...to make a promise lol. A very long term one
xxxxxxxxxxx
Yikes. Sorry. I stand corercted in my initial statement. I mean the level of evidence required to apply for extradition to the US (and other EU countries) is less than the UK. Originally Posted by CamilleOoooooohhhhh. OK. Now I know what you're talking about. This isn't actually about the US-UK treaty. It's about the UK law that implements it.
This is a major problem now for England because terrorists will try and take shelter there...after trying to bomb the place. Originally Posted by CamilleThis is an interesting take on things that I hadn't considered before.
The US, by the way, does a similar thing in some immigration cases. We cannot deport convicted criminals back to their home countries after their sentence is over if the home country won't accept them or they would face political persecution or physical torture back home. Instead we stick them into detention centers or, in some cases, federal prisons where they just sit forever. There are some people who have been in US custody for more than twenty years after their original sentence was completed. If they can't go home and nobody else will take them their only option is to sit in a US jail for the rest of their lives. It's a problem of international law that nobody feels like dealing with.Wait. Am I understanding this correctly? Someone from say Turkey (no offence to Turkey...just picking a none EU country) commits a crime in the US and serves their 20 year sentence in the US. Turkey no longer wants them back...so the US keeps them in jail? They don't go free? Why aren't immigration lawyers/organizations/amnesty international making a big 'old stink about that? I mean, in the UK at least people are making a whole hell of a lot of noise about the lack of extradition opportunities for terrorists etc. I suppose that's a damn good deterrant from commiting a crime in the US in the first place if you are a non citizen but hell that's crazy..and costly. Let them go and there is your stimulus for the economy lol.
Cheers,
Mazo. Originally Posted by Mazomaniac
Wait. Am I understanding this correctly? Someone from say Turkey (no offence to Turkey...just picking a none EU country) commits a crime in the US and serves their 20 year sentence in the US. Turkey no longer wants them back...so the US keeps them in jail? They don't go free? Originally Posted by CamilleYou got it sister. We've scaled it back a lot from what it used to be, but under certain circumstances the US can still hold an alien in prison indefinitely without a criminal conviction.
The double jeopardy law in the UK is no longer..meaning you CAN be tried for the same crime twice . . . Abolition of DJ law...a minefield of future problems OR an available course of action long overdue?I don't know enough about UK criminal procedure to comment directly on this in the UK system. They have a very different approach to evidence and presentation than we do. It would be an apples and oranges argument to compare what we do here to them.
Was there a particular case that you heard about?The case that has provoked concern over here in England and which may have been what Camille had in mind is the so-called 'NatWest Three'.
Originally Posted by Mazomaniac
Unless things have recently changed down under the Aussies are able to legally detain you for life if you're excluded from Australia and nobody else will have you. There are many foreigners in Aussie jails who will never see the light of day as well. Originally Posted by MazomaniacThe whole country is arranged to detain the unwanted. It's a giant prison yard.
By that I mean, if PJ (for example) came to London and killed someone and then hopped on a plane to the US, the UK is entirely at the mercy of the US as to whether you decided to send him back to us for trial etc. Originally Posted by CamilleHe would however be detained without release the moment he attempted to make what he considers a witticism. We have standards.
I say it because trying criminal cases twice under the US system almost guarantees that innocent people will go to jail.I don't know for sure, but I thought a person in the US could be tried twice: once by state authorities and once by federal authorities--just so long as the conduct violated both state and federal criminal conduct.
If you look at conviction rates after hung jury mistrials (the only time in the US when a defendant can be tried twice for the same offense) you'll see that the prosecution almost always comes out the winner in the second case. The prosecution learns so much about how jurors react to the case from the first trial that it's almost impossible for the defense to succeed in the second. Once a prosecutor knows what a jury thinks about his case he can tailor it for the second trial with devastating effect. I think it's common wisdom among criminal defense lawyers that if you get a hung jury you go for plea deal because your chance of an acquittal in the second trial is almost nil.
Eliminating the double jeopardy rule in the US - which would be almost impossible anyway as it would require an amendment to the Constitution - would pretty much guarantee that nobody was ever acquitted on a criminal charge. The US government would have the power to convict and imprison just about anyone it felt like putting away. An innocent defendant would never stand a chance of surviving a second trial even if he could afford the legal fees to do it. That's about the most scary thing I can think of. That's why we stuck it in the Bill of Rights in the first place.
Cheers,
Mazo. Originally Posted by Mazomaniac
I don't know for sure, but I thought a person in the US could be tried twice: once by state authorities and once by federal authorities--just so long as the conduct violated both state and federal criminal conduct. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005You are absolutely correct. I did not think to mention that as it falls under the doctrine of dual sovereignty rather than double jeopardy. Two prosecutions are allow under these circumstances because the states and the federal government are separate sovereign entities. The Supreme Court held that the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment only applies to a second trial by the same sovereign.
Regardless of the legal arrangements between the two countries, it smelled of Blair / Brown supine acquiesence to US interests. Originally Posted by ClerkenwellWell we are a significantly larger nation than you and we do have a much, much larger nuclear stockpile so I really don't see why you wouldn't acquiesce in anything we tell you to do.
Thank you for taking the time to write such comprehensive responses to my questions. Originally Posted by CamilleAre you kidding? American lawyers love to talk. It's the only thing we really know how to do well.