NCJ Number
72312
Journal
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume: 71 Issue: 3 Dated: (Fall 1980) Pages: 193-210
Date Published
1980
Length
18 pages
Annotation
This article explores the American judiciary's procedural and substantive role in extradition proceedings as a framework for developing an approach to the political offense exemption within the fundamental principles of individual liberty and human rights.
Abstract
In an area that concerns American foreign policy as deeply as does extradition, it is imperative that the judiciary develop a uniform approach to the application of the political offense exemption. The political offense exemption is found in virtually every modern treaty of extradition and its application calls for findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning crimes, events, and political situations halfway around the world. At present, the role of the American judiciary in the extradition process is mainly preliminary. The courts do not pass upon guilt or innocence, nor do they actually order extradition. Instead, the judicial officer ensures that the defendant is afforded basic due process before the Secretary of State makes the ultimate decision on extradition. Recognition of this limited judicial role contributes to the limited judicial development of procedural law in this area. However, concerning the political offense exception, the courts may actually make the final determination. A judge's decision that a crime falls within the exception may not be reviewed. Although courts have developed a workable interpretation of the political offense exception, no consistent procedural approach has emerged. Congress could provide such an interpretation by enacting new legislation which defines the meaning of political offense and provides a detailed procedural guide for raising the exception thereby promoting American foreign policy and the international right of political dissent. A total of 180 footnotes accompany the report. (Author abstract modified)