# Conviction in Absentia **URL:** \ **Category:** Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports\ **Created:** [December 29, 2006, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conviction-in-absentia/386003 "2006-12-29T17:30:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2007, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conviction-in-absentia/386003/41 "2007-01-10T17:31:47Z")
[QUOTE=hawthorne] If you want to leave it there, that’s fine **Bricker**. But I note that you haven’t attempted to rebut - or even baldly deny - my claim that your response was a sham. [/QUOTE] If there is a general feeling of consensus that my reply was a “sham,” I will be happy to explain further. I believe I have explained it clearly, and that you’re about the only person that is reading my response and concluding “sham.” ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2007, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conviction-in-absentia/386003/42 "2007-01-10T18:01:10Z")
You read that one parenthetical remark and saw a jingoistic, smug dismissal of Mexico’s sovereignty, all because he said “may have violated Mexican law” instead of “may have committed serious offenses under Mexican law”? That’s one heck of an inkblot. ---
**Author:** ![Rube\_E.Tewesday](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f0a364/32.png) [@Rube\_E.Tewesday](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rube_E.Tewesday)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2007, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conviction-in-absentia/386003/43 "2007-01-10T18:02:08Z")
If I may be so bold as to address something other than the highjack, I was puzzled by this in the report: > [@](#): > > Einhorn’s attorneys fought extradition valiantly. First they argued that Einhorn would be subject to the death penalty if returned – French law doesn’t permit extradition without a guarantee that the wanted party won’t be executed. Assured by Pennsylvania authorities on this point, the French court then considered the argument that Einhorn’s trial hadn’t been fair, since he hadn’t been on hand to present a defense. While the skip-and-waive argument carries weight in the U.S., it didn’t sway the French, who denied extradition. If he’d already been sentenced to life, why was capital punishment an issue? Wasn’t the sentence _res judicata_ at this point? ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2007, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conviction-in-absentia/386003/44 "2007-01-10T20:02:44Z")
[QUOTE=Rube E. Tewesday] If he’d already been sentenced to life, why was capital punishment an issue? Wasn’t the sentence _res judicata_ at this point? [/QUOTE] He could have asked for a new trial, and in fact, his original extradition was denied because none was automatically available. But the death penalty argument still seems like a red herring. The death penalty wasn’t even available in PA when he committed his crime. ---
**Author:** ![hawthorne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@hawthorne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hawthorne)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2007, 12:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conviction-in-absentia/386003/45 "2007-01-11T12:52:42Z")
> [@](#): > > _pravnik_ > You read that one parenthetical remark and saw a jingoistic, smug dismissal of Mexico’s sovereignty, all because he said “may have violated Mexican law” instead of “may have committed serious offenses under Mexican law”? That’s one heck of an inkblot. Well, my objection has ramified. Had **Bricker** not posted his middle paragraph in his post #14, I wouldn’t have posted again in this thread. I had said my piece about the little part of a fine Staff Report I found jarring and would have moved on. As I’ve previously said, I’ve come to approach **Bricker** ’s posts with some degree of suspicion. And I’m sensitive about what I see as “winking at vigilantism”, particularly from posters who are more than mere members here. I don’t think I’m the one dragging this out. I am just being persistent in trying to get a straight answer. And here we go again with another carefully crafted post that sounds like an answer but isn’t: > [@](#): > > _Bricker_ > > > [@](#): > > > > _Me_ > > If you want to leave it there, that’s fine Bricker. But I note that you haven’t attempted to rebut - or even baldly deny - my claim that your response was a sham. > > If there is a general feeling of consensus that my reply was a “sham,” I will be happy to explain further. I believe I have explained it clearly, and that you’re about the only person that is reading my response and concluding “sham.” This is a non-denial denial. I again note that you haven’t attempted to rebut - or even baldly deny - my claim that your response was a sham. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2007, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conviction-in-absentia/386003/46 "2007-01-11T15:26:31Z")
[QUOTE=hawthorne] Well, my objection has ramified. Had **Bricker** not posted his middle paragraph in his post #14, I wouldn’t have posted again in this thread. I had said my piece about the little part of a fine Staff Report I found jarring and would have moved on. As I’ve previously said, I’ve come to approach **Bricker** ’s posts with some degree of suspicion. And I’m sensitive about what I see as “winking at vigilantism”, particularly from posters who are more than mere members here. I don’t think I’m the one dragging this out. I am just being persistent in trying to get a straight answer. And here we go again with another carefully crafted post that sounds like an answer but isn’t:This is a non-denial denial. I again note that you haven’t attempted to rebut - or even baldly deny - my claim that your response was a sham. [/QUOTE] MY RESPONSE WAS NOT A SHAM. YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE THAT FEELS IT IS A SHAM. MY RESPONSE WAS NOT A SHAM. MY RESPONSE WAS NOT A SHAM. MY RESPONSE WAS NOT A SHAM. I trust that is a sufficient denial denial for you. ---
**Author:** ![hawthorne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@hawthorne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hawthorne)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2007, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conviction-in-absentia/386003/47 "2007-01-11T16:02:16Z")
Yes, I’ll take you at your explicit word. I hope your allcaps improves as time goes by as well. ---
**Author:** ![rayh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e79b87/32.png) [@rayh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rayh)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2007, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conviction-in-absentia/386003/48 "2007-01-11T23:31:54Z")
If you would like to know about the absurdities of English Law, you could get [Uncommon Law](http://www.amazon.com/Uncommon-Law-Being-Misleading-Cases/dp/1558820396) and [More Uncommon Law](http://www.amazon.com/More-Uncommon-Law-P-Herbert/dp/1842325965/sr=1-1/qid=1168558184/ref=sr_1_1/105-4877751-6192404?ie=UTF8&s=books) by [A P Herbert](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._P._Herbert). They may be a bit old now but still very funny and worth looking at. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2007, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conviction-in-absentia/386003/49 "2007-05-03T19:47:41Z")
Another case about American bounty hunters running afoul of Mexican law: [http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/05/03/bounty.hunters.ap/index.html](http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/05/03/bounty.hunters.ap/index.html) ---
**Author:** ![vetbridge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b5e925/32.png) [@vetbridge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vetbridge)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2007, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conviction-in-absentia/386003/50 "2007-05-03T20:15:46Z")
[QUOTE=hawthorne] like I said, it stuck in my craw. [/QUOTE] I would suggest immediate ingluviotomy. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conviction-in-absentia/386003.md?page=2)