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

Great Debates
61

I’m well aware I’m advocating expediency. And that the interests of the victim are being ignored.

If we were talking about a deliberate murder I’d agree with you completely, the woman should be extradited. That’s probably the only time or circumstances I’d actually fight for extradition, in any case.

I’ll admit my impression of how extradition works is colored by the fights that the US had to make to get Charles Ng and Ira Einhorn back to stand trials. Since this woman won’t be facing capital punishment, no matter how her sentence might change, the resistance to getting her send to the States would be much less than those two cases - but they still took years working through appeals and court processes. Hell’s bells, even extradition between the various States can be a months or years long process if the person involved fights it.

I think you missed my point, here. I’m not complaining about the financial costs so much. They’re a factor, but not the only one, and certainly not the major one in my mind. The thing that really bothers me is that the State staff in Peru has only so many man-hours available to use in any given year. I’m guessing, but I suspect that extraditing this woman will take about a man-year of work by someone, or ones, at the Embassy there. And that will put a collective man-year of delay in anything else that the Embassy might be tasked to do.

My talk about children wasn’t meant to refer to the idiot’s pregnancy, but to other work that the State officials could be working. AIUI Peru is one of the nations that does allow for extranational adoptions, which also takes some attention from State personnel.

I can’t find an answer on the website for the size of the mission to Peru, but take at look at this page. It includes a brief rundown of the level of resources available at the Embassy for people looking to research the US: 600 volumes and 50 periodicals. Note, the information is mainly concerned with describing the current trend of US culture. Ergo the periodicals we’re talking about are going to be things like Us, People, US New & World Report - that is relatively inexpensive periodicals of the most general nature. And you want me to expect that spending the sort of effort to extradite this woman won’t have an adverse effect on the other services that the embassy provides? I just don’t buy it. Unless the Federal gov’t is willing to pay for a salary for someone to be added to the staff (most likely several someones) to handle this extradition, it’s going to be added to the current workload. To the detriment of the current projects.

On preview: JThunder, I might as well respond to your post here. Since I just made the argument that you’re disagreeing with. I certainly don’t expect to change your mind. Nor even casdave’s. I just want to get my own thoughts out clearly.

There is an old latin tag I’d read that chilled me to the bone: Fiat justitia, ruat caelum. The way I’d seen that translated is usually, “Let justice be done, though the heavens fall.” Charging ahead on any moral stand without counting the cost scares me, quite honestly. In that kind of thinking third parties can, and often do, get caught up in the works, and chewed up.

To take an example from current events: The US House Foreign Affairs Committee recently voted to present a bill to the full House condmening Turkey for the Armenian Genocide. I will grant, that compared to full justice for the million plus poeple killed in that genocide such a bill is a toothless and petty band-aid. I’ll also admit I do agree the genocide happened. And that it should be called such.

But, by persuing it now, the US has effectively ruined any chance we might have had to try to broker some kind of settlement between the rising Kurdistan interests, and Turkey. IOW, by spending our political capital on something that is going to do damn-all for anyone killed by the genocide 80 years ago, we have reduced our ability to do anything about a conflict that is building, now.

That’s a far more dramatic case than what this situation faces in Peru, but I think it does illustrate why the idea of fiat justica, ruat caelum bothers me so much. And I do believe that I’ve presented some points for consideration that suggest that I may have the reality of how things will happen on my side, should extradition be sought for this woman.

You, casdave, and others, are free to disagree. I certainly don’t hold it against you. In an ideal world, where extraditing this woman would only affect her, and her immediately family, I’d be all for it. As it is, I’d prefer to know that other time-sensitive business at the embassy wouldn’t be put on the back burner for this before I sign on for extraditing her.

62

Fairly well done.

Look, if you say you don’t care about “fair,” then how can you with a straight face even dare to take some kind of moral high ground on this?

(I’ll give you a hint - you can’t)

63

That is EXACTLY why we can’t just shrug our shoulders and say, “Oh, well. She escaped punishment.” The cost is too high.

That’s what you, Mosier and company don’t seem to get. This isn’t simply a case of “justice at all costs.” Rather, it’s a situation where failing to enforce the law can have dangerous repercussions for decades to come. It sends the message that we’re willing to look the other way as long as people skip the country. The cost of such apathy is way too high.

64

Dangerous repurcussions for decades to come? You mean to say you seriously believe that Joe DUI is going to look on this case and decide that it’s time to head for Mexico or Canada to avoid serving his time?

I’m sorry to say that, AIUI, that already happens. And the outcome of this case isn’t going to change anyone’s view of the worth of that tactic one way or the other. People cross State boundaries, routinely, to avoid serving sentences that they find too high to be borne. And extradition, there, is still a sometimes thing. Usually happening only after the person in qeustion has been arrested for some other crime. We already let people escape charges if they skip the country. It happens fairly regulary.

FTM, who was that prep school rapist who lived high off the hog in Europe for a good few years while the heat died down in the US, with his parents funding his sprees? The US couldn’t extradite him, and they had both more leverage, and more reason to - he was charged with several rapes, not simply one. He finally came back, and between the passage of time, and the quality of the legal team that he had, got off scot free.

That’s the precedent I’d worry about, if I were you.

BTW, is there some reason for me to believe that the judge in the original case didn’t screw up by not securing the woman’s passport?

65

Prison doesn’t work ever? You’re saying there’s a 100% recidivism rate for everyone who is incarcerated, for any crime? Or are you flailing about for stronger hyperbole because you can feel the ground shifting out from under your argument?

Look, can you try to inject at least some logic into your argument? If locking someone away in a prison won’t get them to stop breaking the law, why will locking someone away in their home work any better? How is taking someone’s license away from them going to prevent them from driving under the influence a second time? Barring logic, how about evidence? Do you have any proof that house arrest is a more effective punishment than prison?

Bullshit. Locking her up will serve two immediate goods: it will prevent her from driving under the influence for the term of her incarceration, and it will serve as an example that trying to run from your legal responsibilites will not make things better. Keeping drunks off the roads and making people face up to their obligations are both tangible goods that would result from throwing this bitch in prison. On the other hand, you’ve been unable to present a single rational, workable alternative. Suspending her license is not rational: she’s already shown an indifference to far more serious offences. Placing her under house arrest is not workable: there are far too many crimes prosecuted everyday in this country to make house arrest an affordable or effective correction for all of them. Have you got anything else to bring to the table? Aside from, “Fuck it, it’s too hard to figure out, let’s just let her go free?”

66

You don’t need to show a 100% recidivism rate to prove that prison is ineffective at preventing crime. I’m sure you understand that.

Can you show any kind of evidence that this woman has encouraged or enabled more people to flee the country to avoid prosecution?

Prison time is not typical for drunk driving, by the way. Her mistake was exactly the same as someone who drives drunk, endagering her passengers, but doesn’t kill anyone. The typical punishment for drunk driving is to suspend or revoke a license, and it works. This is absolutely a “rational” legal response to someone convicted of their first DUI.

The only argument you have left is that the victims families somehow “deserve” for someone to be punished. If that’s a strong enough leg to support your opinion to go through great pain and expense, diverting law enforcement funding and resources from other (arguably much more important) cases, then we can’t make any progress in this discussion.

Also, remember that this is a deliberately sensationalized story. There are hundreds more like this that nobody is talking about because the stories aren’t compelling enough to be in the news.

67

Of course. But not only have you not shown a 100% recidivism rate, you have also not shown that prison is ineffective at preventing crime. I mean, you haven’t even presented an argument. Do you think this statement wins you anything?

Can you show any kind of evidence that areas that don’t have enforced laws are less lawless than areas that have enforced laws? I’m waiting…

You’re arguing that a person should not be judged by the consequences of their actions, but rather by the best possible imaginary consequences of their actions that didn’t actually occur. I assume that you think that anybody who shoots someone in the head should be prosecuted as though they had missed, too? Sorry, no. I declare this position “retarded” and reject it utterly.

Now, I’m not Miller, so I don’t know about him, but I actually don’t think the family has anything to do with it. So, maybe if you actually had done anything to refute the several other arguments ranged against you, I might have to come up with another argument or two, say about the obligation of persons who enjoy the protection of the law to uphold the carrying out of the law. But you haven’t done thing one to refute any of the points against you, so I don’t have to bring any more arguments forward.

If so, there are hundreds more people who should be extradited. So what? Is the the “some things are bad, so screw it and let everything go to hell” argument?

68

I’m sure you understand that there is a difference between being ineffective, and never being effective. If prison is never effective, as you said, then everyone sent to prison will still commit crimes when they’re released. The recidivism rate of the general prison population leaves a lot to be desired, but there are still some people who leave prison reformed, which indicates that it is at least sometimes effective.

Since you’ve been unable to provide any evidence at all for any of the positions you’ve taken here, I’m not sure why I should have to do the same for mine. Although I suppose I’m admitting to a double standard there, as at least I’ve explained the logic behind my position, something you’ve also failed to do in this thread.

Well, no, it’s not exactly the same, because in her case, someone is dead.

Does it? Can you prove that it works? How many drunk drivers continue to drive despite having their licences revoked? How many drunk drivers go on to have a second DUI? And, incidentally, what do we do with those drivers who continue to drink and drive, since, in your view, prison is never effective, and always makes things worse? Take their license away again? Is it double secret probation time for those shameless malefactors? Any chance of you explaining exactly how your “no prison” justice system could possible work?

As begbert2 has pointed out, you haven’t addressed any of the arguments I’ve made to you, so attacking an argument I’ve never made isn’t really going to do you any favors in this debate.

So what?

69

Now, if the other girls had been soberly assisting the homeless when a drunk Mezzich ran them over, then I’d be out there with most of the people in this thread, carrying my own pitchfork.

But the way I read the story above (I didn’t follow the link): All of the girls went downtown together, got drunk together, and climbed into the car together. Mezzich just happened to be holding the keys. I don’t have a lot of sympathy for the dead or paralyzed in this case.

Now, I’m not arguing that she shouldn’t be extradited, and I’m certainly not trying to argue a legal or moral position… I’m just saying that this is why I don’t really care about this case too much.

70

Seems like a lot of you equate what she did to murder. She didn’t get in that car thinking, “Great! I finally have the chance to off my friends! All this waiting has paid off now!” Don’t be so hasty to tie the noose. Part of committing a DUI is being intoxicated or inebriated, which is notorious for impairing judgment.

And I’m not convinced that what her MySpace page says has anything to do with this case. She’s presumably had a lot to think about since the accident. It’s a little irresponsible for this story to report what her MySpace page says, as if that’s some relevant factor to the case. It’s cold, and frankly downright evil, to expect her to be wallowing in her remorse ten years later. Don’t we teach people to move on and try to come to terms with loss? The way some of you talk, and reading the implications made by this story, you want her to hang because she doesn’t wake up crying every day. Do you all really expect her to never be allowed to drink again (not drink and drive, mind you, I expect her to have learned that lesson) and that she should never be happy or optimistic again?

Rabies can be fatal, so maybe some of you should get checked out.

71

So what? Gross, idiotic negligence may not be on a par with deliberate homicide, but it’s still pretty darned detestable.

Y’know what? When a deadbeat father runs out on his family, he seldom thinks, “Aha! Here is a chance for me to ruin the lives of my spouse and children. Boy, I’m going to enjoy this!” That doesn’t make his actions excusable in the least, nor should it earn him any sympathy.

72

Why not? If they see that the courts will throw in the towel simply because somebody escaped the national borders, then that strikes me as a mighty strong incentive for heading north, south, or overseas.

Now, I’m not saying that every single DUI will do so (“Joe DUI,” to use your terminology). However, it’s entirely plausible that some of them will.

And why limit this to drunk drivers, anyway? Why not con artists, or embezzlers, or small-time counterfeiters? If they see that society is quick to give up simply because somebody has stepped outside of American soil, then why wouldn’t they be eager to exercise this option?

Moreover, even if you disagree with that assessment, it’s still foolish to say that we only want justice, no matter what. That is not what we’re saying, and you know it.

Nor is it right to claim that we are unwilling to consider the costs. Several posters here HAVE weighed the costs, and have concluded that it would cost too much to turn a blind eye simply because somebody made it back to her homeland.

73

You’re the one who said that prison doesn’t EVER work. If you’re going to make that claim, then I think you should be prepared to demonstrate a 100% recidivism rate.

74

Wow. I think the very fact that she was charged with manslaughter, rather than murder, is evidence of the fact that the courts recognized her intent was different from that of a gangbanger.

Of course she should move on and find closure to this tragic incident in her life. The thing is, a MySpace page viewable to the world that highlights one’s love of liquor shows very poor judgment. You fled the law. You are a fugitive. Simply because you’ve been able to rationalize your behavior and “move on” does not make it so. I would say that a truly remorseful person would be living in the shadows, constantly in fear of being found. It sounds as if Mezzich wasn’t at all worried about being found. She either just forgot this unpleasant chapter of her life, or decided that nobody was going to make the effort to hold her accountable for her actions.

You all should know that Austin, because of the university, has a high international student population. I certainly believe that if someone successfully flees the country before sentencing, others who find themselves in uncomfortable legal situations might consider the option to run.

Had she stood trial, and been exonerated or served a sentence, I wouldn’t have a problem with the webpage. Every schmoe, for the most part, who finds him or herself on the wrong side of law, has to pay the debt to society. If you don’t do that, then IMO you haven’t earned the right to “move on.”

75

You people who want to spend a bunch of money to bring this lady back and put her in jail are just…well, I don’t understand.

In the first place, doing that will do nothing to bring back her long-dead friend. It will just destroy her current family. Why do that?

In the second place, the state of Texas had almost a year to bring her to justice, during which she apparently reported for all court dates. (Maybe it was more than a year. This was right there in the linked stories, but my computer is behaving bumpily so I can’t go back.) So, in addition to having her friend’s death and her other friend’s paralysis on her conscience, which had to be a punishment in itself, this teenager had the threat of the law hanging over her head for a year, but without resolution.

I say, the state of Texas had its chance. By all means she should be arrested and prosecuted should she ever set foot in Texas again, or even anywhere in the U.S. But they let her get away, when they had every chance not to.

I really don’t see why we’d want to waste time and energy importing a minor criminal. It’s not like we don’t have enough here already to fill our prisons.

76

Again, I don’t see why she merits special treatment. If we’re not going to go after her, we should legalize drunk driving and manslaughter for everybody. What makes her unique?

77

I don’t get how the fact that the victim’s mother has forgiven her means something to some people. For one thing, the mother of an adult has no authority over that person, why should they have a say in the punishment of that person’s killer? My mother is a wacky “born-again” Christian. If somebody shot me in cold blood, then made a show of accepting Jesus into their life and cried and begged forgiveness, my Mom would ask the judge to let him go. She’s not a good judge of character.

Secondly, if we let parents have a say in the punishment of those who victimize their children, that opens up all kinds of abuses. Let’s say a very wealthy person kills someone, then goes to their poor mother and offers to make them and their whole family rich if they ask the judge to be lenient. True, that might not make a difference to some grieving parents, or even most of them, but it would still be an option to escape justice that is only available to the rich.

78

It’s not about legalizing it. But I’ll tell you, I have sat in a courtroom (waiting for another case) and seen a judge give a 17-year-old two months in jail, which time was already served, and two years probation for killing another 17-year-old with a gun because it was an “accident.”

This doesn’t mean it’s legal, it just means there are ways to “get away with it” without even leaving the country.

79

I honestly can’t understand *your *position. If my wife is pregnant and I’m successful, do you have a problem if I kill your best friend while drunk? How about if in the same accident I paralyze you?

Do you think you’d be so flippant while lying in bedsores, waiting for the hospice nurse to come clean your ass? Me going to jail wouldn’t bring your best friend or your legs back…

Running away from the police and the administration of justice can’t be encouraged. *She *destroyed her family when she ran away like a coward.

80

Please, by all means. Finish that ellipisis. What does being interested in seeing justice served make me?

Once again, the question no one on your side of the debate seems to be willing or able to answer: if these are reasons not to prosecute her, why do we ever prosecute anyone for anything, ever? If she’d killed someone yesterday in a drunk driving accident, should we just let her walk because we can’t bring back the victim, and it would be damaging to her family?

Boo-fucking-hoo. If she had any conscience about what she did, she’d have served her time. Yeah, she showed up for her court dates, because she was hoping she could walk. As soon as she found out that she was going to have to pay for killing another human being, she ran as fast as she could. She’s a killer, and a coward. I got no sympathy for her at all.

So, anyone who isn’t sentenced for a crime within a year gets to go free? Great. The only crimes anyone will ever again be convicted of are traffic tickets and parking violations. I mean, I’m not cool with the rampant court delays in our system, but having to wait a year for resolution to a manslaughter charge is hardly unusual.

If we were talking about a drug bust, or property damage, I’d agree with you. But she killed someone, through her own reckless negligence. That is not a minor crime.