NationStates Jolt Archive

This seemed like something that might actually make it to vote so I drafted it out. I'm going to revise the wording and add more definition to things like defining misdemeaners tommorow. Tell me what you think, what I should add, ect..


Criminal Extradition Act
International Security

With the world quickly evolving into a global society, it is imperative that UN nations work together in the field of criminal justice. Therefore we propose that all UN member nations adopt standard international criminal extradition laws. Criminals must be extradited to a country if it can produce sufficient evidence of a crime being committed there. The following circumstances allow a country to deny extradition.

1. The crime is deemed a misdemeanor or infraction. This is open to interpretation by the legal system of the nation but cannot include any violent crimes.

2. The crime is deemed a political crime by a UN council.

3. The country is opposed to the death penalty, and the other nation intends to carry it out. If the nation agrees it will not impose the death penalty, extradition must continue.

This seemed like something that might actually make it to vote so I drafted it out. I'm going to revise the wording and add more definition to things like defining misdemeaners tommorow. Tell me what you think, what I should add, ect..

Submitting a draft to the NSUN blender? This should be interesting and worth a read.

Criminal Extradition Act
International Security

What strength level? Add that.

With the world quickly evolving into a global society, it is imperative that UN nations work together in the field of criminal justice. Therefore we propose that all UN member nations adopt standard international criminal extradition laws. Criminals must be extradited to a country if it can produce sufficient evidence of a crime being committed there. The following circumstances allow a country to deny extradition.

Personally, my policy includes suspicion of a crime unless I have reason to believe the nation in question is not actually going to give a fair trial or, in serious cases, not acting in a peaceful manner relating to my own. I'll leave it up to you to judge if that is a good addition.

1. The crime is deemed a misdemeanor or infraction. This is open to interpretation by the legal system of the nation but cannot include any violent crimes.

You should add human rights violations to not being included.

2. The crime is deemed a political crime by a UN council.

There is no UN council that I am aware of, so I say to revise this entirely.

3. The country is opposed to the death penalty, and the other nation intends to carry it out. If the nation agrees it will not impose the death penalty, extradition must continue.

I would remove this section. By entering another country, a person agrees to that country's laws unless told otherwise. If those laws include the death penalty, than the fool who committed the crime should have considered it before doing the crime.

I would remove this section. By entering another country, a person agrees to that country's laws unless told otherwise. If those laws include the death penalty, than the fool who committed the crime should have considered it before doing the crime.

But if (for example) one of my people is wanted for a crime in GeminiLand but is currently in TilEnca, and they plan to execute him if he is convicted, I would not be willing to just hand him over.

But if (for example) one of my people is wanted for a crime in GeminiLand but is currently in TilEnca, and they plan to execute him if he is convicted, I would not be willing to just hand him over.

I completely agree. We do not send people to other countries so that they may be murdered.

Also, the crime for which they are to be extradited must also be considered a crime in Fass. Our police force enforces our laws, not those of other countries, and if the crime committed is not a crime here, then the "criminal" cannot be arrested.

The DRA will not support this motion. This is primarily because of clause 3 which this nation believes is acknowledged as being acceptable.


3. The country is opposed to the death penalty, and the other nation intends to carry it out. If the nation agrees it will not impose the death penalty, extradition must continue.

The DRA believes that a nation should not extradite someone to any country where they may be tortured, abused, humiliated, or executed, regardless of the crime. The DRA is adamantly opposed to the death penalty and refuses to send criminals back to countries where they will be executed. While this resolution certainly protects the right of this nation to do this, it also accepts that the death penalty is in some way acceptable and acknowledges that while controversy, it does occur and is not being condemned by this organization. The DRA will not support any resolution which insinuates the death penalty is in some way a legitimate or acceptable form of punishment.

Also, a nation can say it won't impose the death penalty but what if it changes its mind? Can this be enforced in anyway? It is very easy for a nation to lie about its intentions and the best this organization can do right now is give them a slap on the wrist and tell them if they don't stop lying they'll have to tell them to stop lying again.

I completely agree. We do not send people to other countries so that they may be murdered.

Also, the crime for which they are to be extradited must also be considered a crime in Fass. Our police force enforces our laws, not those of other countries, and if the crime committed is not a crime here, then the "criminal" cannot be arrested.

Give principle of prudence, definitely should be added, as that is the normal operative of extradition; no one can be extradited unless the crime in question is a crime in the state requesting, and the state in-holding.

(For example: The Republic would refuse extradition by a state which was pushing based upon a political crime...)

The DRA will not support this motion. This is primarily because of clause 3 which this nation believes is acknowledged as being acceptable.

The DRA believes that a nation should not extradite someone to any country where they may be tortured, abused, humiliated, or executed, regardless of the crime. The DRA is adamantly opposed to the death penalty and refuses to send criminals back to countries where they will be executed. While this resolution certainly protects the right of this nation to do this, it also accepts that the death penalty is in some way acceptable and acknowledges that while controversy, it does occur and is not being condemned by this organization. The DRA will not support any resolution which insinuates the death penalty is in some way a legitimate or acceptable form of punishment.

Also, a nation can say it won't impose the death penalty but what if it changes its mind? Can this be enforced in anyway? It is very easy for a nation to lie about its intentions and the best this organization can do right now is give them a slap on the wrist and tell them if they don't stop lying they'll have to tell them to stop lying again.

But this prop is acting in a spirit of international cooperation. We cant decide whether to impose the death penalty for others, only ourselves. That clause exists so that nations such as yours will not be forced to betray their values in the process of extradition. As for enforcement, can any UN regulation be enforced? Snubbing UN regulation would definately be a serious offense.

Perhaps you could pursue a resolution banning the death penalty in UN states?

But this prop is acting in a spirit of international cooperation. We cant decide whether to impose the death penalty for others, only ourselves. That clause exists so that nations such as yours will not be forced to betray their values in the process of extradition. As for enforcement, can any UN regulation be enforced? Snubbing UN regulation would definately be a serious offense.


But by asking me to turn over one of my citizens to a nation that is going to execute that citizen is asking me to betray my principals. My people expect me to protect them, a task at which I would be sadly lacking if I turned them over to someone who wanted to kill them.


Perhaps you could pursue a resolution banning the death penalty in UN states?

Well - I would oppose this. But not because I support the death penalty. I want it banned, but it's not my choice. Each nation should decide whether they ban it or not, even though I don't support it.

If that makes sense.

But by asking me to turn over one of my citizens to a nation that is going to execute that citizen is asking me to betray my principals. My people expect me to protect them, a task at which I would be sadly lacking if I turned them over to someone who wanted to kill them.

Which is why you can deny extradition until they agree not to impose the death penalty in the case. which is clause 3's purpose.



Well - I would oppose this. But not because I support the death penalty. I want it banned, but it's not my choice. Each nation should decide whether they ban it or not, even though I don't support it.

If that makes sense.

Yea, I agree. I'm actually a big supporter of sovereignty. I just said he could try, not that it would pass.

What if its just a law we think is stupid? For example, Joe, a citizen of Adam Island, goes on vacation to Idiotania, a non-UN nation and has sex with another man and then returns to Adam Island.

A couple days later the phone rings in the AI Law Enforcement Building, and its the ambassador in Idiotania on the phone.

"The Idiotanian government just obtained videotape of Joe committing homosexual intercourse in our nation, a violation of our national law. Please extradite him so we can throw him in prison for 20 years."

What now?

What if its just a law we think is stupid? For example, Joe, a citizen of Adam Island, goes on vacation to Idiotania, a non-UN nation and has sex with another man and then returns to Adam Island.

A couple days later the phone rings in the AI Law Enforcement Building, and its the ambassador in Idiotania on the phone.

"The Idiotanian government just obtained videotape of Joe committing homosexual intercourse in our nation, a violation of our national law. Please extradite him so we can throw him in prison for 20 years."

What now?

Honestly? You send him over there. Except taht since it's a non-UN nation you are not required to comply with any requests, as this won't affect non-UN nations :}

But if it were a UN nation, you would have to comply, even if you think the laws are dumb. Which is a bad thing I suppose, but the other alternative is we make sure every nation has the same laws, regardless of whether they are applicable or not. Which is equally bad!

But if it were a UN nation, you would have to comply, even if you think the laws are dumb. Which is a bad thing I suppose, but the other alternative is we make sure every nation has the same laws, regardless of whether they are applicable or not. Which is equally bad!

Or we could just refuse to extradite him, unless this law passes.

What if its just a law we think is stupid? For example, Joe, a citizen of Adam Island, goes on vacation to Idiotania, a non-UN nation and has sex with another man and then returns to Adam Island.

A couple days later the phone rings in the AI Law Enforcement Building, and its the ambassador in Idiotania on the phone.

"The Idiotanian government just obtained videotape of Joe committing homosexual intercourse in our nation, a violation of our national law. Please extradite him so we can throw him in prison for 20 years."

What now?

Maybe Joe shouldn't be vacationing in a nation that bans homosexuality? Especially a vacation in which he has sex with men. I dont want to add dual recognition if its at all possible. It would make extradition extremely hard in many cases.

My policy is this: I do have the death penalty and expect you to extradite to my nation people suspected of serious crimes. You are welcome to watch the proceedings, but not interfere (filing protests over punishment is allowed), even if the punishment is death. If you choose not to extradite, don't expect me to extradite anyone to your nation suspected of crimes there, whether the crime be shoplifting or blowing up one of your major cities with nuclear devices. Full extradition or none at all, and in this case I will not try to compromise (nor, according to DLE laws, am I allowed to).

I have that policy for a simple reason: People, when travelling to other nations, agree to obey those nation's laws. Telling my citizens they are free to ignore certain laws because I won't extradite them if the death penalty is involved is tantamount to giving them free reign to commit certain crimes. After all, it comes down to your word against their's and, if I'm not going to extradite because of the death penalty, your word isn't good enough. Nor am I alone in that attitude.

Maybe Joe shouldn't be vacationing in a nation that bans homosexuality? Especially a vacation in which he has sex with men. I dont want to add dual recognition if its at all possible. It would make extradition extremely hard in many cases.

Then Fass will never be able to support this proposition and would urge our delegate to not vote for it, alternatively vote against it.

See this is what I'm talking about. We have some people who wont extradite if there is a death penalty, some people who demand the right to enstate the death penalty. And ect..

This was the closest I could think of to a functioning compromise.

Then Fass will never be able to support this proposition and would urge our delegate to not vote for it, alternatively vote against it.

An extradition treaty is not there so people can choose what laws to obey while travelling abroad. The purpose is not for people to cop out of responsibility as a citizen/visitor/ect..

Maybe Joe shouldn't be vacationing in a nation that bans homosexuality? Especially a vacation in which he has sex with men. I dont want to add dual recognition if its at all possible. It would make extradition extremely hard in many cases.

So one is supposed to research all the laws and regulations of any nation before they visit? This could be extremely difficult, especially if the nation they visited has no prohibitions on ex post facto prosecution. Theoretically, I could make it a criminal offense to wear white socks right before an opposing football team lands on my soil, arrest all of their players, and refuse to release them. Hey, not a bad idea.... let me check the schedule and see when Reijistania visits....

See this is what I'm talking about. We have some people who wont extradite if there is a death penalty, some people who demand the right to enstate the death penalty. And ect..

This was the closest I could think of to a functioning compromise.

We're talking about something that amounts to the rights of a nation to demand extradition vs. the rights of a nation to deny it. There really is no room for compromise.

It's a simple principle of extradition; if the crime the person is accused of in another state is not a crime in your own, there are no grounds for extradition. If Idiotopia requested Joe's extradition from Tekania, we would dismiss the request on the grounds of lack of jurisprudence (we would be unable to detain him for non-crimes)... Extraditionary hearing must be held under the courts of the requestee nation, and therefore the crime must be appealable under their laws... Your own laws play little bearing until an extradition is approved within the realm of law of the nation you are appealing to.

I think this is becoming more apparent that extradtion should be a national thing. So that I would have a treaty with nation a that limits extradition to certain crimes, with nation b that limits certain crimes and so forth. And with any nation that would enforce the execution of criminals, I have no treaty at all (which, I know, works both ways, but it is something I will accept).

Yes, which seriously undermines criminal extradition. I'd like to make a system where UN nations have a standard which could be used, even if their laws are different. Maybe I'll redraft it with extremely detailed descriptions of what you can demand extradition for.

Yes, which seriously undermines criminal extradition. I'd like to make a system where UN nations have a standard which could be used, even if their laws are different. Maybe I'll redraft it with extremely detailed descriptions of what you can demand extradition for.

In which case, you still cannot solve the issue at the heart of why this is not likely to pass: The death penalty.

... Hey, not a bad idea.... let me check the schedule and see when Reijistania visits....

lol

If were you, I wouldn't give Rejis's parliament a chance for revenge :p

(for details, find the World Cup 18 RP thread)

In which case, you still cannot solve the issue at the heart of why this is not likely to pass: The death penalty.

Please don't misunderstand me - I have no problem with you executing your people (ok - I have a really serious problem with it to be honest, but it's your nation, not mine) but I am not going to let you execute mine if I can avoid it.

So yeah - no extradition to your nation for me :}

Please don't misunderstand me - I have no problem with you executing your people (ok - I have a really serious problem with it to be honest, but it's your nation, not mine) but I am not going to let you execute mine if I can avoid it.

So yeah - no extradition to your nation for me :}

Ditto. Just don't come crying to me if you lose a few cities. I do have several terrorist groups and they would love the opportunity this will present.

Yes, which seriously undermines criminal extradition. I'd like to make a system where UN nations have a standard which could be used, even if their laws are different. Maybe I'll redraft it with extremely detailed descriptions of what you can demand extradition for.

I'd say merely restate nominal extradition procedure, as I've outlined. It is the only fair way... A state cannot be forced to extradite a person for commission of a non-crime, even if it was a crime in some other states jurisdiction. (OOC: This is actually how it works in principle between states of the USA)...

So merely require the principle of extradition as follows....
1. The Crime must be a felony in both the state requesting extradition; and the state receiving the request of extradition.
2. The Penalty imposed cannot exceed the penalty applicable under the law of the state who grants extradition.

That is the only way to create a fair and equitable ballance between the individual sovereignties.

Ditto. Just don't come crying to me if you lose a few cities. I do have several terrorist groups and they would love the opportunity this will present.

(grin) Fair enough :}

Hrm, I guess I'll add it. It might not be as useful a resolution but hey at least it might pass.

lol

If were you, I wouldn't give Rejis's parliament a chance for revenge :p


Hehe, looks like I didn't need that goon squad after all..


I'd say merely restate nominal extradition procedure, as I've outlined. It is the only fair way... A state cannot be forced to extradite a person for commission of a non-crime, even if it was a crime in some other states jurisdiction. (OOC: This is actually how it works in principle between states of the USA)...

So merely require the principle of extradition as follows....
1. The Crime must be a felony in both the state requesting extradition; and the state receiving the request of extradition.
2. The Penalty imposed cannot exceed the penalty applicable under the law of the state who grants extradition.

That is the only way to create a fair and equitable ballance between the individual sovereignties.

So here's a question, and you can answer IC about how it should work or OOC for how it works in RL. Does this give immunity to anyone that visits another nation to follow only the laws of their home nation so long as they make it back home before they're caught? Like if murdering people over 6'0" is legal in Idiotopia, and an Idiotopian citizen comes to Adam Island, assasinates our 6'2" President, and hops on a boat back to Idiotopia, are they immune from extradition?

So here's a question, and you can answer IC about how it should work or OOC for how it works in RL. Does this give immunity to anyone that visits another nation to follow only the laws of their home nation so long as they make it back home before they're caught? Like if murdering people over 6'0" is legal in Idiotopia, and an Idiotopian citizen comes to Adam Island, assasinates our 6'2" President, and hops on a boat back to Idiotopia, are they immune from extradition?

Short answer yes with an s, long answer no... with a but.

My understanding is that most countries will attempt to comply with extradition. Its just good politics. Also most countries have laws against murder so thats not a big problem. So if you do murder that president and sail on back to idiotopia, the idiotopian government pretty much either has to ship his ass back, or publicly say "we condone political assasinations!". Clearly the latter doesn't make you popular. However, theres some pretty fucked up stuff that people have gotten away with. Remember Roman Polanski? He raped a little girl, admitted to the charges, then skipped bail to france where we could not extradite him in america. Its messed up politics.

So here's a question, and you can answer IC about how it should work or OOC for how it works in RL. Does this give immunity to anyone that visits another nation to follow only the laws of their home nation so long as they make it back home before they're caught? Like if murdering people over 6'0" is legal in Idiotopia, and an Idiotopian citizen comes to Adam Island, assasinates our 6'2" President, and hops on a boat back to Idiotopia, are they immune from extradition?

More or less, but that is the price of maintaining a level of sovereignty over your own peoples... The same would apply to one nation classifying "public nudity" a felony, and appealing for extradition of the offender from a nation where it is legal. If they are caught in your nation; they are under your judicial authority, but one within their home state, they cannot be held accountable under your laws alone. Certainly their will be rare occations such as your example... but not the general occurances.

Without this, you would have cases where you would be forced to detain your own people for petty crimes, or no crimes at all (like stepping on a sidewalk crack; chewing gum in public; driving with the wrong hand on the steering wheel; eating a hamburger on friday..... etc.)....

Makes sense. But there's got to be some sort of guiding rules about extradition, shouldn't there be?

More or less, but that is the price of maintaining a level of sovereignty over your own peoples... The same would apply to one nation classifying "public nudity" a felony, and appealing for extradition of the offender from a nation where it is legal. If they are caught in your nation; they are under your judicial authority, but one within their home state, they cannot be held accountable under your laws alone. Certainly their will be rare occations such as your example... but not the general occurances.

Without this, you would have cases where you would be forced to detain your own people for petty crimes, or no crimes at all (like stepping on a sidewalk crack; chewing gum in public; driving with the wrong hand on the steering wheel; eating a hamburger on friday..... etc.)....

Actually, not that rare. In my nation, it is not illegal for the citizens to use weapons of mass destruction on other nations. Nor am I going to make it illegal, as that would be a silly law under our current form of extradition. But this proposal makes them arguing it is not illegal an effective way of them being able to kill large portions of your population and me being able to not extradite because it is not illegal.

How about we limit forced extradition to felonies and terrorist activities. A nation is not likely to be pushy over someone speeding for extradition, but assassinating the president of a nation will likely cause a few wars.

Makes sense. But there's got to be some sort of guiding rules about extradition, shouldn't there be?

Nope. People pull of all sorts of crazy crap. Hackers especially get away with virtual murder since they commit the crime in some podunk country in south america or something that has no treaty with us.

Redraft. I mostly would enjoy grammer tweak suggestions. I know especially that the clauses and some sentences sound weak. Any replacements would be greatly appreciated. I am mostly satisfied with this draft but I'd like to hear some final critiques before I submit it.

Criminal Extradition Act
International Security
Strong

The NationStates United Nations,

CONCERNED with the growing threat of international crime and terrorism.

NOTING WITH REGRET with the lack of cooperation between judicial systems internationally.

EMPHASIZING the need for greater efficiency and unity in the apprehension and prosecution of international criminals.

1. ESTABLISHES a common legal code of criminal extradition among UN nations.

2. DECLARES that extradition may be requested by any prosecuting nation so long as the following requirements are met.

•The crime committed is a serious offense. For crimes that do not carry jail time extradition will not be required under this resolution.

•There exists strong evidence against the accused.

•The crime committed is legally recognized in both the prosecuting nation and the nation in holding.

•The likely punishment will be proportionate to the crime.

3. PERMITS nations to refuse extradition if there is significant evidence to suggest any of the following circumstances.

•The crime committed is a political crime.

•The prosecuting nation intends to pursue the death penalty, and the nation in holding is morally opposed. In this case the prosecuting nation may ask that extradition continue if they agree not to pursue the death penalty.

•The accused will not receive a fair trial if in the prosecuting nation.


4. SOLEMNLY NOTES that refusal to extradite the accused will be viewed by the UN as willful obstruction of justice by the nation in holding.

3 and 4 contradict each other. Suggestion:

4. SOLEMNLY NOTES that refusal to extradite the accused, or provide documentation of acceptable exclusion as provided in Article 3 above, will be viewed by the UN as willful obstruction of justice by the nation in holding.


Clunky, but somebody not half-asleep could improve it.

3 and 4 contradict each other. Suggestion:

4. SOLEMNLY NOTES that refusal to extradite the accused, or provide documentation of acceptable exclusion as provided in Article 3 above, will be viewed by the UN as willful obstruction of justice by the nation in holding.


Clunky, but somebody not half-asleep could improve it.

Yea, I was debating that myself. I had it as something similar except with parts 2 and 3, but it was a huge run on sentence and sounded really bad. I decided it kinda went without saying but I guess your way looks fine.

EDIT: Before anybody catches it, I already noticed the error "NOTING WITH REGRET with the lack of". So dont.

DOUBLE EDIT: And the double spacing before the last line.

TRIPLE EDIT: come oooooon. I craaave feedback!

Edited and in the list! thanks for the edit frisb. I currently project this bill to fail without a big swell of support, since it will be buried in around 40 pages of crap.