Extradition within a nation

[HVS]

I've been following (here and there, rather than religiously) the
legal manoeuvres surrounding Luigi Mangione, the alleged killer of
the health-insurance CEO.

I'm aware that the US allocation of powers means that someone in one
state can be immune from prosecution for something done in an
adjacent state; that Mangione must be extradited back to the state
where the crime was committed for arraignment and trial; and that
this is more than just an administrative formality, with such
extraditions not simply a matter of rubber-stamping the hand-over
from one police force to another.

AFAIK, serious crimes in the countries that I've lived in are dealt
with at a national rather than state or provincial level, and
"extradition" is always an international process rather than an
internal or intranational one.

I've been trying to find out which countries, aside from the US,
practice meaningful internal extradition between jurisdictions within
the same country, but am having no luck. (By "meaningful" I mean
with a reasonable chance of resisting extradition.)

(My Google-fu clearly isn't working for this -- Google seems to be
absolutely convinced that I must be looking for "international"
rather than "intranational" extradition.)

Do other countries with autonomous or semi-autonomous regions or
states require extradition from one province or state to another?
Spain, Switzerland, and Germany come to mind, as (possibly) does
Quebec within Canada, and Scotland within the UK.

If so, are such extraditions a formality in those countries, or do
alleged criminals successfully argue against intranational
extradition (as in this case) to face a murder charge?

[Silvano]

Post by HVS
I've been following (here and there, rather than religiously) the
legal manoeuvres surrounding Luigi Mangione, the alleged killer of
the health-insurance CEO.
I'm aware that the US allocation of powers means that someone in one
state can be immune from prosecution for something done in an
adjacent state; that Mangione must be extradited back to the state
where the crime was committed for arraignment and trial; and that
this is more than just an administrative formality, with such
extraditions not simply a matter of rubber-stamping the hand-over
from one police force to another.
AFAIK, serious crimes in the countries that I've lived in are dealt
with at a national rather than state or provincial level, and
"extradition" is always an international process rather than an
internal or intranational one.
I've been trying to find out which countries, aside from the US,
practice meaningful internal extradition between jurisdictions within
the same country, but am having no luck. (By "meaningful" I mean
with a reasonable chance of resisting extradition.)

No idea about other countries, but my old Black's Law Dictionary
suggests looking for "interstate rendition": right of one state to
demand from asylum state surrender of a fugitive from justice from the
demanding state when the fugitive is found in the asylum state. Art. IV,
§ 2, US Const. ... Nearly all states have adopted the Uniform Criminal
Extradiction Act.

That act could be helpful for a better understanding of the situation in
the US.

Post by HVS
Do other countries with autonomous or semi-autonomous regions or
states require extradition from one province or state to another?
Spain, Switzerland, and Germany come to mind, as (possibly) does
Quebec within Canada, and Scotland within the UK.

German is a federal country, but not so much as the US. I can't say
anything about other countries.

[Peter Moylan]

Post by HVS
Do other countries with autonomous or semi-autonomous regions or
states require extradition from one province or state to another?
Spain, Switzerland, and Germany come to mind, as (possibly) does
Quebec within Canada, and Scotland within the UK.

In Australia, as in the USA, most crimes are state crimes, so an
extradition process is needed to move a prisoner between states. As I
understand it, though, this is largely a formality, and the state police
do cooperate with one another.

[Rich Ulrich]

Post by HVS
I've been following (here and there, rather than religiously) the
legal manoeuvres surrounding Luigi Mangione, the alleged killer of
the health-insurance CEO.
I'm aware that the US allocation of powers means that someone in one
state can be immune from prosecution for something done in an
adjacent state; that Mangione must be extradited back to the state
where the crime was committed for arraignment and trial; and that
this is more than just an administrative formality, with such
extraditions not simply a matter of rubber-stamping the hand-over
from one police force to another.
AFAIK, serious crimes in the countries that I've lived in are dealt
with at a national rather than state or provincial level, and
"extradition" is always an international process rather than an
internal or intranational one.

If you had asked me last week, I would have started out doubtful
about the existence of extradition between states. But then I
should have recalled that there HAVE been occasional disputes.

What comes to mind first, though, is "Who gets to prosecute" -
Who has the better evidence, for example, against a serial killer
when two states want to charge him?

I think it has also been mentioned in the context of the anti-
abortion states wanting to prosecute everyone associated with
an abortion, regardless of where they live or happen to be.

I haven't heard what reason is being argued for not
extraditing Luigi Mangione. "They have a death penalty" is one of
the international reasons, not turning someone over to a nation
which might execute them. But this article implies that this demand
is only a stall for time.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/antoniopequenoiv/2024/12/11/luigi-mangione-fights-extradition-to-new-york-heres-why-hes-challenging-move-from-pennsylvania/

Post by HVS
I've been trying to find out which countries, aside from the US,
practice meaningful internal extradition between jurisdictions within
the same country, but am having no luck. (By "meaningful" I mean
with a reasonable chance of resisting extradition.)
(My Google-fu clearly isn't working for this -- Google seems to be
absolutely convinced that I must be looking for "international"
rather than "intranational" extradition.)
Do other countries with autonomous or semi-autonomous regions or
states require extradition from one province or state to another?
Spain, Switzerland, and Germany come to mind, as (possibly) does
Quebec within Canada, and Scotland within the UK.
If so, are such extraditions a formality in those countries, or do
alleged criminals successfully argue against intranational
extradition (as in this case) to face a murder charge?

[Garrett Wollman]

Post by Rich Ulrich
If you had asked me last week, I would have started out doubtful
about the existence of extradition between states. But then I
should have recalled that there HAVE been occasional disputes.

It is normal (but not universal) for prisoners to fight extradition,
even though it is almost always a legal formality, because states can
refuse to extradite for reasons of public policy -- for example, one
state may refuse to extradite someone who is accused of a crime that
is not recognized, or is even legally protected activity, in that
state. But normally in such cases the accused would not even be
subject to arrest; they are not goiing to be held for an out-of-state
crime unless there's a strong presumption that the offense would be
extraditable.

On the other hand, someone may choose not to fight extradition as part
of a legal strategy, if they think they'll be treated by the
prosecuting state more leniently as a result of acceding to swift
extradition.

The process works differently as between a state and the federal
government, because the states and the United States are joint
sovereigns.

-GAWollman

[Tony Cooper]

On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 17:03:13 -0500, Rich Ulrich

Post by Rich Ulrich

Post by HVS
I've been following (here and there, rather than religiously) the
legal manoeuvres surrounding Luigi Mangione, the alleged killer of
the health-insurance CEO.
I'm aware that the US allocation of powers means that someone in one
state can be immune from prosecution for something done in an
adjacent state; that Mangione must be extradited back to the state
where the crime was committed for arraignment and trial; and that
this is more than just an administrative formality, with such
extraditions not simply a matter of rubber-stamping the hand-over
from one police force to another.
AFAIK, serious crimes in the countries that I've lived in are dealt
with at a national rather than state or provincial level, and
"extradition" is always an international process rather than an
internal or intranational one.

If you had asked me last week, I would have started out doubtful
about the existence of extradition between states. But then I
should have recalled that there HAVE been occasional disputes.
What comes to mind first, though, is "Who gets to prosecute" -
Who has the better evidence, for example, against a serial killer
when two states want to charge him?
I think it has also been mentioned in the context of the anti-
abortion states wanting to prosecute everyone associated with
an abortion, regardless of where they live or happen to be.
I haven't heard what reason is being argued for not
extraditing Luigi Mangione. "They have a death penalty" is one of
the international reasons, not turning someone over to a nation
which might execute them. But this article implies that this demand
is only a stall for time.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/antoniopequenoiv/2024/12/11/luigi-mangione-fights-extradition-to-new-york-heres-why-hes-challenging-move-from-pennsylvania/

A stall for time, but I have seen it said that Mangione would be held
at Rikers Island in NY, and the conditions there would be much worse
for Mangione. So, it's partially compassionate.

[Rich Ulrich]

On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 18:40:04 -0500, Tony Cooper

Post by Tony Cooper
On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 17:03:13 -0500, Rich Ulrich

Post by Rich Ulrich

Post by HVS
I've been following (here and there, rather than religiously) the
legal manoeuvres surrounding Luigi Mangione, the alleged killer of
the health-insurance CEO.
I'm aware that the US allocation of powers means that someone in one
state can be immune from prosecution for something done in an
adjacent state; that Mangione must be extradited back to the state
where the crime was committed for arraignment and trial; and that
this is more than just an administrative formality, with such
extraditions not simply a matter of rubber-stamping the hand-over
from one police force to another.
AFAIK, serious crimes in the countries that I've lived in are dealt
with at a national rather than state or provincial level, and
"extradition" is always an international process rather than an
internal or intranational one.

If you had asked me last week, I would have started out doubtful
about the existence of extradition between states. But then I
should have recalled that there HAVE been occasional disputes.
What comes to mind first, though, is "Who gets to prosecute" -
Who has the better evidence, for example, against a serial killer
when two states want to charge him?
I think it has also been mentioned in the context of the anti-
abortion states wanting to prosecute everyone associated with
an abortion, regardless of where they live or happen to be.
I haven't heard what reason is being argued for not
extraditing Luigi Mangione. "They have a death penalty" is one of
the international reasons, not turning someone over to a nation
which might execute them. But this article implies that this demand
is only a stall for time.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/antoniopequenoiv/2024/12/11/luigi-mangione-fights-extradition-to-new-york-heres-why-hes-challenging-move-from-pennsylvania/

A stall for time, but I have seen it said that Mangione would be held
at Rikers Island in NY, and the conditions there would be much worse
for Mangione. So, it's partially compassionate.

I had not heard about the relevance of Rikers.

I thought I remembered recent news... [Google]. "contempt" is
relevant because there have been previous court orders

at NBC News
Nov. 27, 2024, 3:53 PM EST / Source: The Associated Press
By The Associated Press

above-the-picture headline and lede, and start of article -
Judge finds New York City in contempt over jail conditions, moves
closer to a federal takeover

A federal judge has found New York City in contempt over conditions
in its city jails, saying the city had placed incarcerated people
in “unconstitutional danger.”

A judge on Wednesday found New York City in contempt for failing to
staunch violence and brutality at its jails, a scathing ruling that
puts the troubled Rikers Island jail complex on the verge of a federal
takeover.

[Chris Elvidge]

Post by Rich Ulrich

Post by HVS
I've been following (here and there, rather than religiously) the
legal manoeuvres surrounding Luigi Mangione, the alleged killer of
the health-insurance CEO.
I'm aware that the US allocation of powers means that someone in one
state can be immune from prosecution for something done in an
adjacent state; that Mangione must be extradited back to the state
where the crime was committed for arraignment and trial; and that
this is more than just an administrative formality, with such
extraditions not simply a matter of rubber-stamping the hand-over
from one police force to another.
AFAIK, serious crimes in the countries that I've lived in are dealt
with at a national rather than state or provincial level, and
"extradition" is always an international process rather than an
internal or intranational one.

If you had asked me last week, I would have started out doubtful
about the existence of extradition between states. But then I
should have recalled that there HAVE been occasional disputes.
What comes to mind first, though, is "Who gets to prosecute" -
Who has the better evidence, for example, against a serial killer
when two states want to charge him?

As I understand it, district attorneys are normally political - they are
voted for in an election. Successfully prosecuting a high value case
would normally result in a better chance of being re-elected.

(Please note this is from watching innumerable episodes of Law and
Order, in all its various guises, where there seems to be an extradition
debate even between Manhattan and the Bronx DAs.)

Post by Rich Ulrich
I think it has also been mentioned in the context of the anti-
abortion states wanting to prosecute everyone associated with
an abortion, regardless of where they live or happen to be.
I haven't heard what reason is being argued for not
extraditing Luigi Mangione. "They have a death penalty" is one of
the international reasons, not turning someone over to a nation
which might execute them. But this article implies that this demand
is only a stall for time.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/antoniopequenoiv/2024/12/11/luigi-mangione-fights-extradition-to-new-york-heres-why-hes-challenging-move-from-pennsylvania/

Post by HVS
I've been trying to find out which countries, aside from the US,
practice meaningful internal extradition between jurisdictions within
the same country, but am having no luck. (By "meaningful" I mean
with a reasonable chance of resisting extradition.)
(My Google-fu clearly isn't working for this -- Google seems to be
absolutely convinced that I must be looking for "international"
rather than "intranational" extradition.)
Do other countries with autonomous or semi-autonomous regions or
states require extradition from one province or state to another?
Spain, Switzerland, and Germany come to mind, as (possibly) does
Quebec within Canada, and Scotland within the UK.
If so, are such extraditions a formality in those countries, or do
alleged criminals successfully argue against intranational
extradition (as in this case) to face a murder charge?

[Garrett Wollman]

Post by Chris Elvidge
As I understand it, district attorneys are normally political - they are
voted for in an election. Successfully prosecuting a high value case
would normally result in a better chance of being re-elected.

The DA is the head prosecutor in the judicial district, and is usually
an elected position, but still subject to the direction of the
attorney general, also normally an elected position but statewide.
(The equivalent in the federal system are US Attorneys and the
attorney general of the US, who are political appointees, nominated by
the president with the advice and consent of the senate.) The DA sets
policies and priorities for the prosecutions done in their district,
but the actual work of prosecuting cases is normally done by career
attorneys in the DA's office. These staffers are generally civil
servants, although sometimes they may bring in outside legal
consultants who specialize[1] in a certain area of the law.

The political part of it is that a DA's choices about who to
prosecute, when, and how, and what they say publicly about crime
(whether it's true or not) matter much more to their reelection
chances than whether they actually succeed in their prosecutions.
Most criminal cases today end in a plea bargain and do not go to
trial.

-GAWollman

[1] Rules vary from state to state, but while lawyers are as a matter
of practice allowed to specialize, they are generally not allowed, by
the rules of the bar, to *claim* to be specialists, because there is
no examination board for legal specialties. As a practical matter,
all lawyers specialize while they're still in law school, but they all
take the same bar exam.

[Rich Ulrich]

On Fri, 13 Dec 2024 16:21:13 -0000 (UTC),

Post by Garrett Wollman

Post by Chris Elvidge
As I understand it, district attorneys are normally political - they are
voted for in an election. Successfully prosecuting a high value case
would normally result in a better chance of being re-elected.

The DA is the head prosecutor in the judicial district, and is usually
an elected position, but still subject to the direction of the
attorney general, also normally an elected position but statewide.
(The equivalent in the federal system are US Attorneys and the
attorney general of the US, who are political appointees, nominated by
the president with the advice and consent of the senate.) The DA sets
policies and priorities for the prosecutions done in their district,
but the actual work of prosecuting cases is normally done by career
attorneys in the DA's office. These staffers are generally civil
servants, although sometimes they may bring in outside legal
consultants who specialize[1] in a certain area of the law.
The political part of it is that a DA's choices about who to
prosecute, when, and how, and what they say publicly about crime
(whether it's true or not) matter much more to their reelection
chances than whether they actually succeed in their prosecutions.
Most criminal cases today end in a plea bargain and do not go to
trial.
-GAWollman
[1] Rules vary from state to state, but while lawyers are as a matter
of practice allowed to specialize, they are generally not allowed, by
the rules of the bar, to *claim* to be specialists, because there is
no examination board for legal specialties. As a practical matter,
all lawyers specialize while they're still in law school, but they all
take the same bar exam.

I guess, whom the press calls "a constitutional lawyer" must have
taught classes, written books, or argued relevant cases.

"all take the same bar exam" is true in one state, but not totally
true across states. I did not know this until 15 minutes ago, but
since 2011, there is a Universal Bar Exam used by 39 states (2023),
DC, and the Virgin Islands. The other states still use their own
exams; California's has the lowest pass rate ("toughest") AND
Ca. is also one of the four states that allow you to take the test
without formal legal training. [Logically, I imagine the case that
failing the test is high because of a bunch of non-lawyers try
it, but I bet that is not the case.]

Oh - Utah has the highest pass rate on UBE (94% for first try),
which is most easily explained as a consequence of their using
the lowest cutoff score for saying who passes. Same test,
various cutoffs.

[occam]

Post by HVS
(My Google-fu clearly isn't working for this -- Google seems to be
absolutely convinced that I must be looking for "international"
rather than "intranational" extradition.)

The trick is not to be too clever or erudite with Google. It is designed
to cater to people who can hardly spell, let alone know 'intra-national'.

'Extradition in Australia' yields:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_law_in_Australia


(P.S: I see that Peter M. has already pointed this out.)

[Hibou]

Post by HVS
I've been following (here and there, rather than religiously) the
legal manoeuvres surrounding Luigi Mangione, the alleged killer of
the health-insurance CEO.
I'm aware that the US allocation of powers means that someone in one
state can be immune from prosecution for something done in an
adjacent state; that Mangione must be extradited back to the state
where the crime was committed for arraignment and trial; and that
this is more than just an administrative formality, with such
extraditions not simply a matter of rubber-stamping the hand-over
from one police force to another.
AFAIK, serious crimes in the countries that I've lived in are dealt
with at a national rather than state or provincial level, and
"extradition" is always an international process rather than an
internal or intranational one. [...]

Within a country, it should perhaps be 'intradition'.

[Snidely]

On Friday or thereabouts, Hibou asked ...

Post by Hibou

Post by HVS
I've been following (here and there, rather than religiously) the
legal manoeuvres surrounding Luigi Mangione, the alleged killer of
the health-insurance CEO.
I'm aware that the US allocation of powers means that someone in one
state can be immune from prosecution for something done in an
adjacent state; that Mangione must be extradited back to the state
where the crime was committed for arraignment and trial; and that
this is more than just an administrative formality, with such
extraditions not simply a matter of rubber-stamping the hand-over
from one police force to another.
AFAIK, serious crimes in the countries that I've lived in are dealt
with at a national rather than state or provincial level, and
"extradition" is always an international process rather than an
internal or intranational one. [...]

Within a country, it should perhaps be 'intradition'.

Within the UK, what process is used between Scotland and England?

/dps

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Snidely
On Friday or thereabouts, Hibou asked ...

Post by Hibou

Post by HVS
I've been following (here and there, rather than religiously) the
legal manoeuvres surrounding Luigi Mangione, the alleged killer of
the health-insurance CEO.
I'm aware that the US allocation of powers means that someone in one
state can be immune from prosecution for something done in an
adjacent state; that Mangione must be extradited back to the state
where the crime was committed for arraignment and trial; and that
this is more than just an administrative formality, with such
extraditions not simply a matter of rubber-stamping the hand-over
from one police force to another.
AFAIK, serious crimes in the countries that I've lived in are dealt
with at a national rather than state or provincial level, and
"extradition" is always an international process rather than an
internal or intranational one. [...]

Within a country, it should perhaps be 'intradition'.

Within the UK, what process is used between Scotland and England?

Full answer: I don't know.

Speculative answer: It may not be as simple as one would guess, as
England and Scotland have different legal systems and the laws are not
the same. The most obvious difference is that whereas England just has
guilty and not guilty, Scotland also has not proven.

[charles]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Snidely
On Friday or thereabouts, Hibou asked ...

Post by Hibou

Post by HVS
I've been following (here and there, rather than religiously) the
legal manoeuvres surrounding Luigi Mangione, the alleged killer of
the health-insurance CEO.
I'm aware that the US allocation of powers means that someone in one
state can be immune from prosecution for something done in an
adjacent state; that Mangione must be extradited back to the state
where the crime was committed for arraignment and trial; and that
this is more than just an administrative formality, with such
extraditions not simply a matter of rubber-stamping the hand-over
from one police force to another.
AFAIK, serious crimes in the countries that I've lived in are dealt
with at a national rather than state or provincial level, and
"extradition" is always an international process rather than an
internal or intranational one. [...]

Within a country, it should perhaps be 'intradition'.

Within the UK, what process is used between Scotland and England?

Full answer: I don't know.
Speculative answer: It may not be as simple as one would guess, as
England and Scotland have different legal systems and the laws are not
the same. The most obvious difference is that whereas England just has
guilty and not guilty, Scotland also has not proven.

Sometimes has juries of 15, and had female jurors long before England.

[occam]

Post by Snidely
On Friday or thereabouts, Hibou asked ...

Post by Hibou

Post by HVS
I've been following (here and there, rather than religiously) the
legal manoeuvres surrounding Luigi Mangione, the alleged killer of
the health-insurance CEO.
I'm aware that the US allocation of powers means that someone in one
state can be immune from prosecution for something done in an
adjacent state;  that Mangione must be extradited back to the state
where the crime was committed for arraignment and trial;  and that
this is more than just an administrative formality, with such
extraditions not simply a matter of rubber-stamping the hand-over
from one police force to another.
AFAIK, serious crimes in the countries that I've lived in are dealt
with at a national rather than state or provincial level, and
"extradition" is always an international process rather than an
internal or intranational one. [...]

Within a country, it should perhaps be 'intradition'.

Within the UK, what process is used between Scotland and England?

If he is wearing a kilt, we send him back.

[Hibou]

Post by Snidely
On Friday or thereabouts, Hibou asked ...

Post by Hibou

Post by HVS
I've been following (here and there, rather than religiously) the
legal manoeuvres surrounding Luigi Mangione, the alleged killer of
the health-insurance CEO.
I'm aware that the US allocation of powers means that someone in one
state can be immune from prosecution for something done in an
adjacent state;  that Mangione must be extradited back to the state
where the crime was committed for arraignment and trial;  and that
this is more than just an administrative formality, with such
extraditions not simply a matter of rubber-stamping the hand-over
from one police force to another.
AFAIK, serious crimes in the countries that I've lived in are dealt
with at a national rather than state or provincial level, and
"extradition" is always an international process rather than an
internal or intranational one. [...]

Within a country, it should perhaps be 'intradition'.

Within the UK, what process is used between Scotland and England?

It's not extradition, just arrest (we live in a United Kingdom):

"A warrant issued in England, Wales or Northern Ireland for the arrest
of a person charged with an offence may (without any endorsement) be
executed in Scotland by any constable of any police force of the country
of issue or of the country of execution [...]" etc. etc. -
<https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/33/part/X>

[Mark Brader]

Post by HVS
Do other countries with autonomous or semi-autonomous regions or
states require extradition from one province or state to another?
Spain, Switzerland, and Germany come to mind, as (possibly) does
Quebec within Canada...

In Canada the Criminal Code is a federal law, and it specifies
in subsection 543(1):

# If an accused is charged with an offence alleged to have been
# committed out of the limits of the jurisdiction in which they have
# been charged, the justice before whom they appear or are brought
# may, at any stage of the inquiry after hearing both parties, order
# the accused to appear or, if the accused is in custody, issue a
# warrant in Form 15 to convey the accused before a justice who,
# having jurisdiction in the place where the offence is alleged to
# have been committed, shall continue and complete the inquiry.