Should Amanda Knox be extradited to Italy? (Australia, quotes, constitutional)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Many countries have no extradition treaty with the US, such as China, North Korea, Iran, Russia, and several other nations mainly in Africa, Asia and parts of the Middle East. In terms of extradition, a lot of drug related and organised crime extraditions are made from Mexico and South America to the US, whilst in respect of murder, serious crime, fraud/internet crime and terrorism, most European countries do currently extradite to the US.
US Professor of Transnational Law Julian Ku explains the situation in relation to the Knox case and 'Double Jeopardy'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Telegraph
Yet the US-Italy extradition treaty only protects Americans from extradition to face prosecution again in Italy for an offence that has already been dealt with by the US legal system. “This is not applicable in this situation,” said Professor Julian Ku, who teaches transnational law at Hofstra University.
For extradition candidates like Ms Knox who have already been convicted, the treaty states that Italy must merely produce “a brief statement of the facts of the case,” as well as the text of the laws governing the crime committed, the punishment it would receive, and its statute of limitations.
Her conviction would “easily satisfy the conditions of the treaty,” said Prof Ku. “So it would be hard for the US to explain why she should not be handed over
Under the US extradition treaty with Italy, double jeopardy is not a valid reason to deny extradition; plus, there's precedent: In 1997, the US extradited a man to Turkey even though he had been convicted of rape only on appeal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Republic
What actually happened in Knox’s apartment on the night of November 1, 2007 will always be a tragic and fascinating question, but if and when she comes before a U.S. magistrate judge to challenge her extradition, the facts of the case will not matter. According to Jacques Semmelman, a New York-based attorney and leading extradition expert, her conviction in Italian court provides “abundant probable cause” to conclude she is guilty of murder.
The idea that double jeopardy could prevent Knox’s extradition, first popularized in the U.S. media after her retrial was announced in 2013, is also suspect. The current extradition treaty between Italy and the U.S. does not list double jeopardy within the country requesting extradition—i.e., Italy in this case—as a grounds for denying extradition.
Knox’s American lawyers could still claim that her extradition is unconstitutional, but according to Washington-based extradition lawyer Bruce Zagaris, “When a requesting country reverses the acquittal and enters a judgment of conviction, U.S. courts have held that there is no constitutional or statutory bar to the U.S. granting extradition.” Semmelman agrees that a double jeopardy defense would likely fail in Knox’s case, citing a 1997 case in which the U.S. extradited a man to Turkey despite the fact that he was convicted of rape in Turkey only after an appeal.
No matter what the Italian Supreme Court’s ultimate decision, it will be viewed with scorn. No new evidence is likely to surface and the various factions for and against Knox have come to their own conclusions long ago. Still, extradition treaties require that we respect the rulings of foreign courts within clearly deliniated parameters. Moreover, the special relationship cultivated between longstanding allies has to take precedence over individual doubts. When news outlets lose sight of that and instead speculate on what country Knox could escape to, it is unclear what kind of world they are rooting for.
I don't see what France, who wont extradite their own citizens outside of the EU has to do with Italy or the UK. Russia and China don't extradite to the US, nor does most of Asia. In terms of Ira Einhorn, he was extradited back to the US, although it took some time because a full appeal had to go through the French Court System, then through the European Court of Human Rights and then back to the French. However Post 9/11 this process has been speeded up, with a landmark decision in 2012 by the European Court of Human Rights.
My understanding is the EU countries generally won't extradite back to places where folks could face the death penalty. That is basically it and because of that I seriously doubt that if roles were reversed Italy would extradite.
My understanding is the EU countries generally won't extradite back to places where folks could face the death penalty. That is basically it and because of that I seriously doubt that if roles were reversed Italy would extradite.
Under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, a person can not be extradited in order to be executed by another nation. However member countries still extradite to the US, on the premise the person serves a life sentence in prison rather than execution.
The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is a separate organisation to the European Union and is run by the Council of Europe. It was first established in 1953 and has 47 member states and covers 820 million people, and at the heart of the ECHR is the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
The ECHR holds judicial precedent over national laws of member countries which include both Italy and Britain. The US currently has extradition treaties with most ECHR countries.
If the US wishes to stop extradition treaties with ECHR countries because of this stipulation then that would be a matter for the US Authorities, but would mean it would not be able to request any individual from an ECHR member state.
Under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, a person can not be extradited in order to be executed by another nation. However member countries still extradite to the US, on the premise the person serves a life sentence in prison rather than execution.
The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is a separate organisation to the European Union and is run by the Council of Europe. It was first established in 1953 and has 47 member states and covers 820 million people, and at the heart of the ECHR is the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
The ECHR holds judicial precedent over national laws of member countries which include both Italy and Britain. The US currently has extradition treaties with most ECHR countries.
If the US wishes to stop extradition treaties with ECHR countries because of this stipulation then that would be a matter for the US, but would mean it would not be able to request individuals from ECHR member states.
As I noted early on. Other countries will not extradite someone to the U.S. if that would violate their laws. The U.S. isn't going to when it violate's theirs.
As I noted early on. Other countries will not extradite someone to the U.S. if that would violate their laws. The U.S. isn't going to when it violate's theirs.
European do extradite murder cases to the US, they just do so on the premise that a life sentence is served rather than execution carried out. In terms of the Knox case if you bothered to read my quotes above it does not constitute 'Double Jeopardy' or violate any US Laws and the US has even extradited before in 1997 when the US extradited a man to Turkey even though he had been convicted of rape only on appeal.
European do extradite murder cases to the US, they just do so on the premise that a life sentence is served rather than execution carried out.
I'm not sure what you expect to gain by arguing in circles. You are now agreeing with those of us who argue that we are not going to violate our laws to extradite someone but you just can't quite bring yourself to acknowledging that we are no different than other countries in that regard.
Quote:
In terms of the Knox case if you bothered to read my quotes above it does not constitute 'Double Jeopardy' or violate any US Laws and the US has even extradited before in 1997 when the US extradited a man to Turkey even though he had been convicted of rape only on appeal.
She isn't going anywhere. She was found innocent, released and sent home.
Under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, a person can not be extradited in order to be executed by another nation. However member countries still extradite to the US, on the premise the person serves a life sentence in prison rather than execution.
The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is a separate organisation to the European Union and is run by the Council of Europe. It was first established in 1953 and has 47 member states and covers 820 million people, and at the heart of the ECHR is the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
The ECHR holds judicial precedent over national laws of member countries which include both Italy and Britain. The US currently has extradition treaties with most ECHR countries.
If the US wishes to stop extradition treaties with ECHR countries because of this stipulation then that would be a matter for the US Authorities, but would mean it would not be able to request any individual from an ECHR member state.
So in other words the EU (of which ever country is bound by the ECHR) is allowed to have a central document that overrides their extradition rules but the US isn't? As I have said before if for whatever reason there is a Constitutional issue with extradition I am pretty sure there would be no extradition. Not that that is going to happen necessarily, but I am certain that the US courts wouldn't allow an unconstitutional extradition.
As to those 820 million people the US isn't exactly a small country either. But more important then any of that is comity, and if there is no comity among judicial systems extradition treaties aren't worth the paper they are written on.
So in other words the EU (of which ever country is bound by the ECHR) is allowed to have a central document that overrides their extradition rules but the US isn't? As I have said before if for whatever reason there is a Constitutional issue with extradition I am pretty sure there would be no extradition. Not that that is going to happen necessarily, but I am certain that the US courts wouldn't allow an unconstitutional extradition.
As to those 820 million people the US isn't exactly a small country either. But more important then any of that is comity, and if there is no comity among judicial systems extradition treaties aren't worth the paper they are written on.
The ECHR is made up of 47 countries and 820 million people, the EU is made of 28 countries with 510 million.
The ECHR is recognised as being International Law, if the US wishes to sign International Law, that is up to the US, just as it's up to the US whether they wish to continue extraditing people from particular countries, continents or countries that adhere to certain legislation, extradition working both ways.
If the US wants to stop extradition with Europe then it is more than welcome to do so, nobody is forcing the US to sign extradition treaties with countries and many countries throughout the world do not in fact have any extradition treaties with the US.
I'm not sure what you expect to gain by arguing in circles. You are now agreeing with those of us who argue that we are not going to violate our laws to extradite someone but you just can't quite bring yourself to acknowledging that we are no different than other countries in that regard.
European Countries do generally extradite those wanted by the US for crimes such as murder, the individuals just can not be tortured or be subject to execution. They are therefore extradited to serve life sentences in US Prisons. This does not just apply to the US it applies to all countries applying for extradition from ECHR member states, as well as many other countries who do not have the death penalty such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan etc. Whilst major countries such as China, Russia North Korea and many Middle Eastern and African countries who do still have the death penalty, don't have extradition treaties with the US in the first place.
If the US doesn't want to adhere to extradition treaties and wishes to scrap extradition treaties with Europe and other countries who refuse to hand over individuals for execution it is more than welcome to do so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
She isn't going anywhere. She was found innocent, released and sent home
Countries such as Russia frequently say the same to the US regarding the extradition of individuals, and I think you will find extradition works two way so we are all capable of denying extradition to those who have refused our requests in the past.
Last edited by Bamford; 02-07-2014 at 01:12 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
