Extradition: Should the internationally accused be tried in their home countries?

Comment Stream

2 years ago
0

Source 1: Found Through Database: Contemporary Problems of Extradition: Human Rights, Grounds for Refusal and the Principle Aut Dedere Aut Judicare by Michael Planchta

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.

Link: http://www.unafei.or.jp/english/pdf/PDF_rms/no57/57-07.pdf

Open in New Window
2 years ago
0

Source 2: WSJ News Video: Does Amanda Knox Have ‘Double Jeopardy’ Protection?

This video raises the stated question in the title Amanda Knox, the woman who was accused and convicted of murder won her appeal in the Italian court system and was free to go home. A month ago there was a problem with the appeal and the Italian judicial system may request Knox to be placed back into custody of Italy. The question that was raised by columnist Michael Casey was if double jeopardy protected her in this case. WSJ’s Law deputy chief Ashby Jones responded by saying that she could possibly protected and that one argument she would make to the U.S. court system is that her “constitutional rights are being violated here (regarding the double jeopardy).
I feel this shows why my idea for dealing with international crimes is a lot more effective than what’s already established. As Jones says in the video “a retrial is possible…that would be very foreign in our system, but it could happen there”. Amanda Knox is a U.S. citizen but because she was accused of her crimes in another country it’s as if she has to give up her rights as an American are taken away from her. When we travel to other countries, we don’t have the privilege of receiving the benefits of a citizen of that country (our passports alone is proof of that), so why would I give up my rights as an American when being accused for something I may have not done.

Source: Casey, Michael. "Does Amanda Knox Have 'Double Jeopardy' Protection?" Wall Street Journal. N.p., n.d. Web.

Link: http://www.wsj.com/video/does-amanda-knox-have-double-jeopardy-protection/BC6BA1BC-B41D-4D7F-928A-645106DA95AD.html

Open in New Window
2 years ago
0

Source 3: Primary Document: U.S. Extradition Treaty with Italy

One big paragraph instead of 2

The extradition treaty with Italy appears as though both countries are willing to give up all the rights of their citizens, for the sake of international harmony. What I noticed through these 12 pages is that nowhere does it mention my thesis. The concept of letting the home country take care of cases occurring outside of their borders seems unprecedented. I understand that my claim is really absurd in some light but I think we are too willing to give up the rights of the accused just because they are in another country. I find a problem with doing this, especially because they could turn out to be innocent. Their rules for capital punishment are kind of intriguing, I think. “When the offense for which extradition is requested is punishable by death under the laws of the requesting party and the laws of the requested party do not provide for such punishment for that offense extradition shall be refused” (Article IX). This protects the accused for capital punishment if they flee to a country with no capital punishment. I don’t agree with this stand (assuming the country the accused is fleeing from is their home country) because, once again, people need to be subject to the laws of their home country. That’s the laws they were born and matured in, and so it’s absurd to think they would need be charged with the rules of others.

Source: "EXTRADITION TREATY WITH ITALY." (1983): n. pag. Web.

Link: https://internationalextraditionblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/italy.pdf

Open in New Window
2 years ago
0

Source 4: Bloomberg Business Article

The U.S. requested to have Javier Martin-Artajo extradited back to America. He is being charged for securities fraud but Spain refuses to extradite him because he is a citizen of Spain. The article says that the court turned down the demand, backed by a Spanish prosecutor, because Martin-Artajo is a citizen of Spain and events occurred outside of the U.S…the tribunal said it won’t block the U.S. from pursuing the banker in Spain’s high court”. Spain is giving the U.S. the option to pursue the charges brought against Martin-Artajo, but they would have to charge him within the realm of Spaniard law.
This article was one of the few that argued on behalf of my thesis. Spain is protecting their citizen, but still allowing countries to charge him, if they do so in their court system. This is really all that I would like to see happen globally. The citizen of a country has the right to be charged (for any crime) within the jurisdictions of the law that he was born into. It’s nice to see my hypothesis in action because it shows that it can be done. The only difference here is that the U.S. did not allow him to go back to Spain, he fled. In my scenario the accusing country would extradite the defendant to their country of origin and then would there pursue prosecution through their judicial system. This is step one of achieving my idea, so I am pleased to see it in action.


Source: Munoz, Marcarena, and Patricia Hurtado. "Spain Rejects U.S. Extradition of London Whale Case Banker." Bloomberg. N.p., 23 Apr. 2015. Web.

Link: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-23/spain-rejects-u-s-extradition-of-banker-in-london-whale-case

Open in New Window
2 years ago
0

Source 5: “Overseas-Exile” Blog

This blog discusses the differentiation between the presumptions of innocence in America compared to France. Here in America the concept of being innocent until proven guilty only extends to the prosecution. It is their burden to prove that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. But outside of the courtroom, the creed of guilt can still haunt a potentially innocent. The media, as well as the public can butcher them: who think they know all details of the case and have already made a decision on whether the person is innocent or guilty. On the other hand, France has more secluded court system. According to the article “if you violate this presumption of innocence, it will quickly be your turn to stand in front of a judge, but they’ll protect you privacy too”.
This article proves my point because if someone is from France, and charged in America for a crime, they won’t have the privilege of getting privacy from their charges. In my scenario they would still have the privacy of their nation. Once again, it’s very unreasonable to force another country’s policy on a potential innocent person.

Source: "Overseas Exile." : "Innocent until Proven Guilty": The US versus France. N.p., n.d. Web.

Link: http://www.overseas-exile.com/2013/09/innocent-until-proven-guilty-us-versus.html


Open in New Window