Betrayed By His Gov't, Dog Chapman Arrested!

[Flagg]

Bounty Hunters get away with some really disturbing shit in this country since they are essentially given special Constitutional protection. It's truly fucked up. I've read horror stories about them busting in doors of the wrong houses and getting into shootouts with the occupands, then facing no charges afterwards.

[Flagg]

like I said he was more likely acting as a father going out of his way to deal with a serial rapist who liked using liquid x, and damn near killed one of his victims.

No, he was most likely after a chunk of that $1,000,000 in bail. He may very well have gotten it if he smuggled the guy across the border after kidnapping him, too.

[CelesKnight]

How about they refuse to extradite American criminals who jump the border? Treaties work both ways, or they're not worth the paper on which they're printed.

You're assuming that the are currently worth the paper they are printed on.

Mexico refuses to extradite anyone who faces the death penalty. And, until recently, they refused to extradite anyone who faced life imprisonment. Source. I don't know the details of the treaties so It's possible that those provisions were written into the text of the treaty; however, from the sound of the news articles I've read on it, it seems that Mexico unilaterally decided they weren't going to extradite people facing death or life imprisonment.

What good is the extradition treaty when one side refuses to honor if when they don't approve of the possible punishments? How would that be any different from, say, the US Gov't refusing to extradite Dog because we think a possible 4 year sentence to too harsh for actions that would be legal in the US.

[Xisiqomelir]

IANAL, but the US-Mexico extradition treaty only allows the extradition of those considered criminal in both countries, right?

[RedImperator]

How about they refuse to extradite American criminals who jump the border? Treaties work both ways, or they're not worth the paper on which they're printed.

You're assuming that the are currently worth the paper they are printed on.

Mexico refuses to extradite anyone who faces the death penalty. And, until recently, they refused to extradite anyone who faced life imprisonment. Source. I don't know the details of the treaties so It's possible that those provisions were written into the text of the treaty; however, from the sound of the news articles I've read on it, it seems that Mexico unilaterally decided they weren't going to extradite people facing death or life imprisonment.

Both sides have the right to refuse to extradite someone who faces the death penalty. And it's actually very common for non-death penalty countries to refuse to extradite fugutives facing the death penalty. That's simply a fact of life, and I don't know if you really can demand a country that sees execution as a barbaric punishment send someone back to face it.

The life imprisonment thing is another matter, being the result of a relatively recent Mexican Supreme Court decision that may require renegotiation of the treaty. However, Mexico has not refused to extradite fugitives facing less than life sentences, so refusing to turn over a suspect wanted for kidnapping and wrongful imprisonment would still invite meaningful retaliation.

What good is the extradition treaty when one side refuses to honor if when they don't approve of the possible punishments? How would that be any different from, say, the US Gov't refusing to extradite Dog because we think a possible 4 year sentence to too harsh for actions that would be legal in the US.

Replace "a possible 4 year sentence" with "possible death by torture" and you see things from the Mexican viewpoint. Like it or not, most of the West sees execution as a barbaric punishment, the same way Americans view stoning or mutilation. And anyway, the treaty gives them the right to refuse to extradite without a guarantee the fugitive will not be executed--without that clause, they wouldn't have ratified the treaty in the first place. The life imprisonment thing, on the other hand, seems to be a unilateral reinterpretation of the treaty by the Mexican courts and may call for renegotiation, though it's worth pointing out that if SCOTUS did the same thing, the Justice and State Departments would be bound by that ruling no matter how little they agreed with it, so it's premature to blame "the Mexican government" for an action taken by their Supreme Court. At any rate, if the treaty or Mexican cooperation is so bad it warrants refusing to extradite a petty felon, then it warrants halting all extradictions and accepting the fact that until you get a new treaty or new Mexican laws, Mexico will be a safe haven for any American criminal who can get across the border. Chapman doesn't deserve special treatment just because he's a TV personality or because his felonies are less disagreeable than other felonies.