Our Supreme Court ruled today that Canada won’t extradite persons accused of capital crimes, unless the requesting country gives an assurance that the death penalty won’t be carried out: Court won’t send men to possible execution.
So in this particular case, two people accused of a brutal murder in the U.S. won’t be extradited unless the prosecuting attorney gives an assurance that the death penalty will not be sought.
What do people think of this? Since the U.S. is one of the few countries that that has an extradition treaty with Canada, and also has the death penalty, odds are the decision will have the most impact on requests for extradition to the United States.
I don’t know if that violates any treaties between the US and Canada. Obviously it doesn’t violate Canadian law if the SC of Canada says it isn’t kosher. However I don’t want to hear anyone in the great white north bitching and moaning when a Canadian is put to death by one of our states.
No, it’s not in violation of the Canada- US extradition treaty. Under the terms of the treaty, the surrendering country can seek assurances from the requesting country that the death penalty won’t be imposed, as a condition of surrendering the accused person. (Since we don’t have the death penalty, that means we’d be the only ones exercising that power.)
The implication likely of the judgment is that the Canadian Minister of Justice will request that assurance any time the US asks for the extradition of someone accused of a capital crime.
I support the decision. I cannot bring myself to support the death penalty. That was my gut reaction on reading the OP. Then I went and read the article.
I’ve now been sitting here for 10 or 15 minutes staring at the screen and trying to imagine a situation in which I advocate the death penalty. I can’t find one.
In every case I could imagine, my last question was: “Now, this person has been condemned to death for the crime of [und] [/und]; can you perform the execution? Can you take a life and be able to live with yourself every day thereafter?” I found that my answer was yes – in such a situation, I, as a human being, would find a way to rationalize and adapt.
And it is precisely because of this that I have to oppose the death penalty. If I can rationalize and adapt to such an utterly final solution, then I should be able to rationalize and adapt to one that is less extreme.
It comes down to the taking of life. As far as I know, everyone only has the one. Then nothing. If one person kills another, killing the killer will not return the first person to life. You cannot add by subtracting.
MGibson… what, like it would be a new thing if the states executed a Canadian? Texas fried one last year. I just hope this doesn’t mean retards like McVeigh run up here to hide out after they kill a bunch of people.
It’s called national sovereignty. Canada is under no obligation to extradite to the United States, except to the extent it agrees to do so by international treaty.
The United States agreed to the clause in the treaty which says that either country can seek assurances the death penalty won’t be invoked.
Similarly, if Canada seeks extradition from the US, it has to be on the terms of the treaty.
That’s not one country dictating to another; it’s two countries agreeing to cooperate in law enforcement, notwithstanding their respective national soverignty.
I’ve been a member of Amnesty International for almost ten years. Accordingly, you won’t be surprised that I am pleased our Supreme Court voted 9-0, that this vote may make the death penalty impossible to be invoked in Canada in the future, and that the number of Canadians who support the death penalty in any circumstance has fallen from 70% or so to 52% (Toronto Globe and Mail, Feb. 16/2K+1)
I think governments have a duty to pass policy which is progressive. Lots of Southern States have had to come to terms with discrimination that existed in the past and todday their old policies look foolish and inhumane. Do we want people saying the same things about us fifty years from now?
Progressive is one of those neat political buzz words that has very little meaning. I don’t see how the abolishment of the death penalty moves us forward or promotes any sort of meaningful progress.
If the country he comes from has an extradition treaty with Canada, they can make a request for extradition. That request would go through the court process. If the courts rule that extradition is appropriate, under the terms of the Extradition Actand the relevant extradition treaty, then it’s up to the federal Minister of Justice to confirm the extradition order. Pursuant to the recent judgment, the Minister would, in all probability, ask for an assurance from the requesting country that if the person is convicted, he will not be executed. If the other country gives that assurance, then Canada will extradite.
As well, the Court left some wiggle room in its judgment, saying that an assurance of this sort will be needed in nearly all cases. Who knows how they would react to a person charged with crimes against humanity on the scale of Eichman?
I see. We would be willing to allow for “Eichmann’s” extradition so long as we get assurance that he won’t be subject to execution if convicted. And, if we don’t receive such a guarantee, chances are that he stays.
Sounds to me that we are effectively saying ‘sentence commuted’ or ‘haven granted’. Not too bad a deal.
Canada is dead right. The death penalty is barbaric and it reduces the implementers of such a punishment to the level of the offenders themselves.
The death penalty is driven by no other motive than revenge and the very idea of having state sponsored revenge is abhorrent to most people.
Most of the western world got rid of the death penalty years ago and it is about time the US followed suit. Wake up America and move into the 21st century where mankind at last will hopefully take further leaps towards becoming even more civilised.
Where once the US was viewed with admiration for its freedom, democracy, civil rights by the rest of the world it has lost its place and for many Europe has now replaced the US in esteem.
I’m personally pretty amused and pleased by the decision. I also don’t support the death penalty, and applaud Canada for their actions here. The amusement stems from the fact that the U.S. is constantly using its money, its political power and its military to try to get sovereign nations to behave in certain ways, but whenever another country pulls the same stunt on us, everybody cries foul.
Progressive was probably the wrong word to use – I agree it isn’t particularly meaningful. The concept I was trying to convey was that governments, though elected by popular will, should avoid pursuing policies simply because they are popular. The fact that more people support the death penalty than do not does not oblige the government to change its sensible and admirable stance. And in retrospect many of the social policies of the past are regressive – clearly violating acceptable standards of human rights and dignity; clearly weakening the nation by holding back a segment of society with the potential to add a great deal to society. I guess I was trying to convey “anti-regressive” when I used the word progressive but I agree I could have done better.
Canada a haven for criminals? This concerns me, but not much. I think life imprisonment is a plenty harsh penalty. Canada has also shown itself willing to make exceptions in very extreme cases and can do so by law.
I disagree. I don’t think executing criminals lowers us to their level any more then throwing them in prison does.
**
Vengence is a part of every justice system. One of the reasons we strip criminals of rights is to punish them.
**
If most of the western world jumped off a bridge should the US follow suit? I know that’s silly but just because most of the rest of the world does something doesn’t mean squat.
Who cares what the rest of the world thinks? I’m not particularly concerned with how western Europe or Canada views our system of government. And I seriously doubt that they care how Americans view their system of government.
I suppose it is difficult to discuss extradition for capital cases without getting into the merits of the death penalty. I suppose Canada is free to refuse extradition even if I don’t agree with their reasons. Of course we’ll feel free to continue executing Canadians who are guilty of 1st degree murder in the states.
I agree with the decision. As a Canadian, I think we shouldn’t have an active part in something that at least half of society disagrees with and something that is not done in our country.
I also think that Karl Gauss should read the entire content of posts before replying… Obviously, if an evil dictator (who isn’t even a citizen of Canada for godsake!) was to look for refuge in Canada, we’d throw him back from where he came from even before the other country could ask us for extradition!