This was written with the case of Charles ENG in mind.
© circa 1995, R. W.C. Stevens
Why should a country, into which a possible felon has escaped, be burdened with the expenses of legal proceedings to decide if the person in question is likely or not guilty and deserving of punishment? The intent of the law is to ensure humanitarian treatment of those who would not receive such were they to be found guilty in the country whence they escaped. This may be good, but as implemented it imposes excessive financial burden on the receiving country.
I propose that the country wanting to prosecute an accused be allowed access to the accused for the purposes of a trial. If the person is then found innocent, the country into which the accused fled is saved all great expenses. If the person is found guilty − then the country into which the accused fled should have the option of receiving the deemed criminal back to receive the ‘more humane’ treatment deemed appropriate.
In view of the circumstances of the accused Charles ENG, I wonder whether or not Canada would have been saved even more than extradition costs. I ask, “If, on seeing the evidence supported in the trial, would the return to Canada would have been favoured by the populace?”
Other vocalism comments are indexed here.
Permission to redistribute this copyrighted article may be easy to obtain.
|Robert’s Home Page||The latest version of this page may be accessed at
|Pleased To Be Of Service, RwcS.||