Should this guy be extradited?

[R1Geezer]

No one seems to be doubting the guilt:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8615485.stm
So clearly it's an argumanet about sentencing.

[Oneeyedvic]

It does seem weird that there are no comments about his guilt at all, which does imply that he is guilty.

I think with all extradition cases, we need to look at the evidence provided and look at whether or not it will be a fair trial.

[Zeuhl]

There should be two guiding principles:

1. will the UK citizen get a fair trial? Not always the case in the US

e.g. the British woman fighting execution in Texas at the moment who received a questionable defence from an attorney who met her once pre-trial for 15 minutes.

2. will the sentence comply with British values and beliefs

e.g. extradition to Saudi for adultery and a possible stoning to death or to US and a possible death sentence.

[craft1948]

I read about that poor lady Zeuhl, and could not understand on what basis her appeals had been turned down.

[Davethedog]

I don't see the conflict here. If hes guilty who cares if he dies?

Seriously she has parents relatives and what happens to this guy if he stays here? Nothing? If we are prepared to lock him up for the rest of his life don't extradite, but hes obviously vermin.

[jackthehat]

If the American justice system believes that it has sufficient evidence to bring a prosecution for murder against this man, then he should be extradited to USA. The offence (if indeed there was such) was committed on American soil and the victim and her family deserve to have their questions answered in a court of law.

If Mr Bebb-Jones is innocent he deserves to prove that in open court.

[Zeuhl]

Dave

glad you've been able to access all the evidence and come to a carefully considered judgement.

So what do you think of all cases where people in this country (and even more in the US) were wrongly convicted of murder?

[R1Geezer]

My only doubt is the potential for a fair trial, couldn't give a rats ar5se what the sentence is if he's guilty. There doesn't seem to be any indication he's claiming innocence.

[Zeuhl]

///The offence (if indeed there was such) was committed on American soil ///

so jack, if the offence was committed on Saudi soil, and there were assurances of a fair trial, would you be ok with extradition to Saudi and a public beheading of a fellow Brit?

[jackthehat]

I think trials in ANY country carry the risk of being flawed.
I'm not sure we can claim any moral high-ground and only choose to send suspects to countries which match our high (?) standards of judicial procedure.

[jackthehat]

Whilst it fits, my last answer wasn't actually in answer to your question, Zeuhl.

I agree with your sentiments about Saudi, etc., and would probably feel a little different if he were being extradited there.

However, this is specifically an issue about a possible offence being committed in USA, and so my comment stands.

[Zeuhl]

//couldn't give a rats ar5se what the sentence is if he's guilty//

Geezer, can't believe you have no principles or beliefs in this area. You really don't care? whatever the sentence? two month's probation? hanged-drawn-and- quartered? $100 fine? crucifiction?

I think it's useful to set some kind of standard for sentencing.

[Zeuhl]

jack

whilst our system is flawed (hence much of our reluctance to kill people) the evidence of wrongful convictions, dodgy deals, the politicisation of the legal system and wrongful executions in the USA is very troubling.

[jackthehat]

I wouldn't disagree, Zeuhl.
There are a whole series of troubling cases from USA involving 'foreigners'. However, I don't think it reasonable to deprive the family of an 'outcome' and choose not to go forwards in this matter because we have a sneaking suspicion that the American system does not stand up to our subjective scrutiny...........

[McMouse]

Blair signed up to an extradition treaty with US which is not reciprocated in all details. As usual Blair was licking Dubya's a*se.

[Zeuhl]

I agree jack.

I don't think it would unreasonable for extradition provided the treatment of the accused/convicted complies with standards Britain would be comfortable with.

[Davethedog]

Zeuhl - no I don't have the facts but he isn't denying guilt that I can see.

So your saying that the man that the US is guilty of murder or at least should stand trial for murder shouldn't be extradited therefore he should be tried at all.

So your therefore advocating, because you DO have all the facts at your fingertips, he should get away with murder.

[R1Geezer]

If you go to a foriegn nation and break their laws then you must expect to be dealt with under their system. Not hard is it? I don't necessarily agree with all the punishements in all the nations but I do accept they have a right to deal with their own affiars.

[Davethedog]

R1 for once I agree with you.

Its comparable to people in, for instance, Thailand being done for two kilos of cocaine then when the go down for 20 years they scream they are innocent, duped etc and out come the liberals saying how bad conditions are, they never had a fair trial.

[Zeuhl]

dave

i think my existing posts adequately correct your erroneous assumptions of my view on whether he should be extradited or not.

Your reference to people caught in Thailand is clearly irrelevant to the question as the issue is extradition. And no, I don't think we should surrender a British citizen to the questionable standards of the Thai judicial and penal systems.

[jake-the-peg]

I don't see what the big deal is

These sort of cases come up all the time. The US gives an undertaking that they accused will not face the death penalty and the extradition goes ahead.

This doesn't seem a particularly special case - Not like the Polanski one where there are accusations of dubious plea bargains gone back on or regarding a crime that is not an offense in the UK.

Although I do despair when Geezer writes things like "No one is doubting the guilt" both the UK and the US do support the notion of presumed innocence even if he doesn't