As it stands now, you have done little more than make unsubstantiated assertions without references to cases, statistics or US law.

Can you provide me with the case that you’ve referenced that took 5 years ‘rotting in prison until he broke down and plead’? Was the trial in process? Can you confirm that the authorities held him until he copped a plea?

Better yet, I’ll ask you your own question. ¨Any real statistis on that one?¨

The question is how long is reasonable?

Word has it that it is as long as the person agree to plea.

In another hacker case, it took 5 years rotting in prison until he broke down and plead. I wonder how long the system would have kept him to rote in prison ‘pending a trial’ of course….

Any real statistics on that one? We all know how it should work… but lets discuss reality here.

Can we trust the largest growing industry in the USA, the most powerful political lobby - the privatised prison system, which gets a huge slave work force behind bars, to have any other interest but to keep them in for as long as possible?

Wasn’t that very same technique employed in a European country last century?

I am not a lawyer, and I’m not dispensing legal advice here. Let me clarify, if I created a perception I didn’t intend. Considering that that 87% of federal cases in 2008 ended in a guilty or nolo colendere (no contest) plea, it would be reasonable to expect another plea agreement to be offered to McKinnon.

As for your understanding that ‘unless you plea you rote in prison until you plea’, no that isn’t correct. People aren’t held until they agree to a plea. That would be undue pressure.

You’re also making an incorrect assumption in terms of people being held without trial. In the US federal justice system, people have to be charged or released. If charged, they may be held pending a trial if the crime is severe enough or the suspect poses a flight risk (likely in the McKinnon case), but that is determined during an arraignment process. However, that is not being held without a trial, that’s pending a trial. If a case goes to trial, the length is different from case to case.

It is my understanding that unless you plea you rote in prison until you plea…

Do you have any statistics for how many people are held with no trial for how long, if they don’t agree to a plea?

I did a quick look at the US Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics, and for 2008, 87% of federal cases were decided by plea agreement:

http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/tost_5.html#5_v

I took the numbers from Defendants disposed of in U.S. District Courts, by type of disposition, 1945-2008. I took the number of guilty or nolo contendere pleas divided by the total number of defendants.

It’s one of the reasons why I think it’s entirely reasonable to expect a plea agreement to be re-offered to McKinnon if the extradition is successful, not only to avoid the costs of the trial but also just because for the US, Britain and McKinnon himself, it’s probably in everyone’s best interest to bring this case to a conclusion quickly.

In terms of proving the damage and whether the information is classified, the computer networks weren’t classified, another common error in the reporting.

The indictment doesn’t mention the classification of the systems. Count 2 mentions that he attempted to copy “unclassified information” to his own computer. Not all military computers are ‘classified’, and it also should be understood that there are several layers of secrecy and clearances in the US system. There are separate networks for handling classified information, much of it on the .smil domain as opposed to the .mil domain.

The best way to put it is probably as it was reported in 2002 by Computerworld in the US from a news conference after the original indictment:

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/75833/Massive_hacking_spree_halted_man_indicted

Once inside a network, McKinnon is alleged to have installed remote administration and hacker tools, copied password files and other sensitive but unclassified files and deleted user accounts and other critical system files.

See pg 2 of that report, Paul J. McNulty, U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, said that his motivation might have been to gain access to classified information, implying but not confirming that classified networks and information weren’t involved.

Oh, as for waiting for the extradition treaty to come into force before applying for extradition, I’d point out Stuart Turton’s in-depth look at the case in PC PRO (UK).

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/252972/gary-mckinnon-britains-hacking-hero/page3.html

It’s a theory rebuffed by extradition lawyer Douglas McNab, who simply notes: “It could conceivably have taken that amount of time to complete the investigation.”

Also, not all court hearings are televised in the US.

Hope that helps.

Out of 100% of cases in the USA how many (in %) actually go to trial?

Or… Given the fact that proving the damage, seem to be of classified nature, so much so that they waited until they got the UK to sign the extradition treaty so they will not have to provide any real evidence of his guilt, what are the chances that the USA would want to get even more embarrassed and have that discussed in televised open court?

I will be very interested to know what you think…