Actually, that's precisely what he said here, in the quote that I wrote that in response to:

" No, of course I would not be 'alright' about it, but if the US is so bent on vengence (execution or nothing) that it would see a fugitive go free rather than abide by the sovereign law of a nation that does not support capital punishment then it has a tenuous claim to being truly interested in justice."

He quite directly said that the United States should do what Canadian law says it should with a criminal, not what American law says it should, otherwise it has no right to get the criminal back.

Since this law is, in itself, based in morality, namely whether capitol punishment is moral or immoral, he is saying very clearly that he agrees that Canada's moral judgment should be forced on the American justice system because he thinks America's system is "unjust".

Even if there is a "consensus", and there isn't, that does not give one country a right to take an individual and try to force the other country to do what they desire with the criminal.

International pressure to end the death penalty would be one thing. I'd be in favor of that. Using a potential murderer as a poker chip is not moral in itself, in my opinion. If the Canadian government feels this strongly about it, put pressure on the US government, put an embargo on states that have the death penalty, etc. That's how this kind of thing should be done. Not harboring a suspected murderer who fled to their country to avoid prosecution.



Thank you for bolding this as if I am blind or stupid. I'm glad I've earned that level of respect from you, Mr. Timberlake. I did a decent job of defining when I was talking about Canada and stating his alignment with the Canadian government's position. If I slipped up and called him Canadian once or twice, I apologize. The truth is, since he doesn't have his location listed, I didn't know where he was from.

I don't feel that makes me worthy of scorn or disrespect here.

It isn't that difficult to have a cordial discussion with someone with whom you disagree, even about an emotional issue. I'd appreciate it if you not talk down to me like this again. Thanks.

To the content of this part of your post: The issue I have isn't with Canada's right to control its own extradition process. My problem is that by giving the American government an ultimatum, namely that they have to commit to not using the death penalty if this individual is convicted, they are trying to force their moral opinion on the United States.

If the consensus in the United States becomes that the death penalty is no longer desired, it will be voted into non-existence. It is not within Canada's rights to tell the United States what it can do with a potential murderer, just as it's not within the rights of the United States to do the same.

Like I implied earlier, it's basically setting a precedent: Murder someone in the United States and flee to Canada to save yourself. Instead of using the understood and accepted means of pressuring other countries to change their social systems, it's all right to use suspected criminals as bargaining chips. I'm not okay with that.

The victim's family probably doesn't agree, and would probably like to see justice served, be it that this individual is found innocent or guilty. I'm fairly compassionate for family of victims in these cases. I think it's likely that they're very upset that the man they think has murdered their family-member is being held in limbo. I'm just guessing, of course. But using a murderer as a bargaining chip to try to force another country into not potentially using capitol punishment on him seems in itself to be cruel to me.

Throw up some references. I'm not saying you're wrong, but since you're taking that stance, burden of proof is on you.