NationStates Jolt Archive

Greetings fellow nations,

The Democratic Republic of Andy the Anarchist respectfully requests that you endorse the motion to ban extradition of supects to those nations found to have a poor human rights record, in accordance with the standards laid down.

Description: The purpose of this bill is to prevent the extradition of suspects to nations with a poor human rights record with regards to the treatment of suspects and prisoners.

This bill recognises that, whilst countries have a right to devise their own legal codes in accordance with their national sovreignty, that this national sovreignty does not extend to forcing other nations to turn over suspects who are resident in that nation, if the nation requesting the extradition is likely to abuse said suspect whilst in their custody.

This bill recognises that those who are guilty of crimes in any one country should not go unpunished, but neither can those suspected of criminal acts not those convicted of such acts have their human rights abused and their human dignity compromised.

Therefore this bill decrees that in the case of any extradition request, a special body under the authority of the United Nations should assess the human rights record of the country making such a request, and if the nation is found wanting, then alternative procedures should be put in place, for example trying the suspect in their nation of residence, or in a UN sanctioned court.

For the purpose of this bill, the folowing rights are considered inalienliable, regardless of crimes committed, and any country which violates these rights would, under the treaty, lose their right to request the extradition of suspects.

1. The right to life, without this right the principle of autonomy of the individual disappears, and what we are left with is the individual subjugated to the state. No state has the right to take away the life of its citizens, and this includes capital punishment, for which there is no evidence that it acts as a deterrent, and much evidence that the fallible nature of criminal prosecution could result in irreversible miscarriages of justice.

2. The right to security; suspects must be free from violence when in custody, be it from fellow inmates or from law enforcement.

3. Freedom from cruel and degrading treatment

4. A transparent legal process, all trials must be accoutable to the United Nations and in line with globally accepted standards of evidence and a neutral judiciary.

5. All suspects must be informed of the crime for which they are suspected, and no suspect may be held for a period exceeding 28 days maximum, subject to judicial review. No suspect may be held without trial for longer than is required to build a sufficient case against them, even if this is less than the 28 day maximum.

6. The right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, which is a necessary basis for justice, and that any conviction must be based on evidence which is beyond reasonable doubt.

This bill would prevent miscarriages of justice by preventing the extradition of suspects to nations where they are likely to be mistreated, or to receive an unfair trial.

The alternative, namely trial in the suspect's country of residence, with the co-operation of the country in which the offence was alleged to have been committed, or if the host nation does not have itself a sufficient human rights record, trial by a UN appointed body, subject to review both by the UN and the two nations involved, is believed to be more viable and more in spirit with the UN's attempts to uphold human rights worldwide.

We hope that you approve our measure, and that it is eventually passed as a resolution, both as an incentive for nations to improve their treatment of suspects, and as a sign that the UN will not tolerate those who abuse the rights of suspects.

Regards,

Andy

Just initially, it's worth noting that the UN has already guaranteed the right to refuse extradition (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=102) in cases of capital punishment, effectively making your clause 1 redundant. And given the UN has essentially guaranteed the right of nations to use capital punishment (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=179), it might be better to exclude that portion (or at least drop the comments about no state having the right to kill/lack of evidence for deterrence, given like it or not, some UN nations use the death penalty and hence tactically there's no point pissing them off).

We don't have a problem with the broader idea of the proposal. But, you need to bear in mind the references to commonly accepted standards of justice are a little suspect, given the only relevant standing legislation is Definition of 'Fair Trial' (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=46), which has its flaws. I suppose there are also a few relevant bits in the Universal Bill of Rights (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=25).

And in general, this idea of review by the UN is going to be complicated as there's no real mechanism for anything like that.

Interesting idea, and we hope to have more comments, but we're not sure it's ready for submission yet.

-- George Madison
UN Ambassador
The Democratic States of Quintessence of Dust

"At the surface, this is a good idea. In fact, this is how we usually deal with extradition. If we find the country being even remotely different from our country, we may refuse extradition. If they state that a murderer has to go to prison for 12 years, and we say that a murderer has to go to prison for 11 years, we'll automatically refuse extradition. Plain and simple.

However, we point out that there is NO UN resolution stating you have to accept extradition. Therefore, it is already an inalienable right for certain antions to go out and NOT extradite people. The UN has made a resolution allowing nations to refuse extradition (http://www.safalra.com/other/nationstates/un-resolution-browser/?resolution=103) if capital punishment might be practiced. You can pass this resolution, but we see no need to actually do so.

In fact, we are suddenly shocked that you want to take away our right to refuse extradition and place it in the hands of unaccountable commitee members who has different views than us. Say a Criminal accused of violating free speech laws, and that we feel that Nation has done human right abuses (namely, those free spech laws). So we refuse to extradite. Nation B sends us to the Tribunal and tries to force us to extradite. The court rules against us. WTH?

And then, stating that you are going to have those same commitee members create international tribunals?! Or have US try the criminal in question? Both of which seem totally wrong. What if we actually think the criminal is, I don't know, 'justified' in violating those free speech laws? And having an international tribunal rule on a case that should be a domesitc affair (the nations passed the laws, they should have the right to actually interpert the laws) just smacks of turning Fair Setencing Act into a mockery.

Plus, more conservative nations may question the logic behind the proposal. After all, isn't the goal of extradition is to punish the criminal in question? This resolution may provide a loophole to criminals, as soon as you flee to a different nation, volia, you MIGHT be safe from punishment, thanks to a UN-mandated court...or at the very least, safe because of the huge bureacracy that will be formed. The huge bureacracy will allow the criminal to operate, unhindered. After all, the exact same rights you give to 'extraditied criminals' are far more than the rights guarranted under 'non-extradited' criminals, and are so vague that it could be accused that our government violates them as well. NOT every nation in the world follows 'western' trial systems, nor do they believe in 'reasonable doubt'.

I applaud your ideology, but, uh, er, I think this is a very bad idea. We believe this bill would be a huge miscarriage of judgement. We're going to probraly need to see some more revisions before we make a final desicion though..."
---Dr. Bob, UN Ambassador

Part of this is already covered by #103 Right to Refuse Extradition (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=102)

Not to mention, extradition is an inherently individual matter. Each nation needs to be able to make extradition treaties on its own.

Also, what if two nations both have the death penalty? This would make it illegal for a nation with the death penalty to get a criminal extradited, even from another nation with the death penalty.
It would also disallow the extradition even if the death penalty wasn't to be used on the criminal. For example, back when Kedalfax was in the UN, they requested extradition of a person from Audland (not a UN member then) for failure to pay over §1,000 in parking tickets. Not punishable by death. But this would have outlawed it, because Kedalfax had the death penalty.

Not to mention, there is no provision for other treaties to be made. This would render the 19 member International Extradition Treaty (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/international_extradition_treaty.html) useless.

And another thing that just occurred to me: You seem to really like speedy trials. But how long will this judgment on extradition take? We've spent weeks on extradition judgments in the past; you can't tell me a UN court could make a decision in under that. Especially one that has to make judgments on every extradition involving a UN nation, even if it is just for §1,000 in parking tickets.

Not to mention, there is no provision for other treaties to be made. This would render the 19 member International Extradition Treaty useless.

"Cool treaty. We'd be very interested in signing it, but we're more hoping that this be adopted as international law. Much saner than this one. Have anyone tried to get the UN to adopt this proposal?

And if not, can we try?"
---Dr. Bob

and this includes capital punishment; for which there is no evidence that it acts as a deterrent, Those hung do not have more kids therefore the pattern of crime is broken... Also those hung do not get free and pass on their ways to others thus pattern of crime is broken..

Those locked up come in contact with others pattern of crime is passed on; they in time get set free and again come in contact with others and pass on patterns of crime..

So I would find it is a deterrent to crime as in the act or process of deterring: as: """the inhibition of criminal behavior by fear especially of punishment"""

Also provide me with records that show of a hung rapist or murderer... raping or killing again..... then look around and see just how many supposidly rehabed criminals repeat their crimes many times, some even in the poor prison systems some nations have established.

Those hung do not have more kids therefore the pattern of crime is broken... Also those hung do not get free and pass on their ways to others thus pattern of crime is broken..



Just a thought, but unless you're implying that there is such a thing as a "criminal gene", I don't see how the "pattern of crime is broken" because it doesn't automatically follow that the children of criminals are any more likely to commit crimes than those of similar social and economic circumstances.

No, crime isn't always passed on to children. But if the single father beats his kid after coming home from robbing the liquor store every other night, the kid will probably end up committing a few crimes at some point. It's more that the criminal parent might not teach his or her children the same morals that a law-abiding parent might.

But this isn't a discussion about the death penalty, it's about extradition.


@SilentScope Embassy: Actually, it started as a UN proposal, but there wasn't much support. (History tends to repeat its self, doesn't it?) Anyway, usually signing is done by editing the wiki, but it's in read only mode right now. When the wiki comes back up (and I have no idea when that'll be), you can edit yourself in. Until then, I suppose you can throw something in your sig that says you're a member.

Just a thought, but unless you're implying that there is such a thing as a "criminal gene", I don't see how the "pattern of crime is broken" because it doesn't automatically follow that the children of criminals are any more likely to commit crimes than those of similar social and economic circumstances.


Criminals do not pass it on in their genes... however they come in contact with people and pass on to them.. even in prison criminal habits are passed on to others.. when the system allows hard criminals and repeat criminals to mix with lesser level criminals or young first time criminals.


Thus hang em and they do not make contact with others to pass on their knowledge.... Also they do not become legends unless they do a lot of crimes and to hang a rapist caught who rapes a minor or several people takes them off their pedistal and into a grave...


The big benifit of hanging them is it is cheaper to do this than keep them in a prison where you have to feed, shelter, cloth, and care for them.... thus using funds from citizens to pay for this on them that those citizens will not have to pay for their own food, shelter, clothing, and care.. because taxes take it from them to support criminals..... say for life while citizens struggle all their life... just to have what a criminal gets given them in the prison systems.


But this isn't a discussion about the death penalty, it's about extradition. They are related issues as one of the reasons Nation A refuses to extradite a murderer or rapist back to Nation Cavirra is we hang them and Nation A objects to hanging them. So when criminals get away and go to Nation A we have to wait to hang them... or go through a long drawn out process of showing they guilty of those crimes and this allows them to get away as Nation A protects them.......