Has Theresa May created a monster?

[indalo]

Gary McKinnon will not be extradited to the US to stand trial over what has been described as the most serious piece of computer hacking into American military websites ever.

That's because he has Asperger's Syndrome, suffers from depression and has threatened to kill himself, apparently. To actually deliver this man to the USA so that he might be tried in an American courtroom would breach his human rights, I'm given to understand. Now, regardless of what some of us may think of the American judicial system or indeed Americans per se, this judgement seems perverse to me, particularly after recent events concerning Abu Hamza and his moslem cronies.

Some might say that those alleged crimes are miles apart and there's no comparison but the bottom line is surely that we, the people of the UK, are showing massive hypocrisy by selecting who we deliver to American justice on some ad-hoc basis without any constitutional position other than at the whim of the Home Secretary of the day and senior civil servants involved with national security.

I think we can all be certain that, in the future, this monumental decision, (although I prefer the term cock-up) will be used as precedent by some expensive lawyer to defend some horrible criminal in court. After all, if Asperger's, depression and threats of self-harm are deemed so serious as to cause our government to pervert the course of American justice, then equally, that "principle" can be utilised to avoid British justice. Using the McKinnon precedent, a defence barrister will argue that, as his client has the same medical conditions, how can the state choose to prosecute that person yet block the Americans from theirs?

Our justice system is already littered with inconsistencies, not least in the postcode lottery of sentencing, without introducing further discriminatory factors such as that just delivered by Theresa May.

In the event that anyone ever does decide to try McKinnon in a UK court over the issue, it's unlikely he will receive any kind of meaningful punishment should he actually be found guilty although he would probably plead, having never denied that he hacked the US military.

Did I mention that I have Asperger's....? Well, I think I have and I'm feeling increasingly depressed. Maybe I should stop reading the news!

Indalo


ps I just remembered why I mentioned this matter. Asperger was a pediatrician which sounds very much like someone who makes or sells electric bikes. I wonder if he ever rode one!

 

[Old_Dave]

"Although not required for diagnosis, physical clumsiness and atypical use of language are frequently reported"

I got it as well

 

[flecc]

I'm delighted that McKinnon's extradition was denied, but agree that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Consistency is very important.

But it's important in the extradition issue too. As things stand in our lopsided extradition treaty, the USA can demand extradition of one of our nationals without giving any evidence to justify it. Conversely, we cannot extradite a US national without giving fully detailed legal justification, that then subject to US appraisal before agreement is given. In practice the chance of our extraditing any US national is thought to be very slim. Until this appalling imbalance is rectified, I'm opposed to any extradition from Britain to the USA.

And then there is the issue of where the crime is committed. A crime should arguably be tried in the country where it is committed, and if we trust each other enough to have an extradition treaty, we should trust each other's justice system as well. After all, US federal or state lawyers can prosecute the case in Britain should they wish.

The more I see of these long drawn out extradition sagas around the world, the more I think that Russia has it right. It is against the Russian constitution to extradite any of their citizens, so any crime committed by any of them anywhere must be tried there. Apart from the attractive simplicity of that solution, it seems fundamentally just that every person should only ever face their own national law, the one they were born into and grew up with.
.

 

[the_killjoy]

I agree flecc, at least the Russian system is unambiguous although I can imagine cases where the refusal of the Russians to prosecute a crime committed abroad might not be appreciated. I am thinking of the case of the dissident who was killed in london for example.

What I think is wrong in this case is that the decision not to extradite was made by Theresa May and not by a court.

 

[flecc]

I agree flecc, at least the Russian system is unambiguous although I can imagine cases where the refusal of the Russians to prosecute a crime committed abroad might not be appreciated. I am thinking of the case of the dissident who was killed in london for example.

What I think is wrong in this case is that the decision not to extradite was made by Theresa May and not by a court.

I think we needed to give a much more convincing case in the murder of Alexander Litvinenko, what we presented was highly circumstantial and some of the technical evidence we offered was doubtful to say the least. However, I agree that the Russian system is inclined to be politically influenced, but that's probably true of many if not most of the world's countries!

I very fully agree about the Teresa May decision issue, I don't think politicians should play any part in the trial of anyone. We've seen too many bad decisions by Home Secretaries in the past when exercising their "right" to increase sentences passed by courts.

 

[BrianSmithers]

Our legal system has traditionally prevented the trying the mentally incompetant. Why is this different because America wants him in order to show how tough they are on terrorism? I'm not suggesting a free pass but if the trial had happened here, and he had been declared incompetant then some form of treatment would have been ordered - and in some cases, detention in a mental institution.

However, the issue of extradition covered well by Flecc is important. We've seen an old man from Kent already taken from these shores to stand trial in America for selling a battery which "may" be used for terrorism. We've seen extradition of Assange attempted and not even charges have been bought against him.

Overseas police could have come to this country to question him and then perhaps have laid charges - but still we are quite happy to ship people off to foreign shores. McKinnon's mental illnesses didn't stop him being extradited. The consequences of them did because of the probability of self harm and therefore the human rights act figured in the decision. Had he been mentally unfit to stand trial but not likely to kill himself, Teresa May would have shipped him off ages ago.

Robust evidence should be presented to our courts before we allow extradition and competancy to stand trial should also be a factor.

 

[Eagle]

Whilst I agree that in general it should be a matter for the courts to decide, it should be pointed out that it was David Blunkett who signed the UK-US treaty in 2005, without any debate having taken place in Parliament.

Many people in the UK feel that this treaty is skewed unfairly in favour of the US, so Theresa May was evening things up for once.

If the Americans had any common sense they should fire those responsible for the lamentable state of “security” at sensitive sites and appoint Gary McKinnon as a computer consultant on a fat salary.
Gary made no profit from his hacking of those sites, nor did he pass on any sensitive information to anti-US countries.

He could still be charged in the UK for bad language and rudeness to those in the Pentagon, NASA etc since he did admit that he left notes saying, “Your security is crap”.

To answer your question about creating monsters, I think we have already created two massive ones with Elf 'n' Safety and Human Rights legislation.

 

[flecc]

To answer your question about creating monsters, I think we have already created two massive ones with Elf 'n' Safety and Human Rights legislation.

With regard to the Human Rights Act, I very strongly disagree. It is excellent law, it being initially promoted by Winston Churchill following the bestiality of WW2 and perfectly drafted by British lawyers. It lay unused for years due to British governments being insufficiently bothered about their own citizens until being adopted by Europe as a perfect ready-made measure when a Human Rights act was needed for the EU.

Like any law which gives adequate protection, it can occasionally be abused in an undeserving case, hence the propaganda against it by rabble-rousing newspapers and David Cameron. Better that though than inadequate protection for us all. As the long standing legal principle is often stated, "Better that ten guilty men go free than one innocent man be imprisoned", illustrating the imperfection in all good law.

So don't be misled by ignorant newspaper staff who think this law is another evil from Brussels when it is British through and through. And don't be fooled by David Cameron wanting to replace it with a Bill of Rights. Clearly he objects to the protections of the Human Rights Act, so he really means a Bill of Lack of Rights.