(Why) is this effective?

In the UK, we don't have extradition rights with the US...but the US has them with the UK. 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. We have no extradition agreement. If I killed someone here, ran off back to the UK, I am bound by the extradition agreement of the US to return.

Two things...
The US has the power to issue much more intense sentencing...from longer stretches to the death penalty. Under European Union law we the UK is severely limited on sentencing and the death penalty was abolished decades ago. I can see the US desire to prevent what they might see leniency. Financially, it would cost the states a hell of a lot to keep those people there. Is it worth it? In the UK's favour, I suppose, is that if the US wants folks back it's good for them..it costs them less and they see harsher punishments imposed

What is the idea/thinking behind this?
Do you think it's good/bad/ are you indifferent?
With knowing the stats of how many UK folks been extradited and for what crimes etc (which I don't) I don't really have an opinion..but I'm curious if you do...

C xxx

I'm innocent I tell ya!!!

In the UK, we don't have extradition rights with the US...but the US has them with the UK. Originally Posted by Camille

Not quite sure what you mean by this. The US and UK have had reciprocity on extradition for many, many years. We actually just signed and ratified a new version of the extradition treaty a few years ago to make the US-UK practice conform to the general US-EU extradition treaty. The US and UK exchange suspects all the time. People go both ways.

Was there a particular case that you heard about?

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. We have no extradition agreement. If I killed someone here, ran off back to the UK, I am bound by the extradition agreement of the US to return.

Actually, I think it's the other way around.

Under a principle of international law know as double criminality plus a ruling from the European Court of Human Rights the UK can no longer extradite suspects to the US if they would face the death penalty here. It is possible for the US to waive application of the death penalty and get the extradition completed, but in principle you can't extradite anyone from any EU member country into the US if they have committed a capital crime.

No such restriction - at least none that I'm aware of - forbids the extradition of suspects from the US into the UK or any other EU state.

As for general opinions on the US extradition system . . . well . . . it's really messed up.

The unique legal environment in the US makes enforcement of international law and treaties very, very problematic. We routinely end up ignoring the terms of treaties and other instruments of international law because there are loopholes in our own internal system that prevent people from challenging US government actions that violate those agreements.

I actually worked on such a case years ago where the suspect was illegally extradited from Pakistan. Everybody - including the US government - agreed that the extradition was improper. Didn't matter though. The government argued and won on the theory that there was no provision under US law that would allow a suspect to challenge the extradition. The client was convicted, sentenced to death and ultimately executed. In the end the US government just did what it felt like doing without worrying about minor details like international treaty obligations.

The EU, on the other hand, does pay attention to such things. Witness the prolonged saga of Roman Polanski. He's been able to hang out in France for decades because the French refuse to extradite a French national except in the most extreme circumstances and because his crime was subject to certain technical issues under international law that made extradition from France impossible. It was only when he hopped over to Switzerland - which is more sensitive to international issues than the French - that Polanski was grabbed and held for proceedings.

In the end, therefore, I'd say your argument was both correct and a little backwards. The US tends to be much more responsive to handing over people than most other countries are. At the same time, we are particularly ruthless when we decide to drag somebody over here. The EU and most other countries take a more balanced approach.

Cheers,
Mazo.

The whole cost benefit analysis of incarceration has been bandied about for decades. As has the theory of rehabilitation of criminals.

Generally speaking, the US populace (and therefore politicians and governmental policy) is more bloodthirsty and more retributive than most countries (an IMHO, people) in the EU.

There are cases in which (contrary to a treaty that may exist) foreign governments have refused to extradite to the US because the possible penalty includes the death penalty. In some (most?) of those cases, the only way the US can extradite is waive the right to the death penalty.

Edit to say Maz posted his before I saw it.

I'm innocent I tell ya!!! Originally Posted by pjorourke

If you took Lindsay Lohan, Paris Hilton, and Britney Spears and mashed them all together the combination would still be more "innocent" than you.

Cheers,
Mazo.

The whole cost benefit analysis of incarceration has been bandied about for decades. As has the theory of rehabilitation of criminals. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Iread somewhere recently that some jurisdiction had started giving judges cost estimates of various punishments. Apparently, there was a big jump in probation as a result. Seemed like a pretty reasonable idea.

Not quite sure what you mean by this. The US and UK have had reciprocity on extradition for many, many years. Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

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. Same questions though as in original statement. Thoughts anyone?

"A review of the Extradition Act - which governs arrangements between the U.S. and UK - was announced earlier this month by Home Secretary Theresa May.

The laws allow America and European Union countries to have British citizens arrested and sent for trial abroad - without presenting the level of evidence which would be needed for prosecution in the UK.
A judge will lead a panel examining whether the Extradition Act and European Arrest Warrant are being used to unfairly pursue Britons."

Actually, I think it's the other way around.

Under a principle of international law know as double criminality plus a ruling from the European Court of Human Rights the UK can no longer extradite suspects to the US if they would face the death penalty here. It is possible for the US to waive application of the death penalty and get the extradition completed, but in principle you can't extradite anyone from any EU member country into the US if they have committed a capital crime.
Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

And THAT is a major problem. I posted elsewhere that the UK ran into a shitstorm earlier this year because they were banned from extraditing two terrorists (who were planning crimes against the UK )back to their native countries because they would be killed....staright from the EU. This is a major problem now for England because terrorists will try and take shelter there...after trying to bomb the place. How long before the UK are urged to bring back the death penalty? How long after the EU refusing to let that ever be an option will the general public start calling for the UK get get out of the EU? I would think that's more likely than say the UN and EU trying to lobby other countries to prohibit the death penalty. No benefits of an organization are worth that kind of payoff particularly with regards terrorism. Another clusterfuck of great proportions....

C

Camille, you guys made the right decision when you left the Holy Roman Empire. I have no idea why you fucked up and reversed that decision. Where is Henry VIII when you need him

The laws allow America and European Union countries to have British citizens arrested and sent for trial abroad - without presenting the level of evidence which would be needed for prosecution in the UK. Originally Posted by Camille

Don't quite know what you mean by this. Do you mean the level of evidence necessary for a finding of guilt, or do you mean the level of evidence necessary to bring charges?

In the US, felony charges are traditionally brought by a grand jury, and the grand jury generally doesn't need much to indict. Conviction is another step and requires a finding beyond a reasonable doubt.

Generally speaking, extradition occurs after indictment but prior to conviction.

Where is Henry VIII when you need him Originally Posted by pjorourke

Oh, you mean the monarch that solved his wife problems by executing them????

Don't quite know what you mean by this. Do you mean the level of evidence necessary for a finding of guilt, or do you mean the level of evidence necessary to bring charges?
Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Charges. You can't guarantee a guilty verdict. Not even in the good 'ole US Charles

Camille, you guys made the right decision when you left the Holy Roman Empire. I have no idea why you fucked up and reversed that decision. Originally Posted by pjorourke

If I keep turning up stuff like this you better hide PJ or I'll be proposing we move to Utah and get married!

Oh, you mean the monarch that solved his wife problems by executing them???? Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Despite that nasty business, Henry was considered one of England's greatest kings.

If I keep turning up stuff like this you better hide PJ or I'll be proposing we move to Utah and get married! Originally Posted by Camille

Is that a threat or a promise?