4 ms·

Extradition is generally thought of as when a person from country A who is convicted of a crime in A flees to country B, and country B then extradites said pers

Extradition is generally thought of as when a person from country A who is convicted of a crime in A flees to country B, and country B then extradites said person to country A to serve out their sentence. It's not meant to be a system to convict people incapable of defending themselves in a foreign court. Plus, there are extradition treaties: countries A and B have to _agree_ to the conditions under which A will extradite to B and under which B will extradite to A. > The proper process should be like this: if country A thinks that someone from country B has committed a crime against them then they should come to that country and prove it in a court without being able to add additional charges. Courts in country B generally have close to zero understanding of the legal minutiae of country A. Ignoring jurisdiction questions, what you're suggesting is that courts in country B have to: * understand the hierarchy of the legal system in A (what precedent is binding, what precedent is advisory), * understand what is and isn't a law (e.g. if A is a common law jurisdiction and B is not), * somehow reconcile legal procedures in A with legal procedures in B (e.g. when are you allowed to ask the judge to dismiss a case? what's an acceptable situation to ask for N more weeks for discovery? how much time is considered reasonable? who do you file paperwork with?) * somehow decide what constitutes a qualified attorney (e.g. in the U.S., every state has its own qualification process for attorneys to practice in that state, so being admitted to the bar in Colorado doesn't mean you can practice in Florida, and this also extends to the federal govt) and goodness knows what else. In general it's good to assume that if there are millions of people in a given system, there are _reasons_ (not necessarily good ones, just plausible ones) the system works that way, particularly when it's a system you have zero understanding of.

codedokode 5y ago
> Ignoring jurisdiction questions, what you're suggesting is that courts in country B have to: > understand the hierarchy of the legal system in A (what precedent is binding, what precedent is advisory) No, I meant the court in country B would follow laws and procedures of country B. > somehow decide what constitutes a qualified attorney This can be specified in an international treaty.
- mannykannot 5y ago
  That is more or less how it works. You will notice that Son Jong-woo was not extradited to the USA. The US government presented its case to Korea (via Korean attorneys hired for the purpose, I suppose), claiming that, according to the treaty, Son Jong-woo should be extradited, and the Korean court demurred. See also the Assange case in Britain: "Julian Assange, the 50-year-old founder of Wikileaks, is a step closer to being extradited from Britain to the United States after the U.S. government won an appeal in London's High Court." [my emphasis.] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/10/us-wins-appeal-over-extradition-of-wikileaks-founder-assange.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/10/us-wins-appeal-over-extradit... Extradition treaties are supposed to be the law in both countries, and country B is nominally under no obligation to accept terms in a treaty that are counter to its own principles. Asymmetric power and corruption mean that this is not always the case, of course...
  - codedokode 5y ago
    No, extradition is unfair. Let's say someone did X, Y and Z where X is punishable in both countries, and Y and Z is only punishable in USA. If he stays in his country, he gets a punishment only for X, but if extradited to USA, he gets a punishment for Y and Z also. Although his country's laws allowed him to do Y and Z.
    - mannykannot 5y ago
      The answer in this scenario is the same as before: if the extraditing country, aware that this is a possibility, allows the extradition to go ahead, then the person extradited has been subject to due process in their country. In addition, the victims of Y and Z may reasonably consider it unfair if the perpetrator avoids prosecution on this basis. If Y and Z were a crime in in the perpetrator's country, it would not be unfair for him to be prosecuted for them, even if the evidence, or his being in custody, came only from his being arrested for X; this happens quite frequently. It also sometimes happens that extradition is made conditional - for example, on the condition that the person is not subject to the death penalty. For a couple of obvious reasons, reneging on such an agreement after the extradition would have negative long-term consequences for the country that does it.

codedokode 5y ago

> Ignoring jurisdiction questions, what you're suggesting is that courts in country B have to: > understand the hierarchy of the legal system in A (what precedent is binding, what precedent is advisory) No, I meant the court in country B would follow laws and procedures of country B. > somehow decide what constitutes a qualified attorney This can be specified in an international treaty.

mannykannot 5y ago
That is more or less how it works. You will notice that Son Jong-woo was not extradited to the USA. The US government presented its case to Korea (via Korean attorneys hired for the purpose, I suppose), claiming that, according to the treaty, Son Jong-woo should be extradited, and the Korean court demurred. See also the Assange case in Britain: "Julian Assange, the 50-year-old founder of Wikileaks, is a step closer to being extradited from Britain to the United States after the U.S. government won an appeal in London's High Court." [my emphasis.] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/10/us-wins-appeal-over-extradition-of-wikileaks-founder-assange.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/10/us-wins-appeal-over-extradit... Extradition treaties are supposed to be the law in both countries, and country B is nominally under no obligation to accept terms in a treaty that are counter to its own principles. Asymmetric power and corruption mean that this is not always the case, of course...
- codedokode 5y ago
  No, extradition is unfair. Let's say someone did X, Y and Z where X is punishable in both countries, and Y and Z is only punishable in USA. If he stays in his country, he gets a punishment only for X, but if extradited to USA, he gets a punishment for Y and Z also. Although his country's laws allowed him to do Y and Z.
  - mannykannot 5y ago
    The answer in this scenario is the same as before: if the extraditing country, aware that this is a possibility, allows the extradition to go ahead, then the person extradited has been subject to due process in their country. In addition, the victims of Y and Z may reasonably consider it unfair if the perpetrator avoids prosecution on this basis. If Y and Z were a crime in in the perpetrator's country, it would not be unfair for him to be prosecuted for them, even if the evidence, or his being in custody, came only from his being arrested for X; this happens quite frequently. It also sometimes happens that extradition is made conditional - for example, on the condition that the person is not subject to the death penalty. For a couple of obvious reasons, reneging on such an agreement after the extradition would have negative long-term consequences for the country that does it.