4 ms·

To top it off Japan extradited US citizens for doing something not considered a crime in Japan! In what world does that happen?

by Goety 5y ago

garmaine 5y ago
That’s the nature of extradition. Edit: Why the downvotes? “If requested by the charging state, US states and territories must extradite anyone charged with a felony, misdemeanor, or even petty offense in another US state or territory, even if the offense is not a crime in the custodial state.” As far as I’m aware this holds true of international extradition too. That’s kinda the whole point—you can’t escape justice by picking a destination that doesn’t prosecute your crime.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- skeeter2020 5y ago
  Countries can still extradite in this scenario as a "favour" but there is typical a strong legal case against extradition if the charged crime is not a crime in the legal jurisdiction. (see current issue with Meng Wanzhou the Huawei CFO fighting extradition from Canada to USA) >> That’s kinda the whole point—you can’t escape justice by picking a destination that doesn’t prosecute your crime. You most certain can; combine poor relations with the country requesting extradition and you can avoid "justice" indefinitely.
- retrac 5y ago
  I did not downvote, but I suspect they're from your attempt to compare to domestic American law. While tempting, it's a misleading comparison here. US states do that because the US constitution has the "full faith and credit" clause requiring them to acknowledge and cooperate with the legal processes of other states. There is no equivalent internationally. Dual criminality is a standard provision in most (nearly all? all?) extradition treaties. Canada's treaty with the USA for example says: > Persons shall be delivered up according to the provisions of this Treaty for any of the offenses listed in the Schedule annexed to this Treaty, which is an integral part of this Treaty, provided these offenses are punishable by the laws of both Contracting Parties by a term of imprisonment exceeding one year. and the US-Japan treaty says: > Extradition shall be granted in accordance with the provisions of this Treaty for any offense listed in the Schedule annexed to this Treaty, which forms an integral part of this Treaty, when such an offense is punishable by the laws of both Contracting Parties by death, by life imprisonment, or by deprivation of liberty for a period of more than one year [...]
  - systemvoltage 5y ago
    IMO it doesn't deserve a downvote, just clarification. What the post is saying is absolutely true. It's a fact. I upvoted it.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > US states do that because the US constitution has the "full faith and credit" clause No, they do it because of the more specific Extradition Clause, not the Full Faith and Credit clause. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_Clause https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_Clause
  - garmaine 5y ago
    I Google and that was the first thing that came up, probably because I’m in the US. If international extradition language was easier to pull up on mobile I would have used that. I wasn’t purposefully making the comparison but rather attempting to demonstrate that extradition is meant to follow the laws of the place where the crime took place rather than the place where the fugitive resides. Unlike the US domestic situation, sovereign states are necessarily allowed some leeway in choosing which requests to honor. However it was my understanding that it is generally not a requirement that the alleged crime be illegal on both jurisdictions. Thank you for providing evidence to the contrary.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > That's the nature of extradition Generally, no, its not. > As far as I’m aware this holds true of international extradition too. It is not, it is a feature of US domestic law from the extradition clause of the US Constitution, which reflects the much closer association of US states than foreign nations. Dual criminality is the normal standard in extradition treaties (including the US-Japan one), though nothing (except perhaps individual rights under local law) prevents a state from extraditing persons when not required by a treaty, or deporting foreigners back to their country of nationality with similar effect.

To top it off Japan extradited US citizens for doing something not considered a crime in Japan! In what world does that happen?

by Goety 5y ago

To top it off Japan extradited US citizens for doing something not considered a crime in Japan! In what world does that happen?

garmaine 5y ago

That’s the nature of extradition. Edit: Why the downvotes? “If requested by the charging state, US states and territories must extradite anyone charged with a felony, misdemeanor, or even petty offense in another US state or territory, even if the offense is not a crime in the custodial state.” As far as I’m aware this holds true of international extradition too. That’s kinda the whole point—you can’t escape justice by picking a destination that doesn’t prosecute your crime.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
skeeter2020 5y ago
Countries can still extradite in this scenario as a "favour" but there is typical a strong legal case against extradition if the charged crime is not a crime in the legal jurisdiction. (see current issue with Meng Wanzhou the Huawei CFO fighting extradition from Canada to USA) >> That’s kinda the whole point—you can’t escape justice by picking a destination that doesn’t prosecute your crime. You most certain can; combine poor relations with the country requesting extradition and you can avoid "justice" indefinitely.
retrac 5y ago
I did not downvote, but I suspect they're from your attempt to compare to domestic American law. While tempting, it's a misleading comparison here. US states do that because the US constitution has the "full faith and credit" clause requiring them to acknowledge and cooperate with the legal processes of other states. There is no equivalent internationally. Dual criminality is a standard provision in most (nearly all? all?) extradition treaties. Canada's treaty with the USA for example says: > Persons shall be delivered up according to the provisions of this Treaty for any of the offenses listed in the Schedule annexed to this Treaty, which is an integral part of this Treaty, provided these offenses are punishable by the laws of both Contracting Parties by a term of imprisonment exceeding one year. and the US-Japan treaty says: > Extradition shall be granted in accordance with the provisions of this Treaty for any offense listed in the Schedule annexed to this Treaty, which forms an integral part of this Treaty, when such an offense is punishable by the laws of both Contracting Parties by death, by life imprisonment, or by deprivation of liberty for a period of more than one year [...]
- systemvoltage 5y ago
  IMO it doesn't deserve a downvote, just clarification. What the post is saying is absolutely true. It's a fact. I upvoted it.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > US states do that because the US constitution has the "full faith and credit" clause No, they do it because of the more specific Extradition Clause, not the Full Faith and Credit clause. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_Clause https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_Clause
- garmaine 5y ago
  I Google and that was the first thing that came up, probably because I’m in the US. If international extradition language was easier to pull up on mobile I would have used that. I wasn’t purposefully making the comparison but rather attempting to demonstrate that extradition is meant to follow the laws of the place where the crime took place rather than the place where the fugitive resides. Unlike the US domestic situation, sovereign states are necessarily allowed some leeway in choosing which requests to honor. However it was my understanding that it is generally not a requirement that the alleged crime be illegal on both jurisdictions. Thank you for providing evidence to the contrary.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> That's the nature of extradition Generally, no, its not. > As far as I’m aware this holds true of international extradition too. It is not, it is a feature of US domestic law from the extradition clause of the US Constitution, which reflects the much closer association of US states than foreign nations. Dual criminality is the normal standard in extradition treaties (including the US-Japan one), though nothing (except perhaps individual rights under local law) prevents a state from extraditing persons when not required by a treaty, or deporting foreigners back to their country of nationality with similar effect.