United States vs Burns - March 11 2021 PDF

Preview

Summary

hhhhhh...

Description

United States v. Burns

United States v. Burns

Patrick Desmond 1011157938

Intro to Legal Studies LAWS1001E Carleton University

Prof. Sébastien Mallette TA. Victoria Derbyshire March 24 2021

United States v. Burns

United States v. Burns was an appeal held on March 22, 1999, at the Supreme Court of Canada. The respondents were convicted of three counts of aggravated murder, and were sentenced to three consecutive life sentences, without the possibility of parole.

Atif Rafay and Sebastian Burns were classmates and friends who attended West Vancouver High School from 1990-1994. Rafay’s family had relocated to Bellevue, Washington as per his father’s work relocation. On July 12th, 1994, Rafay and Burns travelled by bus from Vancouver to Bellevue to visit Rafay’s family. At 2 am, Burns had made a 911 call from the Rafay Household reporting the deaths of Rafay’s family, claiming the house was burgled. Atif Rafay’s mother, father, and sister were all bludgeoned to death. Rafay and Burns said that they were out at a movie and attended dinner together before returning to Rafay’s home. Bellevue Police had suspected the boys involvement in the triple murder, but did not have sufficient evidence to charge them. When the respondents returned to Canada, the Bellevue Police sought the cooperation of the RCMP in their investigation, and doing so led to an elaborate undercover sting called “Mr. Big”, which eventually ended with the arrest of Rafay and Burns. Large amounts of blood were found in the shower enclosure, in an attempt to wash away blood. All strands of hair found in the shower were caucasian, inconsistent with any of the victims and matching only Burns. Burns had bragged to an undercover RCMP officer that he had stripped down to his underwear in order to wash off the blood before committing the bludgeoning. The violent force splattered blood on all four walls and ceiling in the bedroom where Rafay’s parents were beaten to death. When asked why he wanted his own family dead, Rafay said “I felt it was a necessary sacrifice, to achieve what I wanted in this life”. The Crown had believed that the respondents killed in order to secure Atif’s family money, and that Burns was hired by Rafay as a contract killer. With the respondent confessions in hand, proceedings to extradite them to face trial in Washington began. This took six years (including two years and two re-hearings at the Supreme Court of Canada) to change the Canadian law of Extradition for criminals facing the death penalty in the United States.

United States v. Burns

United States v. Burns case created a set of issues which needed to be resolved in order to fairly judge the respondents. The issue at hand was about Canadian Born citizens receiving the death penalty if they are to be tried in the United States. The Attorney General of British Columbia decided against prosecution in BC. This led United States authorities to commence proceedings to extradite the respondents to the State of Washington, where they would be put on trial for their actions. The Minister of Justice for Canada evaluated the respondent’ circumstances, which included their age, and their Canadian Nationality, and ordered that their extradition pursuant to s.25 of the Extradition Act be enforced without seeking assurances from the United States; therefore, under article 6 of the extradition treaty between the two countries, the assurance that the death penalty not be imposed if they were convicted in the United States was rejected. Furthermore, the Minister of Justice of Canada had rejected the respondents’ claim that extradition without obtaining assurances would constitute exile and banishment from Canada. The Minister felt that Canada should not present itself to become a safe haven for persons seeking to escape justice, even those offenders who were born in Canada. When using Section 25 of the Extradition Act, a ministerial discretion on whether or not to surrender a fugitive, and if so, on what terms needs to be considered. The Minister’s discretion is limited by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees certain rights and freedoms from infringement. The death penalty is a direct justice issue, and violates the mobility rights of Canadian citizens. . Section 7 of the Charter describes “fundamental justice” as a code of legal principles that command societal consensus. If the extradition order was implemented, then it would be a direct violation and deprivation of the respondents rights of liberty and security. The death penalty is not part of the extradition process as the underlying purpose of extradition is simply to face criminal prosecution. The evidence presented justifies the extradition of the respondents to Washington State in order for them to stand trial on charges of aggravated first degree murder. Under the law of Washington state, the conviction would carry a minimum sentence of life imprisonment, without the possibility of release or parole. If the prosecution were to seek the death penalty, they would have the burden of persuading the jury that “there are not sufficient mitigating circumstances” in favour of the respondents. If the jury is so satisfied, then the death penalty would be administered by lethal injection or by hanging.

United States v. Burns

Rafay and Burns were charged with aggravated murder, and were sentenced to life imprionment. This outcome shows appreciation for the principles of fundamental justice, which in turn are derived from the basic tenets of our legal system. Presiding Judge Antonio Lamer stated that we must take note of factual developments in Canada and in relevant foreign jurisdictions. These developments should not be turned away, but should be of the most importance in death penalty cases. Balance must coexist, one side which tilts in favour of extradition without assurances, and one side that opposes the constitutionality of such an outcome. Personally, I believe that the death penalty should not exist, and I think it is a direct obstruction and violation of a human being’s ability to live, as there is no essence to life without hope. If the death penalty were to be implemented more often, I believe it should only be utilzied based upon the nature of the misdimenaor, and should not be used as a solution to solve a state’s problems. So far in 2021, three people have been executed in the United States.

Supreme Court of Canada United States v Burns: https://scc-

csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1842/index.do...