Home Extradition

Extradition

Big Reasons That Result in Extradition

Big Reasons That Result in Extradition

As the terms of an extradition, a request for extradition may occur after someone has been charged with a crime, and there is a warrant out for his or her arrest. Rather than comply willingly with authorities, however, that individual flees across the border, and as a result is a fugitive of the law. For many denizens of the United States, fugitive status is more evocative of leaving the state, but appeals to recover criminal suspects can also occur between nations.
A request for the extradition of a foreign citizen may also occur after the individual is convicted of a crime. In some cases, the person may be extradited temporarily to another country where he or she faces charges for another crime. For example, in 2008, Hassan el Haski, a native Moroccan already serving time in Spain for his leadership role in the terrorist bombings in Madrid in 2004, was extradited to Morocco for suspicions of his participation of similar bombings in Casablanca in 2003.
Lastly, an appeal for the extradition of a foreign national may be made after the individual has been charged with a crime, found guilty, and given a sentence in absentia, or in the absent of the defendant. In rare cases, this situation will manifest itself when a convict escapes police captivity before authorities have a chance to physically detain him or her.

Why Are There Delays in Extradition?

Why Are There Delays in Extradition?

Extradition is an official process whereby one nation or official state surrenders a suspected or convicted criminal to the country or jurisdiction in which the individual committed the act. The individual is in essence transferred to the other country to process the underlying punishment in the area where he or she committed the illegal act.
The agreements between nations to extradite an individual are outlined in various treaties. Although the stipulations for what constitutes proper extradition and between whom extradition is permitted, there are numerous delays in the process that arise from different interpretations over the underlying wrongdoings. 
Delays in extradition are common, and are often instituted on purpose to take advantage of a loophole or are enacted to appease one of the nations involved in the process. Delays in extradition are often imposed by the origin country (country where the convicted individual is from) to impede the punishment process abroad.
The delays found in the extradition process simply mean that the individual in question is held in custody, and the trial process is put on hold until the individual can be relocated to the country in which he or she committed the act. 

A Brief Explanation of Extradition Laws

A Brief Explanation of Extradition LawsExtradition is the process of one nation or state surrendering a suspected or convicted criminal. Extradition laws allow for any criminal who has crossed state or country borders to be returned to the location of the crime for an arrest or a trial. Extradition laws are both nationally and internationally recognized, respected, and followed.

If a state or country refuses to abide by extradition laws the criminal could be then taken into custody by the federal government. Most countries have signed a bilateral extradition treaty with other countries so that should there be an issue, the criminal will be rightfully handed over to the questioning country without question.

Currently, the United States lack an agreement with the Republic of China, Namibia, the United Arab Emirates, and North Korea. 

The Issues With Extradition

The Issues With Extradition

Extradition is the legal practice of transporting an individual who is suspect of a criminal act over state or country borders. Extradition is done when a suspected criminal has left the location of where the crime was committed. Problems of extradition mainly surround tension between countries.
In ideal cases, countries will have signed a bilateral treaty promising that should there be a case of extradition, the individual in question will be transferred immediately; however, often extradition problems stem from a lack of treaties. If two countries have had previous altercations or do not share the same political or governmental beliefs and views, a treaty may not be generated.
Problems of extradition also involve opposing views of the individual in question to be extradited. If a country sees the individual as an upstanding citizen, they may refuse to extradite him/her to the opposing country. 

Issues Surrounding American Federalism and Extradition

Issues Surrounding American Federalism and Extradition

In America’s early days as an independent nation, the word “federalism” was a term of ill repute for many. At the time, the country had just won its autonomy from Britain in a bloody series of battles. With FederalistsConstitution, and those duties not conferred by the Constitution are awarded to the states, which make and enforce their own specific statutes.
It is when other countries and extradition proceedings get involved, meanwhile, that the rights of individual states to enforce their laws suffers under federalism. In international extradition law, only country-to-country dialogs are permitted when it comes to striking up a treaty; with this in mind, the state of New Jersey may not enter into a pact with the nation of Nicaragua.
With an issue such as capital punishment, though, different countries have different policies regarding its acceptability. Some nations forbid use of the death penalty altogether, and will delay extradition proceedings until absolute assurance is granted that the death penalty will not be exacted. The United States, in domestic matters of capital punishment, defers to the states.
Some states seek the death penalty in criminal cases, others will not, and some states insist on capital punishment whenever possible. Yet all states insist that the federal government speak for them in matters of extradition. Since some countries will not consent to extradition unless the death penalty is waived, although the federal government might not normally limit the states in the exercise of their powers, it may be forced to in cases involving extradition.

Is it Crazy to Use Abduction Instead of Extradition?

Is it Crazy to Use Abduction Instead of Extradition?In some instances, justice can be a somewhat subjective term. This is to say that sometimes members of a concerned public will view the effects of laws and judicial decisions, and decide that justice was not done by them. In this regard, rather than adhering to a strict interpretation of the legal code or waiting for new pieces of legislation to be passed, these individuals will go on the offensive, so to speak, and take matters into their own hands.

Invoking the maxim “two wrongs don’t make a right” then, in a purist sense, abduction to expedite extradition proceedings is wrong, as it is a crime on top of a crime. In scenarios when an individual is abducted, his or her right to due process is effectively being denied. Granted, some governments may justify abduction as necessary when extradition is too slow or ineffective, or when necessary to protect a nation’s interests.

Nonetheless, diplomatic disregard for another country’s borders and policies is to be discouraged, and unfortunately, instances of criminalasylumdrug charges, a United Nations General Assembly officially admonished America for its actions.

A Look at Extraordinary Rendition

A Look at Extraordinary Rendition

In referring to “renditions,” the term is most commonly used to describe the extraditioncriminal 
Nevertheless, personal accounts from detainees and interviews with former CIA officials has yielded conflicting accounts of what has happened at these black sites. Renditions to sites like Guantanamo Bay and other detention centers in Egypt, Syria, Afghanistan and elsewhere have led to allegations of water-boarding, sleep deprivation, beatings and other forms of torture designed to coax information out of people broadly suspected of terrorist activities, but again, sometimes they are not even charged.
If this much is true, American-sponsored extraordinary rendition is cruel and unusual treatment of human beings, and a violation of international law. United Nations conventions have ruled it illegal to torture a suspected terrorist or war prisoner under any circumstances. If nothing else, the practice is a mockery of the real process of extradition it evokes.

Do You Know These Famous Extradition Cases?

Do You Know These Famous Extradition Cases?

Sometimes, the question of whether or not a convict should be subject to the death penalty can increase the wait for an extradition order to be fulfilled. Such was the case of Charles Ng, a Chinese-American who was eventually convicted of eleven counts of murder.
In the case of Ira Einhorn, meanwhile, a series of legal hoops that needed to be jumped through before France would expatriate the man to the United States. Einhorn, a counterculture icon, was charged with the murder of former girlfriend Holly Maddux and fled to France, being tried and convicted in absentia in a Pennsylvania court. After being apprehended abroad, though, France demanded proof that that a) Einhorn would receive a fair trial, b) he would not receive the death penalty, and c) he would get another trial in the first place (which Pennsylvania had to make a special law to allow) before extradition was possible.
Some especially significant extradition cases have resulted from people of international notoriety. Former president of Peru Alberto Fujimori was only surrendered back to his home country of Peru after being arrested in Chile and extradited from there. Japan, a place of refuge for the self-exiled leader, was adamant in their refusal to expatriate Fujimori, who had dual nationality between Peru and Japan. Fairly recently, though, Fujimori received more than 25 years in prison for human rights abuses, embezzlement
A current and slightly more modern example, award-winning director Roman Polanski still has yet to serve time after pleading guilty to unlawful sex with a minor, more than 30 years after the crime. Even today, repeated extradition requests of the United States to Switzerland, where Polanski is now residing, have yet to bring him closer to U.S. courts.

Extradition Overview

Extradition Overview

As there are important distinctions to be made regarding extradition and deportation, so must extradition and exile be separated from another. Despite the similar name and the similarity inherent in the forcible removal of someone from a country’s custody, while extradition is usually petitioned for by a foreign country for a crime committed on foreign soil, an individual may be exiled from his or her own nation, and in some instances, the person will self-impose his or her exile to avoid persecution, as has the current Dalai Lama.
Other times, though, self-imposed exile will occur in direct response to wrongdoing, and under circumstances where innocence is arguably more doubtful. Nonetheless, if a country is predisposed to protect its residents, or that country has granted the fugitive applicant political asylum.
Famous Extradition Casesin absentia for the murder of his ex-girlfriend, but France would not extradite him unless it was proved he would get a fair trial, would not be condemned to die, and that he would get another trial.
Extradition appeals have also been filed in cases involving people who were otherwise famous. Peruvian president Alberto Fujimori, though protected from extradition in Japan, was arrested in Chile, remanded to Peru’s custody, and was tried, convicted and sentenced. Roman Polanski, after pleading guilty to statutory rape, fled the United States for France, where he is a citizen, but was arrested and now awaits extradition appeals from the United States while he remains under house arrest in Switzerland.

Countries with Laws Forbidding Extradition

Countries with Laws Forbidding Extradition

Some countries are notorious for being wholly resistant to extraditing their naturalized residents. Germany, for one, has had both its federal Supreme Court and federal Constitutional Court rule against removing its nationals outright via extradition. France, Switzerland, China and Japan, too, have historically been largely unwilling to cooperate with foreign governments who wish to remove a criminal suspect from his or her “homeland.”
Nonetheless, some countries, while writing similar provisions into their constitutions against petitions to remove their people, will make exceptions according to the date of the crime. An example would be Brazil; while the country’s national law prohibits the extradition of its citizens, if charges or convictions were accrued prior to naturalization, a federal court might be willing to surrender the suspect/convict. 
Then again, rather than removing a person, a country may simply remove the stipulation on not wanting to remove its nationals. Indeed, anti-extradition policies are not set in stone. Extradition treaties may be altered or revoked altogether, and complete non-extradition policies have been overturned in the past. A notable case of this transpired in 2000 when El Salvador amended its constitution to remove conditions that barred its nationals from extradition, paving the way for extradition treaty negotiations with the United States.