The Curious Case of Law and Philosophy

United States v. Burns was a very interesting case where the political interests confronted the fundamental justice. In 2001 Supreme Court of Canada made this decision in which it was found that extradition of individuals to places where they may face the death penalty is a breach of fundamental justice under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. A large discussion preceded this conclusion of evidence regarding the arbitrary nature of execution. Still during the discussion the Supreme Court did not go so far as to say execution was also unconstitutional under section 12 of the Charter, which forbids cruel and unusual punishments.

The case revolved around Glen Sebastian Burns and Atif Ahmad Rafay. Two Canadian citizens who were accused of murdering three members of Rafay's family on the territory of the U.S. They were accused by the police department in Bellevue, Washington of the United States. After their return to Canada, Burns and Rafay confessed to undercover Royal Canadian Mounted Police, but after the investigation was complete, claimed their confessions were fabricated. Still a decision was made to extradite them. It could be possible through an extradition treaty under which the Minister of Justice for Canada may seek assurances that the fugitive accused would not face the death penalty, however in this case he did not seek assurances at first. Since the murders occurred in the U.S., Canada could only charge them with planning the crime, Burns and Rafay has some basis to launch a number of Charter challenges to the Canadian government's decision.

Considering relationship between fundamental justice and such serious thing as execution, the Court stated that: "philosophic" views of fundamental justice that viewed execution as "inconsistent with the sanctity of human life" were not subject to judicial review", and that the Court could instead focus on more legal issues like "the protection of the innocent, the avoidance of miscarriages of justice, and the rectification of miscarriages of justice where they are found to exist." It is well known that wrongful convictions were especially to be feared in cases involving execution. The Canadian government had a sufficient objective for infringing the right, namely working with the US cooperatively to fight crime and to keep good relations with the US, but these objectives could be met without risk of execution. There was also a question with keeping dangerous criminals out of Canada, but the Court stated that criminals will see extradition with the risk of a life sentence more attractive than the risk of execution, and this could make Canada an attractive place to seek shelter.

In a month after the ruling, in March 2001, Burns and Rafay were extradited to the U.S. The prosecutors on their case assured that they would not seek a death penalty for them. The trial occurred only in 2004 the prosecutors claimed that Burns and Rafay plotted to kill Rafay's family and share the money from an insurance policy and the sale of the family home. Although Burns claimed that their confession was the result of coercion by the U.S. police and defense lawyers noted that was no forensic evidence that linked Burns and Rafay to the crime, they were found guilty. In May 2004 they were sentenced to three consecutive life sentences, without the possibility of parole.

For more information regarding: Defense Lawyers, Toronto Lawyer, Criminal Lawyers and Attorney; Please visit: www.lawyerahead.ca.