1.) 18 is legally an adult, I don't see why this is any different than when an 18 year old murders someone or deals drugs. Obviously the crimes are very different, but if/while what he did is illegal, why should the legal system treat it differently age-wise than anything else?
2.) He kept doing it for years, which indicates he didn't (or at least hadn't yet) regret it.
1.) 18 is legally an adult, I don't see why this is any different than when an 18 year old murders someone or deals drugs. Obviously the crimes are very different, but if/while what he did is illegal, why should the legal system treat it differently age-wise than anything else?
The point is that the extradition process is daunting enough in itself. In many respects it amounts to punishment before trial. You are separated from your loved ones, transported to a foreign land, locked up in a foreign jail and tried in a foreign court under foreign law.
This particular extradition case is made more objectionable by the fact that O'Dwyer is not a self-sufficient adult. He's a 23-year-old university student.
It is made more objectionable still by the fact that he is being charged with something that many do not believe should be a criminal offence, and to the best of my knowledge, is not a criminal offence in the United Kingdom.
If linking to copyrighted material is an offence, then surely every search engine should be indicted for facilitating copyright infringement on an unimaginable scale?
2.) He kept doing it for years, which indicates he didn't (or at least hadn't yet) regret it.
He stated just yesterday after the court hearing that he didn't regret it; that it had helped his university studies "to no end" given he is studying Computer Science.
Is he supposed to regret not breaking any laws in the country of which he is a citizen?
I wasn't at all arguing in favour of what is happening. The now-deleted comment I replied to was arguing that he was only 18 when he first did it, and then lots of people do foolish things at that age and later regret them.
If he had committed a crime that we all agreed should be against the law, such as murder, at 18 and kept doing it regularly until he was 23, would anybody here be defending him for his age? THAT was my point.
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.
