Double jeopardy should be unless new evidence works against the last conviction. Well, your practically US anyway...........so do what your boss says.

BLUE

Cogent and rational posts from:

David f
Fester
Otokonoko

Seeing contributors like you are still posting on OLO gives me hope.

It is curious that the extradition of Watson is being sought not only on a charge of murder, but on one of kidnapping as well. For all that the murder of his wife in the circumstances alleged constituted a most monstrous betrayal, kidnap was very clearly in no way part of what happened. Surely the Australian government, in an extradition hearing, should be demanding to see any evidence upon which such a charge could possibly have been based.

If, as I suspect, there is no basis to argue kidnap as defined under Australian law (in which jurisdiction its presumably alleged to have occurred) to have been involved, then the sincerity with which the associated charge of murder that has now been laid by the State of Alabama is also called into question.

The alleged murder occurred in the State of Queensland. The circumstances of the death of Mrs Watson have been the subject of a coronial inquest in that State. Subsequently, the Queensland DPP decided that a conviction for murder was unlikely to be obtained on the evidence available, so no such charge was laid, which is where, so far as Australia is concerned, the matter should perhaps have been let rest.

Gabe Watson, presumably in Australia on a tourist visa, in due course should have been required to leave the country without being charged. Had that happened, and he re-entered US jurisdiction, the State of Alabama may have been free to bring whatever charges it thought could be sustained without any question as to the violation of double jeopardy occurring.

That Watson is reported as 'volunteering' to plead guilty to a lesser charge of manslaughter, and been so obligingly accommodated by the State of Queensland, should be a matter of profound concern to all Australians. The laying of such lesser charge smacks of the system of plea bargaining so pervasive in the administration of US 'justice'.

Australia is a Constitutional Monarchy and justice is the property of the Crown. It is for no one to trade in for the purpose of getting conviction 'runs' on the board.

TBC

It will be a tragic, bitter irony if those involved in investigation of the Watson case were so prepared to usurp the role of judge and jury, whether because of an ironclad conviction that Watson was guilty of murder and therefore deserving of punishment under an inappropriate charge to which he was prepared to plead guilty, or because of external pressures that may have amounted to legalistic vendetta, that their actions in bringing an inappropriate charge have now closed the gate on what may otherwise have been legitimate pursuit of justice by the State of Alabama.

For Australian authorities to close their eyes to the implications of the seemingly unfounded charge of kidnap would be to participate in the facilitation of a legal device designed to get around the double jeopardy provisions just so US authorities can get their hands on an accused person for extradition purposes.

Quite apart from allowing the disrespect being shown for Australian jurisprudence in this matter to go unchallenged, the participation of the Australian government in what is at its least impropriety a seeming ploy to circumvent the provisions of not only the ICCPR, but more importantly a fundamental feature of both Australian and US law, for purposes of facilitating an extradition would set what might be a most dangerous precedent.

The US is coming to have an appalling record with respect to its expectations as to extraditions.

Take the case of Brian and Kerry Howes, UK citizens, whose extradition to the US is currently sought in relation to the supply of chemicals lawfully able to be so traded within the UK. Brian Howes was imprisoned for 247 days WITHOUT CHARGE, let alone extradition hearing, on the basis of request alone, under the terms of the UK Extradition Act. He has for several years now been under house arrest resisting the bullying/intimidation of a plea bargaining process in which his wife is being used as a hostage. http://bit.ly/bJRJ0p

That's where caving in to demands for expediency in extradition process easily leads.

The Australian government's primary concern should be that Australian jurisprudence be respected.

It is interesting to note a seeming double standard displayed in the Gabe Watson extradition case, when compared with the US government's recent attempted (and now failed) extradition of Roman Polanski from Switzerland,

Both cases have overtones of extreme distastefulness with respect to the accused, and seeming populist exploitation of that notoriety by US justice administrations one way or another involved in the cases.

In the Gabe Watson case, if I understand things correctly, the State of Alabama has asked for, and had handed over to it, all evidence presented at what I presume to have been the coronial inquest conducted in the State of Queensland, where the death of Watson's newly married bride occurred. Whether that evidence, and/or any additional evidence, was submitted to the Queensland court that subsequently recorded Watson's conviction for manslaughter I am unsure, as it is my understanding that Watson entered a guilty plea to that charge, thereby obviating, perhaps, any need for presentation and further examination of such evidence.

In the Polanski extradition case, Swiss authorities asked to see, in Switzerland, all relevant documentation relating to the conviction, sentencing, and release of Polanski prior to his becoming an alleged fugitive from US justice, with a view to determining whether AT THE TIME of his departure from the US Polanski was, or had every right to believe himself to be, a free man. The US declined to allow the Swiss to view the evidence. The Swiss, to their credit, in turn declined to extradite Polanski, and released him from custody.

It seems openness as between justice administrations of the different jurisdictions is a one-way street.

Facilitating the abandonment of long-standing prohibitions against double jeopardy, together with implicit endorsement of any system of plea bargaining, are moves that will greatly increase the risk of the convictions of innocent persons in prosecutions driven by official malice, or the taking of opportunities for the exploitation of popular sentiment.

Whatever happened to the principle that nine guilty should for the time being evade punishment, than that one innocent person should be wrongly convicted?

What worries me is the extra-territorial aspect of this case.
If a US court thinks it can prosecute for a crime committed in the
territory of another country, why then could they not prosecute me
for a crime I might commit in Australia.
For instance, if it is a crime to burn a US flag and I did so in
Australia, what is there to stop them prosecuting me here via
extradition or if I visited the US ?