New column: SWIFT JUSTICE
I decided to create this column to vent my outrage and frustration over court cases that could be dealt with much swifter than the mills of juresprudence in various countries - mainly the US and the UK - grind out. In my column I weigh the evidence, the gravity of the case, the circumstances of perpetrators and victims and how to best effectuate the law. In the end there will always be a verdict and a sentence. This Court never adjourns before a verdict has been reached. Arguments for possible appeals can be lodged under "comment to this."
I am encouraged to meter out swift justice by the conviction that I am smarter than 96.8% of jurors, wiser than 65% of judges, remote and emotionally detached from the cases, uninfluenced free of influence from the media and their effort to prejudge and pre-convict, and immune to government intervention. I am also much smarter and of better character than recent British prime ministers; case in point: Tony Blair. His legacy to create a fundamentally flawed and corrupted extradition treaty between the US and the UK is so infamous that the man is disqualified for far less important jobs than PM; the position as a figure-head president of the EU, for example.
So, without much further ado, let's have today's case.
Court is in session. All rise, the Rt Hon Judge Pilatus Euro presiding.
People versus
Gary McKinnon, 43
Mr McKinnon is accused of hacking US military computer networks at the height of security alerts following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 and causing substantial security breaches, damages and globe-spanning counter-measures. In a previous judgment I ordered Mr McKinnon to be extradited and he was handed over to US Marshals on the same day.
The accused has testified that he invaded the US military computers for the sole purpose of finding information on UFOs. The Court has been convinced that his claim is genuine, albeit irrational and delusional. His claims have been the reflection of a deranged mind and a generally infantile perception of the world around him. Based on these findings the court recognises the mitigating circumstances in this case, facts that will have to be reflected in the sentencing phase of the case.
Mr McKinnon's legal representatives also presented credible evidence that the accused suffers from symptoms of Asperger's Syndrome. Hearing medical experts in the course of the trial revealed medium effects on Mr McKinnon's grasp of reality and facts. During his spells of 'tunnel vision' he was unable to distinguish between right and wrong, and his mission to find satisfying clues on his obsession with Unidentified Flying Objects took precedent over any natural barrier one feels before breaking the law. Mr McKinnon was not able to recognise that he was breaking the law.
On the other hand, the evidence from military sources - both in the UK and the US - have shown compelling evidence of severe violations of security. The Court is not to judge whether such breaches could have been forestalled by more sophisticated breakers in the system. During the time of the intrusions by Mr McKinnon, in the aftermath of the sophisticated and organised atrocities committed at three different sites on US soil, the US military in particular had been put on a war footing. The exploitation of this grave situation by Mr McKinnon weighs heavily against the defendant.
The Court has not heard any accusation that Mr McKinnon acted on behalf of a third party, nor has he been linked to any terrorist network or foreign intelligence apparatus. The Court is satisfied by his defence team's assertions that the accused acted on his own and for his own pleasure. He did not seek any other reward from his criminal acts, be it materially or idealistically, than to satisfy his search for evidence of the existence and presence of UFOs in what he considered his own world. The US Government declined to show proof to the contrary and earlier allegations that Mr McKinnon had acted on behalf, and with the cooperation, of obscure networks to invade US Government installations and computer systems have not been repeated in court.
Ignorance of the law does not absolve one from guilt. That was the key to this case.
Consequently, this Court finds the defendant Gary McKinnon,
G U I L T Y
as charged.
The Court sentences Mr Mc Kinnon to 32 months in a medium security Federal penitentiary and to a fine of $450,000. Mr McKinnon is eligible for parole after 18 months of incarceration.
SUMMARY
Once found guilty, the Court's discretion in the duration of the incarceration has been for a prison term of up to 60 years in a maximum security penitentiary. From the onset of this trial it was clear that the Court would remain far below this limit.
The evidence presented has clearly shown Mr McKinnon's culpability and responsibility of what has been viewed as one of the worst ever security breaches in US military history. This severity of the case made incarceration inevitable and ruled out the possibility of passing a minimum sentence of 1 year in jail. Yet, the court recognised the circumstances and health issues of the defendant and has tried to implement a fair sentence.
This Court wishes to rebuke the British Government's efforts to undermine deliberately and with great subversion the course of justice in this case. Also the fact that Mr McKinnon had to go through the trauma of extradition and trial in the US is because of the absurdly drafted legal treaties negotiated by the UK Government between the two countries. In the effort to pervert justice the British Government provided tips and aid to Mr McKinnon, rallied public support for the accused and incited the public with hysterical falsehoods that branded Mr McKinnon as a "lonesome martyr facing life in prison in the Wild West." The UK Government acted irresponsibly and frivolously in support of a criminal and fugitive.
The Court pays tribute to the hardship imposed on the British defendant by his own government and also stipulates that Mr McKinnon will have liberal visitation rights and will undergo frequent medical care and assessment. After serving six months the convict will be eligible for spending the balance of the mandatory part of the prison term in the United Kingdom. The defendant will be barred from entry into the United States for 15 years following his release as a condition of a future parole.
This brings today's proceedings to a close; Court dismissed.
NEXT WEEK: The People vs Roman Polanski
No comments:
Post a Comment