i long for the days when we can just castrate these men. most sex offenders are not treatable anyway and always re-offend. they belong in programs or jail and not out on the street. the UK's decision is sickening and a terrible blow for the poor victims.

Castration doesn't work. They still abuse victims...sometimes in more sick and perverted ways.

Castration does work if you castrate the head off their shoulders.

How amazing! .... The nation that we found to have unjust laws, finding our laws to ge to inhumane!

Are they "Fairer" then we are, or "misguided?"

If I was the parent of the girl, I would have no problem going there and killing his azz. If the father needs help doing this, I will donate to the cause.

Draconian? You mean like having a queen?

It is clear that the UK is more interested in the rights of sexual predators than in the safety and well-being of children.

This is a very serious issue that needs some very serious objective study and work.

1) True sexual predators (and this guy appears to be one) have a recidivism rate near 100%. In fact, the distribution of repeat oiffenses is actually highest about four weeks after release from prison. There is no known psychotherapy, drug, or treatment (including castration, chemical or sugrical) that has been shown to work.

2) Overbroad laws and mandatory sentencing have cause a lot of people to be unnecessarily classified as sexual predators. When a high school kid has consensual sex with his underage girlfriend this does not make him a sexual predator, no matter what the law says.

3) This country needs a serious effort to bifurcate people accused of sex crimes to divide the accused into two groups: true sexual predators, and those using poor judgement. True sexual predators should be evaluated carefully, then upon the finding that that is what they are, sentenced to confinement for life. The sentence would be reviewed every five years (the minimum sentence) and supervised release could be made on competent advice (and I'm not talking about a single 2-hour interview, but days of testing, including fMRIs.) At age 75, release could be considered if 5 years had been served and the person's record is otherwise clean.

People accused of non-predatory sex crimes would be tried by judges with wide latitude in sentencing (such as juvenile judges typically have today.) A man who had sex with hyis underage girlfriend might be diverted into community service, while a man who had sex with women by deception might go to prison. The punishment should fit the crime and there should be some attempt at rehabilitation or reconciliation instead of imprisonment for "sex crimes."

Right now we have a broken and inconsistent environment. Sentences are far too lenient for mental deviants who pose a serious risk to society, but too harsh for people making bad decisions or committing acts not likely to be ever repeated. We don't need lists of sexual predators and their addresses online when most of them are not any sort of risk. All that does is punish people far beyond what the law intended and is a basic violation of Common Law (indefinite retention without a trial.) We can do better.

Well, if that's the case, maybe we can start sending our hardcore sex offenders to Britain rather than putting them in prison here.

After all, if the Brits are willing to give them sanctuary.........

I'll bet Sandusky regrets not escaping to the UK while out on bond.

So the judges released a serial child molester/rapist that finds victims wherever he goes.

It's not hard to figure out where the next victims will be - England.

Perhaps what they should do is agree not to put him into the 'offensive' program, sentence him to prison for the maximum term possible, and then, when he's released, keep an eye on him and when he tries to offend again, lock him up for life.

Didn't Ireland prosecute them or what. did they let him go? The Brits could have thrown him to the curb like the piece of trash that he is or is it true, they like em like that.

I think the part that the UK is challenging is the part where you can be locked up forever without a trial. If you can be locked up simply because of a mere thought of the accuser that you might be a molester or rapist and not need to be prosecuted and convicted is a very valid point for denial. Maybe that part needs to be changed. It is a valid Human Rights concern.

why does the law always give humane treatment to sexual offenders? If they do it once, they will do it again. If a dog bites someone 3 times-he is euthanized. I think the same treatment should be given to perpetual sexual offenders-I do not want to keep sending in tax dollars to support someone who in my eyes is an animal. Put him down!

Just another story that proves without a doubt that these sick f^ckers can't be rehibilitated. Let's start putting them on death row with the murderers and start killing the bastards!!

To add:

Before ranting on my comment, check out Chris' comment at line #1.8. He explains it quite well.

Right now we have a broken and inconsistent environment. Sentences are far too lenient for mental deviants who pose a serious risk to society, but too harsh for people making bad decisions or committing acts not likely to be ever repeated. We don't need lists of sexual predators and their addresses online when most of them are not any sort of risk. All that does is punish people far beyond what the law intended and is a basic violation of Common Law (indefinite retention without a trial.) We can do better.

Well, if that's the case, maybe we can start sending our hardcore sex offenders to Britain rather than putting them in prison here.

That's bullsh!t. The UK has very tough laws against sex offenders. They're just honest about it and give them long, long sentences up front instead of giving them 10 years (or whatever) and then changing the rules once those 10 years are up.

The politicians in this country's legislatures need to stiffen the sentences against these perverts up front instead of being too lazy to change sentencing law.

Send the Navy Seals to get him.

Leave him there and let the Brits take care of him. Draconian Really? Hey lets do what the Brits did and send them all (convicted offenders) over there. Remember Australia

I dont quite understand this fully, this thing molested these kids and he went to england and they wont send him back because we are to inhumane with this thing, how about the kids he assaulted sexually do ya think he was thinking about there civil rights when he was taking advantage of them......You can probuly guarantee that the next child victim will be from england and another family will be destroyed by this monster......Perhaps if we told them we would be nice and set this thing up in a resort then they would send him back for the slaughter......

Chris-749391: I agree with most of what you said except for the recidivism rate which most studies find to be under 10%. The mythical 100% figure has been conjured up to justify these never-ending punishments and restrictions.

Of course, as you say the issue is confused by lumping all these different behaviors into a single category.

The irony is that may of these measures may actually raise the danger for children by putting offenders on the street and out of work which leads them away from mainstream productive activities.

Maybe he'll molest and rape a few UK girls and then they will wish they had extradited him back to the US.

Two Minnesota prosecutors in the counties where Sullivan faces charges defended their decision not to guarantee Sullivan would be kept out of the program, saying it was "not in the interests of public safety."

"I think it's way beyond reasonableness for them to interfere in how we conduct business," said Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman.

Are these guys morons? First, they complain about them interfering with our business. Well, they are in the domain of the Brits, so we are asking to "interfere" in their business, so they have a say.

Second, and this is the biggest point: They would rather stick to their guns, and watch a predator like this scumbag walk away scot-free? He is now 43, so if he comes back, and gets convicted, he is likely to spend at least 40 years in prison. I would rather have that than their "principles". Is it in the interests of public safety to let him walk?

Be practical, and kake the deal, and guarantee them he won't be civilly committed. They have no problem with a lengthly criminal sentence.

The only reason they have had not problems, is because they haven't been caught again. Do you really thing the first time they are caught and convicted is their first offense? Well guess what, IT'S NOT!!! For those of you that think our laws may be too strict, wait until it happens to one of your children, or to the child of somebody that you are close too, maybe then you will continue to be all for being more lenient on these pieces of garbage. I do agree, that the offenders that are not sexual predators, that just had a bad judgement call, should be completely taken off the registry, and there should be much different punishement for them, such as sometimes, nothing. But, a sexual predator CANNOT be rehabilitated!!!! Wake up people, some of our laws are too lenient, sexual predators should be placed on a desserted island to fend for themselves, and let them offend each other!!!

Where do you folks get that he is a sexual predator, he is accused. I could accuse any one of you of sexually assaulting me.

The Harvard Health Publications,July 2010, issue states the recidivism rate for pedophiles (as a subcategory of sex offenders) is 10-50%. Even at the lower number, how would you like this guy living next to you and your children? The younger the offender is, the more likely, future abuses against children and they do not generally respond the therapy.

@Skane2600,

You're quoting the recidivism rate for all sexual offenders. And you are right there. But if you take only sexual predatiors --- serial rapists, child molesters, and serious sexual deviants that are psychologically diagnosable under the current DSM-5 as having a specific psychopathological (yeah, I know that this is a broad categopry) illness, then you have a recidivism rate near 100%. This is simply something that has existed since the dawn of time and has no treatment or cure. This is not a conjured up number. A very good friend does exactly this kind of research in Alabama prisons as a PhD researcher and is a pretty good source. Again, I am talking about two different groups currently lumped together as "sex offenders."

What brings things down to your 10% is that most "sexual criminals" are people who get drunk and rape their girlfriend, or have sex with their underage girlfriend who is a year younger, or break a restraining order by coming too close to their own children, etc. These are not crimes that involve any sort of psychopathology and have very small recidivism rates --- less than 4% overall. In fact, almost any "sex offender" conviction under the age of 26 tends to be suspect because the true psychopathology seems to manifest itself after that age.

There is simply a difference between raging hormones or poor judgement and trus sexual pathology.

An excellent writer on the subject is Dr. John Douglas. He is the guy who basically started the FBI 'profiling" operation. (He was fired by the FBI because he claimed too publically that the murderer in the Atlanta child murders had to be a black man.) He writes extensively about the mind of serial sexual criminals. He makes the point that these people are always in full control of their faculties. If they are about to pick up a victim and a cop cruises by, they will forget it and move on. This makes them responsible for their actions and not "victims" of mental illness. But he distinguishes sharply between these sexual deviants and people who commit simple crimes involving sex. He can tell you a lot about serial sexual psychopaths, but almost nothing about one-timers because they are so different.

@ WeAllHaveOpinions

He was accused in MN, he fled to Ireland when they were ready to arrest him. IF he were innocent he probably would have stayed and fought. While in Ireland he was accused again and fled to the UK and basically snuck in by using his Irish passport with the Gaelic spelling not the spelling he had been using for God knows how long. Does that really sound like an innocent man? Sounds like a sexual predator to me.

@Iconoclast,

Your article is about pedophiles only. I am talking about all sex offenders and the caveats in your article clear go into the "lumping together" of a serial rapist with someone convicted of sexting (sending sexually explicit text messafes with or without images.) They warn repeatedly that the statistics are based not on numbers, but how "pedophilia" is defined.

I really have no problem with a person convicted of sexting living next to me. In fact I probably know hundreds of people who have done it and weren't convicted. You are drawing artificial boxes around other people that do not make sense.

A point of order in working for mental health for 20 years in two different states. I can tell you that you cannot be committed for life any more. You will be rushed through the system as quickly as possible to be moved to services that are less exspensive. Recently 3 men that had been in a group home for more than 30 years were dishcarged because the state determined it would be cheaper for them to live in the community. Mental health facilities in the US have turned into the turn'em and burn'em means of care. Stabilize on meidcations and out ya go.

Moon,

Are they "Fairer" then we are, or "misguided?"

No is not who is Fairer it is about the USA and the Constitutional rights we all have. First let me say if it was up to me we would Take all these sick people and put the B*l*S on a steel plate and smash them with a ten pound sledge hammer. Just so we are not confused about where I stand on these crimes with my own personal views. That being said the USA has Constitutional rights to its entire people no matter how sick they are. We are supposed to be free from being locked up without due process and that goes for everyone one. Or the whole system doesn’t work, like now in 2012 we have less rights today then we had just yesterday and tomorrow we will the same as today unless we start saying enough is enough, when you start picking and choosing which rights people get it isn't right whether you are the victim or the predator. Again save the money for the bullet and handle it as it should be handle from my view above. The government does not get the right to choose who gets what rights is my point. Someone do these girls a favor and get rid of this mess for them. How you take that is up to you.

j70141 you're obviously a pathetic guy who just can't seem to get laid so any post you put up is just hate filled and laced with venom towards women. Just as many of these sexual predators abuse boys as girls. It's so pathetic that you would actually waste a moment of your time, defending sexual predators. it says so very much about you...and it's all pathetic and sick. No wonder you've been rejected so often. There is absolutely NO doubt, from this article and the facts that this guy is a sick recidivist sexual predator. The fact that you would take the time, from this article, to complain about women and not even acknowledge that he IS someone who should be locked up for good just shows that nothing you have to say is worth reading.

Chris. Yes I acknowledged the confusion based on lumping all the categories together. It's a truism that serial rapists and those who have been diagnosed with a condition that compels them to repeat their offenses would have a high recidivism rate, but it's rather circular argument.

The question is whether all adult individuals who sexually abused a child (not a teenage girlfriend) and went to prison repeated the crime when they got out. In my view, that would have to be case if the 100% figure is both correct and meaningful.

But beyond the scientific aspects, the legal definition of sexual offender is what it is and so the 10% figure is the appropriate one to look at when evaluating punishment until such time that the sexual offender category is broken up more appropriately.

So lets see here:

We have a man who is accused of molesting 3 girls in the US, and has been CONVICTED of molesting two more in Ireland. 5 girls he has raped, with a high probability there are far more out there who never reported the assault.

Anyone with a shred of common sense can tell you the evidence clearly shows this is the behavior of a serial rapist. Serial rapists, by their very nature, will ALWAYS re-offend at the first opportunity upon release. The ONLY WAY to stop them from raping is to lock them up for the rest of their natural lives.

The UK is protecting a serial rapist, and they know it.

@skane,

I agree with all you say in 1.35 except that we CAN distinguish between accused people who are under various psychopathological compulsions and those who are not. The recidivism rates between the two groups are not similar. Any competent forensic psychologist can distinguish, but it takes more than the usual 2-hour "interview" that, for example, Sandusky got. The workup would involve about four mandays of interviews, tests, and fMRIs. I have a buddy who does exactly this sort of work with fMRIs. What would happen is that various pictures of 15-sec videos of naked children, violent rape, etc is shown to the person and the parts of their brain that "light up" in response make a very clear and easily readable distinction. These people WILL almost always repeat. It is just that much a part of their psyche. Imprisonment, regardless of the length of the sentence will not change the basic way in which the brain works.

Chris-749391 - A question.

Have their been any control group studies with non-predatory individuals/groups to provide a baseline for the fMRI scans?

I am reminded of a trend in movies and books from the 20s through the 60s (and beyond) where scenes of bondage, coersion, confinement, etc. were routinely used to sell movies (Think "Perils of Pauline), and pulp magazines ("True Crime Stories"). Apparently, some of these scenes, when viewed in a different setting "light up" parts of the brain, which may, or may not, be the same as in a sexual predator, or they wouldn't have been successful as media draws.

I ask this in fairness to the wrongfully accused.

Chris - 749291,

Thank you for your in-depth and knowledgeable information. It is very difficult to "objectify" situations that involve sexual violence against anyone (yes - forced sex of any kind if considered sexual violence), especially against minors. Your original comment (1.8) and all further comments have done a great job of illustrating the differences between people with true sexual pathology and those guilty of horrible (but one time) errors in judgment.

Committing all people convicted of a sexual crime (a very very broad label) in to the same programs makes no sense. We don't do that for murderers, so why would we do it for sexual offenses? If it were broken up the way you speak of, we would have no more ambiguity and or mixed feelings about giving true sexual psychopaths a deserving sentence because we wouldn't be worrying that the 18 year old who had sex with his 16 year old girlfriend was going to be labeled for life.

Thank you for taking the time to give out some valuable insight. (I work for two forensic neuropsychologists and can truly appreciate the work your friend is doing.)

Chris. What's missing is the proof that the brain "lighting up" guarantees that a particular behavior will be performed. I suspect (but I have no expert knowledge) that a reformed alcoholic's brain might "light up" when shown images of alcoholic beverages even though he hasn't touched the stuff for years. Temptation is not commission.

IF any of the justices had ever been assaulted or raped, they'd think differently.

"I think it's way beyond reasonableness for them to interfere in how we conduct business," said Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman."

Now you know how every other country in the world feels about the U.S.A.. Get use to this there will be a lot more of it going on. As soon as we are bankrupt all these countries we have been paying trillions a year to be our "friend" are going to stab us in the back, and we deserve it for being such hypocrites.

My heart goes out to the victims and their families. While they are now unable to see this person in court and watch him sentenced to prison for his crimes, we can all rest a bit easier knowing he is off the streets for good in this country. Why the Brit's want to keep someone like that is now their problem as we offered to take him back.

He is off the streets in this country for life... He is not costing us any more taxpayer's money.

@Patsycamoure. You are trying to make it sound like he is serving life in prision because he tried to steal $300 from someone's checking account. No, there were clearly in your story, if it is even true, three crimes, and three punishments. He tried to steal and commit fraud and got two years for his crime, there is number one. He got in a fight and was given 1 month in isolation, crime number 2. He got out of isolation and killed someone (geez honestly, you think we should feel sorry for him because he just "lost his temper"). HELLO, he murdered someone, now it sounds like he is in prison for life, good. You know what they say about starting down the wrong path...

You would think the people of England would be unhappy with this guy walking around their streets free to rape their daughters and wives. Looks like he will have to get caught again over there before they act. That's the shame of it all.

It sounds to me that he wasn't sent to jail over the $300, since it sounds the way you wrote it like he wasn't even able to get the money. It sounds like he was sent to jail for fraud, and I doubt if he had gotten away with it he would have only done it once. Keeping someone who fights with the other inmates in isolation seems pretty reasonable to me, again, I am just working off of your comment, with no knowledge, so I don't know how serious a "fight" he was in. I would think fairly serious for that kind of length of time to be sentenced. I am sorry, I don't think any of that means I should feel sorry that he chose to KILL SOMEONE because he was having a bad day/month/life.

Why are people always trying to blame the victim and excuse the offender? Is it really the fault of the person he stole the check from, if they had kept their checks locked up and home he couldn't have stolen them? Is it the bank's fault for offering their customers checks in the first place? How about this for a fair prison system, if you don't break the law, you won't go to prison. You can argue whether someone should get more or less punishment for a crime until you are blue in the face, but it doesn't change the fact that it is best to not break the law in the first place.

I think the point here is that the US should have played ball with Great Britan. Agreement to the maximum punishment could have been reached, and he'd be flown back. (This is done all the time with many countries that oppose death sentences, the max we can do when we get them back is life with no chance of getting out.)

Wait......

With all the sex offender talk I almost forgot something.. Isn't it GB who was soooooo eager to ship Julian Assange back to Sweden on sex-crime allegations? They don't want to do the same for us??

I'm Just Sayin'....

They appear to have a double standard. They want to extradite Assange for what are most likely trumped up charges but they refuse to extradite a convicted pedofile. There is no known "cure" for pedophilia, They are known to repeatedly offend through out their lives. And also consider that the child victims have been given a life sentence of suffering. The parents of children in the UK should be outraged that they have now put their children at risk of molestation and rape by releasing this predator back into their society.

The US has the right to extradite people at our discretion as well. It is what each country deems to be a violation of human rights. This particular case was a result of us not taking indefinite incarceration off the table or at least setting limits to how we can come to that conclusion. The US could have just as easily said "okay he will be guaranteed a trial and if convicted he will receive mandatory, in-prison, regular psychiatric evaluations throughout his sentence to determine if further treatment will be needed upon release. "

Even the article said most people in that Michigan treatment program haven't been released, so that looks really bad from a humane point of view. Not that these monsters deserve humane treatment, but if we want to stick with the motto of "Justice is Blind" then both the UK and US can't cherry pick where that should apply.

@Patsycamoure3: Are you by any chance related to this person that tried to get the $300.00?

You seem to protest too much for someone that just seems to be unable to anything but wrong. If he had not committed fraud he would NOT be in prison, he would not have got in a fight, he would not have been put in solitary to get so upset that he killed a man.

Or would he? If he can't control himself any better than that when he knows he is already in deep trouble what makes you think he would be any better controlling himself out on the streets?

Seems like he was just destined for this path.

And before you go off and tell me I know not of what I speak. I have spent time behind bars. Had many opportunities to fight. Even took some punches. Was extremely depressed, upset, angry, mad as hell, whatever emotion you can think of. But I controlled myself, did my time and walked out the door when I was supposed to.

I never lost sight of my goal. And that was to get out when I was supposed to and NOT go back. Simple really.

Now, if the UK doesn't want to send this guy back I think that is just dandy. We don't have to spend money to try him, convict him, and put him in prison. We don't have to worry about him raping anybody in our country again. The Brits have taken care of that for us, we should send them a thank you note along with his listing on the No-Fly list.

He will rape in their country and they can deal with him in whatever manner they choose.

Like someone else said earlier. The only thing missing is his victims opportunity to face him in court. But maybe when he goes to trial in the UK someone will come up with the funds to fly them over there so they can watch him go down British style!

I would donate to that trip!

And yes, you ARE correct about Wall Street crooks. They don't often get justice served on them. But they have money, even if it is not theirs, to spend on lawyers and that's how they slide.

I don't know how to fix that one because most often they never even go to trial. Maybe some vigilante justice for a few of them would set an example for the others to fear?

After he rapes some 11 year old UK girls, they can hold his hand while he gets humanitarian treatment in their jail. He's raped girls in multiply countries now... the UK is next.

@Lolly

From what you say, the human rights of criminals and pedophiles are what need to be most protected from violation. But do not the rights of innocent children to be protected from rape and molestation also need to be considered? Are laws that protect the innocent in society from victimization to be considered unjust? This man is a known pedophile who was convicted of molesting two 12 year old girls in Ireland. There is no currently known curative treatment for pedophilia. This is most likely why most of the members of the US treatment program haven't been released. And none of the pedophiles say they have been inhumanely treated while in the program. It is known that all pedophiles who are released back into society (with psychiatric treatment or without) will eventually commit more offenses against children. Aren't just and equitable laws the ones that protect the society from having its innocent members become victims of horrific crimes that scar them for the rest of their lives?

USA will win this one with tit for tat, etc. Wait till visitors from United Kingdom coming to the USA find out that when they report muggings, theft, rape and even murder - for some odd reason - law enforcement will not be able to find their attackers or any witnesses, etc. Oh well.

After this ruling, No American should ever help or testify against an American citizen doing anything to anyone from the UK. Who do these bloody a$$ judges think they are trying to tell us what our laws should be and how we should try, convict, etc. our criminals. Bunch of hyprocrites'.

Other countries no longer give us the benefit of the doubt, so says the article.

Do you blame them? Americans are RIDICULOUS, sueing over every slight and people who should be in jail get off scott-free with the right lawyers. Is is any wonder that other countries think so little of our "justice" system?

I am only saying, once a debt is paid to society, that person should have the right to fully rejoin society at some point in his life.

And when they do it again?

When the 100% figure is used for recidivism, they are generally referring to violent offenders and pedophiles. There are things that can get you on the sex offender list that don't even involve sex. In some states, giving a minor alcohol can land you on the sex offender list. So can public urination.

Imagine your aunt Gertrude was on a cruise, took a tour into Saudi Arabia and, while on tour, pulled a Budweiser beer out of her purse and downed it because she was hot. Some Saudi person saw it and ratted her out to the local police, all while she is finishing her tour and getting back on the ship. Drinking alcohol is punishable by jail time and lashing in that country, so the legal system demands she be given back to them to be punished. Would you give her back, thinking she should have known better than to drink in Saudi Arabia and tell her "See ya in a couple years, Gertie. Hope those lashes heal up OK", or would you view their laws as ridiculous and outside the boundaries of civilized behavior, and refuse to send your precious aunt to that primitive country? There is little comparison between rape/pedophilia and drinking alcohol, but there is a lot of similarities between the concept at hand, where one country views the laws of another as being uncivilized and 'draconian'. So, here we are...the most militarily powerful country in the world with laws and practices that some more civilized countries view as draconian.

Kill him.

@JW

So you are you saying you feel it is draconian to keep a known child rapist out of society when it is known that he will attack more children if he is released? The child victims may feel that your idea of releasing him is draconian for them.

It's simply time to send some very dedicated, ex-military bounty hunters to England to find and deal with this douchebag, in whatever way they find necessary.

Don't be to hard on Englands decision. He's on their soil now and if anything happens to one of them they can't say we didnt tell them. I don't think that it will be to long before something happens there. Personnally, IF I were English I would want this criminel gone.

#1.64

Read the articles HE already has TWO more victims!!! At least two since I doubt that any one knows the full telly

Swedens laws are different, but you proabably already knew that.

"Let him rape English girls...." Why is it the women and children are always offered up? Let him rape the men who are in positions of power making these decisions seems like a more appropriate response.

#1.67

Jane Excellent retort, but I would prefer as he has already raped at least Five (5) that he is no longer " offered any more appeasement VICTIMS, male or female " if that seems ok with you .

I used to work in a prison in Colorado that had 75% sex offenders. It is believed that before a predator is caught, he has usually molested more than 60 children. they lock them up for a few years, give them the sex offenders therapy, and release them back into the community.

Even if a predator is chemically castrated, he will rape or molest, because it really isn't about sex, its about control and pain. If a man cannot use his own body as a weapon of violence, he will use other objects.

Not my exact sentiment, but close. I'm fine with the ruling as long as they explain to his new victims why he was allowed to continually reoffend.

He is in prison in the UK, why does it have to be here?

If Cameron won't extradite him, let him hire him to babysit his little girl next time Cameron goes to a pub.

Let them keep him, save the taxpayers some money for a change.

Sadmoronsvote- I don't think he is in jail there. He won his appeal. He was arrested for extradition, but I don't think the UK can try him for crimes committed in the US. Since he won on no extraditon, he'll be released.

UK judge Moses said on Thursday that "the United States will not provide an assurance," thus allowing Sullivan's appeal, according to The Independent newspaper. "The appellant will be discharged from the proceedings," the judge said, according to the paper.

It's completely outrageous! People who rape children SHOULD be held indefinately. And they should be thankful they aren't killed!

Do these morons realize thay are putting their children at risk ?

Send in Seal Team 6 .

For the judges .

"The British judges made clear in an earlier decision that they would have supported Sullivan's extradition had it not been for the sex treatment program..."

Fine - Minnesota drop the requirement for him to go into the sex deviant program. Instead bring him back and put him in with the general prison populaton and put out the word... your problem will be resolved very quickly.

The Brits could use a few modern day," Jack the Rippers". It would be neat to send US sexual predators on one way way tickets to Britain. Maybe some British judges in their stupid wigs could then find out why sexual crime victims want them castrated, and prosecutors want them locked up forever. But when this Sullivan guy rapes a few British women, then the country will learn the hard way!!

So let me get this right: the Minnesota prosecutors figured it's better he serve no jailtime in their state, rather than compromise with the Brits and guarantee that he at least serves some jailtime.

Smart.

The United States' policies are causing us to lose respect with other first world countries. We are the only first world country to still have the death penalty, our prison systems are inhumane, violate human rights and are profit based. We call ourselves "the land of the free", yet we have imprisoned more of our population than any other country in the world. On top of all that, we are the only first world country that does not have universal health care for our citizens. We are aligning ourselves more and more with third world country policies and as a result, other first world countries don't want anything to do with us.

Instead of wanting the United States to change it's policies, and be on par with other first world countries, I read page after page of hate and violence filled comments calling for the United States to become even more barbaric. We are already slipping badly when compared to other first world countries. These so called "socialist" and "liberal" European countries routinely out perform us in education, health care, crime rates and quality of living studies. Yet, it seems the people in the United States won't get it until we lose our first world status, which at this rate is not out of the question.

Let him rape English girls if they are so liberal.

Happy, you are disgusting.

@Allison201: Do we really need the "respect" of other first world countries? Do our prison systems really need to be humane or preserve human rights when those that are held within them are convicted of being "inhumane" and "violating" someone's human rights?

As far as health care, isn't Obamacare supposed to take care of everyone? You sound like a Democrat based on your statements.

Do other first world countries allow illegal immigration like we do? NO! Do other first world countries send billions of dollars to other first world countries to help them out like we do? NO! Do other first world countries send billions of dollars to third world countries to help them out like we do? NO!

Who is ALWAYS first sending troops in when needed? Who ALWAYS sends the most troops? Who always LOSES the most troops? Who has defeated their enemies and then stepped right back up and helped them rebuild?

What country sends money overseas that it does not have to help people that don't even respect us? Regardless of whether they are first, second, or third world? When we have homeless and starving of our own?

What countries sent aid to US when 9-11 happened? Can't name any? Me neither. Google can't as well except for some limited manpower and equipment.

So, tell me why we need the "respect" of other nations. Do you really think that they respect us now? The USA is the rich uncle that everyone only tolerates because of the expensive gifts he brings.

We need to take care of our own yard first. Increase our military forces dramatically. Get rid of ALL illegal immigrants. They are a drain on our resources, our pride, the respect of other countries. Jobs. Feed and house our citizens. Get the economy going. Tell other countries if they want to deal with us they need to play fair; and make sure they do or shut them off. China: They either stop pirating our intellectual properties and everything else under the sun or we stop buying their crap! Yeah, maybe Walmart will have to raise prices but what's wrong with buying stuff made in the USA!

Foreign aid? Got any assets? Need military help? Got cash? Need advice? Cash only?

Oil? Didn't we discover and drill those wells in the middle east? Have we not sent troops over there several times to protect them? Wouldn't those countries still be herding camels if it weren't for US oil companies? And you want how much? How 'bout we just come back over and claim those well as our new Embassy locations? Here's what we'll pay!

Now, about all those loans to France, UK, Germany, and whomever else we loaned money to: time's up. This is your 30 day notice to pay or quit.

Harsh. You betcha! But making people own up to their promises gains their respect. Letting people walk all over you is what loses you the respect of others.

The United States has done everything for everyone it can for so long with no expectations of return that it is now expected, even demanded of us, to continue to help others and if we don't, all of a sudden we are the bad guys.

All the while nobody lifts a finger to help us. Well, the time has come for the USA to look our for #1.

When you fly on a plane, remember the little speech the attendants give you about the oxygen mask? The one about putting yours on first, and then helping others with theirs?

We are there people. If we don't resuscitate ourselves and get this country on the right track again, and soon. We won't be able to help anybody else anyway. We will be the ones looking for a handout. And that is something I do not want to be a part of!

Respect? We don't even respect ourselves!

Nevets: "What countries sent aid to US when 9-11 happened? Can't name any?"

Um, maybe you don't know how to use Google properly. Who helped Americans get out of Iran when the Ayatollahs took over? Canada. Who landed US and foreign planes by the hundreds on 9/11? Canada. Talk to ANY American who was forced to land and stay in Canada on 9/11 and ask them how they were treated by the Canadians. Who went to Afganistan with the US? Canada. (Ok maybe not Iraq because according to the Canadian government there was no PROOF of WMD's etc.) Instead of berating the whole world, try learning a bit before you embarass yourself even more with your ignorance.

Canada also does not extradite people who are facing the death penalty. There are too many cases where innocent people are in jail. But in a case like this, this POS should be sent back to the US to protect kids in all countries he might visit. I feel sorry for his next victims, regardless where they are from.

english taliban. sex abuse on women and kids is ok

"AG doesn't find these types of crimes important" = bold and unsubstantiated lie.

If you are so concerned about AG Holder's time, he wasted most of it being called in front of Issa nine times, you should be calling on Issa to let him get back to work.

Bill, if you want to politicalize this....ask the republican states AG's why in the world they would spend so much time and money to make the ACA look unconstitutional...and lose so big. Or why the AZ state AG would fight for a law that was 3/4 unconstitutional.

When Eric Holder has time to work nothing good occurs. As far as I'm concerned Issa can occupy this idiots time until Obama's out of office.

Hey, it's MEEEE -

Because the majority of those states' populations feel that the mandate is unconstitutional regardless of what convoluted ruling Roberts threw out. Those AGs were doing as their citizens demanded.

ask the republican states AG's why in the world they would spend so much time and money to make the ACA look unconstitutional...and lose so big

If you understood any of the ruling you would have known that the actual mandate is unconstitutional, The US Government can not compell someone to engage in interstate commerce, They can not force you to buy insurance.

They can tax you for just being alive though and this is the most slippery of all slopes that we have ever seen in the history of this country, From now on when our government wants to compell a person to purchase or do something the have the unlimited and unfettered ability to tax us as a penalty for not complying, We no longer have a Government of the People By the People and for the People we have a tyranical government that can do whatever they please as long as they just "Call it a Tax"

Remember in November

Now as far as this ruling by the Brits is concerned, let them keep this guy, Let him rape their children as he has already started to do and the next time Germany decide to rule europe and the Uk we can just tell them sorry it's your problem and not ours.

I think it is time Europe and the UK repaid their debts to us from Both world wars.

The US has bailed them out too many times without repayment...Screw Europe and the UK

@Lost in the Barrens,

While you were lost, did you hear that Medicare Part D has exactly the same mandate except that it cannot be construed as a tax. The instant you become eligible for Medicare Part A (which is "free" but cannot be opted out without giving up all Social Security benefits entiorely and permanently) you are MANDATED to purchase private prescription drug health insurance. If you do not purchase it, and join later, there is a $5,000 fine plus a cumulative increase in Part D premiums of 1% a month with no cap ever. But this was a GOP mandate (even though it was written for Cheney by the drug industry) so it must be okay, right? After all it was a white guy law.

I am 68 and opted out of Medicare Parts B & D. This is because I have good insurance goverage through my wife's work which is much more comprehensive (covering more things and things like dental and vision) and pays better (no 20% co-pay and no donut hole.) So the GOP thinks that I must be be fined when my wife finally retires and I have to move to Medicare Parts B & D. The GOP believes that I should be fined for saving the Social Security system and the taxpayer money. Yep, that sounds really fair. But where are all the Tea Party screams?

And there is no remaining WWI or WWII debt to the United States. Period. You made that one up. I would assume that you seldom travel out of your trailer park.

Wow Chris, You made a Funny...I am lost...You are so clever.

After all it was a white guy law.

So now I am a racist

and finally

And there is no remaining WWI or WWII debt to the United States. Period. You made that one up. I would assume that you seldom travel out of your trailer park.

There is no remaining debt because both Wars the debt was forgiven but it should not have been, Now about the trailer park remark, I own my own 2600 square foot home, I own a small farm I also own a small business however I do not denigrate people who live in trailer parks, it is funny that people like you claim that all these wonderful things are being done for the poor people yet you turn around and denigrate any of those poor people who do not agree with your views.

Judges Alan Moses and David Eady said in a ruling finalized Thursday that if Sullivan were returned to the U.S., he could face a real risk of being placed in the state's civil commitment program -- which provides for the indefinite detention of people found to be sexually dangerous -- and suffer "a flagrant denial of his rights."

Yea, flbikerchick...I too was wondering about the girls rights. But maybe over there...kids don't matter.

From the looks of things they don't care about their own.

I wonder if the British citizens know that their Govt legal system just decided to keep a known and convicted child raping pedophile remain loose to prey on their children.

Wonder if they think thats just cherri-o?

its too bad that these poor girls will never get the justice they deserve, that being said, why doesn't the U.S. strip him of his passport make him stay in jolly 'ol England, let him rape and molest english girls- the way he did those Irish ones- and let the english people pay for his jail stay,victims treatments,etc. and when they wanna give him back the U.S can say No!

That is exactly right. Well said max.

There is a big difference. Assange if convicted in Sweden will someday have a chance to have a normal life to atone for his sins. The guy mentioned in this story most likely would not. He would serve his prison term and then be held indefinitely afterwords.

I have to say I agree with the UK on this matter. Whats the point of issueing small prison terms if the person convicted can never be released. You might as well sentence him to life in prison or death.

Sexual Offenders can be rehabilitated. Just because a few rape again does not mean they all do. Some sexual offenders really shouldn't even be labeld sexual offenders. Hence a kid age 18 sleeping with another kid age 17.

Yes Derik... Assange's alleged 'crime' is having consensual sex without a condom, and after serving few years in Sweden's jail he will have a chance to return to a 'normal' life... justice indeed...

Sorry derik-you are wrong.

Actually, Assange is not convicted of anything. He is accused of "raping" one woman by having sex with her a third time in one night in which she claimed to be asleep the whole time. The other woman was "raped" because, during consensual sex a condom broke and he, according to his statement, was not aware of it and did not stop. Both of these cases depend on a quirk in Swedish law that allows consent to be withdrawn at any time by a woman without telling her partner of the fact. Apparently Swedish men are great mind readers.

The extradition is Assange is "for questioning" only. His fear is that he will be arresrted and that extradition to indefin ite detention at Guantanamo without charge or trial has already been arranged. Since he has numerous "whistleblower" contacts from the Bush administration, it is tough to argue with the possibility.

Chris-749391 - The extradition is Assange is "for questioning" only. His fear is that he will be arresrted and that extradition to indefin ite detention at Guantanamo without charge or trial has already been arranged. Since he has numerous "whistleblower" contacts from the Bush administration, it is tough to argue with the possibility.

In fact many countries will no longer extradite terrorism suspects to the US because we are known to use torture and other tactics which violate international law. Assange's fears are absolutely valid, even though Sweden is one of the countries which no longer extradites such suspects to the US.

We are already well on our way to Nanny State status. The spiral into socialism has just been sped up with the passage (or validation) of the health care scam that none of the lawmakers, amdittedly, have not read.

The turn around will either start after November or stall then.

Chose wisely grasshopper.

Bur first, Grasshopper, get a clue as to what "socialism" means. It does not mean "I hate black people."

Right not the current prediction of chance of winning on Nov 6 is ---- Obama 65.3% to Romney's 34.4%.

But Mitt isn't taking any questions on that either.

What he has been accused of doing. Remember this was suppose to have happened in the 90's.

I am all for innocent until proven guilty but....

Well seeing as he was CONVICTED of doing the same thing in Ireland, one can pretty safely assume he did some same thing to the girls here. I don't think he fled the US an innocent man and then decided to take up being a predator as a hobby since he was being accused of it in another country anyway.

The only ones oppressed here are the victims who are denied justice.

subtle sarcasm or dillusional thinking? (Oppressed)

The next time the US decides to have a war in the Middle East, they can fight it themselves....if they can manage it. You give your countrymen a bad name, if you were anything to go by, the typical "warmongering yank" stereotype would only be further enforced.

This isn't about allies or wars, you miss the point entirely.

The next time the US has a war in the Middle East they can fight it themselves...if they can manage it.

This isn't about wars and allies, you miss the point entirely.

@Tarzan,

We did not assist Britain in the Falklands. We sold them fuel and spares and replacement missiles at full cost. I guess that is why we are an ally, right?

But this is a case where things like Guantanomo with a huge number of prisoners held in indefinite detention without trial or charge (and most of them admittedly innocent) causes backlash. Indefinite detention without a charge or trial is a violation of the Hague Conventions and is a crime under the International Court of Justice. Britain has an obligation under the Hague Conventions to refuse to extradite anyone to countries which do not accept the jurisdiction of the ICJ under these circumstances. The US fully supported the ICJ when it was formed in 1946, but completely withdrew in 1984 because of the Iran-Contra Affair and Reagan's illegal sale of arms to Iran to buy drugs (heroin and cocaine) to be used to finance the Contras in Nicaragua. Currently GW Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and about 140 administration personnel, many of them CIA employees or contractors are under bench arrest warrants from the ICJ for various violations of the Hague Conventions.

This is a case where the international community says that the US has no credibility in human rights and will (and does) hold people in unlawful indefinite detention without charge or trial. Guantanamo is a prime reason for letting a convicted child molester walk free. Your GOP at work.

First of all, Baloney. Second, read the following comments. Seems a lot of people here think pretty much the way I do.

@Tarzan,

So you believe you have found validation on NewsVine????? ROFL

Don't hold your breath on that one. We - the USA - are, essentially, a member of the commonWEALTH of Britain.

Whatever the Queen thinks/says, goes.

Mominater62

How is it that we have come to value our young girls and young boys so little?

It's not the overall population that doesn't give a crap (as we can see from the posts), it's the politicians. But that's an easy question to answer: the youth of this country 1) don't vote 2) don't pay taxes 3) aren't business owners/corp executives, and 4) don't contribute to political campaigns. Also, from the fact that statutes of limitations exist for sex crimes, I suspect our politicians are sex offenders themselves or harbor fantasies of that nature.

He'll go to prison where he'll serve a sentence determined by a Judge not some dungeon for an indefinite period of time.

I don't condone this mans crimes but it amazes me how "normal" and "rational" human beings are whipped into a frenzy of bloodlust. If half of you carried out the threats you post on here it would make you just as bad as him.

Alan2--that's probably because each person raped is a life destroyed. So who gives a crap if he serves 20 years or 40 years. Justice still isn't served. He deserves death--he destroyed a life (multiple in this case), so his should be taken. End of story.

These men are not kept in dungeons, they are routinely given counseling and rehab services during their time.They are not locked up without being convicted. They are also subject to reviews that determine whether they are fit to return to society. If they are not released that is because they have shown that they are not rehabilitated. A few years ago, an offender was released, the review board had several time denied his release stating that he was still dangerous. With in a few months he kidnapped, assaulted and murdered a yuoung college student. These men cannot be rehabilitated. Two of my sisters were molested by a man that lived next door. This was in the late 80's. He was given "treatment" and probation, he did not have to register as a sex offender. He went on to molest both his own children. his daughter got pregnant at 12 by an older boy, just so her father would leave her alone and the son ended up having a mental breakdown at age 14, because he couldn't take the abuse. To this day my younger sister cannot be in a room with a man she doesn't know well with out having panic attacks and my older sister has problems with anxiety and alcohol. They are the victims not these offenders.

@Dani,

They ARE "kept in dungeons". Most sex offenders in prison are kept in isolation and away from the general population. This is also known as solitary confinement. Three to six months of solitary is enough to drive most people quite buggy. It is a common complaint in appeals for celebrities, sex offenders and political prisoners that solitary confinement has left them unable to assist in their own defense or appeal. There is virtually NO counseling or rehab services available. The prison budgets are being eaten up by more and more prisoners and there is simply not enough money left over for such luxiries as anti-recidivism programs of any type. Prison parole/review boards are under incredible pressure to release any prisoner that can be even marginally justified. This is because virtually every state and local jail is so overcrowded that every incoming prisoner means that at least one must be released. And even if you think that red kool-ade, and two baloney sandwiches and a vitamin pill are a woderful luxurious meal, it gets old after a few years. (I have a friend, a PhD psychologist researcher who does serious work with elderly prisoners. Her trick to insure complete instant cooperation is a Snickers bar. She calls them "prison gold.")

I do not advocate for psychopathic sexual criminals. But I would like to see a distinction made between crimes of sexual psychopathology and things like sexting or having sex with your year younger girlfriend who is underage. Overbroad and draconian punishment of huge groups of people does absolutely no good and is the most expensive way possible to deal with the problems.

I am not talking about when they are in prison, i am talking about when they are confined after serving their sentence. Not every sex offender in MN is confined after their sentence is served, only the ones who are most likely to reoffend. They are They are kept in hospitals and treatment facilities. Also, if they know what they would face in general population, they should be praying to be kept in isolation while in prison. As for people sexting or having sex with a younger girlfriend thats a different story. Those rules do need a change. What we are discussing is a grown man who raped a child, molested two others and went on to another county and did it again. He can't control himself and has already reoffended. I worked with a man that spent 20 years working with these types of offenders. They readily admit they would do it again, and for every child that they were caught and sentenced for, there were dozens that they were never convicted of. Not a few but dozens. Maybe you would like to take your chances but I have seen what these abuses do to people. I would not wish it on anyone. The sad thing is he will victimize another child, only it wont be here in Minnesota.

Kinda like saying that ex-military people have been exposed to so much trauma and so many have TBI and PTSD that all should be locked up. Thought that mnight resonate with you. I ran into exactly that sort of thinking a lot when I came back from Vietnam. Making overbroad statements is always a bad idea.

george, i hear what you're saying but take time to look at all of the repeat offenders when it comes to child molestations. they cannot be cured and it's shown over and over again. personally, i think they should be killed and there end the problem, but we can't do that because that would be wrong somehow. in the meantime, i say the court in england can go f$*% itself. I feel sorry for the little girls he comes in contact with in jolly old england.

George, these people don't just do a crime, they are violent predators that repeat as this guy did. I think this type of crime requires the death penalty. There are a huge number of people who are to evil to be allowed to live. There is no need or space for them.

I believe we have taken the "Mental Health" issue too far, that guy is simply a pedophile, his attraction is to girls not women! Given a choice between a young Bernadette Peters and a 12 year old, he'd take the 12 year old. He is sick, perverted even but not mentally ill and he has little in common with the majority of sex offenders most do not re-offend, less than 5% do, most were involved in an opportunistic offence, not premeditation, and most prefer age appropriate relationships. That guy should be listed as a sex predator and should be locked up.

We know these pedophiles will get out of jail and re-offend and victimize some other child. The justice system cannot keep them locked up and they cant be executed.

There is a point here. There IS something wrong with them. They CANT control it and they WILL hurt people.Look at the effort they will go to,to victimize children. Think about it,imagine the effort some of these freaks go to. Threat of prison is not enough. Seriously,if someone simply was attracted to children,or prefered them over adult women,they would not offend,again and again,then be sent to prison,which is not kind to pedophiles,then after a terrible ordeal like that,go out and do it again.

You have to think about it. Most people who cannot get sex of whatever kind they prefer,dont go out and rape someone. They masturbate in front of some internet porn and go about their lives. These pedophiles cant stop themselves. People who have compulsions to hurt other people and cannot control them are violently insane. Of course,many violently insane people are locked up in prison. Just look at Charles Manson. Hes most certainly insane. Insane people can still be tried,and imprisoned. There is a legal standard that simply requires them to be capable of assisting in their own defense and capable of understanding that nature of their actions. Being crazy wont get you off.

Personally I dont care where they are locked up. I dont care whether they are locked up in a prison or a secure psyciatric facility for violent offenders.

What does worry me is the evidence required to lock someone up like that. It requires a jury of 12 people to unanimously decide your guilty to lock you up for the rest of your life in prison. It takes a psychiatrist sighning a paper to lock you up for the rest of your life becuase your dangerously insane. That should concern people. What if your not. What if its all a big mistake. What if the real rapist was that guy that lives down the hall and they got the wrong guy,convicted him of rape,put him in prison for 5 years,and then when he got out decided that they wanted to keep him locked up forever. What protects us from that.

There is a right to a jury trial on the question of whether he is likely to re-offend and whether his proclivity is involuntary, both required beyond a reasonable doubt for involuntary treatment after the sentence is served. There is a right to treatment during the continued confinement and a right to a periodic judicial review as to the need for further post-confinement treatment. Unfortunately, given the pathology of the personality defect which is typical, release after successful therapy is not common. For the most part some of these offenders "burn out" with age. Many don't. We just do not have a decent humane answer for the problem posed and victim damage is often but not always substantial. People do not choose to have a personality defect nor do they choose to be right-handed.