Three primary reasons have been used for decades to justify the rigid refusal by States to enforce the criminal laws of other States: the dissimilarity of State laws, the need for asylum, and practical inconveniences. While an analysis of these reasons can no longer justify (if they ever did) a blanket refusal to enforce the criminal laws of foreign States, they do justify refusal in some circumstances, thus requiring the use of extradition. Traditional arguments favoring extradition would not support the refusal to join interstate compacts for mutual enforcement in socially and economically integrated metropolitan areas that straddle State lines, but even this proposal would usually be barred by State constitutional provisions pertaining to venue, or place of trial, and vicinage, or geographical origin of jurors. Such arrangements might also violate the Federal Constitution. Because of the continuing need for extradition, more effective extradition structures and procedures are required. Current extradition law embodied in the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act has yielded cumbersome procedures that are increasingly inadequate as technological advances in policing have made the tracing of wanted persons across State lines a more frequent occurrence. The cumbersome quality of the act has been ameliorated in the past by inducing 'forced waivers' of the procedural protections afforded. In addition, the lack of meaningful remedies for failure to adhere to the act permitted law enforcement officials to ignore its cumbersome provisions. Recent legal developments, however, suggest that the act's flaws can no longer be avoided by skirting its provisions. The Uniform Extradition and Rendition Act, recently approved by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, meets the need for a nationwide extradition law. As a survey of the new act's provisions reveals, it substantially improves on the old law, and enactment of the new act is consistent with the policies underlying extradition and with the Federal core of extradition law. States should therefore replace the old law with the new act. A total of 279 footnotes are provided.