Simone Lawson
The U.S. Constitution ensures that fugitives cannot escape prosecution through Article IV, Section 2, which mandates that states must extradite fugitives to ensure they face justice. This provision was passed by Congress shortly after the Constitution was adopted, and it imposes a duty on the governor of each state to surrender fugitives from justice found in their state. The Supreme Court has historically upheld this requirement, with some exceptions, such as in the 1861 case of Kentucky v. Dennison, where it ruled that states had the discretion to refuse extradition in certain circumstances. However, in 1987, the Court revisited this issue and determined that state governors do not have the discretion to refuse extradition, emphasizing the importance of judicial oversight. The process of returning fugitives to the state where the crime was committed is known as extradition and is enforced by the courts. Fugitives can be tried for offenses other than those for which they were surrendered, except in cases where they are surrendered by a foreign government.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Extradition | The second state is obligated to return the fugitive to the state where the crime was committed. Fugitives can be surrendered to a third state upon an extradition warrant. |
| No discrimination against out-of-state citizens | States must give people from other states the same fundamental rights it gives its own citizens. |
| No exemption from trial and punishment | There is nothing in the Constitution that exempts an offender, brought before the courts of a state for an offense against its laws, from trial and punishment. |
| No right to be heard | The person demanded has no constitutional right to be heard before the governor of the state in which they are found. |
| No interference by habeas corpus | The constitutionally required surrender is not to be interfered with by habeas corpus upon speculations as to what ought to be the result of a trial. |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
- The US Constitution mandates extradition of fugitives to ensure they face justice
- Fugitives from justice are those who evade legal processes by fleeing jurisdictions
- The motive for departure is immaterial
- A defendant cannot be extradited if they were only constructively present in the demanding state
- The duty to surrender is not absolute
The US Constitution mandates extradition of fugitives to ensure they face justice
The US Constitution, in Article IV, Section 2, mandates the extradition of fugitives from one state to another to ensure they face justice. This provision was created to prevent fugitives from escaping prosecution by fleeing to another state. The Constitution requires the second state to return the fugitive to the state where the crime was committed, ensuring they can be tried and punished for their crimes.
The process of returning fugitives, known as extradition, was originally enforced by the governors of each state. However, the Supreme Court held that this statute imposed only a moral duty, and that the Federal Government lacked the power to compel state officers to perform their duties. This decision allowed state governors to protect certain fugitives, particularly in cases involving politically sensitive matters.
In 1987, the Supreme Court revisited this issue and overturned the precedent, emphasising the importance of judicial oversight. It determined that state governors do not have the discretion to refuse extradition. This change ensured that fugitives could not evade legal processes by crossing state lines.
It is important to note that the motive behind a fugitive's departure from the state where the crime was committed is immaterial. Additionally, a fugitive does not need to have been charged with a crime in the first state to be captured and returned to that state. However, a defendant cannot be extradited if they were only constructively present in the demanding state at the time of the crime.
The extradition of fugitives is considered vital to maintaining justice. The US Constitution and its amendments provide protections to ensure that individuals are not subjected to overly zealous prosecutions or double jeopardy. These protections aim to safeguard the rights of the accused while also ensuring that justice is served.
Citing Foreign Law: Constitution Edition
You may want to see also
Fugitives from justice are those who evade legal processes by fleeing jurisdictions
Fugitives from justice are individuals who evade legal processes by fleeing the jurisdiction in which they are charged with a crime. The U.S. Constitution, through Article IV, Section 2, mandates that states must extradite fugitives to ensure they face justice. This provision was not self-executing, so Congress passed a law imposing on the governor of each state the duty to deliver up fugitives from justice found in their state. The Supreme Court accepted this legislation, establishing the validity of the duty to surrender fugitives.
However, this duty is not absolute. If the fugitive has fled to a state where they are imprisoned and face charges, the laws of that state must be satisfied before extradition. This was demonstrated in the case of Kentucky v. Dennison, where the Court held that the Federal Government could not compel a state officer to perform a duty. As a result, a federal court could not issue a mandamus to force the governor of Ohio to extradite a fugitive.
In 1987, the Supreme Court revisited this issue in Puerto Rico v. Branstad, overturning the precedent set by Dennison. The Court determined that state governors do not have the discretion to refuse extradition, emphasising the importance of judicial oversight. This shift in stance highlights the Court's recognition of the importance of ensuring fugitives face justice.
The process of returning fugitives, known as extradition, was originally enforced by state governors but is now enforced by courts. Fugitives do not need to have been charged in the first state to be returned and can be tried for offences other than those for which they were surrendered. However, when a foreign country returns a fugitive, the state can only try them on the charges named in the extradition papers.
In conclusion, the U.S. Constitution and the Supreme Court aim to ensure that fugitives from justice cannot escape prosecution by mandating extradition and establishing the validity of the duty to surrender fugitives, while also providing checks and balances through judicial oversight.
Russia's Constitutional Court: Selecting Judges
You may want to see also
The motive for departure is immaterial
The U.S. Constitution ensures that fugitives cannot escape prosecution through Article IV, Section 2, which mandates that states must extradite fugitives to ensure they face justice. This provision was passed into law shortly after the Constitution was adopted, imposing a duty on the governor of each state to surrender fugitives from justice found in their state.
The Supreme Court has historically upheld this requirement, with some variation in cases such as Kentucky v. Dennison (1861), where it ruled that states had the discretion to refuse extradition, particularly in politically sensitive matters. However, in 1987, the Court revisited this issue in Puerto Rico v. Branstad, overturning the precedent set by Dennison and re-emphasizing the importance of judicial oversight in extradition matters.
It is important to note that the duty to surrender is not absolute and unqualified. The laws of the state to which the fugitive has fled may take precedence, and if the fugitive is imprisoned there, those laws must be satisfied before extradition. Additionally, a defendant cannot be extradited if they were only constructively present in the demanding state at the time of the crime's commission.
In conclusion, the U.S. Constitution's Article IV, Section 2, and relevant case law ensure that fugitives cannot escape prosecution, regardless of their motive for departure, by mandating extradition and outlining the relevant procedures and limitations.
Celebrating the Constitution: Fourth of July's True Meaning
You may want to see also
Explore related products
A defendant cannot be extradited if they were only constructively present in the demanding state
The Extradition Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article IV Section 2) outlines the requirements for extradition. It states that a person charged with a crime in one state who is found in another state shall be delivered up to the state with jurisdiction over the crime.
However, there are limitations to this process. One such limitation is that a defendant cannot be extradited if they were only constructively present in the demanding state at the time of the crime. This means that if a person is accused of a crime in State A but was only "constructively present" there—for example, if they were involved in a crime committed by others in that state but were not physically present—they cannot be extradited from State B to face prosecution in State A.
This is an important protection for defendants, as it ensures that they cannot be forcibly removed from a state and prosecuted in another state for a crime they are accused of committing while not physically present. This defence has been recognised by the Supreme Court, which has outlined other defences to extradition, such as questioning whether the extradition request documents are in order.
The extradition process is governed by federal law, specifically the Extradition Act of 1981, and the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), which most states have adopted. The process can be complex and confusing, and it is recommended that individuals facing extradition seek the advice of an experienced lawyer to protect their rights.
It is worth noting that the rules regarding extradition can differ when dealing with fugitives surrendered by a foreign government pursuant to a treaty. In such cases, the offender may only be tried for the offence for which they were extradited and must be given a reasonable opportunity to return to the country from which they were extradited.
The Police Oath: Protecting the Constitution and the People
You may want to see also
The duty to surrender is not absolute
The duty to surrender a fugitive from justice is not absolute and unqualified. This is because if the laws of the state to which the fugitive has fled have been enforced against them, and they are imprisoned there, the demands of those laws must be satisfied before the duty of obedience to the requisition arises.
In Kentucky v. Dennison, the Court held that the statute was merely declaratory of a moral duty. This means that the Federal Government has no power to impose on a State officer any duty and compel them to perform it. Consequently, a federal court could not issue a mandamus to compel the governor of one State to surrender a fugitive to another.
In 1987, Dennison was formally overruled. Now, states and territories may invoke the power of federal courts to enforce against state officers this and other rights created by federal statute, including equitable relief to compel performance of federally imposed duties.
A person is considered a fugitive from justice if they have been charged with a crime in one state and are found in another. The motive for their departure is immaterial. A fugitive may be surrendered to a third state upon an extradition warrant, even if they were brought involuntarily into the state where they were found.
A defendant cannot be extradited if they were only constructively present in the demanding state at the time of the crime charged.
Judicial Review: Pre-Constitution Existence and Influence
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Fugitives from justice are individuals who evade legal processes by fleeing from the jurisdiction in which they are charged with a crime.
Article IV, Section 2, of the US Constitution requires the extradition of fugitives to ensure they face justice. The second state is obligated to return the fugitive to the state where the crime was committed.
The US Constitution mandates that states must extradite fugitives to ensure they face justice. The Supreme Court historically upheld this requirement until the 1861 case of Kentucky v. Dennison, where it ruled that states had the discretion to refuse extradition. However, in 1987, the Supreme Court revisited this issue in Puerto Rico v. Branstad, overturning the precedent set by Dennison. The Court determined that state governors do not have the discretion to refuse extradition, emphasizing the importance of judicial oversight in such matters.
