should extradite a person to the place where the crime was committed if there is the possibility that the death penalty will be imposed? And why?
2007-08-07 13:29:59 · 11 answers · asked by Shine! 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
I'm actually referring to different countries.
2007-08-07 14:13:02 · update #1
No, if such a jurisdiction regards the death penalty as morally and legally wrong, then they must uphold that in principle for all people who come under their authority, and that would apply to all in their jurisdiction regardless of their citizenship.
If extradition of someone may result in that person facing the death penalty, then the act of extraditing them makes those responsible accomplices in exposing someone under their authority to an illegal consequence.
It would be the same thing as extraditing someone to a jurisdiction that would likely shoot him/her without a trial. That possible outcome is no more or less illegal than capital punishment in a jurisdiction where the death penalty is illegal.
2007-08-07 19:53:00 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
If they want to keep 'em and support 'em in prison for the rest of their lives, I've no problem with it. Unfortunately, all too often, they let 'em out and they do the same thing or worse again. That's why I'd prefer they be extradited. Just because the death penalty is on the books doesn't mean it's going to be imposed. Give the courts the chance to do the right thing.
2007-08-07 20:38:19 · answer #2 · answered by texasjewboy12 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think it is a question of whether they should. That jurisdiction has the right to try the accused party. My opinion I still think that person should be expidited. Where the crime was committed is where the evidence is. Too much accidentally happens to evidence even when it does not have to be relocated. A guilty person should not get a mistrial because of a jurisdiction battle.
2007-08-07 20:37:25 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The person should be extradited to the state they did the crime. If they are arrested in New Hampshire but did the crime in Texas they should be sent to Texas for trail. Now if they did the crime in New Hampshire and were arrested in Texas then they should be sent back for trail. The law is the law. If you do not agree with it then VOTE!!!
If you want to talk about Morals… Killing someone is Morally Wrong!!!
2007-08-07 21:03:59 · answer #4 · answered by Jose M 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Most countries that are against the death penalty do not do this. If you are referring to US states, interstate extradition is required by the constitution so they don't have much choice.
But to answer your question, I would say no, if they are MORALLY opposed to it, but YES if they are simply not practicing it out of convenience or because of costs.
2007-08-07 20:33:38 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It seems that, in the case of the US, everyone expects us to follow their laws and customs but do not want to follow ours. The person commits murder and then flees. He evades the justice of the land he commited the crime in. However, if he country the person fled to does not recognize the behavior as a crime (adultery, homosexuality etc) then no, they should not be. We would not extradite anyone to Iraq to be stoned for being gay. However, if a person commits murder in Iraq and flees to the US (and is an Iraqi citizen) then we should send the back to face the consequences in their own country.
2007-08-07 20:34:22 · answer #6 · answered by Feivel 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes, the whole point of a Federal Republic such as the U.S. is to allow states to set their own laws (unless reserved to the Federal Government in the U.S. Constitution). If a jurisdiction doesn't want to abide by this, they should not expect other jurisdictions to respect their laws. That would be the downfall of the Republic. This only applies to the U.S., as for foreign countries, it should all be spelled out in treaties and the treaties, whatever they say, should be honored.
2007-08-07 20:34:56 · answer #7 · answered by Yo it's Me 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
legally yes. because the person comitted the crime in another jurisdiction, thus, it is up to his or her peers to judge him or her. as such, if the judgment is death then so be the judgment of their society. morally no. i don't think 2 wrongs make a right. i don't think the death penalty acts as a deterrent. i don't think anything can be done if you realize the wrong person was convicted.
2007-08-07 20:34:24 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, in most circumstances. Countries shouldn't impose their own laws and others nor should they encourage law breakers of this magnitude to flee to their own borders in order to avoid lawful prosecution for heinous crimes in their own countries.
I can see a more legitimate argument being made for allowing those accused of political crimes and the like to stay to avoid death penalties.
2007-08-07 20:33:15 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes, a person must be held responsible for a crime where it happened.
2007-08-07 20:33:21 · answer #10 · answered by ingsoc1 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋