Does extradition serve any purpose?

March 12, 2002 5:46 AM

Does extradition serve any purpose? A few weeks ago there was some talk of extraditing Omar in the US press, but since then the story seems to have died down, or rather lost momentum. I wonder why there hasn't been a louder clamoring for his extradition? I am sure his wife cares about the outcome of this case.
posted by bittennails (11 comments total)

[shrug] just kill him.
posted by quonsar at 6:08 AM on March 12, 2002

Islamabad has agreed to extradite him, but only after he is tried in Pakistan. (fifth paragraph down)
posted by adampsyche at 6:24 AM on March 12, 2002

Islamabad has agreed to extradite him, but only after he is tried in Pakistan. (fifth paragraph down)
posted by adampsyche at 6:24 AM on March 12, 2002

Damn! *sorry*
posted by adampsyche at 6:24 AM on March 12, 2002

Well, what I was trying to understand is what purpose does extraditing him serve.

If he is tried and found guilty, then what of the sentence passed by pakistan's court, how does that apply when he has been sent to the US after the case.

Then he is tried here (US) and found guilty, what of the sentence passed, I assume he serves it here.

All the above based on the assumption of guilt in omar's case.

Why the need for 2 cases and 2 sentences, and whose sentence carries more weight in this context.

Did that make any sense?
posted by bittennails at 7:13 AM on March 12, 2002

In the United States, an offender who is accused in two states usually is handled like this:

(a) tried first by the state who has custody, then
(b) extradited to the second state and tried there, then
(c) returned to the first state to complete his sentence there, and upon release or parole, then
(d) sent to the second state to serve his sentence there.

When the offenses are related (such as a crime which was committed across two states) sometimes the sentences of both states can be served concurrently.

When the second state sentences the offender to death, the second state keeps him, of course. When the first state sentences him to death, he is extradited to the second state to be tried and sentenced there, but returned to the first state's death row.

(I don't think there's ever been a case of a person sentenced to death in two jurisdictions at once ... my guess is that each death sentence would proceed through appeals and collateral processes simultaneously, and whoever gets an death-warrant date first would get to pull the switch, as it were.)
posted by MattD at 7:48 AM on March 12, 2002

Why would the US have any jurisdiction at all? This crime was committed in Pakistan, correct?
posted by rodii at 7:53 AM on March 12, 2002

Why would the US have any jurisdiction at all? This crime was committed in Pakistan, correct?

Ah. You mean like that Johnny Waker kid.
posted by adampsyche at 8:12 AM on March 12, 2002

rodii: I think because the victim was a US citizen. And in Johnny Walker's case (everytime I say that I think of whiskey, can't disassociate those) he is a US citizen, so is it still considered extradition in his case, I would venture to guess no.
posted by bittennails at 9:45 AM on March 12, 2002

MattD, certainly Alton Coleman and Debra Brown are not the only people to have been sentenced to death for killings in more than one state -- in this case, though convicted in both Ohio and Indiana, the latter got to flip the switch. (They were caught near where I live, although I wasn't here then. And there was another multi-state murderer who passed through my hometown in Wisconsin, which doesn't have a death penalty; but he got death sentences in at least one other state.)

In Omar Saeed's case, the primary reason for extradition would be to ensure that he doesn't get released or acquitted under Pakistani justice, perhaps as the government changes at some later date.
posted by dhartung at 11:43 AM on March 12, 2002

bittennails:

the purpose of trying a person (for crimes arising from the same activity) in more than one jurisdiction (like, for instance trying the whatshisname the OK City bomber in both federal and state court) is often more or less ceremonial, in the same way that sentencing a person to more than one life sentence is largely ceremonial. it helps the victims (or their survivors) and the victim community feel they were a party to the serving of justice. when you are dealing with extradition between--and dual trials in--different countries, the purpose is political.

there can also be a practical purpose. for instance, assume jurisdiction A convicts and sentences a defendant to 20 to life. defendant is then extradited to and tried in jurisidiction B and sentenced to life. suppose then that defendant serves his 20 years and gets paroled, he then begins serving his sentence B jurisdiction, with no delay. extradition allows all trials to be conducted while someone has custody and control of the defendant and eliminates the need to find and arrest someone before he can begin serving other sentences.

and of course, the most important reason for extradition is that the defendant is being asked to answer for breaking laws in all jurisdictions he is accused of breaking laws in.
posted by crush-onastick at 11:59 AM on March 12, 2002