Should this woman be extradited? (Fatal DUI, leaves US to avoid sentence)

Great Debates
1

I just learned about this story in Austin.

About ten years ago, a group of young women, all friends, went out for a night on the town. Presumably, they all had too much to drink, and one of them, Evelyn Mezzich, decided she would drive back home. Mezzich lost control of the car and had an accident, killing one of the women, and paralyzing the other one.

She appeared in court and it seems that the lawyers were working on a deal that would send her to prison for six months and 10 years probation. When the mother of the deceased woman protested, Mezzich skipped town, flew back to her native Peru, and has been there ever since.

Fast forward to today - somebody found her MySpace page, with pictures of her drinking and the quote, “Life’s too short - live it up.” The Travis County DAs are attempting to extradite her back to Texas (there is now an extradition treaty between Peru and the US) and have her face charges.

I’ve linked to the story here. (Warning, it might only be viewable if you register at the Statesman’s webpage.)

To further complicate matters, the father of the dead woman has appealed to the DA not to have Mezzich extradited. He argues that she apologized to him several times, and he feels that she is not a threat to society. Additionally, Mezzich is now a practicing psychologist, married and pregnant. The argument, I suppose, is that she is a contributing member of society and with child, and bringing her back to the US would be cruel. The mother of the dead woman (divorced from the father) feels quite differently, and has stated that Mezzich has never attempted to apologize to her, and that she should serve time in prison for her actions.

Personally, I think she needs to return and face the music. Skipping town was a despicable act. Mezzich is not the first person to accidentally kill a friend in a drunk driving accident, and while the guilt she probably feels is quite a punishment, I see this as profoundly unfair to every single person who has committed a similar crime, went to prison and/or served a probationary sentence. The time for clemency was facing the judge. Taking advantage of a legal/diplomatic loophole reeks of cowardice and privilege… I’m sure every other person in a similar position would have liked to leave town and avoid the judicial process if they could. The fact that she is pregnant and a professional has little to do with it, IMO.

Opinions seem to be split, especially given the fact that she is pregnant and one relative of the victim is against the extradition. One argument is that the cost and effort outweighs the benefit. What do y’all think?

2

Hell yes, she should be extradited, and she should be denied parole because she’s a demonstrated flight risk. She a psychologist and a parent? Not for the next ten years, she isn’t. Having a kid and a good job isn’t a “Get out of jail free,” card.

3

Let’s see.

  1. Driving while under the influence of alcohol is almost certainly a crime in pretty much every country.

  2. Killing someone because you were driving poorly due to being under the influence of alcohol is almost certainly a crime in pretty much every country.

  3. There are no death penalty implications.

Usually a country may not extradite someone who could be charged with a capital crime if the extraditing country does not have the death penalty. Likewise, a country may not extradite someone who is charged with a criminal act which is not viewed as as criminal by the extraditing country.

Although this would obviously vary based on extradition treaties and the countries involved.

So assuming Peru and the United States had an extradition treaty when Mezzich left the country, I’d say they should definitely extradite. If Peru and the United States didn’t have such a treaty, then I have no idea if such treaties usually cover persons who fled into another jurisdiction before the treaty were signed.

One of the least compelling arguments for not punishing someone who has avoided punishment for a crime they committed many years ago is, “they have a great life now and are contributing to society.” Most especially in the case of crimes which lead to the death of others. The fact that the perpetrator has a life, and is enjoying it, shows just what they took from their victim. The taking of life is one of the few things for which we can’t really provide equity. But at the very least we can agree that someone needs to be punished by the legal system when they take a life negligently or intentionally.

It’s arguable that the BTK killer, Dennis Raeder, was no longer a threat to society when he was apprehended. It is also arguable he was living a decent life (he was employed, had a wife–although he was reviled by some of his co-workers.)

It shouldn’t be viewed as vengeance that we punish people so long after the crime, but simply a matter of equity. None of BTK’s victims were any less dead in 2004 than they were in 1974.

4

What good is going to come out of extraditing her? Other than we all get to pat ourselves on the back and say “justice was served!” we don’t get to say we improved life at all for anyone by putting her in jail, unless there’s a serious danger of her doing something like this again.

I don’t give a damn about “fair”. Using the law to destroy a family for no reason other than revenge is not right. That’s not what the legal system should be for.

5

She committed a crime. She fled the jurisdiction. She hasn’t faced any consequences of her actions and a woman is dead, and another is paralyzed. I don’t get “revenge” from bringing her back to face trial.

How long do you have to hide before we say “We give up, you win?”

6

Letting her go creates a serious incentive for others to run, knowing that even if they’re tracked down later they may get similar leniency.

Plus, it doesn’t sound like the jail time that she was originally sentenced to would keep her from raising her child. And while the court might give her a separate punishment for running, if she’s lucky one would think that given her situation and some moving testimony from the “forgiving father”, she might be able to keep from missing to much of her new baby’s childhood.

7

Okay, but if you’re going to have an exception to the rule, it has to be specific, it can’t be “well, it feels wrong in this case”.

So if x years pass and the defendant has a job making $y/year helping z people and has xzy children, then they are exempt from criminal prosecution? Or if not, then under what specific circumstances should they be exempt?

8

No other reason than revenge? What about deterrence?

Specific deterrence – According to the OP, her MySpace page currently celebrates her drinking. She clearly didn’t learn much from being responsible for a fatal DUI if “Life’s too short, live it up!” (with drinking photos) is her motto. Should we wait until she’s killed or maimed a few more people before we say, “How come this woman wasn’t thrown in jail the first time?” like we usually do when these multiple DUI killers are finally caught?

General deterrence – Part of the purpose of the justice system is to make people aware that there are consequences to their actions. The tremendous reduction in drunk driving fatalities over the past 30 years is due to the new stigma and awareness, and to the new much tougher drunk driving laws. “If you just go back to your country of origin and lay low for a while, you won’t be punished for driving drunk,” is not a message I want to be sending.

Finally, I think revenge, in the form of punishment, is a perfectly appropriate means of dealing with crime. That’s what justice means, that people who violate society’s rules are going to be punished. I say Ms. Mezzich deserves to be sent back so that she can serve whatever sentence is deemed appropriate.

9

Why should she get a break just because she has the wherewithal to skip bail? She killed someone. Her negotiated sentence was very favorable to her, IMO. Now she has to pay a dumb tax for advertising herself on the Internet.

Was she pregnant in her MySpace picture? If so, she should pay a double dumb tax for drinking while pregnant.

10

So, how do you propose this works? If she’d been a psychologist with a family when the accident originally occured, should she not be prosecuted in the interest of not “destroying” her family? Assuming your answer is, “No,” why does your logic apply now, but not then? If she didn’t have a kid, would you still argue against prosecution? Or is it only folks with kids who get to flaunt the consequences of their actions? Does fertility strike you as reasonable grounds for determining the legal consequences of comitting crimes?

11

Except for the vast expanse of time she might sit awaiting trial?

Edit: I read the original as six weeks. Six months, and no problems raising a child? What planet are you on? And that was the conciliatory sentence being negotiated before she absconded.

12

A kid is not a get-out-of-jail-free card. If you commit a crime and get caught, then we’ll slap you in jail, even if you were a parent at the time. So her having a kid has nothing to do with the issue whatsoever.

We’ll also throw you in jail if you have a successfull career. So that’s also irrelevent.

Are there any relevent objections to this woman recieving her punishment? Besides arguing that we should only jail destitute, childless persons?

13

Extradite her, then sentence her for the original crime and the subsequent flight. Sentences to run consecutively.

This gal made her bed- she needs to lie in it. Period.

I have a friend who killed one of her own children in a DUI accident. It was horrible. But it’s not like she didn’t do any time because she had other children to take care of. Nope- she’s doing 4 years minimum, and it’s not easy time.

And that’s the right thing.

14

Well, if she turned herself in, she could start that process now.

Don’t put words into my mouth. I didn’t say “no problem”, I said she would still be able to raise it, and indeed if the court doesn’t hit her with a lot of extra jail time for having fled, she will be present for most of the kids childhood.

15

What about the family she “destroyed” with her wreckless actions? :dubious:

16

If her actions had been wreckless, she wouldn’t be having this problem. Unfortunetly, she was reckless instead, and someone died.

17

You might have missed my point, which is the extraordinary lengths of time involved with any and every stage of an extradition process, plus automatically being on the lowest rung of any waiting-list within the American system. Does this tally with Malodorous’s statement on which I was originally commenting?

18

She doesn’t need to undergo extradition though, as of right now, she’s a free woman in Peru. She just needs to get on a plane and turn herself in in Texas, and as the article seems to suggest the Justice dept. is uncertain of their ability to get her back, I imagine she could at least try and strike a deal to have her voluntarily turning herself over would limit the amount of extra time she would have to spend behind bars.

She’s already been sentenced to 6 months. I imagine she could start serving it as soon as she got back, while the rest of her case played out in the courts.

19

Extradite her and can the deal that was being worked out for her when she fled the country. She should also have her license to practice rescinded as she apparently withheld some pertinent information (a pending trial for a felony, flight from justice) from the licensing authority.

She hasn’t been sentenced to six months. Her lawyer and the prosecution were discussing such a deal when she fled.

20

Is the crime she commited extriditable under the Peru-U.s. Treaty governing such things? That is and should be the only consideration here. if you want to debate about what laws should be extriditable, debate that. Or is the position that sufficiently sympathetic poeple should be granted a walk?