Printable View
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...tland-14590834
2 US Senators have called for al Megrahi to be extradited to the US. I don't think that he should have ever been released, but how can that work? He should never have been released IMO but he was according to the law of the relevant jurisdiction. He's served time for his crime, how can he be charged again? That'd be Double Jeopardy.
Wouldn't Double Jeopardy be recognized only within the US judicial system, letting them get a legal shot at al Megrahi, assuming any government in Libya could/would turn him over? Has there been any sort of international double jeopardy case before of this manner?
Technically, I would have thought Double Jeopardy applies per case, not per jurisdiction? Otherwise people could end up hopping regularly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.Quote:
Originally Posted by coinich
I do not know of any precedent for this question, do any of our legal eagles have any clues?
EDIT: Wiki states that the same crime can be charged twice in the US if one is in a State and the other is Federal (or another State). Under that principle I assume they can re-try and re-convict someone who has already been tried overseas. If/when the Lybian rebels take control of the country, they may be sympathetic to an extradition. Don't know if any international treaties etc exist on this matter or not.
Wiki: More specifically, as stated in Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 (1970): "...when an issue of ultimate fact has once been determined by a valid and final judgment, that issue cannot again be litigated between the same parties in any future lawsuit." Res judicata is a term of general application. Underneath that conceptual umbrella is the concept of collateral estoppel. As applied to double jeopardy, the court will use collateral estoppel as its basis for forming an opinion[citation needed].
Assuming "same parties" to be the key phrase, wouldn't that support the idea that a US trial wouldn't be a retrial, thus free of double jeopardy? Is there any inheritance of jurisdiction that would keep higher courts from violating double jeopardy, like keeping Federal courts from trying a man for murder after a State verdict of not guilty? Would any of that apply since we're talking about sovereign nations here?
Isn't this Hazir's area of expertise?
EDIT:
Quote:
Separate sovereigns
The "separate sovereigns" exception to double jeopardy arises from the dual nature of the American Federal-State system, one in which states are sovereigns with plenary power that have relinquished a number of enumerated powers to the Federal government. Double jeopardy attaches only to prosecutions for the same criminal act by the same sovereign, but as separate sovereigns, both the federal and state governments can bring separate prosecutions for the same act.
As an example, a state might try a defendant for murder, after which the Federal government might try the same defendant for a Federal crime (perhaps a civil rights violation or a kidnapping) connected to the same act. For example, the officers of the Los Angeles Police Department who were charged with assaulting Rodney King in 1991 were acquitted by a jury of the Superior Court, but some were later convicted and sentenced in Federal court for violating King's civil rights. Similar legal processes were used for prosecuting racially-motivated crimes in the Southern United States in the 1960s during the time of the Civil Rights movement, when those crimes had not been actively prosecuted, or had resulted in acquittals by juries that were thought to be racist or overly-sympathetic with the accused in local courts.
Federal jurisdiction may apply because the defendant is a member of the armed forces or the victim(s) are armed forces members or dependents. U.S. Army Master Sergeant Timothy B. Hennis was acquitted in state court in North Carolina for the murders in 1985 of Kathryn Eastburn (age 31) and her daughters Kara, age five, and Erin, age three, who were stabbed to death in their home near Fort Bragg, North Carolina.[35] Two decades later, Hennis was recalled to active duty, court-martialed by the Army for the crime, and convicted.[36]
Furthermore, the "separate sovereigns" rule allows two states to prosecute for the same criminal act. For example, if a man stood in New York and shot and killed a man standing over the border in Connecticut, both New York and Connecticut could charge the shooter with murder.[37]
Only the states and tribal jurisdictions[38] are recognized as possessing a separate sovereignty, whereas territories, commonwealths (for example, Puerto Rico), the military and naval forces, and the capital city of Washington, D.C., are exclusively under Federal sovereignty. Acquittal in the court system of any of these entities would therefore preclude a re-trial (or a court-martial) in any court system under Federal jurisdiction.
I think precedent for double jeopardy not existing goes back to a 1920's bootlegger who got prosecuted by federal and (NY?) state authorities for smuggling the same shipment of evilhol... which means that civics teachers have been lying to their students for almost a century now, on this issue alone.
Three cheers for democracy!
I was surprised to learn of that, I would have thought that the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments combined would make that impossible logically.Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenCain
Well, they probably would if anyone bothered to actually adhere to the constitution, instead of twisting it into pretzels to find the flimsiest justification for whatever they want it to say in the first place. Like I'm fond of pointing out, we lasted almost a decade before neutering the 1st amendment... so it shouldn't be surprising at all that the rest of the amendments are only occasionally even worth the paper they're written on. :sour:
And, perhaps more relevant to your statement... the courts have decided that there is no requirement for the law to be consistent, or even logically possible... so, whether something is a logical impossibility or not has no bearing in a [US] courtroom, believe it or not. The fastest route to becoming a cold-blooded heartless cynic is to study the government. Just for fun, though... "Curtis Flowers" (Mississippi). Fuck double jeopardy, that's a case of sextuple jeopardy. (After being in "custody" for 13 years, he was convicted last year of capital murder... during his sixth trial for the same 1996 murders. Not sure what's worse - being in jail for 13 years without being proven guilty, or the prosecution getting six whacks at putting him away. :bored:)
God bless America, the "land of the free." :rolleyes:
Same action, different legal charges under different codes. If you rape someone and they charge you with aggravated assault for the attack but not sexual assault, you're still open to a sexual assault charge based on the same action. Most jurisdictions will charge you with both and typically if there are multiple jurisdictions the higher-ranking jurisdiction just exercises its authority and claim custody and the charges of any other jurisdictions will only matter insomuch as the superior jurisdiction allows them to, but even if the charges aren't laid the grounds for them still exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Eh, was he ever prosecuted in the US?
Not that I know of. I never followed events around the bombing much though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
So what's the problem? Legal systems operate autonomous and separate from eachother, what happened in the courts of another country can constitute material considerations but not legal facts. As far as the US is concerned this man has not been tried and convicted, it was just not opportune to go ahead with a trial in the US because he was already in a UK prison. More a matter of efficiency than anything else.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
That was the question in the OP, we've already settled on the fact different nations can try for the same crime.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Yeah, it was a pretty stupid question to start with, I shouldn't have bothered.