[ionia23]

Murder suspects wander free in Mexico

Isn't that lovely?

Now, here's the part I don't get.  Sure, Mexico can say "we will not extradite blah blah".  Fine.

I'd think all that needs to be done is make a few law changes around here.  Say, you decide to flee to a country with such-and-such extradition law.  The US gives itself authority to send a few "unofficial" Marshals, or maybe even bounty hunters, to catch you and bring you back under the table.

of course the catch is, if our little "extraction team" gets caught, they're on their own.

I dunno.

[aldo_14]

Ah...well, it's a bit testy from a moral standpoint though.  Obviously, a murderer is scum, and deserves to spend the rest of their lives in jail.  

But on a human rights standpoint, the mexicans have the problem that they'd be sending him to wait is a fairly iffy justice system - not only one of the few that still routinely kills its citizens (not always guilty ones), and also one of the few countries in the world to refuse to sign up to a childrens right treaty (as it would mean 16-17 year olds could no longer be executed).

Now, sending unofficial extradiciotn teams isn't all that different from hiring hit-squads - especially in a clear death penalty case.

 What I think, is that the US should cut a deal where he stands trial in the UX, but the death penalty is cut (with life in prison the punishment).  After all, life in prison is far worse - i've heard a story about a prisoner in South Africa *****ing about the fall of apartheid - because the ANC immediately banned the death penalty, meaning he had to look forward to the rest of his life behind bars.

Of course, i'm anti-death penalty anyways, so that shows in this reply.  But I still think it's worth recognising Mexicos reasons for this before you rush to condemn them, because they do have a certaint validity.

[karajorma]

The reason they won't send him back is because Mexico doesn't support the death penalty.

If they just dropped that they could probably arrest the guy.

[ionia23]

Originally posted by aldo_14
Of course, i'm anti-death penalty anyways, so that shows in this reply.  But I still think it's worth recognising Mexicos reasons for this before you rush to condemn them, because they do have a certaint validity.

Dunno if you caught this in the article, but Mexico recently revised their extradition treaties to include both those who will face the death penalty, and those facing life imprisonment...

[an0n]

Originally posted by ionia23
I'd think all that needs to be done is make a few law changes around here.  Say, you decide to flee to a country with such-and-such extradition law.  The US gives itself authority to send a few "unofficial" Marshals, or maybe even bounty hunters, to catch you and bring you back under the table.

That would be what we civilized people like to call an 'act of war'.

Violating another nations sovereignty to apprehend petty criminals is something of a taboo.

[SadisticSid]

Originally posted by ionia23
Murder suspects wander free in Mexico

Isn't that lovely?

Now, here's the part I don't get.  Sure, Mexico can say "we will not extradite blah blah".  Fine.

I'd think all that needs to be done is make a few law changes around here.  Say, you decide to flee to a country with such-and-such extradition law.  The US gives itself authority to send a few "unofficial" Marshals, or maybe even bounty hunters, to catch you and bring you back under the table.

of course the catch is, if our little "extraction team" gets caught, they're on their own.

I dunno.

It's this sort of heavy handed nonsense that reinforces those who consider America a 'threat to the world'. Think about what you're saying; that would be tantamount to sending in government-backed terrorists to carry out illegal operations in a sovereign state.

[ionia23]

Originally posted by an0n
That would be what we civilized people like to call an 'act of war'.

Violating another nations sovereignty to apprehend petty criminals is something of a taboo.

Hey now, I didn't say it was "right".  I did say it's a "possibility".  Given, there's nothing to be done on the other side of the border, but it would prevent some slimy defense attorney from getting the original capture negated.

The key would be 'don't get caught doing it'.

Sometimes compromise works.  I wonder how Mexico would react if we offered a trade.  They revise their extradition treaties or we revise ours:  Illegals caught in the US will be incarcerated 2 years on the first offense, 10 on the second, and life on the third.  (pretty much straight out of Whitley Streiber's 'WarDay').

I'd be more content with the death penalty being overruled here.  It's irreversable and there are worse things than death.  A 50 years sentence in Pelican Bay would suffice...

[ionia23]

Originally posted by SadisticSid
It's this sort of heavy handed nonsense that reinforces those who consider America a 'threat to the world'. Think about what you're saying; that would be tantamount to sending in government-backed terrorists to carry out illegal operations in a sovereign state.

A terrorist is someone who deliberately targets non-combatants for the purpose of forcing a political agenda.  These would hardly be terrorists.  

Well, except maybe to their quarry...they'd be pretty spooked.

[an0n]

Originally posted by ionia23
Hey now, I didn't say it was "right".  I did say it's a "possibility".  Given, there's nothing to be done on the other side of the border, but it would prevent some slimy defense attorney from getting the original capture negated.

The key would be 'don't get caught doing it'.

Did it even occur to you that there might be a reason why they made it illegal to try people who'd been kidnapped from foreign nations?

[Rictor]

murder suspect. As in, he is suspected of doing it.

Without getting into a whole big arguement about the justice system, it must be said that of the guys sitting on death row are innocent. of the guys sitting in prison for life are innocent. And do you really deserve to get pounded by Big Bubba for the next 20 years just because you decided to shoot some heroin or something?

Its no secret that the US has a fairly brutal criminal justice system. I sure as hell wouldn't want to get caught doing anything funny, least of all in places like Texas or whatever. The whole prison system is a joke. I mean, prisoners are bought and sold like slaves, often are abused by guards, the whole thing is not about rehabilitation, its about sheer, unadultered brutality. And once you get out, its next to impossible to start youir life up again. Who will hire a convict?

Now, I can't really commment on this specific case, becasue I'm an NOT about to judge whether someone's life should be ruined based on a sob-story, sensationalized, made-for-headlines article.

[SadisticSid]

Originally posted by ionia23


A terrorist is someone who deliberately targets non-combatants for the purpose of forcing a political agenda.  These would hardly be terrorists.  

Well, except maybe to their quarry...they'd be pretty spooked.

Wrong - a terrorist is someone who uses violence to enforce a political agenda. By that logic someone who blows up a civilian house is a terrorist and someone who blows up a military base isn't.

And they WOULD be terrorists - why? because they'd be using violence to enforce US judicial policy (the application of a political agenda) in a sovereign state without using military personnel (which would pertain to an act of war).

[an0n]

No, terrorists are military forces which operate in small groups and lack the official backing and/or control of a recognised nation.

If they're a large force, they become rebels or guerillas.

If they have national backing and/or control they become a special-ops team.

[SadisticSid]

Originally posted by Rictor
murder suspect. As in, he is suspected of doing it.

Without getting into a whole big arguement about the justice system, it must be said that of the guys sitting on death row are innocent. of the guys sitting in prison for life are innocent. And do you really deserve to get pounded by Big Bubba for the next 20 years just because you decided to shoot some heroin or something?

Its no secret that the US has a fairly brutal criminal justice system. I sure as hell wouldn't want to get caught doing anything funny, least of all in places like Texas or whatever. The whole prison system is a joke. I mean, prisoners are bought and sold like slaves, often are abused by guards, the whole thing is not about rehabilitation, its about sheer, unadultered brutality. And once you get out, its next to impossible to start youir life up again. Who will hire a convict?

Now, I can't really commment on this specific case, becasue I'm an NOT about to judge whether someone's life should be ruined based on a sob-story, sensationalized, made-for-headlines article.

It must also be said that only a minute fraction of executed criminals are innocent - it hasn't happened IIRC since the reinstatement of the death penalty in the US since 1976. Although this is a travesty it's much better than having the state support murderers for however long their jail sentence is (when does life mean life these days?), and allowing them to kill again if they're released from prison.

From http://www.nationalreview.com/jos/jos083002.asp
Even though wrongful executions are exceedingly rare, we know a great deal about them. Yet we hear little or no mention of their exact equivalent on the other side of the argument — namely, murders committed by those who have already committed a murder, served their sentence, and been released to murder again (or who have murdered an inmate or guard in prison.) That is curious. For a few years ago there were 820 people in U.S. prisons who were serving time for their second murder of this kind.

If the death penalty had been applied after their first murders, their 820 subsequent victims would be alive today. That figure is not a statistical inference but an absolute certainty. Of course, it is intellectually possible for abolitionists to argue that it is better to acquiesce reluctantly in the murder of 820 innocent men than to execute mistakenly one innocent man — but somehow I doubt if that argument, stated so plainly, would convince the democratic majority.

Although I'm in agreement that prisons can be too brutal, which is a stain on the lapelle of civilized society, the converse is also true in some areas. Prisons need to be a suitably horrible prospect for them to become an adequate deterrent, and all this focus on rehabilitation instead of punishment is the wrong way, IMO, to go about ensuring that. The conduct of treating prisoners may be the mark of a civilized society, but nowhere near as large a one as how it treats its innocents.

[Rictor]

Well, I wasn't specifically talking about those on death row. Most conservatives (at least the ones who makes themselves visible) think that criminals should be treated like dogs. No rights, no mercy, no compassion, just lock them away and beat them twice a day. This is the wrong approach. A murder is still a human, and as such deserves dignity and human rights. Not to mention a criminal who is not a murder, but has only commited some lesser crime.

Most people (exlcuding psychopaths, and those are pretty rare) do not murder for the fun of it. They're just normal people who find themselves in crappy circumstances or grow up in a ****ed up environment. People are the products of their surroundings.

So, if someone kills once, it is doubtful he will kill again. Killing once does not show that a person is a born killer, or that he is not sorry. It just shows that for whatever reason, he thought it necesarry to kill. Fine, let him serve his time and rejoin society. I think that 10, 20 or 50 years of your life gone is punishment enough, without the extra brutality of prison life. The system is incredibly corrupt, prisoners are treated the same way slaves were 150 years ago.

[Kazan]

an0n your definition is incorrect

ter·ror·ist    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (trr-st)
n.

    One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism.

ter·ror·ism    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (tr-rzm)
n.

    The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

[SadisticSid]

Hmm well, if conservatives believe in no mercy or compassion for prisoners I shall have to join their number. Prisons are not there for that purpose, they exist to punish and protect the public from criminals that are resident within. Of course brutality should be stopped but that could come as a result of locking away every prisoner in solitary cells for the entire duration of their sentence, given only basic amenities and the sustainance and space they need for survival, without any human contact whatsoever.

And no matter the 'justification' for murder it's still the most absolutely wrong thing a person can do in society, and regardless of their motivations I will always believe murderers found guilty beyond all significant doubt should be executed.

[an0n]

Originally posted by Kazan
an0n your definition is incorrect

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Yeah, someone not acting under the powers granted by a recognised nation. Which is what I said. And who engages in military action. Which is what I said.

And regardless of what you may have been lead to believe, all violence is based upon forcing your views, ideological and political, upon others.

So basically, I gave a text-booked definition of a terrorist.

[Rictor]

I don't want for this to turn into a political debate, but I am assuming that someone like Dubya or Rumsfelf is excused for murder? I mean, thousands of innocents died as a result of bombing, why is that not considered murder? It just seems to me that you (and most others) have a double standard. Killing one person is a crime, the worst a person could commit, but murdering a thousand or ten thousand in "policy".

Just remember, these are people too. Killing does not take that away. Not to mention that some of the things for which a person goes to prison for, such as using drugs, are insane. You get punished for what you do to your own body.

[an0n]

I believe the quote is: Kill one man and you're a murderer. Kill hundreds and you're a hero.

[Grey Wolf]

I thought it was: One death is a tragedy. One thousand is a statistic.

Or am I thinking of a different quote?