Interstate rendition: Discretionary or mandatory?
Ratification of a federal form of government in 1789 launched the United States into a fractious search for clear delineations of the authorities of the states vis-a-vis each other; interpretation of the extradition clause of the new constitution was a vital, though intermittent, element in this int...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
1980
|
| In: |
American journal of criminal justice
Year: 1980, Volume: 5, Issue: 1, Pages: 25-44 |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Keywords: |
| Summary: | Ratification of a federal form of government in 1789 launched the United States into a fractious search for clear delineations of the authorities of the states vis-a-vis each other; interpretation of the extradition clause of the new constitution was a vital, though intermittent, element in this interstate struggle, Ultimately the courts were invoked to establish the legal definitions of interstate rendition rights and the obligation of state governors under the constitutional clause. Characteristically, courts have varied greatly in their rulings on such rights and duties, but there is an overall tendency to avoid an “absolute” interpretation of the extradition duty. A second strain of theory explored in this article is the application of the rendition clause to juvenile proceedings, which do not (by definition) pertain to crime. Rendition of juveniles is controlled among the states and territories by the Interstate Compact on Juveniles, and this arrangement has fulfilled its intended functions effectively. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1936-1351 |
| DOI: | 10.1007/BF02903698 |
