Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

What we are effectively doing here is balancing the costs and benefits of extradition. My argument is that both the severity of the alleged offence and the situation of the defendant (including but not limited to their age) are relevant factors in determining those costs and benefits, and thus whether extradition is an appropriate course of action.

If I understand correctly, you are proposing that age should not be a factor. In order to do so, you raise the example of a murder suspect, and point out that popular sentiment would not differ significantly towards 18-year-old and 23-year-old murder suspects.

I would argue that your example is an exceptional one, in which the severity of the alleged offence (murder) is so great that age becomes irrelevant (at least over the age of legal responsibility).

In this case, the alleged offence is nowhere near as severe. As I mention above, it seems it is not even an offence in the United Kingdom. Hence the potential benefits to society from having O'Dwyer extradited, tried, and potentially convicted, are much less.




You are still completely missing my point. I 100% believe he shot not be extradited. I would have that opinion whether he was 18, 30, 50, whatever, and that opinion would not even take age into consideration. His age would only become relevant if he was under the age of legal responsibility, in which case it would then become another reason against extradition.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: