good grief.

    1. Justicesays
      Facepalm

      Re: The ignorant run amok

      "This should let you know, 98% take a plea deal because they are guilty. Likely of something a lot worse than what the plea is."

      Care to show the evidence of this? Oh, there wouldn't be any because a plea deal means the bit where the evidence is shown is skipped.

      You cant see any reason why someone would take a plea deal? Like maybe being trapped in a foreign country, unable to work or have a normal life, possibly for years, after which they have to go through an expensive trial , the legal fees for which would bankrupt any normal person, in the hope that "justice" is served.

      When just the wait for trial is longer than the plea bargain sentence, people will take it.

      Especially as being convicted under the US justice system is starting to appear to be as much evidence as wrongdoing as publicly confessing to attempting to overthrow the North Korean government before being thrown out of the country.

      1. mrobaer

        Re: The ignorant run amok

        @Justicesays

        "Care to show the evidence of this? Oh, there wouldn't be any because a plea deal means the bit where the evidence is shown is skipped."

        There is no plea dealing before evidence is shown. Either at a preliminary hearing or a Grand Jury hearing, the evidence is provided that proves reasonable 'suspicion' enough to formally bring the charges.

        There is a fine line between being innocent and not guilty. You can be innocent and found guilty, and you can be guilty and found not guilty. It's messy, that's for sure. But don't imagine for a moment that there is not evidence involved.

        Plea agreements are usually taken to 1) get a favorable sentence/outcome because you know they have evidence that would create a significant chance of you being found guilty, or less often 2) just to get it over with and get out of the system asap, counting on the conviction not hampering your future. Very seldom does an innocent person plead guilty, it's possible, but unlikely.

        1. kain preacher

          Re: The ignorant run amok

          There is no plea dealing before evidence is shown. Either at a preliminary hearing or a Grand Jury hearing,

          Bulls shit show your proof

          1. mrobaer

            Re: plea dealing before evidence is shown

            It's not that hard to realize the truth of this. What attorney is going to offer a plea deal without having seen any evidence at all? What attorney is going to advise their client to accept a plea deal without some idea of the evidence involved?

            Looking back, I can see how those two sentences I wrote about plea deals and hearings could be construed as one single line of thought, that is my mistake. They are not really related to each other in what I was trying to convey and perhaps I should have worded it better.

            My point was if formal charges were brought on, the evidence was seen by either a judge or a jury. If there are any talks of plea agreements, at the very least, the attorneys would go over the evidence.

            I certainly hope that a prosecutor would not offer a plea before sufficient evidence is collected, possibly allowing an offender to use the "double jeopardy" defense to escape prosecution of a crime later discovered to have taken place during the act of the crime they already plead guilty to.

    2. Graybyrd
      Windows

      Re: The ignorant run amok

      ...and stop watching moronic TV law / police dramas and believing it's all real. Good grief.

      Well said by someone who does not live in the US, who demonstrates complete ignorance of the US criminal justice system.

      So-called 'plea bargains' are universally practiced at all levels: federal, state, district, and municipal. It has been so for at least three-quarters of a century, and has grown even worse in the near-half century since the 1970 US Supreme Court decision upholding prosecutorial plea bargain inducements.

      I was threatened with a plea bargain by a city prosecuting attorney, in writing, which threatened "harshest possible punishment allowable by law" if I challenged a traffic citation for reckless driving... a very serious charge here in the US. The citation was issued on the basis of a complaint filed by a motorcyclist who, in a fit of road rage, attempted to force my car out of a traffic lane and into a concrete barrier. Two police officers showed up at my home, asked my version of events, and when I admitted to being accosted, they issued the ticket. I engaged a criminal defense lawyer, and shortly thereafter the city prosecution office sent me the plea bargain letter, and the direct threat of enhanced punishment if I refused.

      The case never came to trial. In the months between charge and trial date, the city was forced to drop the case. The state refused to release the plaintiff from prison to attend the trial which his complaint had set in motion. He'd been re-incarcerated in state prison for parole violation.

      My attorney had earlier attempted to persuade me to accept the plea bargain and not contest the case, for two reasons: first, the risk of a harsh penalty for refusing the plea bargain; and second, for reasons of personal safety. The plaintiff had a lengthy "rap sheet" including numerous violent assaults, including "aggravated" assault which is one step short of homicide. The situation was greatly exacerbated by the failure of the city police to conduct a simple background check, which would have revealed the fact that they were being "gamed" by an aggressive and vindictive convicted felon.

      If you don't live in the US and have not experienced our criminal justice system, you have no basis of credibility for your statement.

  13. TheElder

    The US had some fucked up drug laws up until the 90's

    Still do. In Virginia it is one year in prison for a single marijuana seed. It used to be 20 years.

    1. Pompous Git Silver badge

      Re: The US had some fucked up drug laws up until the 90's

      "In Virginia it is one year in prison for a single marijuana seed. It used to be 20 years."

      Loudon Wainwright III - Samson and the Warden Back in the 70s I broke the law by importing the album this song is on and the previous album from the US. Saw him live at a Hobart (Tasmania) pub in the late 80s, or early 90s. Awesome!

  14. TheElder

    US is going to hell in a handbasket.

    That was the title of an essay I wrote in High School social studies.

  15. TheElder

    A bit more on drugs

    Once when I was living in a rooming house near Berkeley the police dropped in with a drug sniffing dog. There was no trace of anything in or near my room. The dog alerted strongly. The officer began searching everything. It then dawned on me what was happening. I had just visited my mother and her dog was in heat. Traces were on my pants I guess and that is what was interesting to the dog.

    I told the officer this. He totally denied that possibility. I then said to him "So, if you were smelling a pretty young woman you would't be alerted?"

  16. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
    Windows

    Hutchins’ first friend chipped in again: “Criticising the system is not helpful. If you don’t want to live under that system, don’t go there.”

    What kind of statement is that and why does anyone utter it outside of high-school classrooms.

    1. DropBear

      A cynically pragmatic one, and not incorrect IMHO. Along the lines of "don't try to criticise or attempt to change the system unless you're willing to accept that nothing will change in a significant enough way to affect favourably anyone you know except perhaps your grandchildren - if you're stupidly lucky, otherwise it will just be even worse for them. So if that sounds like fun go right ahead but please don't delude yourself into thinking anything you could possibly do could be of any assistance to you in any immediate practical matter regardless of how long you're willing to wait. If that's what you're after, your only remedy is to try staying out of of the system completely".

      Well, he might be meaning something completely different but that's how I read it...

  17. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    His employer is very quiet on the subject.

    When Wannacry emerged they were all over it.

    https://www.kryptoslogic.com/

    If they believe he is innocent they should help sponsor his defence.

    1. Gordon 10

      Re: His employer is very quiet on the subject.

      Really? Assuming he was over there on his own time why on earth would anyone expect their employer to get involved for a problem that crops up when he is on holiday. I can't imagine many companies doing that.

      Now if he's accused of doing this stuff in the operation of his day job for the company then its a different story.

  18. FlamingDeath Silver badge

    Tell me Mr Anderson...

    What good is a telephone call if you're unable to speak

    https://youtu.be/4D7cPH7DHgA?t=3m15s

  19. Winkypop Silver badge
    Thumb Down

    America (today)

    Has become the kind of place your mother warned you about travelling to...

    1. Pompous Git Silver badge

      Re: America (today)

      "Has become the kind of place your mother warned you about travelling to..."
      Sort of like the House of the Rising Sun, only a bit bigger.

    2. Graybyrd
      Windows

      Re: America (today)

      Worse than that... now the NAACP has issued a travel advisory, cautioning dark-complexioned or other obviously non-white motorists to exercise "extreme caution" while transiting the public highways in the State of Missouri. Fact: a dark-complexioned motorist in Missouri has a 75% greater chance of being stopped by Missouri cops; just recently, a young dark man who ran out of gas and wandered lost was detained, jailed, and three days later was pronounced dead by Missouri authorities of "undisclosed causes."

      Hell's Bells: I'm 77, Male, and a Free White Landowner... and I'm damned chary of going anywhere near Missouri. Those folks are scary!

  20. NWOSecurity

    Time for a change of venue

    Perhaps it's time to think about looking for somewhere else to host the big cyber security conferences. i hear Russia is quite open to this technology stuff...

  21. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Jury of his peers

    That'd be 12 bloody-minded expat brits who happen to be resident in the USA then. That'd be popcorn-worthy.

  22. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I've got to say there is a significant difference between Hutchins and a pair of autistic script kiddies.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon