It should also be noted that he wasn't diagnosed with Asperger's until after he was arrested.

This is a syndrome that is usually diagnosed by like... 11 years old... and Asperger's at higher ages is actually nearly impossible to diagnosis correctly.

In otherwords... he's likely faking.

The UK hasn't been hacked like that for the same reason Apple has less virus in then the UK.  Less people are trying.

Also, that's just bad analogy... are men who rape women walking down the street at night less at fault then men who break into womens homes to rape them?

A crime is a crime no matter how easy or hard it is.

Read the above post.  He probably doesn't even have aspergers syndrome.

Though if he really does have it, yes we take that into account. 

The truth is... you've done no research on this case... and presented it only so you could trumpet your own onesided views.  Had you spent 5-10 minutes to fact check... you'd of seen how biased the article was.

I just trust the BBC's reporting, it's the most reputable company in the UK and one of the most respected in the world, what are your sources?

Im not aware that im required to do extra research on every article I read, especailly from sources that have rarely let me down for accuracy in the past

also, its good that the US would take it into account

why do you bring up asbergers like its something serious

What do you want sources specifically?

After reading this article i looked up a number from many different newspapers.

Because the media has a way of misreporting things... for example this case.

It should also be noted... that if he's found to not have any mental illness... as in faking the disease that he was diagnosed with, after needing a reason to fight extradiction.

It's not expected he'd receive more then 10 years.

im just pointing out that I gave my source, you have yet to give yours

yes, the media can represent, but what makes your sources more reliable than mine then? given that mine is one of the most reputable news companies in the world...

That's because i read about 15 different articles and his wikipedia entry.

Including the New York Times... which is right up there with the BBC.

What makes mine more reliable is... I read a whole lot more... and know a lot more about the case... instead of what the BBC selectivly fed you.

For example... that he was diagnosed after he was arrested.  Did you know that?

Did you know he hacked into computers for something like a year straight?

Shutdown computers... said he was doing it because of US foreign policy?

Why did the BBC leave all that out? 

The sources aren't so much better as... more sources = more information = more knowledge.

Wikipedia, well clearly that debunks the BBC...

the New York Times fair enough, unlike you I dont have the time to be going to loads of sources, hell I think you are the only one who did in this thread.

Edit: I think the personal attack on me when others didnt read all these other sources, was completley out of order by the way, also to note, when it comes to data/sources I would have thought that surely you knew that Quality is more important thatn Quantity. not neccessarily relevant in this case, but generally I think its worth noting.

The time?  It took me just as long to do it... as it's took you to reply to it.

No time at all.

Another fun bit of education for you.

He was offered a plea bargain of 3 to 4 years if he would of turned himself in already.

Which is actually less then the 5 years (not 6 months) he would of got in the UK.   The 6 months only being for a first offense.

Hell he would already be out of jail.

It's this simple.  "If it seems to good to be true it is."

And

"Don't have strong opinions about things you haven't researched".

I think the personal attack on me when others didnt read all these other sources, was completley out of order by the way, also to note, when it comes to data/sources I would have thought that surely you knew that Quality is more important thatn Quantity. not neccessarily relevant in this case, but generally I think its worth noting.

It didnt seem to good to be true to me, that point seems irrelevant to this?

er, dont most people do that, I will try and find more info in future if you really think none of the sources I use are worthwhile and all of yours our, perhaps I should ask for a list of acceptable sources from you then?