Well, there may very well be mitigating circumstances here. But she should present them to a judge, and answer for her actions. You claimed that having the death of her friend on her conscience is punishment enough. If she really feels guilty, she can assuage her conscience by not fighting extradition.
Jailing a rapist will do nothing to undo the rape, and it can devastate the rapist’s family. Do we really want to apply this standard?
No idea what your pregnant wife has to do with it, but yeah, you should go down for it. However, if that hasn’t happened by ten years later, I’m sure I’ll have moved on.
She didn’t even have this family when she ran away like a coward–she was a teenager. Do you think you’re going to be the same person at 29 that you were at 19?
I am hardly equating hardened criminals who act with bad intent to the drunken antics of a bunch of college kids. I guess everyone in this thread who’s calling for blood was totally pure in college and never did anything they could possibly have been arrested for or that could have ended badly. Not me. I was just lucky.
Okay, the other thing that bothers me here is the retroactive application of the law. It’s not like this chick hung under the radar for 10 years. Authorities knew where she was, and they couldn’t extradite her.
In 2003, the extradition laws changed. So we’ve got Texas saying, “Ah, we can get her now!”
Think about this for a minute. Do you think it would be just for something that was perfectly legal a year ago to be retroactively declared illegal, and so now whoever did it back when it was legal can be prosecuted? I hope the law never works this way because that could lead very quickly to tyranny.
But a treaty is not “law” in the sense you’re talking about. It’s simply an agreement between the countries about what felonies the countries may surrender their citizens to another jurisdiction to face trial and incarceration. It’s not a case of changing the law to make something a crime that wasn’t one before. It’s just a change in how the agreement between the two countries works.
I’m not all hot fired to see her extradited, as I’ve said in this thread. But I’m not concerned that her rights have been trampled on, either.
Then maybe you can explain why the reasoning you gave for forgiving this woman’s actions shouldn’t be applied to JThunder’s hypothetical rapist?
When, exactly, do we start holding people responsible for their actions? You’re talking about college students, for fuck’s sake! They’re adults! How far back are we going to push the line for “youthful indescretion?” Twenty five? Thirty? Forty? At what point are we allowed to expect legal adults to take adult responsibility for their actions?
And by the way, if you drove drunk while in college, I can think of about five or six adjectives that are more appropriate for you than “lucky.”
And this is so entirely stupid it doesn’t even deserve a response.
That was the reasoning. Carelessness, and even recklessness.
[/quote]
So, you’re ready to arrest me and jail me now? It was more than luck, at least when I was driving.
I am going to have to remember this line, apparently it wins lots of arguments.
Well, I find it tends to work better than random non-sequitors, which seems to be what makes up the majority of your last post.
Every single day that this person remains at liberty, without being held to account adds further to her crime.
As for the resources of the US embassy staff in Peru, I really do not see that as an argument, it’s not like the US is some cash starved third world state, and you can bet that if Peru suddenly found it had scad of oil reserves, the US would certainly find the resources to fund that embassy.
This is a question of priorities, and nothing to do with justice whatsoever, except that the lack of resources is being used as an argument to do nothing.
Her conscience does not trouble her enough to face the courts, and to face the families of the deceased, she hasn’t moved on in that sense.
I would agree that in a world of finite resources, there may well be more important priorities as far as the US state goes, however this itself is not an argument to do nothing - the government is in place not to carry out its wishes, it is in place to carry out the wishes of its people, and I would be very surprised ti find that those wishes do not include making a reasonable effort to bring this killer before the courts.
There are killings in the US every day, and quite a few of those are of people who live a certain sort of lifestyle who maybe are undesirable - but their killers are still persued.
Its a dangerous route to take to decide which crimes we shall or shall not persue because of personal feelings, or because its too challenging.
No-one here is arguing that these other cases should not be persued, in fact, given that the US looks as if it will not persue this particular killer there is a case to argue that this will give plenty of comfort for all those ‘hundreds of other cases’.
This makes for an almost circular argument, do nothing and end up with even more cases making it all the more expensive leading to continued ‘doing nothing’
Some folk say that they are less than bothered since the case itself revolves around a bunch of students who were out together getting drunk together and between them were pretty stupid.
This is shortsighted, the case certainly bothers the immediate family of the victim, and when justice is denied by a set of inconvenient circumstances, imagine how it would feel to you when it comes to your turn.
Just a reminder here, folks: There was no sentencing deal in place. The prosecution and defense were discussing one when the defendant made the decision to flee.
You’re the one who said “In the first place, doing that will do nothing to bring back her long-dead friend.” The point is that this betrays a grievous misunderstanding of what the law’s purpose is.
So what if enforcing the law won’t bring her back from the dead? That was never its intent. The intent of the law is to enforce justice and to prevent further misdeeds – both by locking the miscreant up and by sending a message to the public at large. Only in certain limited cases (theft, for example) does it even attempt to restore whatever was taken away.
Perhaps we should have you visit the families of the two women who were killed and crippled, so that you can tell them, “Sorry, but extraditing this woman won’t undo your paralysis or bring anyone back from the grave.” I"m sure that they’ll find your insight to be most comforting.
I can hardly believe some of what I am reading here.
This woman is a fugitive from justice. She has never been sentenced for her crime (and a crime it was), and she needs to be.
The fact that she has a family now should not erase her previous conviction and she should be extradited to swerve whatever sentence is handed to her.
Let me elaborate on my friend- SoCal dopers might recognize her case. She was driving home from drinking at a friend’s house with one of her children in the car with her. She lost control of the car on a toll road and the sideways impact ejected her son’s car seat and launched it. He was killed- she was not seriously injured (if at all, I can’t remember).
Of course, she didn’t intend to kill her own child. Of course, she will live with that agony for the rest of her life, and that is a punishment that few mothers could live with. But she also understood that there would be another, “public” price to pay, one that would separate her from the remainder of her family and cost her her freedom. You see, she broke the law and in doing so caused the death of another human being. When she got 4 years, her lawyer felt like the luckiest guy on earth.
Now like I said, this gal is a friend of mine. But even with a personal connection, if it were Julie in this Texas scenario instead of that other woman, I would still be in favor of extradition and sentencing.
At a minimum, driving drunk made the Texas woman stupid. Causing the death of another person made her liable. Skipping bail and fleeing the jurisdiction made her a criminal. Simple. Sad, but simple. Go get her.
Unless you killed someone, the statute of limitations has run out.
And yes, it was just luck you weren’t caught and didn’t hurt someone.
No amnesty for illegal aliens hey ?
Exactly. My understanding and empathy ends where Mezzich decided to leave the US. Those who suggest that this isn’t a big deal, or it’s been too long are in fact advocating for a relativistic application of the law that favors those of privilege. (That’s not to say that the way things work right now, privilege doesn’t play a significant role - it does.)
As a taxpayer in this county I fully endorse the DA’s office spending money and time on this case. Otherwise we’ve set a precedent: if you commit a crime short of horrific murder, all you need to do is leave town for a decade, never return, and the penalty you pay is your own guilt, and that’s it. I think the judicial system is full of people who caused harm to others who they really cared about. The time for that discussion is during sentencing. I would have no problem, given the circumstances around the accident, in a lighter sentence for Mezzich. Her cowardice in not facing up to her responsibility is the overriding issue in this case.