Lauri Love appeal: 'If he's dead, no victim's going to get anything' Accused hacker Lauri Love is at a strong "likelihood of suicide" if extradited to America – and that a formerly anonymous co-defendant was tried at home in Australia is good reason for Love to be treated the same way, defence barrister Edward Fitzgerald QC told the High Court today. Defence barrister Edward Fitzgerald QC told …
A prison sentence was meant to protect the public from dangerous criminals, and to deter them from re-offending.
Nowadays, it would appear that any false ideals are stripped away, and the prison sentence is punishment to "make him pay" for what he did.
Fitzgerald added "If he's dead, putting it bluntly, no victims are going to get anything from a trial."
Some would consider his death sufficient punishment, it would appear.
Even worst case, he will not be sentenced to death penalty. He could get confinement and possibly poor medical treatment for his strictly cosmetic eczema problem. If he imposes a death penalty on himself, that is his human right. But that does not override the public interest in prosecuting criminals.
As someone who spends too much time watching Road Wars and the like, can we assume that the CPS will maintain their Quality of Service?
On those programs there are repeated instances where a 'Young Gentleman' (other potential offenders are available) is seen on camera conducting himself in a manner which is just not cricket and fails to take into account the wonderful well-reasoned laws of the Land of Hope and Glory. At the end of the program there is then a brief update on the people seen and an astonishing result of 'No further actions as CPS did not offer any evidence' can be heard all too often.
If being able to watch it happen on prime time TV isn't enough evidence for them to get off their chairs then a case based on locating presence of intent to support extradition should have them settling back for another kip on the couch.
That's a fabulous statement - and should apply in spades here (How many juries are taken from the court to see/hear/experience something that is not portable?)
The allegation is that a crime was committed in the UK, it's a criminal offence in the UK...
Case closed.
Surely extradition was meant as a mechanism to return people to a country where they had committed a crime and then left?
"The allegation is that a crime was committed in the UK, it's a criminal offence in the UK..."
The allegation is that a crime was committed on computers located in the USA. The laws of both jurisdictions have effect.
If a US citizen on the US side of the border shoots a US Citizen on the Mexican side of the border, where did the crime take place, USA or Mexico. One would hope it was considered a crime in both, but where should the trial take place. Could the shooter be convicted twice in two countries?
It is not as simple as "Case closed".
The crime might have affected a computer in the US - but it was committed in the UK. There is no absolute way to know where any given computer is located (except the one in front of you). Or do we have to consider the location of every router which was used as well?
The hypothetical Mexican who was shot... was shot from the US, the crime was pulling the trigger, and was therefore committed in the US, and should be tried there. If that trial isn't going to happen for some reason then extradition is reasonable.
It really is as simple as case closed - the US are quite at liberty to use the British Justice System to seek appropriate redress, since the crime they are claiming is a crime in the UK...
A crime should be tried in the locale of where the crime occurred, and yes, extradition was definitely meant as a mechanism to force the return of unwilling people to the locale of the crime so that they could face local justice. It could be in a different city or state, not just country.
In this case, you have the legal question of WHERE the crime was committed. Was the crime committed in the US where the servers were located (and US law applies) or was it committed in the UK where UK laws apply?
Different cases have ruled in different ways, but the reality is that BOTH apply. As such, for one criminal act over the Internet a person can be charged in multiple locales. The questions then become which has presidence, and does trial and acquittal in one locale qualify as protection against double-indemnity?
If Love is tried in the UK, could he then still be extradited to the US for trial there? If he is tried in the US first, could he then be returned to the UK for additional trials? Those are the questions that needed answered, regardless of what Love may or may not have done.
In the case of Love's extradition, the questions before the UK court are basically:
(1) Is the alleged crime an extraditable offense under the treaty?
(2) Has the required burden of proof been met as required under the treaty?
(3) Are there any extraneous aspects that would exempt Love from the treaty?
(1) and (2) seem to be cut and dried, as Love has actually confessed. (3) is an open question.
"Love has actually confessed"
Wait, what? He confessed? Why aren't the CPS pressing charges then?
They have a criminal complaint (albeit from a non-UK agency, but that's not a problem), they have him in custody, they have his confession... that looks to me as though it's got more than a 50% chance of a conviction, which is the CPS criteria for going ahead with a case. If he went on to plead not guilty this could be over and done with in an afternoon.
The only possible reason would be the americans putting political pressure on the CPS to neglect their responsibilities to the british public in this case, which could be considered "perverting the course of justice". Who prosecutes the prosecutors?
Of cause we are, we need a trade deal post Brexit
Although, judging by the Orange Baboons' current conduct, that likelyhood[1] is getting less and less..
[1] Leaving aside the question of whether he can actually deliver on any promises that he's made - after all, his current track record isn't good.
"Fitzgerald also drew attention to the "inhuman" conditions in the two American jails Love is most likely to be sent to if extradited"
Has he ever seen the UK jails?
Inhuman is a nice way to describe the Ville or Brixton
Is anyone thinking of his family?
At least a UK jail would be considerably more visitable, even if they are barely modernised victorian shells.
“The United States is a nation of laws, badly written and randomly enforced.”
― Frank Zappa
Extradition treaties just make this infinitely worse.
Maybe some minister can have a word with the Trumpster and get the charges dropped... Ya know, like the Trumpster did in China :-/
One day, one hopes, the UK will stop being bullied by the US. (I am not a national of either country).
As I understand it the law about extraditions works in favour of the US. The Brits cannot get _their_ naughty boys back from the US.
Love is English, sat at his computer in England and was arrested in England. So if guilty he is guilty of an offence in England, not the land of the cholesterol-laden fast foods. Do we even know that the computers he hacked are physically located in the US?
Unless this is all a publicity gambit, and they are just churning the waters before Love goes to trial in the US, I fear for his chances with this defense.
"I'll kill myself if you extradite me" isn't a defense, it's an excuse to put someone in the same kind of "protective custody" they put Manning in. No court is going to allow "you can't arrest me or I'll kill myself" as a legal precedent. And Love isn't offering much to show his case is in some way unique. So if they let him whinge his way out of extradition with something as weak as the Twinkie defense, then it would apply broadly to any UK citizen facing the US court an legal system.
Frankly I'd gladly give the guy a free pass if that had any chance of cleaning up the US "Justice" system. Clearly that isn't happening in the next few years.
Indeed. Otherwise everyone would try it.
Ignoring whatever merits his defence might have (I haven't looked and don't really care) my first, instinctive reaction to somebody saying that is "Fine. Go right ahead. Can I watch?" I don't respond well to threats of any kind, whether or not they directly affect me.
Yeah, I know. That makes me unempathic, dysfunctional, sociopathic and possibly psychopathic. It's just the way I'm wired. And if anyone criticises me for thinking that way, I'll threaten to kill myself.
More seriously, eczema as an excuse? Fucking eczema? I have some of that. It itches, sometimes. I also have worse.
Asthma? OK, some US prisons are notorious for keeping prisoners in high temperature conditions that imperil healthy prisoners, let alone those with asthma. So that is a valid concern. But more a reason to fix the broken US penal system than to prevent him receiving any punishment. I have asthma. And worse. And don't see either as sufficient excuse to dodge a prison sentence.
If you want to say that the proposed sentence is far too high, I'll agree with you - it's not like he killed or raped somebody. If you want to argue his asperger's in mitigation, maybe (it's a broad-spectrum disorder so you'd have to show convincingly that he didn't understand what he was doing was wrong). But "if you put me in prison I'll kill myself"? Go right ahead. The sooner the better.
"But more a reason to fix the broken US penal system than to prevent him receiving any punishment."
Why do people keep saying that he will not receive punishment if he not extradited? He is in a country which he was arrested for doing something that is a crime in that country. The US has requested to transfer him to their country so they can put him on trial. If hes not extradited he will be tried in the UK, where if found guilty (which he will. he has confessed) will be punished based upon the rules in the UK.
He will be punished for his crimes, this is just about who will give that punishment and by extension what the punishment will be.
In cases like this the job of the lawyers is to advance arguments that let the judge pick their side if he wants to. This case is way beyond just being about the law, it's now about justice. So the arguments can be as weak and feeble as you like, just as long as the judge feels that he can get away with agreeing with them ("medical advice is that the accused will be harmed therefore ..."). Obviously it's easier to agree with a strong argument but not necessary.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
