Please excuse the question. This is a very complex issue and i couldn’t figure out a way to ask a meaningful question in one-hundred and fifty characters. Watch the videos and or read the article, then leave your two cents in the comments section below.
I think this is a criminally slippery slope. No state has jurisdiction over other states. This is one of the few good reasons that we give the federal government the authority that they have. The accused in this case has never even been to New York, until his extradition was enforced. If he hasn’t violated Florida or federal law, NY has no authority here. Unfortunately, this guy is going to have to take his case to the supreme court for justice. NY has a recent track record for ignoring and outright violating the US Constitution as well as SCOTUS decisions, particularly where the second amendment is concerned. What are your thoughts and feelings on this matter?
Updates
6 mo
Society and politics
Should any state be able to extradite a resident of another state for criminal prosecution if the suspect has never even been to the charging state?
I can see your concerns as it is an attempt to enforce laws outside of the jurisdiction they apply to.
We also have states and the power to extradite is an important one as a murderer, for example, could just go to another state and never suffer any penalty. Not easy to resolve I suspect.
Totally different issue. The accused in this case has NEVER been to NY. He can’t possibly have gone there to commit crimes and then escaped before being caught.
Oh I see that quite clearly. The point I was making is extradition power is necessary. It is pretty offensive over reach in this case I agree and is clearly an attempt to extend one state's law universally. In principal it is also like a country extending it's law to people in other countries.
I am not sure it is easy to draw a clear distinction. If a person, a foot over a state border, conspired in a murder in the next state?
It is an interesting question you have raised and whilst I agree with you, I think it might be difficult to find a distinguishing rule. I have no idea of course. It seems very novel - as in new - and clearly offensive.
11.9K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
No. If I haven't been to texas but did something against texas law, why the fuck should I be jailed for that? And if a texas guy shoots a home invader, why should he be jailed because california might make that illegal? It's fucking retarded.
This depends on the nature of the crime. Indeed, about a month ago, I hot into a long legal discussion with Google Gemini over jurisdiction and extradition. In short, what I asserted basically summarizes what the machine said.
To my knowledge there is no precedence for states unilaterally imposing their laws on citizens of other states. Allowing this, particularly in the current sociopolitical climate will create an absolute disaster of judicial retribution between states. Which in turn will almost certainly spark a civil war.
"To my knowledge there is no precedence for states unilaterally imposing their laws on citizens of other states."
Sure, it happens all the time. That's what extradition is about...
If Bob (allegedly) commits a crime in the state of East Bumfuk while he was traveling through to get home to his home state of Pennsyltucky, once East Bumfuk charges Bob with that crime, they will ask for his extradition from Pennsyltucky. And, generally, they will get it.
In fact, this is the "Extradition Clause" in the US Constitution (Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2): "No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."
Now, if you want to talk about other examples, like, say, Doctor Smith in East Bumfuk provides abortion pills to Mary Jones, a woman in Pennsyltucky where abortion is criminalized, that's a different sort of jurisdictional question and even is a question of constitutionality. From Pennsyltucky's perspective, Mary taking those pills may be a Pennsyltucky crime. As for Doctor Smith mailing them to her, that I am not so sure. The reason is that this is an example of "interstate commerce" and laws governing interstate commerce are strictly only under Congress's authority under the Commerce Clause in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3: "The Congress shall have power... [t]o regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;"
In such a case, if Pennsyltucky sought Dr. Smith's extradition from East Bumfuk, they might not get it (right away). The East Bumfuk Governor and/or Attorney General might consider the part of Pennsyltucky's abortion laws might be unconstitutionally broad regarding the situation involving Dr. Smith or any other doctor providing abortion pills over state lines. This would then likely end up in Federal District Court likely in whatever district the capital of the state of Pennsyltucky is in. Then it would likely escalate to the Court of Appeals for the ____th Circuit (the circuit Pennsyltucky is in) and then the US Supreme Court.
In which case it becomes a FEDERAL crime. To my knowledge there is absolutely no historical precedent allowing states to unilaterally impose their laws on citizens of another state entirely.
Home > Society & Politics > Questions > Should any state be able to extradite a resident of another state for criminal prosecution if the suspect has never even been to the charging state?
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
