Hacker News Reader

Extradition is generally thought of as when a person from country A who is convicted of a crime in A flees to country B, and country B then extradites said person to country A to serve out their sentence.

It's not meant to be a system to convict people incapable of defending themselves in a foreign court.

Plus, there are extradition treaties: countries A and B have to _agree_ to the conditions under which A will extradite to B and under which B will extradite to A.

> The proper process should be like this: if country A thinks that someone from country B has committed a crime against them then they should come to that country and prove it in a court without being able to add additional charges.

Courts in country B generally have close to zero understanding of the legal minutiae of country A. Ignoring jurisdiction questions, what you're suggesting is that courts in country B have to:

  * understand the hierarchy of the legal system in A (what precedent is binding, what precedent is advisory),
  * understand what is and isn't a law (e.g. if A is a common law jurisdiction and B is not),
  * somehow reconcile legal procedures in A with legal procedures in B (e.g. when are you allowed to ask the judge to dismiss a case? what's an acceptable situation to ask for N more weeks for discovery? how much time is considered reasonable? who do you file paperwork with?)
  * somehow decide what constitutes a qualified attorney (e.g. in the U.S., every state has its own qualification process for attorneys to practice in that state, so being admitted to the bar in Colorado doesn't mean you can practice in Florida, and this also extends to the federal govt)

and goodness knows what else.

In general it's good to assume that if there are millions of people in a given system, there are _reasons_ (not necessarily good ones, just plausible ones) the system works that way, particularly when it's a system you have zero understanding of.

> Ignoring jurisdiction questions, what you're suggesting is that courts in country B have to:

> understand the hierarchy of the legal system in A (what precedent is binding, what precedent is advisory)

No, I meant the court in country B would follow laws and procedures of country B.

> somehow decide what constitutes a qualified attorney

This can be specified in an international treaty.

That is more or less how it works. You will notice that Son Jong-woo was not extradited to the USA. The US government presented its case to Korea (via Korean attorneys hired for the purpose, I suppose), claiming that, according to the treaty, Son Jong-woo should be extradited, and the Korean court demurred.

See also the Assange case in Britain: "Julian Assange, the 50-year-old founder of Wikileaks, is a step closer to being extradited from Britain to the United States after the U.S. government won an appeal in London's High Court." [my emphasis.]

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/10/us-wins-appeal-over-extradit...

Extradition treaties are supposed to be the law in both countries, and country B is nominally under no obligation to accept terms in a treaty that are counter to its own principles. Asymmetric power and corruption mean that this is not always the case, of course...

No, extradition is unfair. Let's say someone did X, Y and Z where X is punishable in both countries, and Y and Z is only punishable in USA. If he stays in his country, he gets a punishment only for X, but if extradited to USA, he gets a punishment for Y and Z also. Although his country's laws allowed him to do Y and Z.

The answer in this scenario is the same as before: if the extraditing country, aware that this is a possibility, allows the extradition to go ahead, then the person extradited has been subject to due process in their country.

In addition, the victims of Y and Z may reasonably consider it unfair if the perpetrator avoids prosecution on this basis. If Y and Z were a crime in in the perpetrator's country, it would not be unfair for him to be prosecuted for them, even if the evidence, or his being in custody, came only from his being arrested for X; this happens quite frequently.

It also sometimes happens that extradition is made conditional - for example, on the condition that the person is not subject to the death penalty. For a couple of obvious reasons, reneging on such an agreement after the extradition would have negative long-term consequences for the country that does it.

> How is this compatible with human rights? The proper process should be like this: if country A thinks that someone from country B has commited a crime against them then they should come to that country and prove it in a court without being able to add additional charges. This is the only way where the defendand won't be stripped of their rights.

Countries have treaties with each other, trying to make extradition treaties akin to slavery is completely absurd.

EU nations have extradition treaties, despite having different laws regarding different crimes. It is compatible with "human rights" cause citizens have rights but also duties established by their respective countries constitutions, and EU nation constitutions acknowledge that a crime committed, physically or remotely, in one nation makes the citizen of one country subject to the law of the other EU country where the crime was committed, period. Is that what you consider "slavery"?

> Is that what you consider "slavery"?

Yes, because a citizen is forcible removed from his native country. And because he can get much more severe punishment that we would get in his own country.

Let's say someone from country A uses a stoled credit card which is punished with 1 year of prison in A and 5 years of prison in B. Also (what a careless mistake), he speaks ill of the Queen and the Party which is not a crime in A, but is punished with 5 years of prison in B.

If he is prosecuted in A, he gets 1 year of prison. If he gets extradited he gets 10 years of prison and gets a punishment for a deed that is not a crime in his own country. How can this be fair? The laws of his country guaranteed that he would be free one year later and that he could speak ill of Queen.

Let's say country A has treaties with 50 other countries. This means that now citizens of A must learn laws of all those countries in order not to break them.

if you think that extradition is fair, would you agree to extradite people to countries like China, Russia or North Korea?

> Yes, because a citizen is forcible removed from his native country. And because he can get much more severe punishment that we would get in his own country.

And? As I said citizens have rights but also duties as citizens, and constitutions establish these rights and duties. If a countries constitution acknowledges a supra-national treaty or authority, which is their rights as free and independent countries, then none of the defendant rights are getting violated provided the extradition treaty grants due process to contest that extradition.

So being hyperbolic by claiming it's equal to "slavery", in an attempt at appealing to emotion, just makes your argument sound unhinged, at best. What's next? Extradition treaties are "racist"?

> if country A thinks that someone from country B has commited a crime against them then they should come to that country and prove it in a court without being able to add additional charges

Generally if someone wants to extradite from the UK to the US (for instance) there will be extradition hearings to decide whether the request is reasonable, whether there is a case to answer, and things will be guaranteed in line with the rights of the UK individual - for instance if the crime in the US could be punished with death, the UK will require that be taken off the table before extradition. They would also seek assurances of the treatment of their citizen.

The exact resolution to this -

> for example, 20 years instead of 4 years and additionally he can be charged with crimes that are not a crime in his country and wouldn't allow to extradite him

Is likely contained in the treaties between countries. It seems to me that such a treaty should absolutely have a "that's not even a crime here" provision, but I have no real idea if they do.

The problem with internet crime in particular is the question of where it was committed. If I sit here in my office in Australia, log on to a compromised server in South America somewhere, and from there I compromise an American individual's home PC and empty their bank account, where is the crime taking place? Where the perp is, or where the victim is? It's not that straightforward.

> for instance if the crime in the US could be punished with death, the UK will require that be taken off the table before extradition.

I am surprised that anyone can be fooled by this. If USA cannot sentence someone to death, they still can sentence him to 500 years in prison which is basically the same and doesn't violate any agreements.

> Is likely contained in the treaties between countries. It seems to me that such a treaty should absolutely have a "that's not even a crime here" provision, but I have no real idea if they do

Obviously there is no such rules. The article mentions that if the owner of the server would get extradited from North Korea to USA he could get more strict punishment.

> If USA cannot sentence someone to death, they still can sentence him to 500 years in prison which is basically the same

It's not considered the same by countries which (for instance) have indefinite detention for the worst offenders, but do not have the death penalty.

> Obviously there is no such rules. The article mentions that if the owner of the server would get extradited from North Korea to USA he could get more strict punishment.

As I said, that's likely to come down to the individual treaties. But in this case it was considered a crime in his home nation, just not anywhere near as serious a crime.

You can live a whole life not leaving your country. If you leave your country, you subject yourself to the jurisdiction of wherever you go. While you're in that other country, they can arrest you and put you through their system. Why should you be allowed to commit a crime, and just because you got away with it long enough to flee the country, not be sent back to the place you committed it?

For what it's worth, some countries do refuse to extradite their own citizens, and will instead try their own citizens for their foreign crimes if they think there's enough evidence and severity. But that's not necessarily a better system. The evidence is in a foreign country, and you can't effectively subpoena people in foreign countries to make them produce documents or take the stand.

> You can live a whole life not leaving your country.

As I undertand, that doesn't prevent you from being extradited. Here are quotes from the article which hint at that:

> US prosecutors, including Faruqui, had argued that he [South Korean citizen who owned a server] should be extradited to the United States to face charges in the American justice system, but Korea had denied their request.

> With the help of the Dutch national police, they arrested the site’s alleged administrator in the Netherlands, a man named Michael Rahim Mohammad, who went by the online handle “Mr. Dark.” He faces criminal charges in the US, and his case is ongoing.

> For what it's worth, some countries do refuse to extradite their own citizens

And that is a right thing.

> The evidence is in a foreign country, and you can't effectively subpoena people in foreign countries to make them produce documents or take the stand.

The prosecutors from a foreign country can gather evidence themselves.