Letters | No question Hong Kong needs stronger extradition law: but it must address trust deficit on implementation
- Cooperation across jurisdictions helps deter crime, as it increases expected costs for criminals
- The focus of public discussion on changes to Hong Kong’s extradition law should be on how the new arrangements will be implemented
The concern of the protesters is valid, because some crimes have different definitions and sanctions across jurisdictions. The proposal to allow for extradition of fugitives on a case-by-case basis runs the risk of compromising a person’s rights when there is wide discrepancy in what is considered unlawful.
Nevertheless, many crimes are universal. It is unjust for fugitives charged with these crimes to be at large because of territorial boundaries. For example, murder is a serious offence and most people would not object to extraditing murderers to other countries for criminal trials.
Setting aside the issue of punishing criminals, not having extradition arrangements may actually invite more crimes. Some studies have suggested that criminals choose to commit offences in jurisdictions where conviction is least likely or punishment is smallest. In recent work, we found that the number of distributed denial of service (DDoS) cyberattack victims decreased in countries joining the Convention on Cybercrime, but increased in those that did not.
The Convention on Cybercrime is an international law providing a substantive legal framework to formally criminalise and deter cybercrimes. It contains specific provisions on international cooperation, including mutual assistance in crime investigation and extradition of criminals.
