[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...