# Oops, we did it again! (Canada to U.S. Extradition)

**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oops-we-did-it-again-canada-to-u-s-extradition/62951
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [April 23, 2001, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oops-we-did-it-again-canada-to-u-s-extradition/62951 "2001-04-23T02:23:10Z")
**Posts on this page:** 1
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)
#### Post date: [April 23, 2001, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oops-we-did-it-again-canada-to-u-s-extradition/62951/1 "2001-04-23T02:23:10Z")

</div>

A while ago, I posted about a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, which held that Canada will not extradite a person accused of a capital crime in the U.S. unless American authorities give a committment that they will not execute the accused: [Canada, Extradition, and the Death Penalty](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=60168).

Earlier this month, our Supreme Court gave its decision in another set of extradition cases. It barred the extradition of several persons involved in telephone scamming, on the basis that the accused would not get a fair trial in the United States, based on statements by the judge and prosecutor assigned to the cases: [United States of America v. Cobb](http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/rec/html/cobb.en.html).

The statement from the judge, in imposing sentence on one of the co-accused in the scam was:

> [@](#):
>
> [T]he sentence that I’m imposing I think takes into account your cooperation and certainly you’re entitled to have that recognized. I want you to believe me that as to those people who don’t come in and cooperate and if we get them extradited and they’re found guilty, **as far as I’m concerned they’re going to get the absolute maximum jail sentence that the law permits me to give.** [Emphasis added.]

The statement from the prosecutor, given in an interview in a Canadian public affairs t.v. program, was:

> [@](#):
>
> MacIntyre: … For those accused who choose to fight extradition, Gordon Zubrod warns they’re only making matters worse for themselves in the long run.
> 
> ```
> Zubrod: I have told some of these individuals, "Look, you can come down and you can put this behind you by serving your time in prison and making restitution to the victims, or you can wind up serving a great deal longer sentence under much more stringent conditions", and describe those conditions to them.
> 
> MacIntyre: How would you describe those conditions?
> 
> Zubrod: **You're going to be the boyfriend of a very bad man if you wait out your extradition.**
> 
> MacIntyre: And does that have much of an impact on these people?
> 
> Zubrod: Well, out of the 89 people we've indicted so far, approximately 55 of them have said, "We give up".
> 
> ```

The Supreme Court’s analysis was that the trial judge had pre-judged the sentence for anyone who exercised their legal right to resist extradition, and that the prosecutor was effectively threatening them with homosexual rape as an extra-judicial inducement to come back to the U.S.

Seems there’s a couple of questions here. There’s the issue of Canada applying its standards to judge the American system, as in the previous cases. Also, what do people think of the statements by the judge and prosecutor, and the Canadian courts’ reaction to them?