Crosswords1 min ago
Correct Decision?
16 Answers
Answers
1 to 16 of 16
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Generally speaking I think whoever has committed the crime should be tried in a court of law in the country of the offence. In this case the US.
I think the have tougher sentences and much tougher prisons but that is no excuse for not being extradited.
In this case he has a medical condition so that perhaps changes things.
Otherwise I don't know.
I think the have tougher sentences and much tougher prisons but that is no excuse for not being extradited.
In this case he has a medical condition so that perhaps changes things.
Otherwise I don't know.
O_G
It's complicated by the fact that the crime was committed remotely. Mr Love hacked into systems run by the FBI, US Central Bank and Nasa, which are all in America...but he did it from the UK.
Let's say you had a massive long fishing rod, which stretched from your house in London to a jewellers in Aberdeen (bear with me).
If you managed to hook a load of diamond necklaces and then reeled them back to your house, the crime technically originated in London, but was committed in Aberdeen.
Therefore, I would expect the arrest to come from the police in Aberdeen, rather than London.
This is effectively what happened here.
It's complicated by the fact that the crime was committed remotely. Mr Love hacked into systems run by the FBI, US Central Bank and Nasa, which are all in America...but he did it from the UK.
Let's say you had a massive long fishing rod, which stretched from your house in London to a jewellers in Aberdeen (bear with me).
If you managed to hook a load of diamond necklaces and then reeled them back to your house, the crime technically originated in London, but was committed in Aberdeen.
Therefore, I would expect the arrest to come from the police in Aberdeen, rather than London.
This is effectively what happened here.
sp1814 - // It's complicated by the fact that the crime was committed remotely. Mr Love hacked into systems run by the FBI, US Central Bank and Nasa, which are all in America...but he did it from the UK.
Let's say you had a massive long fishing rod, which stretched from your house in London to a jewellers in Aberdeen (bear with me).
If you managed to hook a load of diamond necklaces and then reeled them back to your house, the crime technically originated in London, but was committed in Aberdeen.
Therefore, I would expect the arrest to come from the police in Aberdeen, rather than London.
This is effectively what happened here. //
Actually no, I don't think it is.
Your analogy depends on the physical casting of the line and the hooking of the fish, which was not the case here.
A more accurate analogy would be - if you were a sheep rustler in London, and you managed to entice sheep to walk down from Aberdeen to your farm in London, then you have not actually had any physical contact with them at all - merely found a way to move them to your location.
In that case, the crime occurred in London, because you did not move from there to commit the crime - there is no physical evidence to link you with the sheep, or their reasons for walking down to London and into your farmyard.
So your analogy, interesting though it is, is flawed in my view.
Let's say you had a massive long fishing rod, which stretched from your house in London to a jewellers in Aberdeen (bear with me).
If you managed to hook a load of diamond necklaces and then reeled them back to your house, the crime technically originated in London, but was committed in Aberdeen.
Therefore, I would expect the arrest to come from the police in Aberdeen, rather than London.
This is effectively what happened here. //
Actually no, I don't think it is.
Your analogy depends on the physical casting of the line and the hooking of the fish, which was not the case here.
A more accurate analogy would be - if you were a sheep rustler in London, and you managed to entice sheep to walk down from Aberdeen to your farm in London, then you have not actually had any physical contact with them at all - merely found a way to move them to your location.
In that case, the crime occurred in London, because you did not move from there to commit the crime - there is no physical evidence to link you with the sheep, or their reasons for walking down to London and into your farmyard.
So your analogy, interesting though it is, is flawed in my view.
1 to 16 of 16
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |