Quote:
Originally Posted by Guy-jin  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". |
Nope. Sorry. He's not for example saying that America must cease condemning people to death ... though I'm sure he wishes they would. He's saying that a foreign country, exercising its sovereignty in its own jurisdiction -- as Canada is doing when deciding whether or not to extradite someone -- has the right to consult its own moral calculus. This is NOT a case of exercising moral authority over another country. It simply is not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guy-jin 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. |
My phrase was 'near consensus,' and that is what exists among the civilized nations. (See MB's post above.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guy-jin 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. |
If he doesn't have his location listed, then you should not make assumptions.
I merely pointed out that he is in fact from Britain.
Use of boldings or italics is just a way of achieving clarity.
I will use them as I wish, thank you very much.
It has nothing to do with any respect or lack of same I may feel towards you.
You were not being talked down to.
Your response is frankly a bit paranoid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guy-jin 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. |
Makes no sense. They are not giving the American government an ultimatum. They are simply stating, as a matter of long-term policy that your government has no major quibble with, that they will not return a prisoner ...
to any country in the world ... that is likely to execute that person.
If there is some way the Canadian government can give up its right to do that without losing control of its extradition process ... please let us know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guy-jin 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. |
The distinction you are failing to see is a simple one.
When the Americans condemn someone to death and then execute them, the Canadian government does nothing.
If the condemned is Canadian, until recently, the Canadian government has requested clemency. (To my knowledge, it has never been given, and the Canadian government takes no issue with this fact.)
If a human being is in Canadian hands, and a foreign government likely to impose the death penalty, requests extradition, the Canadian government will hand the person over only after receiving a guarantee that the person will not face death.
In no way are the rights of the United States being infringed, nor does the American government make a huge huzzah about this, though some individual Americans, in particular cases, have been unhappy.
This is because the American government respects Canada's right to control its own extradition process.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guy-jin 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. |
I don't doubt you are right about the family's feelings. But that should not be any overriding factor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guy-jin But using a murderer as a bargaining chip to try to force another country into not potentially using capital punishment on him seems in itself to be cruel to me. |
Something odd about your use of 'bargaining chip' there.
A bargaining chip is something you use as leverage to gain something else.
But the whole point is to save the man's life.
There is no 'something else' in the equation.