[jepper]

The United States can request an extradition for crimes committed by an individual(as argued under the US law). However this does not mean that the Netherlands has to comply. If a Dutch person committed a crime in the Netherlands according to the US, but its legal here, he/she will NOT be extradited. The same is true if the punishment is unreasonably severe according to Dutch law (death penalty.). For the latter there is a clause in our Dutch-US extradition agreements however you can still argue against this in court. (trias politica). It also stated in the treaty that the Dutch convicted can serve their jail time in the Netherlands. The punishment is then even converted to Dutch punishment standards.

There have been cases where it was argued that US electronic law (hacking and piracy cases) is not fair to the accused. This however does not always help.

This will however not help if you refuse a hearing on this. The article states: "Nomm agreed to waive his extradition hearing in the Netherlands"

[fafner]

The Netherlands doesn't has to comply and she might offer special protection to her citizens. But as soon as the person leaves the Netherlands the protection is gone. E.g., making a shopping trip to Belgium or Germany and suddenly getting arrested there.

[ptaipale]

However, Belgium and Germany offer similar protection, not just to their own citizens but also to those visiting from Netherlands (and from other EU/EEA countries). As do other EU/EEA countries.

I think this protection may even go too far, as in the case of Roman Polanski who continues to evade a quite reasonable-looking extradition request on a child rape conviction.

[Coding_Cat]

Not completely. For example, the Dutch government will often bargain for the freedom/extradition of their citizens if they are arrested in a foreign country for breaking their law, and the punishment is considered excessive/immoral. E.g. the Death penalty for drug trafficking.

Of course, they won't send in the fleet to come and free you, so their bargaining power is limited but it has had its successes in the past.

[chii]

why would anyone waive the hearing (presumably, where you would argue that you shouldn't be extradited)?

[draugadrotten]

Plea bargains. A promise of 1 year in low sec prison vs the risk of getting a life sentence in solitary.

It's similar to what was done to witches in medieval times: "Confess, and we will kill you gently, or be sentenced and be burned alive."

[maaaats]

Plea bargains is such an odd and dangerous concept. It can be misused heavily. "This petty crime has a max sentence of 10 years, if you confess we will give you 2" may trick even innocent people into confessing.

[higherpurpose]

That's what I don't get. If you threaten someone with 10 or 20 or 50 years in prison, then why the hell would you allow that person to only serve 2 years? If you thought about giving him that much, then clearly he must be a very dangerous person to society. I probably wouldn't want such a person to get out after only 2 years. If the prosecutors are charging such a person with 10x less than what he should be getting then maybe those prosecutors should be investigated for corruption. For instance, like how it happens when the prosecutors are always somehow much more lenient against cops.

But of course it has nothing to do with how dangerous he is in most cases. They're just selectively enforcing vague laws just to pile them up and force him to accept at least some prison time, even if he considers himself innocent.

That should be illegal and considered against human rights, especially since usually I believe the judges have no say in it, as the charges happen before the accused is brought in front of a judge. Without a judge you can't have "justice" either. You just have government bullies using the government's might to put someone - anyone - in prison, even if he's innocent or only guilty of minor offences. This is exactly why such abuses of power should be illegal.

[cm2187]

There is an interesting asymmetry between the two parties.

To the prosecutor it is just a day job, whether the guy spends 1 or 10 years in prison won't really change anything to his holiday plans. To the defendant, he is playing with his own life. He will have to be locked in a room with thugs for many years, away from his family or any prospect of a normal life.

So both parties have a very different risk aversion in that game. So the prosecution plays with that.

Now if you inflicted a significant pain (career progression, financial penalty) on the prosecutor every time he sent someone to court that turned out to be judged innocent, then you would even this "game" and would probably end up with a more fair bargain.

[leke]

I also think that systems that have plea bargains, also have a tendency towards longer sentences for petty crimes. Just so discourage people fighting long, expensive trials.

[stef25]

That's what lawyers are for, I hope he had a good one.

[restalis]

Actually, the fairness of the trial should be a given, and the lawyers should be merely additional parties whose role is to assist the defendant's handicap of lacking the needed professional law knowledge. Lawyers are not something that one must employ in a dog fight against abusive prosecutors.

[Retric]

In the US Prosecutors are given impunity to do just about anything to get a conviction. The only recourse for a defendant is to get their conviction overturned but that does not give them the years of their life back while waiting for an appeal.

As to fairness it’s considered completely reasonable for an innocent person who is a possible flight risk to spend a year in jail awaiting trial.

[stingraycharles]

I would like to go a little off-topic and explain a common misconception about the medieval times: it was usually "confess and you will get a light punishment, or otherwise we will do something really bad to you, and if you're innocent the lord will save you". This is actually a fairly interesting game theory: people that truely believed they were innocent, believed the lord would save them.

As such, it was usually only the innocent people that went through the trial-by-god process, and very often the priest conducting the trial rigged the process, and very few people were actually killed in the process.

[xorcist]

Are plea bargains allowed in the Dutch justice system? I know they're not in at least two neighbouring countries.

[jepper]

No, but confession is often seen as a 'softening' factor in the weighing of the punishment by the judge

[simon_vetter]

This. I'm having a hard time to understand why he waived that hearing. Pleading guilty (basically renouncing to a fair trial to determine if he's guilty or not) is something he could have done in the Netherlands as well. Arguably, copyright laws in the Netherlands (and in the EU as a whole) are fairer to the defendant than their US counterparts.

[tinco]

He would not be allowed to plead guilty in The Netherlands, as The Netherlands is not charging him. The extradition hearing is about whether he will be extradited after being sentenced. So it would go like this: US says you are guilty, 25 years in jail for computer hacking and mass copyright infringement. US sends warrant for your extradition to The Netherlands. The Netherlands arrests you but allows you to go to explain why you should not be extradited. You cry and say it's unfair. The Netherlands grants the extradition anyway(why not?). You'll be in an American prison for most of your life.

See how bargaining can make your life a bit easier?

[hellbanner]

No, why wouldn't they at least give it a shot? Is there collusion between NL hearing courts & US prosecution?

[tinco]

They wouldn't give it a shot because they've bargained it for a less risky lower jail time option.

A collusion insinuates secrecy or illegality. There's a plain treaty about extraditions. If you get prosecuted in the US the default mode is that you get extradited.

In practice extraditions are almost never blocked, you would have to be in very special circumstances, like if you'd be at risk of being put to death in the US. Or have some illness that's not treated properly in the US. Maybe a very big public outcry in The Netherlands could work in your favor.

In this case it's very plain. There's no public outcry, he's viewed as a common criminal in The NL. His actions are most likely illegal here as well and it doesn't seem like a very good moment to go discussing the US' extreme penalties for intellectual crime.

[pluma]

Basically, in order to make a case against being extradited, you'd have to convince the court that you wouldn't be given a fair trial in the country making the request.

His problem wasn't that he wouldn't receive a fair trial, his problem was that the laws themselves are silly (but not obviously immoral or excessive). If he had faced a corporeal punishment (death penalty or mutilation), he might have had a case.

Of course the ideal path would have been facing the hearing and then pleading guilty when he was extradited, but the plea bargain likely required him not to challenging the extradition and his chances for successfully doing so were likely far too low to take the gamble.

[psykovsky]

NL is a big US fan...