In a disgraceful miscarriage of justice, Dog the Bounty Hunter is set to be extradited to Mexico for his "illegal capture" of a brutal rapist and international fugitive.
MSNBC has learned that U.S. officials have arrested TV reality star Duane "Dog" Chapman and two family members in Hawaii for extradition to Mexico. ...In 2003, the Chapmans went to Puerto Vallarta, Mexico to retrieve Max Factor heir Andrew Luster, who was wanted in the U.S. on rape charges.
Luster is now in jail, serving a 124-year term, but at the time, the Chapmans were also jailed by Mexican authorities for a brief time three years ago.
Bounty hunting is considered a crime in Mexico.
Guess what's considered a crime in America? Illegal immigration. And yet our law enforcement agencies are more concerned with arresting a hero like Dog than sending Mexican criminals back home! Too bad Mexico doesn't pay as much attention to our laws as we do to theirs. If Dog must be extradited, let's send 20 million illegal immigrants back with him.
(HT: The Daily Spork.)
This is just plain wrong, but not unexpected from our "friends" to the South. I really don't see why Mexico wouldn't just want this to quietly go away. There are a lot of US fugitives in Mexico that the Mexican government does nothing about. You would think they would want to avoid shedding light on this. I really don't see an upside for Mexico.
ucfengr: I really don't see an upside for Mexico.
How about having its laws upheld and respected?
Manish, I'll respect Mexican law when Mexicans respect ours.
Brett..the US and Mexico have treaties that obligate each other to arrest fugitives of each others country. This is a mutually beneficial arrangement that means that US criminals can't simply skip off to Mexico and vice versa. Having said that, it doesn't allow Mexican police to cross the border to round up suspected murderers nor does it allow US law enforcement to go into Mexico to do the same.
With regards to illegal immigration...if you truly believe that the US government is committed to getting rid of illegal immigrants, I have some swampland in Florida that you might be interested in.
I should add that Americans, no matter how well intentioned, can't go to Mexico and be above the law.
Manish: You may not be aware that Mexico regularly refuses to extradite criminals who commit crimes in America and then flee to Mexico. They have at least two rules that continually confound our justice system. First, they won't extradite a Mexican citizen for any crime. Second, they won't extradite anyone who faces capital punishment, life in prison, or a prison sentence of more than 20 years. So yes, we have some treaties that regulate extradition between our countries, but the Mexican Supreme Court has ensured that America and American victims get screwed.
Michael..was not aware. They definitely should extradite Mexican Citizens that commit crimes. With regards to capital punishment, I know that Canada will only extradite suspects to the US who face capital punishment if assurances are given that the death penalty will not be imposed. Mexico should do the same.
Manish: I think they will extradite if we give assurances that we won't seek life in prison or execution or whatnot, but often times that isn't a) morally right, and b) within the prosecutor's discretion (with regards to life in prison, anyway).
Morally right is in the eyes of the beholder. If Saudi Arabia asked us to extradite a woman for commiting adultery and the planned punishment was death by stoning, we would either a)not return her or b)get assurances that she will receive a just (in our eyes) sentence if convicted.
I understand that you support the death penalty, however, there are people and countries that don't and they would find it morally wrong to subject someone to the death penalty.
Manish: Do you think it's morally right to let multiple murderers like Armando Garcia live? Or is every breath he takes an affront to the dignity of God and man?
Yes, some people think this and some people think that, but just because opinion is divided on the matter doesn't mean no one is right. In actuality, I'm right.
The Mexican government purposefully thumbs its collective nose at America every chance it gets, and if America had any balls we'd do something about it.
Well, what do you think of Anthony Porter? Did he deserve to die? Armando Garcia should see justice. Is his every breath an affront to the dignity of God? Depends on your view of God I guess, casting the first stone and all that. My main concern with the death penalty is that we can get it wrong as was the case with Anthony Porter.
MW: The Mexican government purposefully thumbs its collective nose at America every chance it gets, and if America had any balls we'd do something about it.
Really, get over it. The Mexican government doesn't exist to thumb its nose at America. It exists to operate in the best interests of the Mexican people. Sometimes those interests dovetail with American interests, sometimes they run contrary to American interests. In the same manner the US government operates in America's interests whatever the ramifications are to Mexico or other nations. Having said that, it is in both countries interests to cooperate.
Also, as the article notes (and normally I would never take the National Review at its word just as I would never take Michael Moore at his word), we have a legal conundrum. The Mexican constitution doesn't allow for life sentences. California law doesn't allow for prosecutors to mandate maximum sentences. It would seem to me that the easier solution would be to change California's law over changing the Mexican Constitution. If California won't change its law, what can the Mexicans do? Ignore their own Constitution?
The American government could "do something about it". However, the powers that be have decided that a cordial relationship with Mexico and all the benefits it entails (including a supply of cheap illegal immigrant labour) is worthwhile.
MW: In actuality, I'm right.
Glad we cleared that up.
"[The Mexican government] exists to operate in the best interests of the Mexican people."
Sorry, I couldn't help but laugh at this. The Mexican government does a very lousy job of advancing the interests of the Mexican people.
Manish: Regarding Anthony Porter, it looks like the system worked just fine. I'm not aware of a case where a person was executed and later proven to have been innocent.
As for the Mexican constitution etc, I really couldn't care less. If they don't want to play by our rules, then they don't need to play with us at all. See who ends up worse off.
Also, as Caethan pointed out, the Mexican government is a kleptocracy of the highest order that exists mainly to enrich itself.
The system worked fine?!? The guy had his execution date moved because a court found him to have a low IQ..no doubt people like you were criticizing the courts in that case. And then a bunch of journalism students happened to take interest and proved his innocence.
MW:I'm not aware of a case where a person was executed and later proven to have been innocent.
So does that mean that as soon as it is proved that an executed person is found innocent, you will stop supporting the dealth penalty? For that matter does this all mean that you will support last minute pleas to the courts to delay executions since it was part of the "system" that worked to get Anthony Porter exonerated?
MW: If they don't want to play by our rules, then they don't need to play with us at all.
And yet the Republican administration seems to still play with them. Funny that..its in our interests to play with other countries that operate by a different set of rules.
And granted..both Mexico and the US have the best democracy that money can buy.
Manish: I don't think low IQ should prevent a person from being executed. Dogs have low IQs, and if they bite people we put them down. As for whether or not a single innocent person being executed would make me stop supporting the death penalty, no, it wouldn't. It would certainly be tragic, awful, and every other bad thing, but no human endeavor lives up to a standard of perfection.
As for the Republicans, yeah, I don't get it either.
As for "the best democracy money can buy", you're woefully naive if you think the American government is as corrupt as the Mexican government.
MW: I don't think low IQ should prevent a person from being executed
Did you read what I linked to? The guy only got a reprieve because he was mentally retarded, not because he was innocent. The reprieve gave some grad students some time to poke around and find evidence that the guy was innocent. But you would have rather that he not get the reprieve (which remember was only granted due to low IQ) and have him die for a crime that he didn't commit and then talk about it being an affront to God when talking about Armando Garcia still being alive. Well what is it when an innocent man is executed? Is this not an affront to God too?
MW: As for "the best democracy money can buy", you're woefully naive if you think the American government is as corrupt as the Mexican government.
Mexican politicians enrich themselves directly though the power that they wield. American politicians enrich the donors to their campaigns who then give more to their re-election campaigns and then hire them as lobbyists when they leave public life.
The Mexican civil service on the other hand use their positions to extract more money from the populace while the American civil service generally do what they are told. Of course the American unions get politically active which ensures that the civil service gets paid well.
Manish: Obviously if the guy was innocent he should have been freed regardless of his IQ. If they had flipped a coin, given him a reprieve, and then found more evidence, would you be arguing that everyone should get a coin flip? The IQ thing was incidental to this circumstance if the guy was actually innocent. In the case of guilty people, IQ is similarly irrelevant.
The Mexican government is directly controlled by organized crime, drug runners, mercenaries, human traffickers, and all the worst of humanity. As little respect as I have for American "civil servants" and politicians, I think your comparison is totally offbase.
MW: If they had flipped a coin, given him a reprieve, and then found more evidence, would you be arguing that everyone should get a coin flip?
No. I'm arguing that the death penalty should be abolished, so that everyone will have that opportunity to have their name cleared before its too late.
I should have been more clear..I'm not arguing that American and Mexican governments are equally corrupt. Clearly, the Mexican government is more corrupt than the US one. However, at the end of the day, both governments, as corrupt as they are, are ultimately tagged with representing the interests of our respective nations. A corrupt Mexican government is still going to be more representative of Mexico's interests than any other government.
Manish: But some people won't ever have their names cleared because they're guilty. Those people should be executed. Do you (1) agree that people who are really guilty should be executed, or do you (2) think that no one should be executed, regardless of the crime?
If (1), then we're only arguing about how "sure" we have to be about guilt. I'd submit that we can never be 100% sure, but that some lower standard is good enough. I believe that executing criminals is good for society, and that if the error rate is "low enough" then we're fine. We can argue about how low is low enough, but whatever, that's just numbers.
If you think (2), then there's no point in discussing whether or not people may or may not ever be able to clear their names. You just don't want anyone executed, regardless of guilt. If that's the case, then we shouldn't really be arguing about IQ or whatnot, since our disagreement is primarily philisophical.
Well lets see..The easy stuff first..I find it a little silly when lethal injection is contested as unconstitutional. They're killing the person, its probably going to hurt a little.
I'm generally against the death penalty, but I can't get too excited about trying to save Tim McVeigh's life. Probably wouldn't exactly get excited about saving Osama's life if we ever found him alive.
My main issues with the death penalty is the fact that the person could be innocent. I'm also concerned about inadequate representation. Its a bad sign when defense lawyers fall asleep in the middle of a trial as was the case with Anthony Porter and many others. In truth, we can never be 100% certain that we got the right person and the death penalty is irreversible. Even if the person confesses, you still don't know.
Manish: Yeah, the thought of executing an innocent man really bothers me too. But some people are so plainly guilty that I have no reservations whatsoever, and in fact, I think society suffers if we don't execute certain people.