Getting away with raping children: right or wrong?

[thir]

Inspired by a thread next door in News about extradition, I found myself wondering where people stand on punishing crimes across borders. This is of course related to a genuine case, but not directly involved in the one that thread was about, so I thought I'd ask in a new thread how people feel - not about that specific case, but the general principle.

A 43 year old man drugs and rapes a 13 year old. However, he manages to escape across the border into another country. The core question is, should that second country be obliged to return him to the country where that crime was committed? (Assume for these purposes there is no doubt about guilt, fairness of trial etc: I just remembered that the age of consent is actually 13 in Spain, which is slightly scary and would complicate matters if drugs hadn't been involved as coercion, but I'd like to ignore that for now.)

IF he is guilty - that is just it, isn't it? Who can you know that, until the case is on? There is far too much hysteria when the word 'child' is mentioned, and it does not benefit anyone, least of all the child.

[quote}
I have my own views of course, but I'm interested in seeing how other people feel. If you'd committed the crime yourself, would you expect your own government to shelter you from the consequences, or send you back to face them?[/QUOTE]

If I'd committed a crime, I'd probably try any trick to escape the consequences.

[js207]

IF he is guilty - that is just it, isn't it? Who can you know that, until the case is on?

In the particular case this relates to, the rapist in question fled in between conviction and sentencing: he had already been found guilty (indeed, he admitted it and pled guilty to get a lighter sentence).

If I'd committed a crime, I'd probably try any trick to escape the consequences.

Of course - the question is, should your government help you in that effort, or hand you over for trial? Most Western governments take the second option, as do all the voters here so far except 1 "other", but the French and Russian governments go the first route.

[thir]

In the particular case this relates to, the rapist in question fled in between conviction and sentencing: he had already been found guilty (indeed, he admitted it and pled guilty to get a lighter sentence).


Of course - the question is, should your government help you in that effort, or hand you over for trial? Most Western governments take the second option, as do all the voters here so far except 1 "other", but the French and Russian governments go the first route.

I am a little confused - are we talking about somebody already tried and found guilty in the first country, or somebody being extradited to be tried? I think that makes a difference.

[js207]

I am a little confused - are we talking about somebody already tried and found guilty in the first country, or somebody being extradited to be tried? I think that makes a difference.

In this particular case, he'd already been convicted but escaped before being sentenced. Arguably, that is evidence in itself of his guilt for other purposes (if the victim wanted to sue him for it, for example, she could use this conviction as proof rather than starting from scratch with witnesses, evidence etc), but I would have thought the same would apply if he'd escaped before trial but enough evidence existed to put him on trial.

Thorne: yes, he had plea-bargained on one of the six charges, but since he fled before the end of the trial the other five remain outstanding and presumably will do until he either dies or returns to face trial. I've avoided mentioning the name to try to avoid this being a discussion of a particular individual: I wanted to focus on the broader question of extradition policy in general. As you asked, what if it had been someone other than a famous director ... supposing you or I raped (or murdered, or whatever) someone in one country, then fled to another, should that country shelter us? If it had been me, any developed country I can think of including my own would just ship me straight back for trial: my government makes it very clear that if I get myself arrested abroad, all they can, will and should do is ensure I have legal advice and a translator if necessary - and in my book, it would be morally as well as legally wrong for them to do any more than ensure I get a proper trial and defence.

Lucy: yes, that was one of the two cases which inspired this thread, but I wanted to avoid getting caught in the specifics of that particular case to address the more general moral question: should governments work for the interests of each individual citizen, or for justice - should they ensure there is a fair trial and the accused serves their sentence if applicable, or enable the suspect to escape the trial and/or sentence if there's a way to do so? In some cases that might be the only option - totalitarian regimes might not offer a fair trial at all, making no trial the lesser evil, but that's another situation entirely.

[Thorne]

Thorne: yes, he had plea-bargained on one of the six charges, but since he fled before the end of the trial the other five remain outstanding and presumably will do until he either dies or returns to face trial.

As I understand it, the plea bargain was an admission of guilt to have the other charges dropped. The trial was over, only the sentencing remained. Once he is returned, he'll be sentenced, not put on trial. Or perhaps he'll also be charged with flight to avoid prosecution.

I've avoided mentioning the name to try to avoid this being a discussion of a particular individual: I wanted to focus on the broader question of extradition policy in general.

That was my assumption, which is why I didn't name him either.

it would be morally as well as legally wrong for them to do any more than ensure I get a proper trial and defence.

And just as morally wrong to do any less.

[thir]

I wanted to focus on the broader question of extradition policy in general. As you asked, what if it had been someone other than a famous director ... supposing you or I raped (or murdered, or whatever) someone in one country, then fled to another, should that country shelter us? If it had been me, any developed country I can think of including my own would just ship me straight back for trial: my government makes it very clear that if I get myself arrested abroad, all they can, will and should do is ensure I have legal advice and a translator if necessary - and in my book, it would be morally as well as legally wrong for them to do any more than ensure I get a proper trial and defence.

I think this is a rather complex question.
If you are an US citizen, and commit a crime in another country and flee back to US, they will not extradite you.
Would other contries do that? Yes, some do, but some do not, depending on what they think of the laws in the country in which the crime took place. If there is a death penalty, for instance, I believe many countries, not in favour of the death penalty, do not extradite.
If the crime is something that is not a crime in your country, or if the country in question have a bad reputation, they may also not do it. For example a civil rights activist being requested extradited to a dictatorship of one sort or another.

I think you are simplifying the question rather a lot by assuming being guilt from the start. Usually you are, as you say, being extradited to a stand charge, and are therefore innnocent until proven guilty.

By suggesting child abuse you put the question with emphasis, but in truth it should not matter what the supposed crime is. Either it is ok to extradite, or it isn't.

[thir]

If you are an US citizen, and commit a crime in another country and flee back to US, they will not extradite you.

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

[thir]

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

[Thorne]

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.