i think its not as black in white where he actually commited the crime. Yes the servers were in america, but he was in the UK. If you stood on the US, mexico border (for example) and shot someone on the other side, who gets to charge him? if that can be logically answerd then i say thats the way we go.
On another point, dont let good reasources go to waste! use the man godammit, call it community service
The Germans wouldn't extradited one of their own, the French would not extradite one of their own, the Spanish would not extradite one of their own, The Chinese would not extradite one of their own.
The Brits though, yay go America.
I guarantee you this sort of stuff has happened already, that dude used a script he found on google to hack into the pentagon, haha their security sucks.
Even with Aspergers, he knew he was breaking the law and therefore should be treated as the criminal he is.
He should be given to the US as frankly the UK judicial system is nothing short of a joke.
Please? Liberal much?
Try looking at the facts. British sentences are ridiculously short. In the UK, a life sentence can mean only 15 years, whereas in the US it is usually a minimum of 25 years. Not to mention, the dole completely removes any deterrent of going to prison.
He should go to the US to be tried as he will actually get a fitting punishment rather than a light slap on the back of the hand, if not a complete trial dismissal in this country due to over crowded prisons.
On the contrary, I'd think 15 years for someone who had no malice would be fine, if not a bit excessive. Hell, I hate this whole notion of a "fitting punishment" since it ignores the one purpose of punishment: deterrence. Punishing for any other reason than that is merely for some bullshit notion of justice.
As for your question that was actually directed at Amnestic, yes, I am a liberal and proud of it. I do not believe in traditional values of authority or that notion of "fitting punishment." To me they are just arbitrary crap.
How can you justify breaking the law in this situation? Just because he didn't break anything doesn't mean he couldn't have, even accidentally. You don't let a well trained bull into a china shop for the simple reason of just in case the sh*t does hit the fan.
You hate the notion of "fitting punishment?" Erm right...So you think it'd be okay to rape a bunch of school children and spend 2 days in prison. If you really don't believe in serving fitting punishments, maybe you should come out of your nice teen cotton-candy world and have something bad happen to you, and then try and feel warm and dandy when the perpetrator gets off scott-free.
It's been proven, deterrents don't work. Over 50% of prisoners re-ofend. Want to know why such a ludicrous percent reoffend?
Because of liberals who are too afraid to make a hard choice and instead laughbly believe that everyone is equal and good deep down inside. E.g. Here is liberalism in action:
I'm a 20 year old thug who beats people up for fun on nights out. I dropped out of school when I was 16 and have been living on benefits. I see a guy I particularly despise because he has a nice car. So I hospitalise him. I get sentenced to 3 years in prison where I get to play on PS3's and meet my friends. When I am released, I carry on with my life the exact same way prior to prison.
That' just a made up example, based on people I know of. I can give more involving pregnancy etc. In the UK, prison is only a deterrent to people with moral standards and goals. So basically, it's not a deterrent to criminals.
Proud of being liberal? The only thing liberalism ever achieved was WW2.
First of all, about how I'd feel if something bad happened to me. Yes, I may feel hate for that criminal, but that's just a feeling, and the only reason I wouldn't want him off scott-free is anger, bloodlust and desire for revenge. Those feelings of wanting retribution are terrible reasons for punishment, only to fulfill selfish desires like bloodlust. As for that example of raping school children, in reality yes you'd need far stronger punishments for that, and I'd say no amount of prison alone is going to help with that, but if somehow 2 days were enough for him to not repeat it (theoretical, and yes, absurd situation. Just illustrating a point) that's what I'd sentence him to. Why? Because, as I mentioned above, punishing for the sake of wanting them to suffer is stupid. If they don't do it again, you did your job. Anything more is for some stupid moral bullshit, no matter how much you try to justify it with how "heinous" the crime was. So to sum it up: your point on fitting punishment is based on a stupid notion: that you want the criminal to suffer for what they did.
Of course, that above thing is theoretical (just about the "fitting punishment" thing) and yes, a lot of people after getting out of prison do commit crimes again regardless of deterrence. It's not us goddamn liberals softening things, it's because, as you said, prison's only a deterrent to people with goals and moral standards, and not just in the UK. Yes, that example you gave about beating someone up, having a soft 3 year sentence, and beating people up again didn't have the prisons do enough. Why? Because you did it again. So yes, perhaps the prison should have given you a longer sentence for the valid reason of preventing you from doing it again. Or, since you bought up a good point of prison not being a deterrent on thugs like (hypothetical) you (and this isn't only the UK, this is in general), maybe something like giving you said goals would help. You'd have those goals, prison would be a deterrent, and you might go on to live a somewhat less crappy life.
And for that thing about people not being good, maybe so, but no one's just a through-and-through comic book thug either. The notion that someone is just simply evil is at least as stupid and laughable as the notion of them being good.
Well it's rather apparent you can't actually see past some kind of blood fuelled rage when you talk about crime. Other than justice, a reason criminals need to be taken off the street for a long time is because they are dangerous and/or detrimental to society.
Yes, criminals should be released once they are rehabilitated into becoming a productive and safe citizen, but in reality this rarely happens. Talk to some prison wardens, most see the same faces coming in and out of prisons all their life.
There aren't comic book villains? Hate to burst the nice bubble you are living in, but that is certainly not reality. Again, talk to some prison wardens. They will back up the point that some people can't be helped because they either enjoy breaking the law, and/or enjoy hurting other people, or don't and will never give a crap about other people's well-being. Try living next to a drug dealing hooker who had 4 kids. It 'helps' to shift perspectives into reality.
And yes, it is "goddamn liberals" who are softening things up as they helped to cook up the biggest joke of all: Human Rights. Even Jeremy Bentham said that Human Rights were utter nonsense as they are based on the ridiculous notion that everyone is equal. Somehow I doubt it was right wingers who were arguing that criminals should have access to the latest entertainment systems in prison.
Plus, it's interesting how you say that justice is pointless, and yet you then go on to say that it is the only deterrent that keeps people out of prison. Bit of a contradiction saying morality is pointless, yet the only thing preventing anarchy, no?
Personally I think that if you commit a crime you should be removed for a long time from society for three reasons:
1)Public safety
2)Rehabilitation
3)Deterrent
The UK does not give long enough sentences for any of these three criteria to be met, mainly due to over populated prisons and liberals looking for the non-existent good in some criminals. The US is better at serving these three criteria, therefore if it was up to me, every UK criminal would be tried in the US.
Plus, I can guarantee that your idea of good and evil will change in the next few years, otherwise you are living in a very weird world. Last I checked, there wasn't anything good in Pol Pott, Hitler or Stalin, and likewise, there wasn't anything bad in Mother Teresa, Ghandi or Martin Luther King.
Also, go for a night out in Wakefield, then tell me that no one is a thug through and through.
As for that lovely list of what Liberals did, you can take half of them back, as I'm one for civilian and citizenship, licensing for children and the complete removal of democracy. As Plato said, democracy is one of the worst forms of government imaginable. Amazing how things haven't changed in other 2000 years.
I'll just, for the sake of (somewhat) shorter posts, say my basic opinion on your arguments. You have a good point in that criminals tend to repeat their crimes and should be removed for those three reasons. I disagree with you in your assertion that people are just plain good or evil. Evil people weren't just born pure evil, and even those great people you mentioned had some character flaws and less savory aspects. Nobody is that morally simple, people are far more complex than that. You may, after being mugged, feel that way, but that's only a feeling of anger, and you shouldn't make judgments based on that. That was kind of the point of my first paragraph, in fact, that feelings of anger and hatred are an absolutely stupid way to make judgments.
Oh, and I said a notion of justice was pointless, not justice period. I also said a notion of morality was bullshit, not all of it.
And what blood fueled rage am I not seeing past? I was saying a hot-headed, emotional view of criminals as pure evil and scum is stupid and a horrible way to judge.
The US should have been grateful for the nice warning.
If some moron looking for UFOs of all things, can hack into their crappy computer systems, then any 12 yr old script kiddie can and they do alot more damage.
Aspergers is pretty much a form of high functioning autism, which means the guy was practically neurotypical. Source 1 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-functioning_autism] Source 2 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurotypical]
Unless you personally know the guy, you don't know his level of computer skills.
Legally he is to be prosecuted in the UK or in international court.
Morally he didn't do anything with the files he was viewing and for all we know he may have been trying to uncover stories about UFOs from the CIA. The public deserves to know.
Personally, I don't trust the US legal system enough to find sending him over there acceptable (not that our's is much better, but at least it's a little more honest, doesn't use a polygraph and is a little keener to provide legal aid). And 60 years sounds way too excessive.
I also think that the US should be more worried about improving their online security than trying to make an example out of this guy.
Besides, it's a government's computer that got hacked, not a human beings's
Can't find anything in the news, but according to my Law friend (well he's taking a law degree) the maximum sentence for cyber terrorism in the UK is 20 years. Though I doubt he'd get that as he would get a fair trial by a jury of his peers, unlike in the US where I imagine they might be a tad biased against him considering how terrorist jumpy they are.
I was watching the news the other day and under UK law he could expect a 12 month sentance.
As for Asperger's Syndrome, I'm no expert but I understand one of the main symptons or characteristics is the lack of understanding of consequences especially in a social aspect.
I'd say he probably should be extradited but when that happens a lot of considerations should be taken during the trial. Yeh.
Edit: By the way I remember this from a few years ago when the event happened and seem to recall that the guy hacked using a 52k modem.
Well it's rather apparent you can't actually see past some kind of blood fuelled rage when you talk about crime. Other than justice, a reason criminals need to be taken off the street for a long time is because they are dangerous and/or detrimental to society.
Yes, criminals should be released once they are rehabilitated into becoming a productive and safe citizen, but in reality this rarely happens. Talk to some prison wardens, most see the same faces coming in and out of prisons all their life.
There aren't comic book villains? Hate to burst the nice bubble you are living in, but that is certainly not reality. Again, talk to some prison wardens. They will back up the point that some people can't be helped because they either enjoy breaking the law, and/or enjoy hurting other people, or don't and will never give a crap about other people's well-being. Try living next to a drug dealing hooker who had 4 kids. It 'helps' to shift perspectives into reality.
And yes, it is "goddamn liberals" who are softening things up as they helped to cook up the biggest joke of all: Human Rights. Even Jeremy Bentham said that Human Rights were utter nonsense as they are based on the ridiculous notion that everyone is equal. Somehow I doubt it was right wingers who were arguing that criminals should have access to the latest entertainment systems in prison.
Plus, it's interesting how you say that justice is pointless, and yet you then go on to say that it is the only deterrent that keeps people out of prison. Bit of a contradiction saying morality is pointless, yet the only thing preventing anarchy, no?
Personally I think that if you commit a crime you should be removed for a long time from society for three reasons:
1)Public safety
2)Rehabilitation
3)Deterrent
The UK does not give long enough sentences for any of these three criteria to be met, mainly due to over populated prisons and liberals looking for the non-existent good in some criminals. The US is better at serving these three criteria, therefore if it was up to me, every UK criminal would be tried in the US.
Plus, I can guarantee that your idea of good and evil will change in the next few years, otherwise you are living in a very weird world. Last I checked, there wasn't anything good in Pol Pott, Hitler or Stalin, and likewise, there wasn't anything bad in Mother Teresa, Ghandi or Martin Luther King.
Also, go for a night out in Wakefield, then tell me that no one is a thug through and through.
As for that lovely list of what Liberals did, you can take half of them back, as I'm one for civilian and citizenship, licensing for children and the complete removal of democracy. As Plato said, democracy is one of the worst forms of government imaginable. Amazing how things haven't changed in other 2000 years.
I'll just, for the sake of (somewhat) shorter posts, say my basic opinion on your arguments. You have a good point in that criminals tend to repeat their crimes and should be removed for those three reasons. I disagree with you in your assertion that people are just plain good or evil. Evil people weren't just born pure evil, and even those great people you mentioned had some character flaws and less savory aspects. Nobody is that morally simple, people are far more complex than that. You may, after being mugged, feel that way, but that's only a feeling of anger, and you shouldn't make judgments based on that. That was kind of the point of my first paragraph, in fact, that feelings of anger and hatred are an absolutely stupid way to make judgments.
Oh, and I said a notion of justice was pointless, not justice period. I also said a notion of morality was bullshit, not all of it.
And what blood fueled rage am I not seeing past? I was saying a hot-headed, emotional view of criminals as pure evil and scum is stupid and a horrible way to judge.
I never claimed people were either good or evil. However I do believe that a person that is capable of a crime such as rape etc does not deserve to be in society due to the 3 points I gave above, which are all separate from an idea of revenge.
And I think it's somewhat ridiculous claiming that less savoury aspects of the three people I mentioned, which would be at most a short temper (guessing), to the actions of three mass murderers of an unprecedented scale.
No one was born evil, and no one was born good. However, you need to realise some people are beyond any help due to their upbringing and/or character, and therefore should be permanently removed from society, with anyone who knowingly commits a crime punished as a deterrent (think Victorian Workhouses. The case in question shows that even if you have aspergers, you still are capable of understanding the law, and therefore are not in anyway exempt from it. You seem unwilling to write people off, and give in to the liberal notion that there is always a good reason for people committing crime, rather than some are just scum who should be locked away and are not deserving of the kind of life that a decent citizen has as they will always be either a nuisance or drain on society. People may be complex, but complex emotions doesn't mean that it's then acceptable to break the law.
Plus saying anger and hatred are stupid ways of making judgements is ludicrously naive. If a man rapes a girl, I think society is allowed to hate him as he has permanently messed that child's life up for no justifiable reason.
Justice is a notion, it is subjective. There is no right or wrong 'justice', so saying the notion of justice is bullshit is saying justice is bullshit period, as there is only the notion of justice.
And how can some morality be bullshit yet not other parts? Morality is treated as a whole, not split into little bits. You can still be logical and have a sense of morality & justice - have a read of Aristole's Nicomachean Ethics.
I claimed the unsavory aspects of the three good people you mentioned since your statement:
"Last I checked, there wasn't anything good in Pol Pott, Hitler or Stalin, and likewise, there wasn't anything bad in Mother Teresa, Ghandi or Martin Luther King."
says there wasn't anything bad about those last three. They weren't anywhere near as bad as Hitler or Stalin, not in the slightest, but they sure as hell weren't free of any negative traits either, as they're human.
I do acknowledge that some people commit crimes "for teh evulz (I'm a TV Tropes user)," but as far as I'm concerned those people aren't evil scum, they're insane. Prison won't help them, and if you can rehabilitate them you should, so I'd say take them to a mental hospital. And yes, I am unwilling to write people off: that is something that, unless there absolutely is no alternative (and I really mean no alternative. I'm talking about absolutely freak cases. Typical murderers will not do), you should never do. Locking people up for life is not something that should be eagerly done.
For that thing about judging on hate and anger: no matter what someone did, it is still stupid to judge based on that. Even if they did hurt someone horribly, nothing will come from just hating them and making them suffer. The hypothetical rapist should be locked up and rehabilitated for the rational reason of protecting other people, but as you figured out, I don't believe in hurting someone just for the sake of making them suffer for their sins. Doing that is just stupid.
And morality isn't treated as a whole. There are different, oftentimes contradicting moral systems. Likewise, there are different ideas of justice, though of course my declaring some ideas bullshit was a statement of opinion. Oh, and I've always believed in using logic to determine morality and justice.
The man will be extradited just as he should, the justice system should not be sullied with people looking to get out of crimes because they may have a hard time "controlling" their wants. He broke into computers looking for "UFO's." Why should what he was looking for negate the crime he did? That is like saying it should be totally okay to break into a library at night because you think they are keeping books away from you.
He could face up to 60-70 years, but I highly doubt they give him more then a couple. His crime is a felony, which is a very serious crime.
I'm also wondering where everyone is getting all this information about Asperger Syndrome meaning that he has limited control over his actions when it comes to ideas of consequence? All the research I've done about it has said nothing of the sort.
I get most of the National Autistic Society's newsletters. If you look closely I said that he had limited ideas of the consequences rather than control of his actions. Difference.
I'm sorry that it fell short of your immense brain power.
Firstly, I said at least trespassing, which is still a crime by the way. That was also directed at the scenerio I had drawn up. I also notice that you didn't seem it prudent to comment any more on my calling out of the library book example you gave.
Secondly, where does Asperger Syndrome even come into play where he has limited ideas of consequences or having limited control of his actions "when it comes to ideas of consequence"? I still haven't read one piece of text from any respectable source that this is considered a symptom.
Thirdly, my "passive aggressive" behavior was directed at your *snip* made in poor taste. If you want to keep it civil, do so yourself, thank you.
So, he waited till they caught him to apologize? He deleted sensitive files on a US government network, and then expects to get off by saying, "oops, my bad, I have a condition." I'm sorry, doesn't fly in my book. As was made in a comment earlier, he was scanning thousands of systems per minute for vulnerabilities, which you seemed to ignore completely. Having social limitations and not understanding people's emotional reactions in conversation doesn't justify these actions in any sense.
And concerning the Guantanamo Bay comment, ok yeah you've got me there. =P Although I do have to point out we're not the first nor the last nor the only country to have a situation like this going on. But of course, taking the extreme of any situation is always the best way to win an argument, amirite?
Yes, what he did was wrong, he shouldn't have done it and there needs to be some form of punishment to tell others not to do it and to make sure he understand it was wrong.
But keeping in mind he has Aspergers syndrome, no he shouldn't be extradited to America, no he shouldn't be put on trial in another country with totally different procedures etc without the support of his family and friends and no Britain, we don't have to give in and let the Americans do what they want just because they're bigger than us and Bush and Blair had their special relationship.
BTW, I think the only reason that America wants to extradite him is because they looked so tarded. From what I've heard, it wasn't even that difficult for him to hack into the military etc to get the information.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
