I thought that was generally consensus, and actually represented in the punishments many different justice systems
If that is the case then why complain about this punishment?
You are now just contradicting yourself.
I told you they can be paid restitution.
And ignored the fact that the hacker likely can't pay that restitution. As such they cannot be magically repaired. Instead you can just shift the damage to someone else.
Idk man, most people would care if they lost 100k by a scam or if someone broke into their home and threatened their family with a gun to do that.
Notice how now you are adding in more details?
Not only did the person rob me of $100k, they also now broke into my house, and they threatened me and my family with a gun.
So what you are really asking now is what would you rather have happen:
Bad thing X, or bad thing X along with bad things Y and Z?
Also note that you are now really failing at your comparison because he wasn't just taking money, he was blackmailing people, i.e. threatening them.
An extreme case of stealing/scamming lots of money from hundreds of people and causing them serious damage. Not defrauding money from 2-3 entities that can be repaid relatively easily.
Except it isn't just 2-3 entities and you are yet to establish that they can pay it back very easily.
This is a pattern of crime, having many many counts. It is severe.
What non-financial damages?
Already answered, you'd know if you paid attention to what you're answering to, moving on.
You know states do that all the time, right?
That doesn't answer the question at all.
Why should they pay for his crimes?
Also, plenty of courts don't.
Because criminals are citizens too and their countries protect them?
So Afghanistan was right to protect Osama Bin Laden?
Germany was right to protect Hitler?
Why should countries protect criminals from prosecution for the crimes they committed?
Because being tried in a foreign court carries all sorts of different issues with it, and it seems like the US courts are determined to punish him extremely severely.
Yes, they are going to punish him severely for his severe crimes. That is not a problem.
And from the sounds of the allegations, it sounds like someone didn't pay the blackmail demands and instead got very large costs as a result of whatever it was that they were being blackmailed with. So I doubt that can get "repaired".
With that attitude, so can every crime.
Had a loved one murdered, don't worry, they can just pay some money.
Hijacked a few planes and flew them into buildings, don't worry, they can just pay some money.
That's why I specified the crimes were non violent and the damage was strictly financial, you genius. Jesus christ.
No, you didn't.
Instead you responded to specifically non-financial crimes which also had a financial impact.
Instead of accepting that that can't be repaired you decided that the courts are fine to decide that it can just get magically repaired by throwing money at it.
No. Unless it caused a huge amount of damage ... Even then, it is much easier to restore that kind of damage than a serious violent offense.
No, again, lots of "serious violent offences" require some time off to heal to repair, if you ignore the mental damage.
You also have no idea of just what the damages were.
He stole and purchased illegally obtained PII.
Stealing PII information is a very serious crime and should be treated as such.
Blackmailing people by threatening to release it is a very serious crime and should be treated as such.
Leaking can effectively destroy someone's life.
That is severe and he deserves a severe penalty.
I'm not even sure what the argument is even supposed to be here, that the victims shouldn't be compensated in any way
No, that isn't my position. I am not annoyed by the concept of restitution and compensation. I'm all for that.
Both indictments in the US demand the forfeiture of forfeitable property upon conviction.
I just also recognise the non-financial damages and the severity of the crime, that deserves more than just throwing money at the problem.
If you think committing financial crimes and blackmailing people should just result in you paying back the money you stole, then you are saying there is basically no reason at all to not do them. You either don't get caught and don't have to pay back the money, or you get caught for part of it and have to pay back part of it.
The sentence he was facing in Cyprus
The sentence for what?
That is what you keep ignoring.
What was he actually arrested for in Cyprus?
What was he actually facing trial for in Cyrpus?
From the sounds of it is is purely the attack against the ISP/telcom, not any of the rest (and that isn't what he is facing trial for in the US).
If they think it is 1.5 years for the relatively minor crime of just DDOSing an ISP/telcom (assuming no one died as a result) if acceptable, what makes you think they wouldn't accept 20 years for the numerous counts of fraud, theft, blackmail, etc.
How is this worth 20 years? I'd give him a week of community work, maybe two, plus forcing him to pay the money that he illegally acquired back.
And if he can't pay it back?
And so that means if someone blackmails you and releases your personal information, which could effectively destroy your life, you are fine with them just getting a tiny bit of community service?
A week of community service is pathetic for his crimes.