Yeah. It’s kinda important to be consistent on these things. The death penalty is wrong in every case—no exceptions. It wouldn’t make much sense if a nation (e.g. Canada, France, etc.) always demanded that the death penalty option be off-the-table in order for them to extradite, but then one day suddenly decided:
“Well in THIS case the suspect raped, tortured, and killed every five year-old in the state of Montana, made Kid Jerky from their bodies, and sold it online. We find that a bit over-the-top. Here–he’s all yours. Go ahead and murder the guy.”
Exactly. Canada could claim jurisdiction under common law, as pravnik notes; but just to be on the safe side, Canada has also written its jurisdiction into its Criminal Code. From the Criminal Code of Canada, section 476(b):
Emphasis added. I understand that “territorial division” in this sense is any border between jurisdictions: provinces, counties, and the US-Canada border.
And to address the following argument:
… the Criminal Code also concerns itself with acts that occur outside of Canada. See section 481.2:
This section gives Canada jurisdiction over the shooter in the United States.
Of course, whether the US authorities would recognize the Canadian law and turn the shooter over to Canadian authorities is another matter, but I’m sure that the diplomats would work out some solution acceptable to both countries. Regardless, as the above cites indicate, it is incorrect to say that Canada has no jurisdiction in the matter–it would certainly claim jurisdiction based on statute and common law, and would prosecute the American shooter if possible.
Hmm. I suppose I may have been foggily remembering court dramas with jurisdictional questions based on where bodies were found, which turned out not to have been where murders were committed–but killer and killed were in the same other jurisdiction when the act took place.
I recall one episode where they were trying to extradite a death penalty candidate from Canada. They had a shitload of charges against him, but asked the Canadian officials to extradite for some minor crime (car theft maybe). His lawyer complained it was just a fig leaf procedure and as soon as they got him across the border he’d face the death penalty. Of course, everyone knew this, but the Canadian court decided that it couldn’t make decisions by speculating on what additional charges might or might not get added later. So, back to NYC and a death penalty charge added later.
IANAL - but to extradite someone from Canada, IIRC, the offense has to be against the law in Canada. If the USA has some bizarre law, like failing to obey a Patriot Act secrecy order, the perp could not be extradited from Canada. I assume the same would apply to US extraditions, so a questionable law granting jurisdiction for foreign crimes may not be a valid reason to extradite in the USA.
IIRC, Charles Ng was contesting his extradition because of the death penalty llong before 2001. See Reference Re Ng Extradition - Wikipedia the Supreme Court (ours) decided that it was OK to extradite him. In 2001 it decided that no, that was not fundamental justice, fortunately after he’d been deported. United States v Burns - Wikipedia
I’m not certain that’s true… what about Marc Emery who (IIRC) was extradited to the 'states for selling marijuana seeds?
It occurs to be that the scenario in the OP might happen quite often with copyright issues, for example there’s a case in the UK (not decided yet) about extradition for something that I gather wasn’t illegal where the “offender” lived.
When could the actions described in the OP rise to the level of an act of war and form the beginning of hostilities? The real-life incident that I am thinking of is this one in El Paso. A bullet fired from Juarez entered an office in the El Paso City Hall. In this case, no one was injured. However, the fact remains that a projectile was fired from a foreign country and entered a government building in the United States. What if the bullet had come from a uniformed Mexican soldier or a police officer?
First, they’ll come for our assistant city mangers…
In extradition law particularly there is a principle known as the rule of specialty. Here is one example of its articulation. I can’t specifically speak for Canada, but almost all countries have it written into their extradition treaties to address this exact problem.
It exists precisely to stop pretext extradition applications being used as fronts for political persecution and the like. Bring someone back on fraud charges then execute them for being a political liability on completely different charges. In essence, it means that the country seeking extradition can only prosecute on those charges specifically mentioned in the extradition order. (This requires the lawyers in the seeking country to be very careful about the drafting of charges.)
I can’t imagine that they could get away with that stunt in the Law and Order episode.
Believe it or not, marijuana is still illegal in Canada. The local authorities in BC have made a policy of turning a blind eye towards possessing small amounts, but it remains illegal on a federal level and distribution is still a quite serious crime.
In te same arm-twisting demonstrated in the Martah Stewart case, the prosecutors for Emery drew a bead on his underlings and were threatening to throw the book at them too (like they did to the peons in Martha Stewart’s office to try to force cooperation). Emery agreed to be extradited in return charges were dropped against his employees, who also might have been extradited and jailed for decades.
Hey, I’m not saying I like what happened to the guy. It was just a little puzzling why that would be given as a counter-example to the idea that Canada won’t extradite for something that isn’t a crime in Canada, when selling marijuana seeds is in fact a crime in Canada.
[QUOTE=Mitch Hedburg]
I like the American-Canadian border, 'cause if you’re walking on the border with a friend, and you push your friend into Canada, he can’t push you back right away, 'cause first he has to go through customs. “What brings you to Canada?” “That asshole.” “When are you leaving?” “As soon as I regain my equilibrium!”
[/QUOTE]
Nobody else is thinking of the Simpsons episode where Sideshow Bob took Bart to the corner of five states so that he would fire the gun in one state, the bullet would travel through another, hit Bart in the third, and he would stumble through the next, and fall dead in the fifth?
