Some comments on the blog reference this story.
On one level it does seem odd that we will not extradite unless we get assurances regarding the death penalty while refusing to argue against the death penalty for Canadians abroad.
I suppose it's the difference between an act of commission -- sending someone to their death -- and omission -- ignoring them in their plight (albeit self caused).
Perhaps more pragmatically, the Courts have ruled in extradition matters and not in foreign death penalty cases.
Manhunt continues for Calgary man
UPDATE: It's possible Jenkins made a run for the border to avoid the prospect of california's death penalty.
Local defence lawyer Mark Jette says a previous Supreme Court of Canada decision prevents the Federal Government from extraditing Canadian citizens to the United States in cases where they could face capital punishment. "The minister of justice would have to seek assurances from the prosecuting forces in California that if convicted they would not seek the death penalty, and if the American's agreed with that then they would be bound by it, so they would take Jenkins to prosecute him on that condition."
Jette was speaking on sister station in Vancouver.
Ryan Jenkins, who is still believed to be on the run anywhere between Vancouver and Calgary, faces a maximum sentence of 25 years to life in state prison if convicted.
Without the threat of a death penalty, Canada will probably not block any extradition request to return Jenkins to California to stand trial.
James Morton
1100-5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
416 225 2777
8 comments:
I expect it's a matter of political and legal expediency as much as anything. Foreign affairs - including consular rights - is an area where governments traditionally rule with no legislative and very little judicial oversight. The victims are overseas, far away from Canadian courts (and Canadian lawyers), and there's tremendous potential for abuse.
Whereas if someone's already in Canada and is going to be forced out of the country, the use of the Canadian court system is pretty much automatic. And the courts have proven to be a lot more concerned about human rights than the Department of Foreign Affairs in recent years.
Of course, you've probably already come to pretty much the same conclusion yourself, but I wanted to get that off my chest.
"On one level it does seem odd that we will not extradite unless we get assurances regarding the death penalty while refusing to argue against the death penalty for Canadians abroad."
I am not sure I understand this.
We do not extradite because teh SCC said we may not extradite.
The courts have also said we have to argue against the death penalty for Candians abroad.
So why do you think there is a policy difference here? The only reason the government does what it does in these cases is because the courts force them to do it.
This guy will get death anyway.
There is no way a pussy Canadian pretty boy wife beating, finger choppin', teeth extracting psychopath will be allowed to enjoy prison in San Quentin.
Don't be surprised if this guy offs himself or already has.
Going to prison in Canada is better than being in Gitmo.
Gitmo terrorists have said that they would rather stay in Cuba than go home To Allah.
Figure that out.
..... I hope that Canadian killer gets his........
Your update is a little confusing, does he or doesn't he face the possibility of the death penalty?
Mr. Morton, have you ever heard of anyone in Canada, convicted of murder--other than Colin Thatcher, who was granted parole, while to this day, maintaining their innocence? Thankyou. LK
Mr. Morton, have you ever heard of anyone in Canada, convicted of murder--other than Colin Thatcher, who was granted parole, while to this day, maintaining their innocence? Thankyou. LK
Acually yes, look at Truscott -- he always said he didn't do it.
Was new evidence introduced? I'm trying to understand; I thought a prerequisite for parole was to accept responsibility. Thankyou. LK
Post a Comment