Source 1: Found Through Database: Contemporary Problems of Extradition: Human Rights, Grounds for Refusal and the Principle Aut Dedere Aut Judicare by Michael Planchta
Open in New Window
Database: National Criminal Justice Reference Service
This essay seems to want to give a lot of power and authority to the home country of the accused. They argue that their home country should determine the defendant’s judicial fate. The philosophy to extradite or prosecute (Aut Dedere Aut Judicare) gives the defendant the potential to go home before they are prosecuted. On one hand, this principle guarantees that all potential criminals are tried, but on the other it also gives priority to citizens being tried on their natural soil. The thesis of this essay is hard to understand however. Planchta says “the obligation to prosecute or extradite is imposed on the custodial state in whose territory an alleged offender iis present(9)”. This seems to argue the contrary to Planchta’s previous argument. This quote says that the country where the criminal is currently at/committed the crime has the option to continue to hold them or to extradite them to a requesting nation.
This definitely goes hand and hand with my examination of extradition, especially since I am arguing against the latter point made above. When someone is accused of a major crime (mostly murder) in another, I feel that they should be allowed to be tried 1 of 2 ways; either tried back home or tried in the country of the offense and if found guilty sentenced back home. There are significant differences between qualities of prisons between nations. So, if my desire for a defendant to be tried in their home country is too absurd, I think they should at least serve their sentence there.
Source: Plachta, Michael. "Contemporary Problems of Extradition." Human Rights, Grounds for Refusal and the Principle Aut Dedere Aut Judicare (2001): n. pag. Web.