RT Article
T1 Interstate rendition: Discretionary or mandatory?
JF American journal of criminal justice
VO 5
IS 1
SP 25
OP 44
A1 Wolfe, Nancy Travis
LA English
YR 1980
UL https://krimdok.uni-tuebingen.de/Record/1764206703
AB 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.
K1 Voluntary Return
K1 South Carolina Department
K1 Habeas Corpus
K1 Executive Authority
K1 Fourth Amendment
DO 10.1007/BF02903698