They caught Laurean in Mexico, and I was disappointed to read that Mexico will not cooperate with the extradition of suspects who face the death penalty back in America.
I think I still don't support the death penalty for a lot of stuff, but rape + theft + murder + murdering viable fetus + setting bodies on fire + lying about it just about tips the scales for me.
Also, if all our murderers can escape that consequence by fleeing to Mexico, that makes me feel like maybe the border fence is a better idea. However, Laurean is not a normal extradition case since he was technically born in Mexico. I think if a criminal with no connection to Mexico were caught there, would it really be an extradition?
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:Also, if all our murderers can escape that consequence by fleeing to Mexico, that makes me feel like maybe the border fence is a better idea.
I doubt he cut a fence and waded across the Rio Grande. I was under the impression of getting into Mexico is rather easy. Do we have any sources for how he crossed over? I'd guess it was probably in the trunk of some dude's car.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Hmm. The argument that sways me against the death penalty is that you will occasionally get innocents convicted of something they didn't do. I wonder, though: What would happen if the standard of evidence for applying the death penalty was increased? Not "beyond reasonable doubt", but "beyond any shadow of doubt whatsoever?"
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Not "beyond reasonable doubt", but "beyond any shadow of doubt whatsoever?"
It would put to rest many of the concerns I have about the death penalty, at least.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
KOM, As a scientist you should know that beyond all shadow of doubt is technically impossible.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
The doubt has to be on a level where if this person is not guilty, his death is on our heads. I happen to believe it is whether we know it or not.
I'm very sad at the idea of convicting someone, anyone, just to ... what? I don't know why someone would do that. I guess I've heard people say that punishing someone, even if it's the wrong person, creates a deterrent against future murders. I find that appalling.
Posted by Achilles (Member # 7741) on :
That's the point.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: KOM, As a scientist you should know that beyond all shadow of doubt is technically impossible.
Yes, and since in fact everyone knows that, we usually do not bother, in ordinary speech, to load our sentences with qualifiers like "modulo the usual epsilon." If you like, though, you can consider that I said "To the same level of certainty as general relativity."
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Increasing the burden of proof sounds good in theory, but there's always going to be the possibility that someone has been framed.
Without an actual videotape of the crime (and even that can be faked), all evidence can be planted by someone. Bloody knife in his bookbag? Someone could have put it there. Shoe prints match the bloody prints at the crime scene? Maybe the murderer was wearing his shoes.
None of these doubts are "reasonable" in most cases (though this is pretty much the OJ defense), but it certainly enters the realm of "a shadow of a doubt".
Edit: Maybe if we can invent the machines from Pastwatch, then no one would ever have any doubts as to what happened in a crime. I think one of the fun things about that book was thinking of all the different questions one could answer with the technology.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
We've had two recent incidents in Kansas where the suspect fled to Mexico (they were Mexican by birth) and although captured there, could not be returned to our state if they were to face the death penalty here (Kansas is a death penalty state). So plea agreements were made,, etc. etc.
Kinda sickening that they have this "out" -- they know if they murder someone, as long as they make it to Mexico, it greatly complicates the proceedings.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I believe that they have studies showing that the death penalty is not actually a deterrent for criminal acts. This makes sense to me because people aren't logical beings.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Of course they would be less likely to have that out if the US didn't find it necessary to have the death penalty. Most of the developed world does manage without it.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Sounds to me like a reasonable solution would be to no longer have the death penalty, and when you then get them from Mexico (or wherever) you lock them up and throw away the key (life without the possibility of parole).
Wanting death over that just seems to be unnecessary, and in these cases actually worse than the non-death alternative.
I don't see that the satisfaction of killing a murderer is worth allowing for these situations to pop up periodically.
-Bok
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: I believe that they have studies showing that the death penalty is not actually a deterrent for criminal acts. This makes sense to me because people aren't logical beings.
I've seen studies that go both ways on that include those that finding a deterrent effect those that find an incitement effect. I find the deterrent effect to be less believable because people are rarely behaving rationally when they commit a murder. If they were, I would suspect life in prison would be a very effective deterrent alone.
Can you honestly imagine anyone thinking "If it were just life in prison it would be worth killing her but with the death penalty it just isn't worth it"?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Maybe I'm just annoyed at Mexico not returning a murderer solely because they've committed a capital crime. Do they then try them on the crime down in Mexico?
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I would suspect life in prison would be a very effective deterrent alone.
I would agree with that if "life in prison" were truly life in prison. But most times it's not. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Of course they would be less likely to have that out if the US didn't find it necessary to have the death penalty. Most of the developed world does manage without it.
Well that's certainly a reason to abandon or adopt new criminal justice policies.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Farmgirl:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I would suspect life in prison would be a very effective deterrent alone.
I would agree with that if "life in prison" were truly life in prison. But most times it's not.
I think that is an outdated conception. Since 1987 in the US, all life sentences under federal jurisdiction are ineligible for parole. To the best of my knowledge, all US states can give a sentence of "life without parole".
I have know idea what fraction of life sentences are "life with out parole" but that option does exist and is a viable alternative to the death sentence.
I suppose that technically, execution is the only way to be certain that someone stays in jail for the rest of their life. As long as their alive, there is the potential for pardon.
But then I consider that a good argument against capital punishment.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that when a significant majority of of people in the world agree on something it might be an indication that we need to reexamine our position.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Maybe I'm just annoyed at Mexico not returning a murderer solely because they've committed a capital crime. Do they then try them on the crime down in Mexico?
quote: Onslow County District Attorney Dewey Hudson has agreed not to seek execution in order to win the cooperation of Mexico, which refuses to send anyone back to the U.S. unless provided assurance they will not face a death sentence.
For better or for worse, IIRC we have the same policy as Mexico.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Since 1987 in the US, all life sentences under federal jurisdiction are ineligible for parole. To the best of my knowledge, all US states can give a sentence of "life without parole".
I have know idea what fraction of life sentences are "life with out parole" but that option does exist and is a viable alternative to the death sentence.
Okay, apparently 48 states now do have the option of a true sentence of life without parole. That's good to know. (Kansas didn't adopt it until 2004)
I never said I was pro-death penalty; or anti-death penalty. I've made my position clear on it in many previous threads.
But that link I just gave above has some pretty interesting stuff in it.
Posted by katdog42 (Member # 4773) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I think that when a significant majority of of people in the world agree on something it might be an indication that we need to reexamine our position.
I agree wholeheartedly. I think there are a significant number of statistics that indicate a LOWER crime rate in many countries that do NOT use the death penalty and I hope and pray that someday the US can take an honest look at their policy.
As for Mexico, I am admire the guts they have to stand up for what they believe to be an inhumane punishment.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:They caught Laurean in Mexico, and I was disappointed to read that Mexico will not cooperate with the extradition of suspects who face the death penalty back in America.
It's not unusual. For my international law course, we looked at a bunch of Canadian cases where suspects had been extradited from Canada to face the death penalty and had argued against the validity of this in the American or Canadian Courts. I believe they failed each time.
As Mucus said, Canada I think now usually seeks assurances that the criminal not face the death penalty.
quote:However, Laurean is not a normal extradition case since he was technically born in Mexico. I think if a criminal with no connection to Mexico were caught there, would it really be an extradition?
I think extradition works the same way regardless of the nationality of the criminal, if the country initiating the request has a real and substantial connection to the crime (as it does here.) The Canadian cases above were Canadians arguing their rights as a Canadian not to face the death penalty.
quote:Also, if all our murderers can escape that consequence by fleeing to Mexico, that makes me feel like maybe the border fence is a better idea.
The US (the DEA) has been known to, uh, 'borrow' people from Mexico and fly them back to the states. It doesn't affect the legitimacy of the arrest, even if the country complains (since it's the country's sovereignty that's being violated), unless the criminal was tortured or otherwise treated poorly in which case the usual laws apply.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)