Ok this issue has been bugging me a lot. Basically Mexico won’t extradite bad characters that did something like murder here, back to us unless we assure them that they won’t get the death penalty. Well excuse my frank language but Mexico we don’t give a damn what you want!!! This is an issue that happened in the United States of America. Stay the hell out of our business!! You have no right dictating what our system of justice will be for this scum-bag! If I were President I would tell you to go jump in a lake and if you pull this crap with me I would halt all funding to your country and slap you with an oil embargo. Quite frankly, I’m sick of my government trying to prop your poor economy up. Grow up Mexico, take care of your own people, and butt the hell out of our judicial system!!!
Mexico needs to mind their own business!
Mexico needs to mind their own business!
You can follow all the replies to this entry through the comments feed
Canada does the same thing. I feel they are perfectly within their rights to do this. Some people feel that the US’s use of the death penalty is morally reprehensible. If someone really feels that way, I see no problem with them making sure they play no part in an execution, even if that part is as small as the extrication of the accused. My opinion is that they are minding their own business. They want to play no part in an execution…..
I’ll leave the economic issue aside, because as important as it is, it’s a separate issue from the extradition issue that seems to be the main point of the post.
I’ll also state, for the sake of transparency, that I’m against the death penalty–though I don’t think that impacts my view on the extradition question.
On that question, I have a few thoughts:
(1) The Mexican government, like any government, has an obligation to protect the rights of its citizens, even when–perhaps *especially* when–those citizens are accused of committing a crime in another country. The U.S. also seeks to protect the rights of its citizens in other countries; the first thing a U.S. citizen arrested in another country should do is contact the embassy or consulate. The wrinkle in this case is that the accused is apparently in his own country, rather than in the country where he’s accused of committing the crime. Still, it isn’t self-evident to me that any country should extradite one of its citizens to face trial elsewhere unless it first ensures that said citizens rights will be protected. I doubt the U.S. would extradite one of our citizens to face trial on a murder charge in Saudi Arabia unless we were first assured that public beheading was off the table. (I use this example only for illustration; I’m not sure whether we even *have* an extradition agreement with Saudi Arabia.) We think public beheading violates a person’s rights; the Mexican government thinks the death penalty does. I don’t see a difference here. (Especially given that Mexico has no objections to locking the fellow up and throwing away the key, if he’s convicted.)
(2) As Marc pointed out, Canada does precisely the same thing. It’s simply part of how governments behave when the welfare of their citizens is concerned.
(3) The fact that something happens in one country’s jurisdiction doesn’t necessarily mean it’s nobody else’s business, even if it’s an internal affair. Two years ago, Hamas won democratic elections in the Palestinian territories. Even though that’s arguably a political matter internal to the territories, and even though it was a democratic election, the U.S. reacted negatively and tried to influence how the aftermath would play out. I don’t see any particular issue with that, in principle. The U.S. simply took what reasonable steps it could to influence Palestinian politics in a way that might be a little more favorable to it. I’m not sure how making an extradition contingent on taking the death penalty off the table, when the extraditing government is strongly opposed to such a penalty and does not impose it itself, is fundamentally different.
While we agree on the death penalty, I disagree on the larger point. This is Mexico trying to change OUR system of jusitce. It’s not about the death penalty, it’s about them trying to stick it to us I have a problem with. Today it’s the death penalty, tomorrow it’s they won’t extradite someone with a speeding ticket until they are assured that we won’t make the person sit in traffic school. This is Mexico we are talking about and they are a very corrupt government who has no respect for our borders or our national sovernity for that matter.
So if this were Canada, you have no problem with it?
Canada doesn’t have the “taking shots at us” history that Mexico does. In fact Canada is very much respectful of our border and sovernity. For me it’s harder to accept Mexico’s explanation on face value (opposition to the death penalty) I have a distrust of the Mexican government.
After reading Sr. Amy’s comment, I do have a question for you Rob. Imagine a country somewhere where the penalty for stealing is chopping off the offenders hands wanted to extradite an American to face trial for stealing. Our country will only agree to extradition if the person is assured a fair trial and that they not suffer the loss of any appendages. Would we be meddling in that country’s affairs? Keep in mind the vast majority of said hypothetical country fully believe the government of the US is completely corrupt. Does that negate the right that accused person has for their country to fight for their rights in any way they can?
“Canada doesn’t have the “taking shots at us” history that Mexico does.”
Obviously you’ve never been to a hockey game between a Canadian team and a US team. :p
Ah but see it’s about punishment to crime committed. Putting aside my opposition to the death penalty. It is a lot easier to argue that the crime for murder is the death penalty where as stealing something results in a hand being cut off. It’s a disproportional punishment you see. Now if the person has to pay a fine or maybe spend a few months in prison there, then I would have no problem with that.
PS I have been to Predator games rooting for my Ducks and it’s brutal there too.
See though Rob, your answer points out that it’s not about the government’s rights (either government). It’s about the accused rights. Don’t take away the rights of the accused just because you think his government is corrupt.
I guess I don’t see this as Mexico trying to change our system of justice. I see it more as them saying, “We have a problem with the death penalty, and we can’t become complicit in the execution of our national. But we agree he should face trial for the crime he’s accused of, and severely punished if he’s convicted. Take the death penalty off the table, and we’ll hand him right over.”
Just an additional musing (and I’m not yet sure what to make of it, myself): our patchwork quilt of laws in the U.S. probably complicates things. Had Laurean committed his crime in Minnesota instead of North Carolina, extradition wouldn’t be an issue. Mexico would hand him over without qualms.