Gabe Watson case: on double jeopardy, extradition and death

[weemadando]

Gabe Watson, as some may know is a cunt of a man who killed his wife, Tina Watson, while on a honeymoon in Australia. The Age has a very informative piece on the formative part of this story.

In his original trial in Queensland (where the crime was commited) he was tried for manslaughter, rather than murder on the grounds that they were unlikely to get a conviction for murder given the lack of evidence. So he was tried for manslaughter and was found guilty.

This is where Alabama and the US comes in. Given the love for murdering murderers, Alabama (Tina Watson's home in the US) freaked the fuck out and demanded that he be sent over there to be executed tried for murder.

His sentence in Australia was completed last week and he is currently in immigration detention while his extradition to the US is being reviewed and appealed. Australia will not deport someone white people if they face the death penalty in the country that they are being deported to. So Alabama has agreed (for what that's worth) to take the death penalty off the table.

But that's only part of the problem. He has been tried, convicted, sentenced and served that custodial for the crime of killing his wife. Should be be extradited, he will face trial again for the same crime, though with a murder rather than a manslaughter charge. Greg Barns wrote a great piece on the ABC site about the issues involved here. Mainly that it's a violation of the double jeopardy tradition in law, both in Queensland and in the United States.

Of course, that isn't stopping every douchebag with an election and a microphone from stepping in. The Governator has signed an extradition order should he arrive in California, and of course every capricious prosecutor with political ambitions can smell the blood in the water.

But no one seems to be stopping to consider whether or not what they are doing is legal, let alone whether it is right. As I said, Gabe Watson is a total cunt of a man. There is little question that he was responsible for his wife's death - in fact he was tried and convicted of this crime. He's since gotten a second wife who looks GODDAMN IDENTICAL to the first one (pro-tip honey, avoid bodies of water). But to hand him over to face prosecution, imprisonment and possible death for a crime for which he has already completed a sentence in Australia is wrong on every level.

[thejester]

By definition, isn't there doubt? Queensland couldn't sustain a murder charge. There's a huge difference between what he's been convicted of and what the Alabama authorities are portraying him as.

[weemadando]

Indeed there is, and that's one reason why we are obliged not to extradite. Putting aside the whole death penalty argument, we are sending someone to stand trial for crime that they have already served a sentence for under Australian law. Which is against Australia's policy.

To the best of my understanding there is still the capacity for him to be charged with murder under Australian law should new compelling evidence be presented as is the case with any crime that carries a potential life sentence. Which, if I recall, was the reason the QLD DPP tried him for manslaughter, not murder initially.

Really, if there is such overwhelming evidence as to support a death penalty conviction in Alabama, then maybe they should send it over here so he can stand trial again for murder in the place of the original conviction and the place of the crime. OH WAIT - there is no new evidence.

[Broomstick]

Indeed there is, and that's one reason why we are obliged not to extradite. Putting aside the whole death penalty argument, we are sending someone to stand trial for crime that they have already served a sentence for under Australian law. Which is against Australia's policy.

Then Australia should not extradite him. Is that really so hard?

I suppose so. People are idiots, and politicians pander to idiots.

The thing is, under US law manslaughter and murder aren't quite the same thing, so there might be legal grounds that aren't, technically, double jeopardy as understood in Alabama. Assuming a competent defense lawyer (which, honestly, doesn't always happen) if he is extradited to Alabama an argument should be made to throw out the case under double-jeopardy. If that doesn't work.... hmmm, not sure if pointing out he's served time already would hurt or help him.

[weemadando]

That's the problem Broomstick, it's become a political issue with talking heads on both sides of the Pacific yammering on about it. Of course, Australia can't bear to anger the US in any way, so we're going to hand over someone, against legal and humanitarian policy, just to make sure that we keep nice and happy and bestest buddies.

[Thanas]

Well, at least you are not such cowards like Germany who let its own citizens get executed by the USA, despite the death penalty being both illegal and the state legally obligated to do everything to prevent it. (Granted, the guys deserved it, but still). And at least you did not let the US system handle the guy as they wanted.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Which German citizens did the US execute?

[Thanas]

Which German citizens did the US execute?

Karl and Walter LaGrand, in 1999. What makes the whole thing outrageous is that the US willfully denied them consular access until 1992, when all legal opportunities were exhausted and they never had the chance to communicate with a German attorney. This went on for over ten years, without anybody even informing the German consulate that a citizen was held. Then, after finally getting wind of it, Germany tried to intercede, but the Supreme Court decided that Germany was too tardy to interfere (in essence, the US withholding information was held to be Germany's fault).

After the fact, Germany sued and the ICJ held that the USA had blatantly violated international law, most importantly the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 24 April 1963. Of course, that sure was a big help to the guys who were dead by then and the USA has never paid any sort of damages. In essence, the USA blatantly and intentionally broke one of the most fundamental international laws and got away scot free.

Which is especially funny because whenever Iran dares to judge a US citizen, the USA is screaming bloody murder despite having behaved even worse.

[Artemas]

How is germany cowardly for not being aware that its citizens were being held?

Also, how did he manage to get a wife while in prison?

Furthermore, is there a substantial difference in the body of evidence believed to be needed for a murder conviction between the States and Australia? Otherwise, despite breach of legal precedent and moral issues, there is a chance that he would not necessarily would be convicted, right?

[Thanas]

How is germany cowardly for not being aware that its citizens were being held?

For not raising more of a stink about this.

[Stofsk]

Also, how did he manage to get a wife while in prison?

Eh, it's not unprecedented.

Furthermore, is there a substantial difference in the body of evidence believed to be needed for a murder conviction between the States and Australia? Otherwise, despite breach of legal precedent and moral issues, there is a chance that he would not necessarily would be convicted, right?

Yes but that's not the point. The point is he's faced jeopardy once before for this crime, he has been tried for it, plead guilty, was sentenced, and even had an appeal lodged by the QLD DPP against the sentence because it was manifestly inadequate. To put someone into jeopardy again, this time where the maximum penalty is death (and if that's taken off the table, then life in prison - which I honestly don't know which is worse), when he's already gone through the process, strikes me as horribly offensive. And that said, I am not even sure what he's guilty of. Or to put it another way, I'm not sure whether there is evidence that he's guilty of what Alabama wants him to be guilty of. This seems to be one of those cases where everyone 'knows' he killed his wife, but there doesn't seem to be strong proof of that - at most its circumstantial. Unless I missed something reading those links in Ando's post.

I mean, holy shit his sentence alone is about as lenient as you can get for pleading guilty to killing someone - your own wife for that matter. That says to me straight away that the judge who sentenced him (and the ones at his appeal) felt the evidence simply wasn't that strong. Judges here impose sentences by giving due weight to the evidence lead before them; if a lot of it is conjecture then that doesn't impress judges at all.

And of course if he's guilty as sin then getting the sentence he did was manifestly inadequate and he really should have copped more. But what can you do? Well, in this case it seems to be 'ignore double jeopardy and throw him to the wolves in Alabama'. And I wouldn't like his chances facing a jury over there.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Does the US, let alone Alabama even have anything even remotely resembling Jurisdiction? The crime was committed in Australia, and I seem to remember a bit in the constitution about the trial having to be held in the place the crime was committed...

[Cecelia5578]

For the sake of argument, say Gabe Watson and his wife are from Alabama, and travel to Wisconsin. He kills her in Wisconsin, and Wisconsin tries and convicts him for manslaughter. Could Alabama then try to extradite him, even though the crime in no way took place in the jurisdiction of Alabama?

I guess that's my rub with this (IANAL). I just don't see how an Alabama trial court has jurisdiction over this. Do individual states of the US have some sort of...protective cloak over their residents when they visit different countries that enables them to try people for crimes that took place outside their borders?

I have no problem with people being tried in both state and the federal district court where their crimes took place (different sovereign entities), I just fail to see how Alabama has any jurisdiction.

EDIT: I see Aly just beat me to the whole jurisdiction thing

[Broomstick]

For the sake of argument, say Gabe Watson and his wife are from Alabama, and travel to Wisconsin. He kills her in Wisconsin, and Wisconsin tries and convicts him for manslaughter. Could Alabama then try to extradite him, even though the crime in no way took place in the jurisdiction of Alabama?

No.

In fact, there have been instances where murderers deliberately transported their victims to another state so, in the event of being caught, they couldn't be tried in a place with the death penalty. Jeffrey Dahmer being the one that springs to mind - he lured victims from Chicago, Illinois (which has the death penalty) to Wisconsin (which does not have the death penalty). Frustrated the prosecutors no end, they looked very hard for a reason to extradite him to Illinois, but never could find one. Thus, he received a sentence of life in prison without parole, and not death.

Really, I just don't see where Alabama has jurisdiction here. Now, a wrongful death lawsuit, that's possible, but that's a civil trial, not a criminal one, and even if found guilty the only penalties that can be imposed are financial, not prison or death (See "Orenthal James Simpson" - acquitted of murder in criminal court, found guilty in civil court of wrongful death of his two people)

[weemadando]

This seems to be one of those cases where everyone 'knows' he killed his wife, but there doesn't seem to be strong proof of that - at most its circumstantial. Unless I missed something reading those links in Ando's post.

It was ruled manslaughter by way of inaction IIRC - not murder, but certainly one of the nastier forms of manslaughter you can get. The fact that he was vandalising his wife's grave is what pushes him into the "certainly a cunt" category and has to raise your suspicion levels.

[Stofsk]

He did what?

[ShadowDragon8685]

He did what?

The Wikipedia article makes no mention of desecrating Tina Watson's grave as of approximately now, but it does illuminate some things, interestingly enough.

It doesn't look like they can pin him with actually killing her, but it looks like he abandoned a duty of care thrice over: as dive buddy, spouse and experienced rescue diver all he should have come to her aid, when it looks more like she got into trouble and he just buggered off, possibly with dollar signs in his eyes.

I'm willing to second the call of "cunt" on this one, but still; he's been tried for her death, plead guilty and served time. That's jeopardy, and it's bullshit that Alabama is trying to put him in it again; but I'm not sure it's technically illegal. As I understand it, separate jurisdictions who both have an interest in a case can put you on trial for it and convict you of it both times if they see fit. If the Feds can do it and a State can do it again, why not Queensland and a State?

I think it's BS in either scenario, BTW, but there you have it; under United States law, two differing jurisdictions with interests in the case can both put you in jeopardy for the same crime. I don't know if that's true under Australian law, though; I don't know enough about the Australian justice system to even know if there's a whole-country level of justice system that's distinct from the smaller jurisdictions, let alone if their double jeopardy laws allow for double-dipping at both levels.

If not, though, then they should refuse to send him home without a guarantee he won't be prosecuted for her death, as under the law in the jurisdiction where she died he's already been put on the dock and had a gavel banged on his fate and can't be put in jeopardy again. On the other hand, if Australian law does allow for a new trial in the event of "new evidence" and the governor of Alabama does, as he claims, have new evidence, he ought to send it to the Queensland prosecution with all haste.


Would like to know what he meant by that 'caught desecrating her grave' thing, though. Inquiring minds just gotta know.

[weemadando]

He did what?

Its in The Age article.

And as a former diver the betrayal involved here hits fairly close to the bone.

[Thanas]

And as a former diver the betrayal involved here hits fairly close to the bone.

Could you elaborate on that? Not being a diver myself, I would like to know more about it.

[Hamstray]

Its in The Age article.

Just read the article, must have missed it somehow.

[Keevan_Colton]

And as a former diver the betrayal involved here hits fairly close to the bone.

Could you elaborate on that? Not being a diver myself, I would like to know more about it.

Basically it's a huge betrayal of trust. When diving you are reliant on your partner for saftey, there are situations where only someone aiding you can get you back to the surface safely. You rely on your partner to help you out of tangles and to check the parts of your gear that you cant, and vice versa. Leaving a diving partner in trouble is essentially the worst thing you can do. Given that this fellow was apparently qualified as a rescue diver as well...you can see why it makes his actions even worse from the perspective of a diver.

[Korto]

He did what?

Its in The Age article.

No, sorry, read through it four times, still can't find it. You'll have to point it out to the morons in the room.

Otherwise, going from the article I can see why they dumped the murder charge. I personally would have contested the manslaughter. They seemed to have sweet eff all. OK, he apparently left her, but as they didn't explain just how she happened to die

...The deceased did not drown. The cause of death was asphyxiation. For some reason wholly unexplained in the materials provided the deceased ceased to breathe.'

it could be that if he had managed to take her back to the surface as quickly as possible when diving at depth, it may have made no differance anyway. Assuming her lungs didn't pop like a balloon on the way up.
He pled guilty, sure, but that could be just survivor guilt, and guilt at knowing he should have been able to do better, looking for an outlet.

[Broomstick]

If it's a matter that he failed to act rather than took action resulting in her death that could be significant. "Duty of care" is defined separately in every one of the 50 states, and all of them define it differently than the rest of the anglosphere except, perhaps, California and Louisiana. In most of the US, there is, in fact, no legal duty of care. If you stand by while someone else dies you are not breaking the law. You could be sued in civil court, but you won't face murder charges.

However, the fact he is a rescue diver and her spouse may alter the equation.

Do we know for sure Alabama intends to charge him with murder? Maybe that's a silly question, but you know, it would be extraordinary for someone in the US who committed murder or manslaughter in one state to be extradited to another for trial. Murder/manslaughter is tried where it occurs, and in this case it occurred and was tried in Queensland. Something doesn't seem quite right here. Certainly, something crazy might be happening, it just strikes as off in this case.

[Korto]

My feeling is it's all a song and dance for popularism, and when it falls through for all the obvious reasons they'll just turn around and say "Well, it's those damned out-of-touch judges"

[Broomstick]

Ah, OK - I did a little research. It seems that Alabama claims to have evidence Watson planned the murder while in Alabama, and married Tina under false pretensions to lure her away which would fall under a type of kidnapping (kidnapping by deception). That would give them some basis prosecution in Alabama. Supposedly, assurances have been given that the death penalty will not be imposed in return for extradition.