Talk:Extradition

Crime and Criminal Biography Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

International relations: Law Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject International law (assessed as High-importance).

Law Mid‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was the subject of an educational assignment in Semester Two 2017. Further details were available on the "Education Program:University of Canterbury/International Human Rights Law (Semester Two 2017)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki.

Course assignment signature

Glw53 (talk) 23:56, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reference for FORCE-1

This appears to be a commercial plug? If anyone can confirm, it should be removed or reworded. I think this would belong better under rendition anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nbertram (talk • contribs) 05:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-extradition countries

Does anyone have a list of non-extradition countries for common english-speaking countries? It would add to the article. I havn't been able to find any decent information. --ChrisRuvolo 19:46, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Added by Soren Harward Mon 15 Nov 2004:

I found a couple of old links thanks to a 2-year-old Google Answers question:

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=27692 http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00003181----000-notes.html http://www.uncjin.org/Laws/extradit/extindx.htm

And the US State Department has info about diplomatic relations here:

http://www.state.gov/countries/

This will take some processing because it's a list of countries with whom we have extradition treaties, not a list of countries with which we do not. So I'll mark this on my TODO list. Someone else may want to cover countries other than the US.

Roman Polanski

Did the state of California request the US government to convey a request to France that Roman Polanski should be prosecuted? I know at least one case where a French citizen was (successfully, if I remember well) prosecuted in France for a murder committed in the US. David.Monniaux 18:47, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

historical development of law of extradition and cases of extradition

Terror?

Is Wikipedia really so illiterate as that?
Note: this is not a rhetorical question. Please answer seriously.

Under the section for Extradition#International_strains there are two misuses of "terror". Unfortunately, one of them is a link to an article that also misuses the term, so it cannot be fixed without changing the linked article, too.

Since I am new, I will not risk making such changes.

Waiving extradition

That a suspect 'waives extradition' appears in the news fairly often. I'd think that a mention of this, with what it means/why it's newsworthy, and why one would do so, would be useful.

Soering v. United Kingdom

In the Restrictions section Soering v. United Kingdom is mentioned as a prominent case. Could someone please write about this as I'm sure it would add to the knowledge of the topic! Cheers. Witt y lama 18:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Litvinenko/Lugovoi?

Nothing about this story? It's been big news in Britain for a long time now. 81.159.56.123 03:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Between sub-federal jurisdictions (e.g., U.S. States)

I'd like to see a section discussing extradition between sub-federal jurisdictions. This is obviously an issue in the U.S., where States extradite suspects between one another. I imagine it is also an issue in other federal nations.

Some numbers?

Does anybody have any numbers on how many people are concerned by extradition? I guess this kind of statistics would be quite difficult to gather, but I think it would be interesting to know, roughly, for example, the number of extraditions from the US or to the US (or to/from some other major countries or regions).80.194.194.190 (talk) 14:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CIA = USA

In the Extradition and abduction section, why is CIA specified? The CIA is an agency of the United States. If the CIA performed an action, the United States performed that action. Kevdav63 (talk) 14:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the same thing. All of the other items in the list specify the country, not the specific organization. Since Kevdav63's comment has been here for more than a month, I'll go ahead and make the change. If there's a good reason why it should be CIA and not USA, please tell us here. YardsGreen (talk) 06:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assange

The statement that dual criminality involves an act which is a crime in both countries needs clarifying and perhaps amendment. In particular, does it not imply that the relevent "act" must already have been judged (presumably in a proper court) to have been a crime. How can someone be extradited for questioning about an act which is not a clearly established crime? Can one extradite someone simply because of the possibility that a crime may have been committed? If so, there appears to be no defence against extradition.Paulhummerman (talk) 02:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People are extradited to face trial, that's all. I can, at least, state for a fact that no European country permits its citizens to be extradited 'for the purposes of investigation'. Neither does the United States. Thus, the US (say) would request extradition on the basis of a grand jury indictment, a UK request would come from the Crown Prosecution Service. Accordingly, it's readily apparent whether dual criminality applies - the requesting country must have charged the individual with a crime that's recognised by the criminal justice system of the requestee nation. It's topical; the age of sex consent in the UK is 16 years and therefore, (absent certain aggravating features such as proven 'grooming' or abuse of a position of authority), it isn't possible to extradite a British citizen on the bases of 'illegal sexual intercourse with a 17 year old'. Members of certain royal families will take comfort from this. 2A01:4B00:AE0E:6200:DC7D:D977:5E79:92BB (talk) 15:06, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Own nationals

The article says that Germany doesn'e extradite it's own citizens, yet Christine Schürrer was extratited to Sweden. Is the article wrong or is there something else in that story? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.103.209.223 (talk) 17:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abductions

The section on abductions is a mess. The first two check out, but the third looks very dubious. Isang Yun's article mentions nothing about an extrajudicial abduction and the only source it gives is in Korean. If anyone happens to speak the language, it would be nice it they could check the source and confirm it says what this article claims.

I say this also because several of the other names on the list are incorrect. Camilla Broe was extradited legally (though controversially) to the US and the same goes for Aimal Kasi. Abdullah Ocalan's extradition involved Turkey; not the US. Martin Mubanga's capture was an extraordinary rendition; not an extrajudicial abduction. Same goes for Khaled El-Masri. That's five completely false accusations against the US made in that one section (the Israeli ones, surprise surprise, all check out).

Also, why does the list only contain abductions by Israel and the US? I know those aren't the only countries which do/have carried out illegal extraditions (look at North Korea or the USSR), so why the one-sidedness? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.43.72 (talk) 10:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Between sub-federal jurisdictions (e.g., U.S. States) again

It would be helpful if a section could be added on this, as requested above some time back. For the second time I came looking after a reference to inter-State extradition in an article, for example in the Lead of Whitey Bulger. Davidships (talk) 10:11, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're looking for Extradition law in the United States. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 14:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Extradition. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:42, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Extradition. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of jurisdictions that do not extradite for death sentences

The list of examples currently includes Hong Kong. I believe this is incorrect. Although most of Hong Kong's extradition agreements do allow for the refusal of extradition for the death penalty (usually discretionary, occasionally mandatory), its laws (Fugitive Offenders Ordinance, Cap. 503, Section 5) do not require any restrictions on the death penalty, and two of its current (2019) extradition agreements have no restriction on extradition for the death penalty (Malaysia and Singapore). Thus, Hong Kong is not a jurisdiction that "will not allow extradition if the death penalty may be imposed".

If you think this is incorrect, please correct me with a citation. ("Hong Kong" was originally added in revision 857059053 without a citation...)

Henry stuffedcow (talk) 05:59, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Extradition or transfer?

@Blue-Haired Lawyer, Enthusiast01, Iota, Assawyer, and Greenrd: hi. In the case of Ramil Safarov, can one talk of extradition, or is it just a case of physical transfer for humanitarian reasons (incarceration in one's home country)? In other words: does "extradition" necessarily imply that the country applying for it intends to bring the accused to trial? With Safarov, the declared intention was to have him serve the already decided period of incarceration "at home", with the actual, hidden intention of pardoning him altogether and de facto erasing his conviction (see back payment of salary for the years served in Hungary, official treatment as "national hero"). Once this is clarified, the definition of the article might need to be changed - if the extradition application necessarily needs to claim (rightfully or falsely, it doesn't matter here) that its purpose is to bring the person in case to justice, or have them serve time according to a preexisting legal sentencing. As it is now, this important aspect is not touched upon. If indeed this is the case, please also replace "extradition" (wikilinked) with "transfer" in the Armenia–Hungary relations#Severing of diplomatic relations paragraph. Thank you. Arminden (talk) 01:52, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Put back in material removed in act of vandalism back in 2008, but needs reworking

@Blue-Haired Lawyer and Enthusiast01: hi. An anonymous "editor", in a clear case of vandalism, removed a large chunk of the article (over 7000 bytes), adding "JOHN KINCHELO SUCKS AT LIFE". Somebody quickly removed the "joke", but failed to put the material back in, and so it stayed for 12 years. Now I found it and placed it back in. I am of course aware that the article has greatly advanced since, but it may well be that part of the vandalised material is valuable and missing in the current version. Or not (anymore), and then it's up to you to remove it again. I have no legal background whatsoever, here's where I stop with my contribution. Please take a look.

The vandal's "edit" is here (Revision as of 17:02, 13 November 2008).

I am pinging you two, Blue-Haired Lawyer and Enthusiast01, because you seem to be the last two active editors who have contributed in a substantive way to this article (definition in the lead and/or content). Thanks, Arminden (talk) 02:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Arminden, well spotted! — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 12:18, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Crime

Would Indiana come to Oregon on a possion of marijuana possion of syringe possion of paraphernalia 2603:300F:7BC:0:85D3:D9BF:1E06:73A1 (talk) 14:03, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed number of Hong Kong demonstrators

In the first place, while the headline of the cited article states "1 million", the text merely states "hundreds of thousands".

In the second place, this article from the Hong Kong Free Press (which appears to refer to the same demonstration) refers merely to "tens of thousands" of protesters.

New York Times Story (publication date of June 9, 2019) says there were 240,000 protesters "at the peak" of the demonstration, and CNBC reported "over 200,000" protesters. The "million" figure has been attributed to Jimmy Sham, spokesperson for the pro-democracy group that organized the protest. Fabrickator (talk) 02:01, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]