home

Does Justice Only Mean Death?

By TChris, Section Death Penalty
Posted on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 10:27:39 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

In this AP story, "America's Most Wanted" host John Walsh complains that fugitives who flee from the United States into Mexico escape justice by evading the death penalty. Pursuant to treaty, Mexico (like Canada and other countries) will not extradite a fugitive who might be put to death.

"It's not about revenge. It's not so much about closure. It's about justice," [Walsh] said.

Obeying a treaty obligation isn't unjust. Death is an extreme punishment inconsistently administered in an imperfect criminal justice system. The treaty respects Mexico's sovereign right to make its own judgment about extradition while assuring a mechanism to return fugitives for trial and punishment. Doesn't that sound like justice to you?

< In Nevada, Obama Loves 527s, Hated Them In Iowa | NV Poll: Clinton Up 9, Romney Up 15 >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Does Justice Only Mean Death? | 21 comments (21 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    If John Walsh..... (5.00 / 0) (#5)
    by kdog on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 11:21:52 AM EST
    wants justice, he can go get it and face the consequences.

    I'm a little tired of death penalty fans wailing about "justice" when so few are willing to bloody their own hands.  Nobody gives you nothing in this world, you want something you go get it or stfu about it.  If you kill the guy who kills your loved one, and I'm on your jury, you're not getting convicted.

    No disrespect to the families of crime victims, just saying if somebody kills a member of my family I'm not expecting the state to deliver eye for an eye justice.  If I want it, I'll go get it.  Plus, I don't want the state in the eye for an eye business...the state has a tendency to screw up too much...and the larger the state the more screw ups.

    Funny you should mention this... (1.00 / 0) (#10)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 05:09:20 PM EST
    Plus, I don't want the state in the eye for an eye business..

    Actually one of the earliest reasons for establishment of a state, with laws enforced by the state, was to eliminate the "eye for eye" by individuals. Without that the individual becomes involved in blood feuds that can go on for generations. By acting as a third party provider of revenge the state promotes peace and stability between individuals.

    Plus, you have no proof that, in the long run, the individual seeking revenge doesn't make just as many mistakes as the state.

    Parent

    The individual will probably make more mistakes... (5.00 / 0) (#13)
    by kdog on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 05:25:32 PM EST
    but the individual can be held accountable, the state never is.  

    I can live with a lone murderer, even a prolonged blood fued between individual families.  I just can't live with systemized murder by the state.  

    Probably has something to do with the state having no face, no flesh and bone...if that makes any sense.

    Parent

    Think it through (1.00 / 0) (#17)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 07:15:13 PM EST
    I can live with a lone murderer, even a prolonged blood fued between individual families

    Even when one of the families blows himself up in the marketplace you are shopping?? Along with kdog and a couple of dozen of kdog's friends and relatives??

    As I have noted before, I am conflicted over capital punishment, and would accept LWOP in almost all cases. The problem is that too often "long sentences" do not mean "long sentences." Ask the second victim's family about Huckabee's
    mistake.

    Parent

    Come now. (1.00 / 0) (#8)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 05:01:32 PM EST
    Do I think guilty as sin people do the same thing? Yes, but 'it's better to let 10 guilty men go free, than have one innocent man jailed (or executed)."

    I keep on reading such comments, but I find no real rational thinking behind this as far as "the good of society" goes.

    BTW - Can you link us to a list of innocent people who have been executed??

    yeah yeah yeah (5.00 / 0) (#11)
    by Jen M on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 05:22:34 PM EST
    BTW - Can you link us to a list of innocent people who have been executed??

    They were all convicted. Ha Ha Ha.


    Parent

    So this means that you don't have a list. (1.00 / 0) (#15)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 06:54:42 PM EST
    Why is that no surprise.

    Parent
    yes I do (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Jen M on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 10:27:24 PM EST
    Like Nowamai said. supereasy to find.

    but consider how long this nation has been executing people, then consider how large a percentage of people have been exhonerated by dna and you would put money on the 'no mistakes in the last 230something years no mistakes have ever been made?

    Hell, you would take that bet for Texas in the last ten years?

    Your bookies must be near on to orgasm when they see you coming.

    Parent

    hehe (none / 0) (#23)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 01:32:33 PM EST
    It is your claim.

    Prove it or lose it.

    Parent

    Question too hard for you? (1.00 / 0) (#19)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 07:22:41 PM EST
    I didn't ask for list of innocent people who have been convicted.

    I asked for a list of innocent people who have been executed.

    Dictionary link.

    Parent

    I know it's not nice to feed the trolls but...... (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by sef on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 09:23:36 PM EST
    Jim:

    You really can't be this, ummm, forgetful.  There is a huge number of posts on this topic on TL.  i would  also note the book "In spite of Innocence" which lists dozens of executions in the twenthieth century where we killed in spite of strong claims of innocence.

    Parent

    Heh (none / 0) (#24)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 01:35:16 PM EST
    where we killed in spite of strong claims of innocence.

    "claims of innocence" is a qualifier.

    Let's see a list of people that were executed by the state that were later proved to be innocent.

    Parent

    Of course you aren't. (none / 0) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 01:41:58 PM EST
    But if you want to make a disputable point, you need to show proof.

    As I have noted, I don't expect that I, or you, need to provide a dictionary link.

    But when it comes to innocent men being executed...
    yes... You do need some proof.

    I am not obligated to prove your point.

    Parent

    Screw society..... (5.00 / 0) (#14)
    by kdog on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 05:36:23 PM EST
    Seizing the catfish pond/retirement compound under emminent domain and buiding a free health clinic would be "good for society".  But it ain't good for my friend Jim:)

    The "good of society" is not the ultimate goal...individual liberty is. Besides, I would argue that placing individual liberty in the highest regard is for the "good of society".  

    Anything else is tyranny.

     

    Parent

    Oh, I don't know (1.00 / 0) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 07:09:49 PM EST
    as long as they reimburse me fairly...a million will do, and let the BBQ Stand (fresh vegetables every Wednesday) alone.....

    The quandary is always this... At what point does your freedom impact my freedom? And at what point does the needs of society overcome each of our freedom?

    Your problem is that you stop at "freedom." Keep turning the page and you will find "responsibility."

    Parent

    Rwanda??? (1.00 / 0) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 07:17:25 PM EST
    Really??

    Gosh, you have a way with words.

    tehe

    I've Never Understood These Complaints (none / 0) (#2)
    by BDB on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 10:56:51 PM EST
    So long as Mexico will extradite if the prosecuting jurisdiction waives the death penalty, I don't see what the issue is.  I could see the problem when Mexico was refusing to extradite folks because the possible punishment was life in prison, but unless something has changed, the Mexican Supreme Court overruled that position and said murderers could be extradited if they faced life in prison.  Given how many murderers in this country never face the death penalty, I don't see what the big deal is.  Admittedly, I'm not a death penalty proponent, but it seems like getting a guy back for life in prison is better than not getting him back at all.

    I'm aware of at least one occasion where a jurisdiction's failure to waive the death penalty resulted in the murderer going free in another country (not Mexico, which can try its citizens itself for crimes committed in other countries).   It's astonishing to me that any district attorney would make that choice.  Make that reprehensible.

    bloodlust (none / 0) (#3)
    by chemoelectric on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 01:14:50 AM EST
    John Walsh simply uses high-sounding terminology to mean his personal bloodlust. It's not even about revenge, I think, but rather an excuse to feel part of something so powerful that it can kill with impunity.

    (I would rather feel part of something so powerful that it is willing to risk letting live those who maybe do not deserve to live, even those about whom there is no doubt of their guilt, so that no one innocent ever could possibly, conceivably, even through the most unprobable chain of errors big or small, be put to death.)

    justice (none / 0) (#4)
    by diogenes on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 10:54:10 AM EST
    If the rule of law holds, then the just sentence is the one applied by the jurisdiction where the crime was committed. I suppose that Mexico is entitled to grant "political asylum" to various murderers who cross the border claiming risk of the death penalty if they want to have these people as Mexican citizens.  Somehow I doubt that they'd get better treatment in Mexican prisons unless they're druglords or bribe people.    
    Whether the death penalty is IMMORAL or BAD LAW are questions for each jurisdiction to decide via legislative action.

    Yes indeed. Mexico *is* another country. (none / 0) (#6)
    by Jen M on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 12:38:57 PM EST
    How very generous of you to tentatively acknowledge this.

    If the rule of law holds then sovereign nations can act as they see fit. Each nation determines what is Moral or Bsd Law in their own countries. Mexico is not the only country that will not allow extradition in cases of death penalty.

    The jurisdictions that thinks death penalty is the only justice are deciding to let their suspects off scot free. They know this. That is what they have decided is justice.

    Parent

    Rule of law (none / 0) (#7)
    by Al on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 01:47:39 PM EST
    I don't understand what you mean by "if the rule of law holds". An extradition treaty is the law. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it illegal.

    Parent
    Does Justice Only Mean Death? | 21 comments (21 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment