cman: DammitIForgotMyLogin: Actually, it reads to be more like:

Britain: Promise that won't lock him up for life without convicting him in a trial first
America: No

You do understand what civil confinement is, dont you?

It does not involve the court system after one is made a patient. While there, the doctors decide when you are good to leave the program.

That's comforting. I wonder why they mistrust this.

What happened to his wife's chin?

So, rather than agreeing to Britain's demands, and locking that guy up for 50 years after a fair trial, during which we'd know for sure he wouldn't be abusing children, the United States insists on the right to lock him up indefinitely without charges, essentially allowing him to go free since they knew the judges wouldn't go for it. Lovely.

so..

Was it really necessary to put McKinnon in an article with baby rapers? farking bullshiat propaganda.

I don't disagree with the thinking behind civil commitment but you can't argue that indefinite detention, possibly without even a fair trial, would contravene the legal rights of a person under UK and EU law.

Perhaps it's time for the law to be changed for some circumstances. It's certainly not fine just to ignore the laws on America's say-so.

Now that is a punchable face.

He could change his name to Orenthal.

Sullivan lives in London with his wife, who works for the Ministry of Justice

Well there you go...

tankjr: Was it really necessary to put McKinnon in an article with baby rapers? farking bullshiat propaganda.

Too farking right...... +1

They extradite Assange but not this farker?

He should have his testicles removed and hung from the highest gate in London as a warning to others. That said, civil commitment is an unamerican and unconstitutional farce. I dislike the outcome, but justice in general must outweigh justice for this one arsehat.

cman: DammitIForgotMyLogin: Actually, it reads to be more like:

Britain: Promise that won't lock him up for life without convicting him in a trial first
America: No

You do understand what civil confinement is, dont you?

It does not involve the court system after one is made a patient. While there, the doctors decide when you are good to leave the program.

So in essence, you could be confined for life w/o benefit of a trial. I see.

European Convention on Human Rights

HAHA like Europe matters...send in the SEALS

/seriously though i would like to read the opinion..anyone have a link if there is one?

the goal of the sex offender program in the US is to encourage them to reoffend.
it's like a doctor signing a doctors program

Civil commitment does involve the court system, and coming from my old therapist, there is too much pressure from the judges in those cases for the doctors to write unfavorable reports that it is essentially life imprisonment. In one case, the judge and prosecutor double-teamed him when he said that the patient was no more likely to reoffend than any other person. They insisted that he was wrong and demanded that he accept responsibility if the guy ever reoffended. When he refused to accept it, they discarded his recommendation and sent the guy back.

cman:
It does not involve the court system after one is made a patient.
Whereas in the UK the Mental Health Act makes damn sure that the legal system is involved in any detention. We're picky like that, and don't like locking people up indefinitely without legal recourse. Habeus Corpus, Magna Carta, that sort of thing.

While there, the doctors decide when you are good to leave the program.
The BBC claims that nobody has ever (since 1988) been released from the programme. If that's true, does it worry you?

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: So, rather than agreeing to Britain's demands, and locking that guy up for 50 years after a fair trial, during which we'd know for sure he wouldn't be abusing children, the United States insists on the right to lock him up indefinitely without charges, essentially allowing him to go free since they knew the judges wouldn't go for it. Lovely.

"lock him up indefinitely without charges"

Or, as we see it, to define pedophilia as a serious mental disorder that makes you a danger to others and treat it as such.

If you have sexual desires for underage girls, that on its own is not a crime. Depending on how underage it might not even be psychologically abnormal (hence the "she looked 18!" claims). However, if you both desire seriously underage girls and cannot control your urges for them to the point you rape little girls, you're seriously farked up in the head. If we sent them to prison, they'd get killed by the general population in there in no time if they knew you were a kiddy diddler.

They could be released at any time, if the psychiatrist thinks they aren't going to molest/rape children any more. How the hell does the UK's mental health commitment work? They don't have involuntary commitment for the criminally mentally ill? If somebody is committing serious offenses because of a mental health problem they don't let Doctors sort it out?

The rest of the world dumps on the US for not looking at rehabilitation of offenders and going straight to punishment, but we start talking about sending offenders into the mental health system for treatment of the underlying cause of their behavior and they get irate as well.

Can't please some people.

/Can I haz extraordinary rendition?

Actually I'm pained to admit that seems like a fairly accurate article by the daily mail having read about this on the BBC and The Times.

Obviously he should go to America and face trial, but as he doesn't seem to have offended since he was in his 20s or so and it's now 18 years and he's living with an adult woman later I do wonder what this "America's Most Wanted Sex Criminal" status is about. Being charitable it seems like exaggeration at best.

The problem here is partly that influence on the British system by the European Convention on Human Rights has raised the definition of "Human Rights" to a ridiculous standard.
Secondly a truly halfwitted Extradition Act which Tony Blair signed with the USA because he trusted you guys. More fool him, now it seems that the British legal system can be manipulated by attention seeking local DAs of low moral status who would be lucky to get jobs as cleaning court floors over here and sloppy/dishonest/corrupt federal agencies.

In this particular case my first instinct is to say that the locals in Minnesota should be brought to heel but no doubt there are States Rights issues there so it's not possible.

So, although the legal system here is far from perfect and as a fellow common law country there is much we can and should learn from the US, I'm not eager to have your legal system over here as quite frankly it seems that large parts of it are shiattily run.
And don't get me started on Europe.

OK, rant over.

The government should have just agreed to the demand, and once he was back in the country quietly tell the judge to give the guy 50 years in jail.

Makh: They probably think he just has a foot fetish because we spell paedophile wrong.

Peter File?

cman: It does not involve the court system after one is made a patient. While there, the doctors decide when you are good to leave the program.

And if there is any justice in the universe, Alan Horowitz will stay in a hospital for the rest of his life. In a pain amplifier.

Tat'dGreaser: MmmmBacon: Indeed. But if they feel he has "done his time" under their laws, Britain is under no obligation to hand him over to the U.S., if they feel he might receive unfair or cruel treatment. Once upon a time, the U.S. would take the exact same stance with countries that might torture or kill a prisoner.

Now we ship those countries our political prisoners. Oh how times have changed!

Well then that's sad, but they can just deal with him raping their children.

Hide yo wife, hide yo kids, no seriously because he's probably going to rape them.

Even though he hasn't done so in over 15 years?

The limey cocksuckers have denied extradition on 9 people while we've never denied them their criminals. In addition they released the Lockerbie bomber early. Too bad it's their kids who are going to be the ones paying the price instead of the asswipe liberturds in the government.

ethics-gradient: Actually I'm pained to admit that seems like a fairly accurate article by the daily mail having read about this on the BBC and The Times.

Obviously he should go to America and face trial, but as he doesn't seem to have offended since he was in his 20s or so and it's now 18 years and he's living with an adult woman later I do wonder what this "America's Most Wanted Sex Criminal" status is about. Being charitable it seems like exaggeration at best.

The problem here is partly that influence on the British system by the European Convention on Human Rights has raised the definition of "Human Rights" to a ridiculous standard.
Secondly a truly halfwitted Extradition Act which Tony Blair signed with the USA because he trusted you guys. More fool him, now it seems that the British legal system can be manipulated by attention seeking local DAs of low moral status who would be lucky to get jobs as cleaning court floors over here and sloppy/dishonest/corrupt federal agencies.

In this particular case my first instinct is to say that the locals in Minnesota should be brought to heel but no doubt there are States Rights issues there so it's not possible.

So, although the legal system here is far from perfect and as a fellow common law country there is much we can and should learn from the US, I'm not eager to have your legal system over here as quite frankly it seems that large parts of it are shiattily run.
And don't get me started on Europe.

OK, rant over.

you make solid points and I do not intend to detract from that. However, at least on sexual abuse in my jurisdiction (I cannot speak to Minnesota) there is no statute of limitations on felony sexual assault crimes. What he allegedly did arises to a felony. At least from what I have read on the European Law..he should be returned. I have not found the opinion yet so I do not know on what legal basis the court denied that despite Daily Fails arguments which most likely have nothing to do with the actual law
...so for now I disagree with the British Courts determination. Despite the often over the top rhetoric the United States is not North Korea.

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: So, rather than agreeing to Britain's demands, and locking that guy up for 50 years after a fair trial, during which we'd know for sure he wouldn't be abusing children, the United States insists on the right to lock him up indefinitely without charges, essentially allowing him to go free since they knew the judges wouldn't go for it. Lovely.

You misspelled "insists on the ability to treat him in a hospital setting instead of sending him to PMITA prison."