h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Ok, so, the question is, you have a fairly disagreeable naturalised citizen of your country... He's been accused of some pretty serious crimes in your country - has been investigated several times by the police in depth - and they've never been able to bring him up on charges...

He frequently says some pretty distasteful things in public.

He has now been accused of terrorism by a foreign country, who have shown in the past that they are not above the abuse of someone's human rights when dealing with foreigners accused of the same offense (indefinite incarceration without trial or access to legal representation, etc...).

The question is... You'd really quite like to see the back of him, but do you deport him under these conditions?

if you are close enough politicaly to you then push for the evidence and see if it would prosecute through your own courts before you decide.

i mean if country a is close enough to country b for that level of diplomacy

Well, what if the police of your country had already investigated one of the reasons and found there to be no evidence.

And if you don't trust the intelligence used by the other country to gather the evidence?






(Sorry, I'm off home now, I'll probably check in at some time over the weekend - hopefully this thread might have taken off by then)

No, the person shouldn't be 'deported' or whatever it would be called.

Something the current UK home Sec doesn't realise, is that no matter how much you think someone is guilty of a crime, if there isn't evidence to prosicute, or to secure a prosicution, then that person is not guily of the crime, no matter how much, you think he or she might have comitted the crime, when there is insufficient evidence to get them found guilty for the crime they are innocent. However, we now ignore that idea of 'innocent till proven guilty' in the UK, when it suits the government, if they don't like you, think you might* have comitted a crime they'l just send you to jail and throw away the key with no need for all that messy trial buinsness.... It feels great living in a modern democracy.

2legs, you're talking about something else.
Deportation is pretty much at the discretion of the government, but extradition is a judicial matter, and the government can only stop it, they can't ensure it happens. In broad terms, to be extradited a judge has to be convinced that:
a) there is a case to answer (ie there has to be prima facie evidence of a crime)
b) the accused will recieve a fair trial and have their human rights respected
c) the alleged crime has to be one recognized in the country being extradited from

Obviously this doesn't necessarily guarantee that the extradition process is fair, but I think at least the principles are those of a fair system.

easy...deport him to a neutral third country.







Israel perhaps.



alec.