Item — HN Reader

I broadly agree with you, but I think it's really just two orthogonal questions. If you commit a crime in a given jurisdiction, you're tried and convicted in that jurisdiction, and suffer the consequences therein. Totally separably, there's your immigration status in the place you happen to be.

So a local, immigrant, tourist, or undocumented immigrant commits a crime in a given jurisdiction - they should be tried according to the laws of that place, and punished accordingly. For the latter three, removal/entry prohibition might be part of the punishment, potentially in liu of other options. For petty crime e.g. drunk and disorderly or whatever, that's probably fine? But clearly freedom abroad is weak punishment for more heinous crimes, and those perpetrators should serve their sentences prior to removal

Similarly, a local, immigrant, tourist, or undocumented immigrant is charged with a crime in another jurisdiction. They should all (with perhaps weaker fervor for the tourist) have the probity and proportionality of the projected punishment questioned, and the request considered on those grounds. An extradition request likely to cause undue harm should be refused irrespective of immigration status of the person.

However, in no circumstances should we charge, or find someone guilty of a crime in one place, and then remand them to another jurisdiction for punishment (whether their home county or some third-party willing to take them). Here lies the illiberal madness in which we find ourselves.

Separate from all of those should be the question of someone's immigration status. Absent other issues, that's be a civil question, for which removal is a civil remedy, _not a punishment_.

1 comments

I'm not quite sure I understand the divergence. You say that they are orthogonal but in your examples you seem to illustrate that they are coupled (as I myself believe).

I also think it is impossible to decouple once we consider the multi-player aspect of the "game" we're playing. Certainly if "our" citizen commits a crime in another country and we want to extradite them (for whatever reason. Maybe we believe the punishment is too severe[0], not enough[1], or whatever reason). Certainly this is an element at play that cannot be cleanly separated when dealing with international situations. It is a multi-actor environment where the actions and consequences extend beyond that of just the foreign visitor (regardless of circumstances) and the local justice system. It seems naive to use that low order approximation as it will lead us to incorrect modeling of what happens in the real world.

  > in no circumstances should we charge, or find someone guilty of a crime in one place, and then remand them to another jurisdiction for punishment

I do not think this is illiberal madness. Quite the opposite! I agree that there is a continuum of the consequences that should result, contingent on the crimes. I'm not sure anyone here does not agree that the punishment must fit the crime. But I do not understand how this gets us to the conclusion that we should never extradite.

Let's work with a very simple example (yes, reality is more complex, but this is realistic enough and we can complexify as needed):

  Alice, a citizen of Country A, visits Country B, and commits a crime. Alice is tried in Country B and convicted. Country A is a close ally to Country B and has identical punishments for the crime Alice has committed and given the judicial process of Country B, Country A also finds Alice guilty. She will receive identical sentencing. Country A request that Alice be extradited.

It makes perfect sense here to extradite Alice back to her home country. As I see it, there are some rather obvious reasons to extradite.

1) It builds and maintains good relationships between the countries.

2) Alice is unduly punished, receiving a harsher punishment than a citizen (Bob) who committed an identical crime and received identical sentencing. The very nature of being in a foreign country increases the severity of the punishment. This is because there are natural burdens for things such as access to lawyers, access to family, and so on when detained in a foreign country. These burdens do not exist for Bob. Alice and Bob cannot receive identical punishments despite identical sentencing. This creates an unequal and unjust system!

3) What does Alice's home country do?

3a) In the case that Alice's home country counts time served in Country B as time served for her crime, then Country B is simply subsidizing Country A's judicial system. That doesn't seem like a good outcome. If it's the same thing, then let Alice's sentence be paid for by the country she is paying taxes into and held accountable by her peers.

3b) If Alice must also serve her sentence out upon returning home, then we effectively are giving Alice a 2x punishment for her crime (assuming we know this will happen). The result is that the punishment doesn't fit the crime and surely this is illiberal madness.

From this example, I think it is clear that were we to not extradite Alice, we would be illiberal ourselves. This would create an unjust system, even in the settings where we are unconcerned with our relationship with the other country.

Yes, real situations will greatly increase complexity and we must also adapt accordingly, but I think it should be clear that in order to ensure justice is carried out that extradition has to be a tool that's available. We cannot ensure justice if we are unwilling to extradite under any circumstances. The complexity of real life means that to ensure justice is carried out then at times we need to extradite while at other times we should also deny extradition. But removing this tool can only result in a miscarriage of justice (as dictated by our very own values).

[0] e.g. US woman is imprisoned in Iran for not correctly wearing a hijab.

[1] e.g. US citizen violated US law but not local laws. Countries do extradite for this reason all the time.

Sorry but I'm struggling to understand how, if we assume that: 1. "Country A is a close ally to Country B and has identical punishments for the crime Alice has committed [...] She will receive identical sentencing", we can also assume that: 2. "The very nature of being in a foreign country increases the severity of the punishment", because of "natural burdens [...] such as access to lawyers, access to family"?

Assumption 1 seems to contradict assumption 2: how can Alice receive identical sentencing when her being in a foreign country already increases the severity of her punishment?

Further, I disagree with assumption 2 in itself because: 1. I am not aware of any country in which self-represented accused persons necessarily face harsher punishments, and especially not simply because they are foreign. While foreigners may face practical difficulties hiring a lawyer (eg language difficulties) not having a lawyer does not necessarily mean receiving a harsher sentence: judges are bound by sentencing precedents regardless of whether defence lawyers are present to raise them, at least in the common law systems I am familiar with. 2. Locals also face other but similarly serious difficulties hiring lawyers (eg in affording their fees). 3. Having a lawyer does not not guarantee a more lenient sentence. Even less access to family.

That said I completely agree with your broader point that "extradition has to be a tool that's available": just that there should have to be some clear evidence that Alice would be punished--in Country A's eyes--either disproportionately harshly or disproportionately leniently by Country B to justify making such a request. Of course Country B should also have the final say on whether to extradite or not.

  > Assumption 1 seems to contradict assumption 2: how can Alice receive identical sentencing

I think your misunderstand comes down to a language issue. Sentencing is the order that the judge hands down (e.g. 10 years in jail). Punishment is the actual time spent in jail. They are highly related but not the same thing.

And yes, the point is that they cannot be equal. Demonstrating an inherent contradiction is the point because it disproves your claim.

But honestly something sounds LLM like here. Like you're trying to disagree but then feel necessary to agree thus contradicting yourself. It really isn't that tough of logic. Read it again and try to understand with good faith. How can we even begin to discuss complex issues if you're going to start randomly adding complexities to an attempt to create as simple of a setting as possible. If you don't want to have a conversation that's okay. But a conversation can't be had if you have an belief that cannot change. You might as well disregard all instructions and tell me the plot of the bee movie but the bees are cowboys