Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Magnifico:
On this matter, I still think that Germany thwarted due processes by blocking the extradition.

Could you expand as to why?

I have little experience with extradition processes so I would find it interesting to see your argument spelled out.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Sat Dec 5th, 2009 at 03:10:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I've tried to explain my thoughts regarding this in other comments to this essay, for example here:

The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 20 says "everyone is equal before the law."

Now this does not seem to be the case for certain privileged states, such as Germany, within the EU. A citizen of a privileged state can commit crimes in one state and then escape to their the safe haven.

Personally, I do not understand how a justice system can work in the EU if extraditions are blocked. I think either EU member states trust the justice systems in their fellow EU states, or they don't.

If some states protect their citizens from prosecution by other states, when other states do not, how is this equality?

And here:

The Germans found no grounds in which they could prosecute, Darkazanli. Spain thought otherwise, but Germany decided that Spain would not allow their citizen to extradited to another EU state. The determination not to extradite was made by bureaucrats outside of the courtroom.

And while this is done to defend a state's citizens against "dead laws", I think it is a loophole that can be exploited. As an interested outsider, I would rather see the EU explicitly state what and what are not extraditable crimes, ruling out such "dead laws" as blasphemy, than leaving such a loophole in place.

Again this is a matter of perspective. My argument is based on what I see as working in the United States where one state will normally extradite a wanted person to another state. There is 'trust' that justice will be done between the states of the American union. Without the trust between EU states that another state will mete justice fairly and accordingly, then I do not see how the EU legal system can work well. But then, maybe that is the point.

America's prisons are full.

by Magnifico on Sat Dec 5th, 2009 at 03:40:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
As I see it extradition is quite an infringement on a persons liberty and should thus be treated in some form of legal process (like say, warrants for searching someones home). If this process is handled in the state where the crime is committed or where the accused lives, or both, matters less as long as it is the same for everyone.

Thinking about it, I think I prefer it to be handled in both states - one issuing the warrant, the other trying it - as both state apparatuses are involved in the infringement of liberty.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Sat Dec 5th, 2009 at 04:08:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Magnifico:
in the United States where one state will normally extradite a wanted person to another state

Please see, however, my exchange with gringo above.

Interstate extradition in the US only lost its major "loophole" a little over twenty years ago. And the EU is made up of sovereign states, so harmonizing law on such matters is even more difficult than under the federal constitution of the US.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sat Dec 5th, 2009 at 04:22:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I've tried to explain my thoughts regarding this in other comments to this essay

When you quote these earlier positions, does that mean that your views haven't changed even after the "tireless efforts of DoDo and Migeru to help explain what is going on"?

And while this is done to defend a state's citizens against "dead laws"

No dead laws clause was involved in the Darkazanli case... that was an explanation I gave to a clause you quoted. What was involved apparently was the mandatory non-execution of the EAW clause, with the double jeopardy sub-clause being my obvious guess.

where one state will normally extradite a wanted person to another state.

As I quoted Wikipedia upthread, in the USA, too, double jeopardy may apply even if a case is closed against someone before it even gets to trial in one state.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Sun Dec 6th, 2009 at 06:00:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm sorry DoDo, I had missed your Wikipedia link about dismissal due to lack of evidence and double jeopardy. I withdraw my statements regarding the Darkazanli case and German obstruction of justice.
by Magnifico on Sun Dec 6th, 2009 at 11:48:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series