NationStates Jolt Archive

The last resolution (#103 The Right to Refuse Extradition) passed I thought was basically okay, but it did raise a fair few questions about how international fugitives are to be treated. #103 allows nations to refuse to send fugitives back to certain death, without fear of military reprisal, and that is good. It also technically allows them to let the fugitive off scot free, and that is not good. I don't want to repeal #103 because, by and large, I think it's reasonable except for this one issue. So I have drafted a proposal that, I hope, will deal with this one quibble while setting out a workable procedure for the international fugitive problem as a whole. (Didn't think I'd do this, did you Saint Uriel? :))

As always, constructive criticism and suggestions are most welcome.

Without further ado, my draft proposal:






RECOGNIZING that the obstruction of justice by harbouring fugitives from the law undermines both efforts to deter crime and the fostering of good will between nations,

ASSERTING that no nation has the right to impede the functioning of another's judicial and penal systems,

CONCEDING, however, that no nation should be forced to participate in capital punishment against its will, and

ENCOURAGING nations to peacefully negotiate the treatment of international fugitives

we propose the following act to apply to all UN member nations:

A person found guilty of committing a crime against Nation A's laws on Nation A's territory is subject to the penalties set out by Nation A's laws, even if he or she is now in the territory of Nation B.

Should Nation B be unwilling or unable to return the fugitive to Nation A, and no compromise can be reached, Nation B will exact the punishment set out by Nation A's laws on Nation A's behalf, or the closest workable equivalent.

This act allows for one exception. If the punishment is the death penalty, and this is against the wishes of Nation B, the sentence shall be life imprisonment without the possibility of release.

I disagree.

Saying someone flees a certain country because they are threatened with jail for being a political opponent or for being gay (for example). We in Gwenstefani do not consider them crimes. Furthermore, the UN does not consider them crimes. As such, not only would we object to handing these people over as criminals, but we would strongly object to being forced to punish them ourselves.

Greetings.

There is one main problem.

Should the penalty required by nation A be illegal to enact in nation B, nation B risks committing an offence by its own laws so that it might carry out a UN-sanctioned resolution.

Let us consider the following cases:

1) Act is considered criminal in both nations A and B

We suggest that the defendant be tried again by a tribunal consisting of a UN official agreed to by both A and B, and one judge each from both A and B. In the pre-trial session, common ground should be agreed to by the authorities of A & B together. For example, if A has a jury system but B does not, what are the rules for this case? Should no common ground be found, then A and B must each prepare a separate document which all parties may examine, one revision each may be allowed, and the UN official will decide under which set of rules the case will be tried.

2) Act is considered criminal in nation A but not in nation B

We suggest that nation B allow a trial to be convened on its sovereign territory under the terms of nation A. However, a team of UN legal officers acceptable to both nations, and legal officers of nation B, must be present.

Should nation A find the defendant guilty again, it must declare the penalty it intends to enact. Nation B may confer and choose to request a different penalty. If nation A accepts, this penalty is enacted. If nation A does not accept, the UN team may confer and propose an alternative. If nation A accepts, this UN penalty is enacted. After all, the UN team was acceptable to both nations.

Should nation A not accept either alternative, no penalty is enacted. Another form of negotiation may be employed outside this process.

3) Act is criminal in nation B but not in nation A

Potential defendant is obviously not of sound mind (however, see definition of Catch-22) but nation A should allow nation B to handle this situation as nation B sees fit, noting that there was no offence committed either in nation A or nation B. Nation A is allowed to contribute legal counsel.

A person found guilty of committing a crime against Nation A's laws on Nation A's territory is subject to the penalties set out by Nation A's laws, even if he or she is now in the territory of Nation B.

Should Nation B be unwilling or unable to return the fugitive to Nation A, and no compromise can be reached, Nation B will exact the punishment set out by Nation A's laws on Nation A's behalf, or the closest workable equivalent.

This act allows for one exception. If the punishment is the death penalty, and this is against the wishes of Nation B, the sentence shall be life imprisonment without the possibility of release.

This infringes on national sovereignty, my nation may consider something a crime, another nation may not. Also, if the laws of one nation can be superceded by another nation's then that makes national laws worthless.

(Didn't think I'd do this, did you Saint Uriel? :)) No, I will admit, I did NOT think you would do this. Drawing up your own proposal and asking for input speaks highly of you. Not bad at all.

The main concern I have has already been voiced by my colleagues above. If nation A has imposed the death sentence on their fugitive for something that is not a crime in nation B like, for example, nonviolently speaking out against the government, then nation B would probably be very unwilling to impose life imprisionment on the fugitive, even as an alternative to the death sentence.
Unfortunately, this could easily happen, as we've seen in RL.

There are also other factors to consider. For instance, Saint Uriel rarely condemns murderers who are minors to life imprisonment. We believe most of these can be rehabilitated, and most are. We also, much like the RL US, consider mitigating and aggravating circumstances in sentencing.

I like what your basic idea is. Promotion of national sovereignty is, in my book, usually a good thing. I honestly don't know how best to incorporate my concerns into your proposal. But, if you take the advice of others in this forum and work with it a bit, you may have a great proposal.

I can't believe I'm doing this... but... *shudders*... but... *shudders violently*... I... *convulses on the floor*... I think this resolution is petty and pointless because it mainly affects crimes that are not very serious which may not be crimes in all countries... there, I did it. I agreed with the dirty liberals... on this one. To cover the difference here before someone accuses me of being a flip-flopper, some things, such as murder and violent rape, are serious and should be dealt with accordingly. But many disagree on how harsh to be in cases of petty theft, murder involving minors, etc. I still hate your resolution, Uriel, and plan to completely ignore it by using the (childish) direct interpretation! But this resolution is not the solution.

Ignore it all you want, mate, but I'm sure you still got the TG that the UN gnomes implemented it in your nation :)

*grumbles under breath* Dirty you-know-what... *grumbles under breath.* I was saying I'm ignoring your resolution in-character, and the UN can't do anything about it in-character because I'm just going with the direct interpretation. Yes, you put your dirty fingers on my nation's stats, congratulations.

Aw, you two need to find a hotel room fast...

Thanks for that image, Ecopoeia. I just puked all over my favourite shirt.

I don't have a problem with this resolution. The nation of Darkumbria has several forms of discipline, and justice, that are not covered by any convention that I know of, i.e. 24/7 of listening to Britney Spears over and over in headphones. My country considers it to be a great punishment to anyone who would have to ensure that the individual had to listen to it as well. As a result, several sound proof rooms have been created for this purpose. They almost never used. Most would choose to be shot in firing squad first, were that an option.

How about a clause that states that this only apolies if the act is criminal in both locations?

Lets be logical? If people can be extradited, then why can't the county who would be reqquesting extradition be required to send the evidance and witnesses to argue the case on site of the other nationstate?

I have thought about such a clause, Stonedeep, but I don't like the idea. There may be situations in which something is a crime in Nation A for very good reasons, and not a crime in Nation B for equally good reasons.

For example, suppose it is illegal in Nation A to carry concealed guns but Nation B is intent on upholding that right. Suppose now that some guy with a history of violent behaviour is caught on a train with two pistols under his coat and just manages to escape into Nation B.

I believe that Nation B has no right to prevent Nation A from bringing this guy to justice.



Of course I do not want my proposal to be used as a vehicle for cruel and vindictive governments to get at people who are fleeing tyranny and thanks to all the input I've received I can see I need to rewrite it extensively if it's to be fair to everyone.

Somehow I need to word it so that it prevents the deliberate obstruction of justice without being used as a tool for persecution.

Greetings.

We see the main weakness of the argument previously advanced as being this:

I believe that Nation B has no right to prevent Nation A from bringing this guy to justice.

There is no basis given for this belief. Nation B has the legal right to prevent anyone from Nation A from entering it. Nation B has the legal right to not allow another state to infringe on B's jurisdiction. We might be discussing moral right, but that is a different game altogether.

However, Nation A has every right to resign from the UN and start a war if it wants to. Nation A has every right to decide to be a pariah state if it wants to. And if the UN so decrees, a resolution might be passed allowing UN states to enact sanctions upon Nation A should Nation A cross the bounds of decency in its dealings with Nation B.

We do not think that beliefs can always be sufficient basis for policy. In many cases where they are a basis of some kind, those beliefs are based themselves in what-is, rather than what-is-hoped-for, or what-should-be.