9 Extradition and Other Means of Criminal Law Enforcement

Author(s):  
Bradley Curtis A

This chapter considers the extradition of criminal suspects to and from the United States, as well as other issues relating to international criminal law enforcement. The chapter begins by describing early U.S. practice relating to extradition. It then describes the respective roles of the courts and the executive branch in modern extradition cases. The chapter further describes some of the common limitations in U.S. extradition treaties, such as the dual criminality requirement, the political offense exception, and the specialty doctrine, and how these limitations have been applied by the courts. In addition, the chapter considers special issues that have arisen in some cases involving extradition to the United States where the federal government or a state government is likely to seek the death penalty. Besides extradition treaties, the chapter also discusses Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties and prisoner exchange agreements. The chapter concludes by discussing the domestic legal implications of both international abduction of criminal suspects and “extraordinary rendition” of suspects in the war on terrorism.

Author(s):  
Bradley Curtis A

This chapter considers the extradition of criminal suspects to and from the United States, as well as other issues relating to international criminal law enforcement. The chapter begins by describing early U.S. practice relating to extradition, and then describes the respective roles of the courts and the executive branch in modern extradition cases. The chapter further describes some of the common limitations in U.S. extradition treaties, such as the dual criminality requirement, the political offense exception, and the specialty doctrine. In addition, the chapter considers difficulties that have arisen in some cases involving extradition to the United States where the federal government or a state government is likely to seek the death penalty. Besides extradition treaties, the chapter also discusses Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties and prisoner exchange agreements. The chapter concludes by discussing the domestic legal implications of both international abduction of criminal suspects and “extraordinary rendition” of suspects in the war on terrorism.


Author(s):  
George P. Fletcher

This book is an invitation to readers interested in the future of international cooperation to master the 12 basic dichotomies of international criminal law. The book foresees a growing interest in international order and cooperation following the current preoccupation, in Europe as well as the United States, with national self-interest. By emphasizing basic dichotomies, for example, acts vs. omissions and causation vs. background conditions, the book reinforces the jurisprudential foundations of international criminal law and also provides an easy way to master the details of the field.


Author(s):  
Beth Van Schaack

This chapter identifies three unfortunate gaps in the United States’ federal penal code: The United States lacks a crimes against humanity statute, the war crimes statute has a limited jurisdictional reach and does not conform to US obligations under the Geneva Conventions, and the code lacks express mention of superior responsibility. These gaps significantly hinder the reach of the United States’ prosecutorial authorities and have led to instances of impunity, and incomplete accountability, where perpetrators within US jurisdiction cannot be prosecuted for their substantive crimes and must be dealt with through immigration and other remedies. The chapter then evaluates various proposed amendments to Title 18, drawing upon previous bills, international criminal law, and other federal statutes. It closes by arguing that discrete statutory amendments would enable the United States to exercise leadership in atrocities prevention and response without increasing the risk that US personnel will be subjected to litigation overseas.


2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 217
Author(s):  
Andri Winjaya Laksana

Cybercrime has been become a major portion for law enforcement agencies and intelligence services to both national and international matter, development of information and technology’s crime resulted in every country have a different policy of criminalization. The emphasis on cross-country has made a crime on the internet is not just a national issue, but has become an International problem. therefore it is important to have uniformity in the prevention of cybercrime that this crime can be solved. Based on the comparison of cybercrime that included the rules from various countries including the United States, Singapore, the Netherlands, the Philippines, Myanmar as a reference in the application of criminal law enforcement regulations regarding cybercrime seal the document.


Author(s):  
Christy Mallory ◽  
Brad Sears

LGBT people in the United States continue to experience discrimination because of their sexual orientation and gender identity, despite increasing acceptance of LGBT people and legal recognition of marriage for same-sex couples nationwide. This ongoing discrimination can lead to under- and unemployment, resulting in socioeconomic disparities for LGBT people. In addition, empirical research has linked LGBT health disparities, including disparities in health-related risk factors, to experiences of stigma and discrimination. Currently, federal statutes in the United States do not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity in employment, housing, or public accommodations, leaving regulation in this area primarily to state and local governments. This creates a limited and uneven patchwork of protections from discrimination against LGBT people across the country. Despite public support for LGBT-inclusive non-discrimination laws across the country, in 28 states there are no statewide statutory protections for LGBT people in employment, housing, or public accommodations. To date, only 20 states and the District of Columbia have enacted comprehensive non-discrimination statutes that expressly prohibit discrimination based on both sexual orientation and gender identity in all three of these areas. One additional state has statutes that prohibit sexual orientation discrimination, but not gender identity discrimination, in these areas. One other state prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in employment and housing, but not in public accommodations. In states without statutes that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and/or gender identity, there are other policies that afford LGBT people at least some limited protections from discrimination. In some of these states, state executive branch officials have expanded non-discrimination protections for LGBT people under their executive or agency powers. For example, in three states, state government agencies have expanded broad protections from sexual orientation or gender identity discrimination through administrative regulations. And, in 12 states without statutes prohibiting discrimination against LGBT people, governors have issued executive orders that protect state government employees (and sometimes employees of state government contractors) from discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. In addition, local government ordinances provide another source of protection from discrimination; however, these laws are generally unenforceable in court and provide much more limited remedies than statewide non-discrimination statutes. In recent years, lawmakers have increasingly attempted to limit the reach of state and local non-discrimination laws, which can leave LGBT people vulnerable to discrimination. For example, some states have passed laws allowing religiously motivated discrimination and others have passed laws prohibiting local governments from enacting their own non-discrimination ordinances that are broader than state non-discrimination laws. While most of these bills have not passed, the recent increase in the introduction of these measures suggests that state legislatures will continue to consider rolling back non-discrimination protections for LGBT people in the coming years. Continued efforts are required at both the state and federal levels to ensure that LGBT people are fully protected from discrimination based on their sexual orientation and gender identity throughout the United States, including federal legislation and statewide bills in over half the states.


Author(s):  
Jennifer M. Chacón

The regulation of immigration in the United States is a civil law matter, and the deportation and exclusion of immigrants from the United States are matters adjudicated in civil, administrative courts operated by the federal government. But migration in the United States is increasingly managed not through the civil law system, but through the criminal legal system, and not just at the federal level, but at all levels of government. The most obvious example of the management of migration through the criminal law in the United States occurs through the federal prosecution of immigration crimes. In the 2010s, federal prosecutions of immigration crimes reached all-time record highs, as immigration offenses became the most commonly prosecuted federal criminal offenses. But it is not just the federal government, using federal criminal prosecutions, that has moved criminal law and criminal law enforcement agents to the center of immigration enforcement in the United States. The federal government relies on state and local police to serve as front-line agents in the identification of noncitizens potentially subject to removal. Everyone arrested by state and local law enforcement for any reason has their fingerprints run through federal law databases, and this has become the leading screening mechanism through which the federal government identifies individuals to target for removal. Federal law also relies on state law convictions as one of the primary means through which federal immigration enforcement officials determine which noncitizens to remove. This means that state legislatures and state and local governments have the power to shape both their criminal laws and their discretionary enforcement choices to either enhance or mitigate the scope of federal immigration enforcement in their jurisdictions. The problems of racial inequity in the U.S. criminal legal system are both exacerbated by and fuel the centrality of immigration enforcement to the nation’s law enforcement agenda. Racial profiling is broadly tolerated by law in the context of immigration enforcement, making it easy for officials at the state and federal level to justify the targeting of the Latinx population for heightened surveillance on the theory (often incorrect) that they are unlawfully present. At the same time, the overpolicing of Black communities ensures that Black immigrants as well as Latinx immigrants are disproportionately identified as priorities for removal. Immigration enforcement is frequently written out of the story of racial inequality in U.S. policing, but the criminalization of migration is a central architectural feature of this inequitable system.


2001 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 255-281 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph L. Albini

As the new millennium has arrived, so has the appearance of a new breed of terrorist, highly sophisticated in technological skills, sometimes motivated by political and/or religious beliefs and sometimes motivated by the monetary incentive to sell his services as a mercenary. This type of terrorist made an appearance in the United States during the Y2K crisis and, under its cover, appeared and then disappeared creating further terror by now hiding in the shadows. Using the Italian Red Brigades as a case study, this article examines how the rules of the game of dealing with terrorists has been crucially altered by this new breed and discusses how these rules will present new problems that in turn will necessitate the consideration of serious changes in the tactics and strategies employed by law enforcement agencies and governments as they carry their fight against terrorism into the future.


2009 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-20 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keith Guzik

The tactics and strategies employed by the United States in its ‘War on Terrorism' have generally been condemned as departures from the norms of how a democratic government conducts itself. Reforms are thus thought needed to place the ‘War on Terror' under the rule of law and protect civil liberties. This article attempts to counter that view. Using predictive data mining-a technology at the heart of the US National Security Agency's (NSA) surveillance scandal-as an example, it argues that rather than a break with the past, the tactics that the Bush Administration adopted to fight terrorism represent an extension of a particular type of future-oriented power which Foucault (2008) referred to as "security" or "government." And while individual civil liberties are no doubt at stake, they are not at stake equally for everyone. Predictive data mining discriminates by design, designating certain groups as threats relative to others. Thus, persons with Middle Eastern and North African backgrounds will disproportionately bear the burden of this surveillance technique and the innumerable mistakes it produces. Finally, the rule of law would seem to offer little to remedy the situation. The War on Drugs, the policing of immigration, and past international disputes with ‘terrorist regimes' have provided a "crime jurisprudence" (Simon 2007) that legitimizes such discrimination. Paradoxically and pessimistically then, the real hope for change lies in the crisis of legitimacy that one could expect to result from the wider application of such discriminatory technologies or the benevolent reign of an executive branch that has been imbued with an authority beyond its traditional limits.


1999 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marten Zwanenburg

The adoption of the Statute of an International Criminal Court in July 1998 is widely regarded as a major step forward in international criminal law. The United States, however, does not share this point of view in all respects. It particularly fears that the Statute will allow prosecution of American peacekeepers for political instead of legal reasons. This article examines the provisions of the Statute in the light of that fear. It concludes that not only is such a fear unjustified, the United States position may have disastrous consequences for efforts in peacekeeping.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document