What does "waive extradition" mean?

[Peanuthead]

It sounds counterintuative to me. Every time I hear it on the news, it's "the accused waived extradition" and is being returned to another state

Extradition: The surrender of an accused or convicted person by one state or country to another

Waive: Do without or cease to hold or adhere to.

Shouldn't it be that the state waived extradition?

[Punoqllads]

It means that they waived their right to have an hearing to contest the extradition.

[Bricker]

No, it's shorthand that means that the accused waived his right to an extradition hearing.

[friedo]

Originally Posted by Peanuthead

Shouldn't it be that the state waived extradition?

The state doesn't get to waive extradition; the accused has a right to an extradition hearing. The phrase means the accused has waived his right to the extradition hearing, probably because he knows it would be a waste of time.

[Keeve]

All three of you used the word "hearing". This is accurate, but the OP may not understand what you mean.

I think this is a simpler explanation:

If the subject of "extradition" even comes up, it is because of this: Jurisdiction A has accused Person X of breaking the law, and they want to arrest him. But X is in Jurisdiction B, where no one has even accused him of breaking any laws, so they have no right to arrest him. B wants to do a favor for A by picking X up and delivering him to A. This is called "extraditing X to A". X can contest B's right to do this, and that's the "hearing" the other posters mentioned. If X waives his right to fight the extradition, that is popularly (but confusingly) called "waiving extradition".

[Peanuthead]

Okay, I think I got it now. Correct me if I'm wrong:

A perp (dig my cool TV lingo) is wanted in Chicago.
He's busted in NY.
Chicago wants to "extradite" him from NY.
NY must conduct a hearing to get rid of his ass.
Foregone conclusion: Perp goes back to Chicago.
Lawyer says: "Waive extraditon hearing dude"
Headline in Newspaper: "Perp waives extradition."(minus the word "hearing)

Kind of screwed up communication, but I guess it works out okay, as long as the bad guys get the shitty end of the stick.

Not to open a can of worms but, has anybody ever actually exercised their right to not be extradited? What could happen? Guilty party go free? Accused stay in custody indefinitely?

[Polycarp]

Try it this way: Extradition is a legal process. Perp is wanted in State X but is currently living in State Y. State X asks State Y to extradite him. They hold a hearing to determine if there's reason to send him to State X to face the charges there. In most cases, the result of the hearing would be a foregone conclusion -- he should be sent back. So he waives extradition -- i.e., waives the legal process to protect him against an unjust request from State X. There were at one time cases where the situation in some state was such that the accused could not get a fair trial and a state might refuse to extradite someone on the request of another state with such prejudicial processes. I don't have specific examples at hand, but I know such situations did occur last century.

[Northern Piper]

Originally Posted by Peanuthead

Not to open a can of worms but, has anybody ever actually exercised their right to not be extradited? What could happen?

You don't have a right to not be extradited. You have a right to a hearing. If you insist on a hearing, then the state that wants to extradite you has to show cause, sufficient to convince the judge at the hearing that you should be extradited. If the requesting state meets that burden, then you get extradited. If the requesting state doesn't meet that burden, then you're not extradited.

Originally Posted by Peanuthead

Guilty party go free?

If you're not extradited, you don't stand trial, and you're not a guilty party. You are innocent until proven guilty.

Originally Posted by Peanuthead

Accused stay in custody indefinitely?

If the state where you're located doesn't extradite you, they can only hold you if they have grounds to do so under their law. If the state where you're located doesn't have any basis to charge you with anything, you can't be held in custody.

[Keeve]

Also note that extradition applies when a person is in one country but is wanted by another. It's not just between states. (That's why my previous post used the word "jurisdiction".)

For lots more info, see Wikipedia.

[Elendil's Heir]

Extradition from one U.S. state to another is provided for in the Constitution, of course:

A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

Art. IV, Sec. 2, cl. 2. From time to time when I was a reporter, I would see extradition demands (more like "requests") signed by governors in felony criminal files. An odd bit of paperwork.

Extradition from one country to another gets quite a bit more complicated, depending on whether or not those two countries have a treaty which permits it, and if the person being extradited is subject to execution upon conviction in the country which wants him. See Polanski, Roman and Einhorn, Ira.

[robert_columbia]

Originally Posted by Keeve

Also note that extradition applies when a person is in one country but is wanted by another. It's not just between states. (That's why my previous post used the word "jurisdiction".)

For lots more info, see Wikipedia.

I believe it's also the case, especially with international extradition, that many countries will not extradite you unless the offense for which you are accused in the foreign jurisdiction has a substantially similar local equivalent.

E.g.

Quebec: John Smith, currently in New York, is wanted for armed robbery in Montreal! <presents probable cause that the defense is unable to overcome>
New York: OK

Iran: Muhammad Akbar, currently in New York is wanted in Tehran for converting to Christianity! <presents probable cause that the defense is unable to overcome>
New York: Get bent.

[friedo]

Originally Posted by robert_andrews

I believe it's also the case, especially with international extradition, that many countries will not extradite you unless the offense for which you are accused in the foreign jurisdiction has a substantially similar local equivalent.

E.g.

Quebec: John Smith, currently in New York, is wanted for armed robbery in Montreal! <presents probable cause that the defense is unable to overcome>
New York: OK

Iran: Muhammad Akbar, currently in New York is wanted in Tehran for converting to Christianity! <presents probable cause that the defense is unable to overcome>
New York: Get bent.

Well, the US doesn't have an extradition treaty with Iran anyway, so that would be moot. But you're right -- countries generally won't extradite for things which they do not consider a crime. Canada did not extradite draft dodgers during Vietnam, for example, because draft dodging was not a crime in Canada. (They did not have a draft at the time.) OTOH, they have extradited American deserters during the currents wars, because desertion is a crime there, and the US armed forces are now all-volunteer.

[Captain Amazing]

Originally Posted by Peanuthead

Not to open a can of worms but, has anybody ever actually exercised their right to not be extradited? What could happen? Guilty party go free? Accused stay in custody indefinitely?

Most notably, Roman Polanski's case was just in the news. He avoided extradition.

[Keeve]

Originally Posted by friedo

Canada did not extradite draft dodgers during Vietnam, for example, because draft dodging was not a crime in Canada.

Now we're getting into the sort of grammar question that started this whole thread.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the verb "to extradite" refers to what the jurisdiction which is trying to obtain the guy is trying to do. In your case, if American draft dodgers are in Canada, then it's not Canada who is extraditing them, but rather it is the USA which is trying to extradite them from Canada.

What would be a good way of describing Canada's role in that? "Canada denied the American extradition requests" - or something like that?

[robert_columbia]

Originally Posted by Keeve

Now we're getting into the sort of grammar question that started this whole thread.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the verb "to extradite" refers to what the jurisdiction which is trying to obtain the guy is trying to do. In your case, if American draft dodgers are in Canada, then it's not Canada who is extraditing them, but rather it is the USA which is trying to extradite them from Canada.

What would be a good way of describing Canada's role in that? "Canada denied the American extradition requests" - or something like that?

What do you propose? Maybe we should say "The US tried to introdite John Smith from Canada. Canada refused to extradite him."?

[Projammer]

The most recent international extradition hearing that I'm aware of

Swiss free Roman Polanski; won't extradite director to U.S.

Another thing is that countries without capital punishment will refuse to extradite suspects charged with capital crimes unless the prosecuting country agrees not to pursue the death penalty.

[kenobi 65]

Originally Posted by Captain Amazing

Most notably, Roman Polanski's case was just in the news. He avoided extradition.

Another example was Ira Einhorn, who, while awaiting trial for murdering his ex-girlfriend in Pennsylvania, skipped bail and fled to France. Pennsylvania tried and convicted him in absentia.

Einhorn was eventually arrested in France, in 1997, but it took four years to get him extradited to the U.S. France wasn't happy about returning him to a country which had the death penalty (although, as Pennsylvania did not have the death penalty on the books at the time of the murder, Einhorn would not have been eligible for it); nor were they happy about the fact that Einhorn had already been tried and convicted in absentia.

He was finally returned to the U.S. in 2001, once it was agreed that he would get a new trial (at which the jury took only 2 hours to convict him).

[Northern Piper]

Originally Posted by Keeve

Now we're getting into the sort of grammar question that started this whole thread.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the verb "to extradite" refers to what the jurisdiction which is trying to obtain the guy is trying to do. In your case, if American draft dodgers are in Canada, then it's not Canada who is extraditing them, but rather it is the USA which is trying to extradite them from Canada.

What would be a good way of describing Canada's role in that? "Canada denied the American extradition requests" - or something like that?

It's both. See, for example, this definition of "extradite":

ex·tra·dite (kstr-dt)
v. ex·tra·dit·ed, ex·tra·dit·ing, ex·tra·dites
v.tr.

1. To give up or deliver (a fugitive, for example) to the legal jurisdiction of another government or authority.

2. To obtain the extradition of.

By meaning no. 1, it is the country giving up the accused which is the subject of the verb; by meaning no. 2, it is the country receiving the accused which is the subject.

So both of these sentences are grammatically correct:

"At the request of the United States, Canada extradited John Doe today to face charges in New York state court."

"The Government of the United States successfully extradited John Doe from Canada, with the assistance of the Canadian government, to face charges in New York state court."

[Northern Piper]

Originally Posted by friedo

Canada did not extradite draft dodgers during Vietnam, for example, because draft dodging was not a crime in Canada. (They did not have a draft at the time.) OTOH, they have extradited American deserters during the currents wars, because desertion is a crime there, and the US armed forces are now all-volunteer.

Technically, Canada's not extradited them, which is a form of criminal process, but simply deported them for being in the country illegally, which is a civil process. They've come into Canada without the proper visa to stay for an extended period of time, so are open to deportation under our immigration laws.

Some of them have challenged deportation by trying to make refugee/persecution claims, but our courts have rejected those arguments.

[Northern Piper]

Originally Posted by Keeve

Also note that extradition applies when a person is in one country but is wanted by another. It's not just between states. (That's why my previous post used the word "jurisdiction".)

I think that the US usage of extradition to mean between different states of the US is a bit unusual - we don't use that terminology here in Canada, since our criminal law is Canada, and an arrest warrant runs throughout the country. For us, extradition always refers to extradition from one country to another.

I don't know if other federations use "extradition" in the context of transfers of accuseds within the country - maybe our Aussie law dopers can comment on the usage there.

[Giles]

Originally Posted by Northern Piper

I think that the US usage of extradition to mean between different states of the US is a bit unusual - we don't use that terminology here in Canada, since our criminal law is Canada, and an arrest warrant runs throughout the country. For us, extradition always refers to extradition from one country to another.

I don't know if other federations use "extradition" in the context of transfers of accuseds within the country - maybe our Aussie law dopers can comment on the usage there.

In Australia, most criminal law is at the state level, so they do have extradition between states in Australia.

[Xema]

Originally Posted by Northern Piper

If you're not extradited, you don't stand trial, and you're not a guilty party. You are innocent until proven guilty.

It's often expressed that way, but a more accurate way to say this is that in legal proceedings an accused is entitled to a presumption of innocence, which means (among other things) that the burden of proof falls on the prosecution, and that failure to testify cannot be construed as evidence of guilt.

[Northern Piper]

Originally Posted by Xema

It's often expressed that way, but a more accurate way to say this is that in legal proceedings an accused is entitled to a presumption of innocence, which means (among other things) that the burden of proof falls on the prosecution, and that failure to testify cannot be construed as evidence of guilt.

Depends which country you're posting from.

I'm posting from Canada, where our Charter provides:

11. Any person charged with an offence has the right
...
(d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal;

[Xema]

Originally Posted by Northern Piper

I'm posting from Canada, where our Charter provides:

I think this is saying the same thing: not that the person is necessarily innocent, but rather that he is entitled to a presumption of innocence in legal proceedings.