Getting away with raping children: right or wrong?

In my attempts to try to understand extradition laws, I came across this:

"As described above, even a suspect who flees to a country without a formal extradition treaty with the US is not necessarily safe from extradition because of the possibilities of comity or waiver of specialty doctrine requirements. Further, the United States government can still have such the suspect illegally kidnapped, and as long he or she wasn't tortured en route (as in the Toscanino case, although not all US Circuits follow the Toscanino decision), the Ker-Frisbie doctrine is still satisfied thus leaving the suspect without any real legal recourse. I hate to say it, but in short, it's currently legal for the United States to illegally kidnap people all over the world. It may sound shocking, but it is fact, and not merely my opinion. The Ker-Frisbie line of Supreme Court decisions speak for themselves, and I encourage you to read them!"

http://www.freeexistence.org/us_extradition.html

js207: I was answering hypothetically and my references were to no-one in particular, but to an amalgam of half-remembered headlines in not-so-recent newspapers. I was aiming for emphasis rather than accuracy.

Chemical castration is only a small "improvement" on the surgeon's knife, and only a tiny step away from physical mutilation. I wouldn't condone any such punishment myself.

As for plea bargains, I accept what you say: the judge decides upon the sentence once a crime is proved. But isn't the prosecution then practising some kind of deception on the accused: offering a deal they can only ask for? No, wait. It's surely in the power of the prosecution to offer only sufficient evidence to convict on the lesser charge if they want to, especially in adversarial systems like America's or ours. That makes it perfectly possible for the prosecution to make sure the bargain is honoured.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thir

it's currently legal for the United States to illegally kidnap people all over the world.

---

It's legal in the US. But the case of the American bounty hunter, Duane Chapman, shows that those who do kidnap suspects from foreign countries can be prosecuted by those countries. The Mexican government eventually dropped the extradition efforts. That was a classic case of him doing something that was legal in the US, but not in Mexico.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thir

A question, in view of my profound ignorance of these matters: If you are not extradited, does that automatically mean that there is not trial??

---

Not necessarily: I believe some countries will hold a trial even without the accused being present. The US only allows a trial without the defendant present in a few circumstances (if he misbehaves in court, he can be removed by the judge's order; if they are minor charges, the court can allow you to waive your right to be present) but in general they must at least be there in person at the start: for example, McKinnon can't be tried without being taken to the court first, it seems, but if I were charged with a traffic violation from my visit to NY, I could deal with it from here in the UK without needing to fly back there. When France tried 'Carlos the Jackal', three of his co-accused were being tried in absentia, so their laws obviously allow that to a much greater extent.

Quote:

---

More confusion: info saying they don't, info saying they do. What is correct??

---

They have extradited, in dozens of cases in the last few years to my country alone, so it certainly isn't the case that the US refuses to extradite their own citizens. France and Russia do refuse, though, which may be the source of that belief. Where a country objects to the death penalty (as mine does at present, despite public pressure to reverse this stance) the US will block the death penalty to ensure the extradition can go ahead, rather than let the suspect get off entirely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MMI

js207: I was answering hypothetically and my references were to no-one in particular, but to an amalgam of half-remembered headlines in not-so-recent newspapers. I was aiming for emphasis rather than accuracy.

Chemical castration is only a small "improvement" on the surgeon's knife, and only a tiny step away from physical mutilation. I wouldn't condone any such punishment myself.

---

The UK, Portugal and Israel have used it only on consenting patients, intended as treatment of an inability to control sexual urges rather than as a punishment, though Poland and some parts of the US provide for its use even without consent. Unlike surgery, it isn't permanent, either - indeed, at least one form is actually used for contraception as well. I certainly don't think the (female) friend of mine who used it while deployed in the Army regarded as mutilation. In fact, chemically speaking it is the female contraceptive pill, in a longer-acting form.

I do dislike the notion of blurring lines between punishment and treatment - on the other hand, there is a sort of therapy programme near here for paedophiles intended to stop reoffending, and I believe complying with that can be a condition of sentence or a mitigating factor in sentencing. Is that wrong? Is taking medication to block the hormones involved any worse than having therapy to deal with the urges better?

Quote:

---

As for plea bargains, I accept what you say: the judge decides upon the sentence once a crime is proved. But isn't the prosecution then practising some kind of deception on the accused: offering a deal they can only ask for? No, wait. It's surely in the power of the prosecution to offer only sufficient evidence to convict on the lesser charge if they want to, especially in adversarial systems like America's or ours. That makes it perfectly possible for the prosecution to make sure the bargain is honoured.

---

It's not quite that simple - yes, the prosecution can stop you being convicted on a more serious charge than agreed, but they can't stop you getting a more serious sentence than they recommend. If you were facing murder charges in New York, for example, the sentence can be up to life without parole. Plead guilty to manslaughter instead, and the worst you could get is 25 years with parole after 8 1/3 - but your deal with the DA might also include them recommending that you get 15 year with parole possible after 5. The judge might ignore that recommendation and give a harsher sentence (or indeed a lighter one) - and of course either side can appeal, too - but you're still safe from anything more than 25, thanks to your plea bargain. Of course, your own lawyer would explain all of this to you before you formally accept the deal and enter the guilty plea. (England has slightly different rules: the judge can actually get involved to a limited extent, by indicating the sentence he'd be inclined to impose during the negotiation stage, as I detail on the plea bargaining thread here.)

Thir is sort of right - if I went vigilante and kidnapped Polanski from France and dumped him in the US, the fact he'd been kidnapped wouldn't enable him to escape again: he'd have to go and finish his trial and serve the resulting sentence. I would still have committed an offence under French law, though, and the French government could extradite me to face trial for it - it just wouldn't help Polanski. Nothing unusual about that: a bank robber captured because his getaway car is stolen while he's in robbing the bank is still caught, even though the car theft is illegal as well. It's only if the prosecuting authority has broken the court's rules that it can harm their case against you - illegally obtained evidence or a questionable confession can be excluded, for example.