Grounds for refusing extradition?

[wiggin]

The case below got me thinking. I'm a little confused why allied nations should refuse extradition on these kinds of cases, especially for such egregious crimes (murder, airline hijacking) merely on the premise that the criminal has been granted citizenship in the country of origin. I understand the logic about people who either have iffy cases against them or may face the death penalty, but my understanding is that since Wright already was sentenced for murder, he would not be up for the death penalty... and the evidence against him seems pretty airtight.

So, two questions: do any of you have a good sense of how these extradition proceedings work and whether these are common (or valid) reasons to deny extradition? Secondly, what should be a valid reason for refusing extradition?

Wright's co-conspirators in the hijacking have an interesting story as well - apparently they ended up in France decades ago and were arrested by authorities... but again extradition was denied on fairly flimsy grounds - the hijackers were given 3-5 year French sentences for the hijacking and were out shortly thereafter. Other similar hijackers haven't been extradited since hijacking is a 'political' act, though I'm a bit unclear why this should matter.

Thoughts?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15778384

George Wright 'wins US extradition case in Portugal'

A Lisbon court has denied a US request for the extradition of American fugitive George Wright, his lawyer says.

The extradition was refused on the grounds that Wright is a Portuguese citizen.

He was captured near Lisbon in September after more than 40 years on the run. The FBI tracked him down.

The US wanted him back to serve the rest of his 15- to 30-year sentence for a 1962 murder.

Wright escaped from a New Jersey prison in 1970 and hijacked a US airliner two years later.

"The Lisbon appeals court ruled that he had Portuguese citizenship and will not be extradited," his lawyer, Manuel Luis Ferreira, told the French news agency AFP.

Mr Ferreira also said the statute of limitations had expired.

There has been no comment yet from the US Justice Department.
Murder and hijack
George Wright in 1963 George Wright served seven years of a murder sentence before escaping

Wright, 68, is under house arrest at his home near Lisbon, wearing an electronic tag that monitors his movements.

He took legal action to fight the US extradition order.

His lawyer, Manuel Luis Ferreira, had argued Wright should serve any prison term in Portugal, where he is now a citizen and where his wife and two grown children live.

"I have no doubt that if he goes back [to the US] he will die. He is very afraid," his lawyer said in October, adding that his client was in poor health.

"He believes they think that he tried to humiliate them, that they'll make an example out of him... he believes that he will be killed in prison."

The US wants him extradited to serve the remainder of his sentence for the 1962 murder of a petrol station owner in New Jersey.

Wright served seven years at Bayside State Prison in Leesburg, New Jersey, before breaking out with three other inmates.

Then aged 29, and as part of the militant Black Liberation Army group, he hijacked a US Delta airlines plane to Algeria in 1972, the FBI says.

Wright, disguised as a priest, is said to have produced a gun from a hollowed-out Bible and held it to a flight attendant's head.

At Miami airport, he and his accomplices demanded a $1m ransom.

The passengers were freed after the money was delivered by FBI agents forced to wear only swimsuits so the gang could see they were unarmed.

While the other hijackers were later caught, Wright remained at large for more than four decades - until his arrest in rural Portugal last month.

In 1991, after marrying a Portuguese woman, Wright became a Portuguese citizen and took the name Jose Luis Jorge dos Santos.

This new identity was given to him by Guinea-Bissau, a former Portuguese colony in West Africa, but was recognised by Portugal when Wright was granted political asylum there in the 1980s.

[Loki]

Seems to me that these failed extraditions are caused by a lot of nationalism, from the courts, the politicians, and the public. He might be a murderer, but he's our murderer! How dare someone infringe on our sovereignty!

In this specific case, it looks like the judge flagrantly ignored the bilateral extradition treaty we have with Portugal.

[Khendraja'aro]

Extradition should only be able to be denied if there's a massive disparity between the two countries' potential sentences for the crime - e.g. life in prison vs. death penalty (murder), or no punishment at all vs. several years (drugs). However, that is not to be understood as an automatic rule!

[wiggin]

Extradition should only be able to be denied if there's a massive disparity between the two countries' potential sentences for the crime - e.g. life in prison vs. death penalty (murder), or no punishment at all vs. several years (drugs). However, that is not to be understood as an automatic rule!

I'm not sure I understand your rule. I understand death penalty cases just because some countries are opposed to it on moral grounds. But who cares if, say, the US has a mandatory 20-year minimum for airline hijacking while Portugal has much lower sentencing guidelines? The crime was committed in the US, and I don't see why another country should be able to dictate criminal law in another country.

[Loki]

Khen's point is irrelevant. The guy was already sentenced for his crime, and that sentence wasn't the death penalty. We don't give the death penalty for fleeing either.

[wiggin]

He wasn't sentenced for fleeing or for the hijack; just for the murder. Neither of the cases he wasn't sentenced for carry the death penalty, but I imagine the sentencing guidelines are tougher than in Portugal.

[Loki]

I don't think 15-30 years for murder is that abnormal in Europe...

[wiggin]

I actually meant re: hijacking. At least in France in the 80s, they gave a far more lenient sentence.

[Loki]

Pretty sure the statute of limitations for hijacking has long passed. The extradition was for the murder charge.

[wiggin]

I'm 99% sure that the statute of limitations only applies if an indictment hasn't been filed.

[Loki]

Doesn't the statute of limitations refer to the amount of time since the commission of a crime?

[Wraith]

Yeah, but I think wiggin's right. It only means you can't charge someone with a crime after a certain amount of time since the commission. If he's already been indicted by a grand jury, the statute of limitations can't help him.

[Khendraja'aro]

I'm not sure I understand your rule. I understand death penalty cases just because some countries are opposed to it on moral grounds. But who cares if, say, the US has a mandatory 20-year minimum for airline hijacking while Portugal has much lower sentencing guidelines? The crime was committed in the US, and I don't see why another country should be able to dictate criminal law in another country.

Ah, you should talk to your own government then who regularly strongarms other countries into prosecuting for "crimes" the US wants to see prosecuted. See PirateBay as a prominent example.

[wiggin]

Ah, you should talk to your own government then who regularly strongarms other countries into prosecuting for "crimes" the US wants to see prosecuted. See PirateBay as a prominent example.

Pardon but what does that have to do with extradition? Also, while I agree that one country shouldn't dictate criminal law in another country, I do think it's fair for countries to advocate diplomatically that other countries should meet their international obligations through domestic enforcement. That could include anything ranging from human rights law to intellectual property law. The specific details of TPB nonwithstanding, this is fundamentally different than refusing extradition for a crime that's considered universally illegal just because they will be subject to stricter sentencing in the receiving country. I would have no issues if said sentencing contravened international precedents (for example, many interpretations of human rights law would suggest that the prospect of the death penalty would be a valid reason).

[Momo]

The case below got me thinking. I'm a little confused why allied nations should refuse extradition on these kinds of cases, especially for such egregious crimes (murder, airline hijacking) merely on the premise that the criminal has been granted citizenship in the country of origin.

That's not why. He's already under house arrest in Lisbon - in other words, it might not be because of his citizenship, but rather because Portugal is already prosecuting him and might be making a statement to America, that it can deal with its own criminals. There were also concerns about his safety.

[Khendraja'aro]

Not to mention "poor health". I seem to remember that Germany had to march through pretty many court instances to get Demjanjuk out of the US before a German court - it took 5 years to get him to Germany...

Not to mention this case: http://www.nytimes.com/1988/02/05/ny...nenbaum&st=cse

[wiggin]

That's not why. He's already under house arrest in Lisbon - in other words, it might not be because of his citizenship, but rather because Portugal is already prosecuting him and might be making a statement to America, that it can deal with its own criminals. There were also concerns about his safety.

Uh... why should Portugal get first crack at prosecuting someone for crimes committed in the US? AFAIK there are no plans to prosecute him; they are holding him just because a US task force found him, asked for him to be arrested, and attempted to extradite him. The court case specifically claimed that they weren't sending him because the statute of limitations on murder had expired (which, btw, is irrelevant because he'd already been convicted of murder), which implies they aren't planning on pursuing a case against him.

As for concerns for his safety - I would gladly accept that as a valid reason to avoid extradition, except I'm a little confused why it should be true in this case.

Not to mention "poor health". I seem to remember that Germany had to march through pretty many court instances to get Demjanjuk out of the US before a German court - it took 5 years to get him to Germany...

Not to mention this case: http://www.nytimes.com/1988/02/05/ny...nenbaum&st=cse

I think poor health may be a valid concern for the very old and frail, though I imagine it is exaggerated by the defendants on a regular basis. Not really sure it's such a good reason, though - I wasn't a fan of either case you cite. I'm not sure how health of the accused fits into bilateral extradition treaties - anyone know?

[Loki]

That's not why. He's already under house arrest in Lisbon - in other words, it might not be because of his citizenship, but rather because Portugal is already prosecuting him and might be making a statement to America, that it can deal with its own criminals. There were also concerns about his safety.

The judge ordered him released from house arrest in Lisbon. He also committed no crime in Portugal, so I don't see what he'd get charged with anyway.

[Momo]

Uh... why should Portugal get first crack at prosecuting someone for crimes committed in the US? AFAIK there are no plans to prosecute him; they are holding him just because a US task force found him, asked for him to be arrested, and attempted to extradite him. The court case specifically claimed that they weren't sending him because the statute of limitations on murder had expired (which, btw, is irrelevant because he'd already been convicted of murder), which implies they aren't planning on pursuing a case against him.

'His lawyer, Manuel Luis Ferreira, had argued Wright should serve any prison term in Portugal'. I read this line to mean, 'We Portuguese will prosecute him in Portugal'. Else, they'd have to sentence him according to an american trial.

The judge ordered him released from house arrest in Lisbon.

Ok, didn't know that. I was just responding to this line from the article:
Wright, 68, is under house arrest at his home near Lisbon

[wiggin]

There's a relatively new Portuguese law on the books about how citizens of Portugal should be tried and imprisoned in Portugal rather than extradited. I don't fully understand it, but it seems to conflict with bilateral extradition treaties they have signed, including with the US. I can see them wanting first crack at a criminal if the crime was committed in Portugal or against Portuguese citizens, but neither of these is the case. In fact, he wasn't a citizen of Portugal until decades after the crimes took place. I'm not even sure how his crimes would fall under the jurisdiction of courts there (MAYBE the hijacking?), and since I'm sure they didn't file any indictments, he's probably get off scot free due to statute of limitations issues. Why should his belated citizenship afford him any protections? Otherwise you could get countries who don't want to extradite someone giving them citizenship just so they can have their trial (or lack thereof) at home and let the guy off.

I want to emphasize that I'm not really interested in debating the details of the Wright case - it seems to be a clear violation of the extradition treaty, but it's just one case of many where countries (US included) are hesitant to extradite those accused of very serious crimes on fairly spurious grounds. I'd like to explore the valid legal framework through which countries should make these decisions. What are valid concerns? What aren't? What should countries do?

[LittleFuzzy]

I'd like to explore the valid legal framework through which countries should make these decisions. What are valid concerns? What aren't? What should countries do?

At it's core? The answer lies in Thucydides. "The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must." Judicial or political authorities in Portugal felt like flexing their sovereign muscles. There endeth the story. There is no valid legal framework, because states do not yet really operate under the rule of law in the international sphere.

[wiggin]

Okay, but that's a non-answer. How about this: If you were writing a bilateral extradition treaty, what exceptions would you include in the treaty to prevent extradition?

[LittleFuzzy]

Okay, but that's a non-answer. How about this: If you were writing a bilateral extradition treaty, what exceptions would you include in the treaty to prevent extradition?

And you're asking the wrong question. What is the goal you seek? To have whoever is no longer in your jurisdiction returned to your jurisdiction if and when you want to charge them with a crime or levy a sentence on them for a crime they've already been convicted of, yes? So the question you really want answered is how to ensure this happens, right?

[Aimless]

Viewed through the lens of propriety, do extradition treaties take precedence over the rights a country grants its citizens?

[Aimless]

Btw re. the statute of limitations, is their reasoning something like, if he's to be serve any sentence it should be in Portugal and if he's to serve any sentence in Portugal he should be tried [again/in Portugal] but he can't be because the statute of limitations has expired?

[Loki]

Viewed through the lens of propriety, do extradition treaties take precedence over the rights a country grants its citizens?

Portugal gives its citizens the right to not stand trial for murder?

[Hazir]

I think that the only thing you can say that there is nothing straightforward about extradiction treaties and the obligations that come with them. I wouldn't bother with an opinion on this case on the basis of a newspaper article.

[Loki]

The only thing that's not straightforward about these extradition treaties is that countries will look for any excuse at all they can find to void their obligations.

[Ominous Gamer]

Its all collateral. Portugal wanted/wants something to sweeten the deal. These people are treated no different than when the US is willing to throw its own shipwreck companies under the bus in exchange for some paintings.

[Loki]

The difference being that there's a clear extradition treaty between the US and Portugal, and Portugal is legally obligated to respect it. If it wants to disregard treaty law when it suits it, perhaps the US should do as well (perhaps by helping others fish on Portuguese waters).