The refusal of some countries to extradite persons accused

Question

The refusal of some countries to extradite persons accused or convicted of terrorist act has focused attention on the problems caused by the political offense exception to extradition. Extradition is the process by which one country returns an accused or convicted person found within its borders to another country for trial or punishment. Under the political offense exception, the requested state may, if it considers the crime to be a “political offense,” deny extradition to the requesting state.

Protection of political offenses is a recent addition to the ancient practice of extradition. It is the result of two fundamental changes that occurred as European monarchies were replaced by representative governments. First, these governments began to reject what had been a primary intent of extradition, to expedite the return of political offenders, and instead sought to protect dissidents fleeing despotic regimes. Second, countries began to contend that they had no legal or moral duty to extradite offenders without specific agreements creating such obligations. As extradition laws subsequently developed through international treaties, the political offense exception gradually became an accepted principle among Western nations.

There is no international consensus, however, as to what constitutes a political offense. For analytical purposes illegal political conduct has traditionally been divided into two categories. “Pure” political offenses are acts perpetrated directly against the government, such as treason and espionage. These crimes are generally recognized as non extraditable, even if not expressly excluded from extradition by the applicable treaty. In contrast, common crimes, such as murder, assault, and robbery, are generally extraditable. However, there are some common crimes that are so inseparable from a political act that the entire offense is regarded as political. These crimes, which are called “relative” political offenses, are generally non extraditable. Despite the widespread acceptance of these analytic constructs, the distinctions are more academic than meaningful. When it comes to real cases, there is no agreement about what transforms a common crime into a political offense and about whether terrorist acts fall within the protection of the exception. Most terrorists claim that their acts do fall under this protection.

Nations of the world must now balance the competing needs of political freedom and international public order. It is time to reexamine the political offense exception, as international terrorism eradicates the critical distinctions between political offenses and nonpolitical crimes. The only rational and attainable objective of the exception is to protect the requested person against unfair treatment by the requesting country. The international community needs to find an alternative to the political offense exception that would protect the rights of requested persons and yet not offer terrorists immunity from criminal liability.   1 
 1. In the passage, the author primarily seeks to

(A) define a set of terms
(B) outline a new approach
(C) describe a current problem
(D) expose an illegal practice
(E) present historical information

2 
 2. According to the passage, when did countries begin to except political offenders from extradition?

(A) when the principle of extraditing accused or convicted persons originated
(B) when some nations began refusing to extradite persons accused or convicted of terrorist acts
(C) when representative governments began to replace European monarchies
(D) when countries began to refuse to extradite persons accused or convicted of common crimes
(E) when governments began to use extradition to expedite the return of political offenders

3 
 3. Given the discussion in the passage, which one of the following distinctions does the author consider particularly problematic?

(A) between common crimes and “relative” political offense
(B) between “pure” political offenses and common crimes
(C) between “pure” political offenses and “relative” political offenses
(D) between terrorist acts and acts of espionage
(E) between the political offense exception and other exceptions to extradition

4 
 4. According to the author, the primary purpose of the political offense exception should be to

(A) ensure that terrorists are tried for their acts
(B) ensure that individuals accused of political crimes are not treated unfairly
(C) distinguish between political and nonpolitical offenses
(D) limit extradition to those accused of “pure” political offenses
(E) limit extradition to those accused of “relative” political offenses

5 
 5. It can be inferred from the passage that the author would agree with which one of the following statements about the political offense exception?

(A) The exception is very unpopular.
(B) The exception is probably illegal.
(C) The exception is used too little.
(D) The exception needs rethinking.
(E) The exception is too limited.

6 
 6. When referring to a balance between “the competing needs of political freedom and international public order” (lines 54-55) the author means that nations must strike a balance between

(A) allowing persons to protest political injustice and preventing them from committing political offenses
(B) protecting the rights of persons requested for extradition and holding terrorists criminally liable
(C) maintaining the political offense exception to extradition and clearing up the confusion over what is a political offense
(D) allowing nations to establish their own extradition policies and establishing an agreed-upon international approach to extradition
(E) protecting from extradition persons accused of “pure” political offenses and ensuring the trial of persons accused of “relative” political offenses

7 
 7. The author would most likely agree that the political offense exception

(A) has, in some cases, been stretched beyond intended use
(B) has been used too infrequently to be evaluated
(C) has been a modestly useful weapon again terrorism
(D) has never met the objective for which it was originally established
(E) has been of more academic than practical value to political dissidents

8 
 8. Which one of the following, if true, would give the author most cause to reconsider her recommendation regarding the political offense exception (lines 62-66)?

(A) More nations started refusing to extradite persons accused or convicted of terrorist acts.
(B) More nations started extraditing persons accused or convicted of treason, espionage, and other similar crimes.
(C) The nations of the world sharply decreased their use of the political offense exception protect persons accused of each of the various types of “pure” political offenses.
(D) The nations of the world sharply decreased their use of the political offense exception to protect persons accused of each of the various types of “relative” political offenses.
(E) The nations of the world started to disagree over the analytical distinction between “pure” political offenses and “relative” political offenses.

fluke · Accepted Answer

Para1: Introduction of political offense exception in extradition treaty.
Para2: Inception of the political offense exception.
Para3: Categorizing offenses as political and common; political offense is further categorized into pure, relative. Mentions the complexity involved in separating few political offense from common crimes. 
Para4: Suggestion for political exception clause amendment.

1. In the passage, the author primarily seeks to
 (A) define a set of terms.   
 (B) outline a new approach   
 (C) describe a current problem.   
 (D) expose an illegal practice
(E) present historical information

2. According to the passage, when did countries begin to except political offenders from extradition?
 (A) when the principle of extraditing accused or convicted persons originated.   The principle started at the time of monarchies but exception started when government took over.  
 (B) when some nations began refusing to extradite persons accused or convicted of terrorist acts   Terrorist not mentioned in para2. 
 (C) when representative governments began to replace European monarchies . True.
 (D) when countries began to refuse to extradite persons accused or convicted of common crimes . Not mentioned.
 (E) when governments began to use extradition to expedite the return of political offenders.  This is true about monarchies and not for governments.

3. Given the discussion in the passage, which one of the following distinctions does the author consider particularly problematic?
 (A) between common crimes and “relative” political offense . Because this distinction decides whether to extradite the offender and the most probable answer.
 (B) between “pure” political offenses and common crimes . Less likely because pure political offenses are clearly defined.
 (C) between “pure” political offenses and “relative” political offenses . Both pure and relative political offenses will prohibit extradition. 
 (D) between terrorist acts and acts of espionage  It is same as C.
 (E) between the political offense exception and other exceptions to extradition  No other exception is discussed.

4. According to the author, the primary purpose of the political offense exception should be to
 (A) ensure that terrorists are tried for their acts  
Possible. "and yet not offer terrorists immunity from criminal liability"
 (B) ensure that individuals accused of political crimes are not treated unfairly 
The  only  rational and attainable objective of the exception is to protect the requested person against unfair treatment by the requesting country. This is highly likely.
 (C) distinguish between political and nonpolitical offenses  Not mentioned.
 (D) limit extradition to those accused of “pure” political offenses Not mentioned. 
 (E) limit extradition to those accused of “relative” political offenses Not mentioned.

5. It can be inferred from the passage that the author would agree with which one of the following statements about the political offense exception?
(A) The exception is very unpopular.
(B) The exception is probably illegal.
(C) The exception is used too little.
 (D) The exception needs rethinking.  No doubt.
(E) The exception is too limited.

6. When referring to a balance between “the competing needs of political freedom and international public order” (lines 54-55) the author means that nations must strike a balance between
(A) allowing persons to protest political injustice and preventing them from committing political offenses
 (B) protecting the rights of persons requested for extradition and holding terrorists criminally liable 
(C) maintaining the political offense exception to extradition and clearing up the confusion over what is a political offense
(D) allowing nations to establish their own extradition policies and establishing an agreed-upon international approach to extradition
(E) protecting from extradition persons accused of “pure” political offenses and ensuring the trial of persons accused of “relative” political offenses

7. The author would most likely agree that the political offense exception
 (A) has, in some cases, been stretched beyond intended use 
 (B) has been used too infrequently to be evaluated.  Not mentioned.
 (C) has been a modestly useful weapon again terrorism . Not really useful against terrorism. 
 (D) has never met the objective for which it was originally established Never is an exaggeration. 
 (E) has been of more academic than practical value to political dissidents

8. Which one of the following, if true, would give the author most cause to reconsider her recommendation regarding the political offense exception (lines 62-66)?
(A) More nations started refusing to extradite persons accused or convicted of terrorist acts.
(B) More nations started extraditing persons accused or convicted of treason, espionage, and other similar crimes.
(C) The nations of the world sharply decreased their use of the political offense exception protect persons accused of each of the various types of “pure” political offenses.
(D) The nations of the world sharply decreased their use of the political offense exception to protect persons accused of each of the various types of “relative” political offenses.
 (E) The nations of the world started to disagree over the analytical distinction between “pure” political offenses and “relative” political offenses. Guess.

will provide the OA after discussion

GMATNinja · Answer

The author believes that "the only rational and attainable objective of the exception is to protect the requested person against unfair treatment by the requesting country." The author also states that "international terrorism eradicates the critical distinctions between political offenses and nonpolitical crimes." From this statement we can infer that, in cases of international terrorism, one could always argue that the political offense exception could be applied. According to the author, that would "offer terrorists immunity from criminal liability." In other words, if terrorist acts can always be considered political, then terrorists can easily avoid extradition and criminal liability.

The intent of the political offense exception was to protect people from unfair treatment, not to protect criminals such as terrorists. Thus, the passage suggests that the author would agree that the political offense exception has, in some cases, been stretched beyond intended use, so choice (A) is the best answer.

Refer to the following portion:

The author's point is that it is hard to draw the line between a common crime (extraditable) and a relative political offense (non extraditable). Therefore, according to the author, "the international community needs to find an alternative to the political offense exception." But if the political offense exception were rarely used to protect persons accused of relative political offenses, then the problematic situation described the author would not be such a concern.

In other words, the author is concerned that the political offense exception unjustly protects those who commit relative political offenses. But if use of the political offense exception to protect those who commit relative political offenses has sharply decreased, then the author's concern would be less relevant.

Thus, choice (D) would give the author most cause to reconsider her recommendation to find an alternative to the political offense exception.

KarishmaB · Answer

In paragraph 3, the author talks about pure political offences, regular crime and relative political offences (which are unclear). He discusses how governments may take a stand on extradition based on what kind of offence it is and what the terrorists feel. The whole passage till now is about what are extraditable vs non extraditable offences.

Then comes:
"Nations of the world must now balance the competing needs of political freedom and international public order. "

Why are political offences non extraditable? Because nations want to support political freedom.
Why are crimes extraditable? Because nations want to maintain international order.

"needs of political freedom" - freedom of a person to speak/act against an unjust regime
"international public order" - offenders should be legally liable

The nations need to balance these competing needs. 
Hence (B) is correct.
(B) protecting the rights of persons requested for extradition and holding terrorists criminally liable

Let's look at (C) and (E):

(C) maintaining the political offense exception to extradition and clearing up the confusion over what is a political offense

The need of international public order is not 'the need of clearing up confusion over definition of political offence'. It is the need of maintaining order and bringing criminals to justice.

(E) protecting from extradition persons accused of “pure” political offenses and ensuring the trial of persons accused of “relative” political offenses

Nations need to balance the competing needs. What are these needs? Protecting pure political offenders is not the need. Protecting the political freedom of people is the need. The action could be protecting pure political offenders. Also, their need is not putting to trial relative political offenders. First of all, there is too much confusion about 'relative'. Secondly, the need of international order means the need to maintain order.

KarishmaB · Answer

8. Which one of the following, if true, would give the author most cause to reconsider her recommendation regarding the political offense exception (lines 62-66)?

(A) More nations started refusing to extradite persons accused or convicted of terrorist acts.

(B) More nations started extraditing persons accused or convicted of treason, espionage, and other similar crimes.

(C) The nations of the world sharply decreased their use of the political offense exception protect persons accused of each of the various types of “pure” political offenses.

(D) The nations of the world sharply decreased their use of the political offense exception to protect persons accused of each of the various types of “relative” political offenses.

(E) The nations of the world started to disagree over the analytical distinction between “pure” political offenses and “relative” political offenses.

What is the author's recommendation regarding the political offense exception?
- That an alternative needs to be found.

Why?
- Relative crimes which are considered political offer terrorists immunity from criminal liability.

What will make her reconsider her recommendation to scrap "political offense exception"?
If it is not used to offer immunity to terrorists, then she may not have a problem with it.

This is what (D) says. If nations stopped using it for non extradition in case of relative crimes, she may not have a problem with "political offence exception". She does say that the govts should "protect the rights of requested persons (last line)" so she seems to be ok with not extraditing pure political offence persons.

honey1 · Answer

why in question 7 option E is wrong
THANK YOU

bM22 · Answer

Hi  honey1 ,

What's mentioned in the passage is : "These crimes, which are called “relative” political offenses, are generally non extraditable. Despite the widespread acceptance of these analytic constructs, the distinctions are more academic than meaningful.", implication being, that its the categorization of political offense to "pure" and "relative" is mostly theoretical and not the political offense exception. Because of these manipulations in what crime is pure political and what's relative, criminal get an easy way out, as they are meant to punish the criminals and not protect them.

Thus A is a better answer.

Hope This Helps.
Thanks.

agrasan · Answer

Hi experts  GMATNinja   KarishmaB   DmitryFarber

1. In the passage, the author primarily seeks to

(B) outline a new approach

Is option B wrong because author just feels the need to reexamine the political offense exception but  doesn't describe any methodology or working steps for it ?

Please let me know, I think I did it wrong due to meaning of " outline " only.

agrasan · Answer

Hi  KarishmaB 
 
 (D) allowing nations to establish their own extradition policies and establishing an agreed-upon international approach to extradition

Is option D wrong because what the option says is simply not supported by the passage?

DmitryFarberMPrep · Answer

In general, I'd be careful about getting rid of answers based on the initial verb alone. That's not what conveys most of the meaning of the answer. For instance, in this case, can we really make a clear distinction between the author  describing  something and  outlining  something? That's not a distinction the GMAT can really test.

As you've said, the problem with B is that there's no new approach. Sure, the author wants us to do something (reexamine), but there's no approach described. They say that "the international community needs to find an alternative," so it's clear that they don't even have a specific alternative in mind. They are just setting up the issues and objecting to the status quo, but they aren't providing a plan.

DmitryFarberMPrep · Answer

That's certainly a valid reason to eliminate D. But a more central reason is that it just doesn't do what we've been asked for. As Karishma laid out, the phrases "political freedom" and "international public order" represent very specific ideas in the passage. The author is trying to balance the political rights of people who might be extradited with the need to prevent terrorism. Any answer that doesn't describe those exact things is wrong.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot:

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

This post was generated automatically.

The refusal of some countries to extradite persons accused

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Reading Comprehension (RC) Questions

The refusal of some countries to extradite persons accused

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards