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. |
Actually it's not, and he didn't. What 'he' wrote was what you
quoted, what he meant was that the US must abide by the US/Canadian extradition treaty. This is a treaty agreed to and signed by both parties, so I fail to understand why it's '
suddenly' a moralistic do as I say issue. I did
not write that 'the US must punish a criminal
only as Canada says it can'.
In practice, the extradition treaty means that the US may punish its criminals
however it wants subject to its own penal code, save for circumstances where a suspect potentially subject to execution is extradited
from Canada. That's hardly the same thing. What you inferred is of course your own affair, for which I assume no responsibility.
There was no
explicit moral element to my statement, the morality underpins the law as you say yourself below. My saying I'm not '
alright' with it means I don't believe a crime should go unpunished
when punishment is available, even if it's not the punishment that one party seeks. This was implied, and obvious, so I'd think.
It's unnecessary for me to support its underlying morality to support the extradition treaty, although in this case I do, so it's easier. If you read this thread you may find others who disagree with the 'morality', but respect the law. These two elements are not mutually exclusive.
I should also correct you further; US law does not say capital punishment
should be applied, it
allows for it to be applied (in
some states and in
some circumstances). It's a subtle distinction but an important one. Please try and argue from a basis of accuracy and truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guy-jin 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". |
Well, I'm of the view that much law is based in morality, so I fail to see the merits of trying to use that against me. I didn't
say that America's system was 'unjust' or immoral, although in the case of execution I do hold the latter view. I have a right to hold such an opinion, I believe. I don't have a right to have it respected, but that's another issue altogether.
To reiterate, if a nation is willing to forgo
any attempt at delivering justice because it cannot have the type of justice
it wants then then yes, it seems to me (that is, in my
opinion) a dogged pursuit of the death penalty smacks of a desire for vengeance as much as a desire for justice, and is based on pride rather than practical compromise and compliance with a treaty
it signed.
You know this is what I wrote because it what you quoted as the basis of your rebuttal, and I stand behind
my comment 100%.
But, let me use your own previously employed tactic for a moment; by wanting a suspect returned to face possible execution, is the US not seeking to assert US moral values over Canadian ones - and if so where does
it get the right to do so? You can't have your morality cake
and eat it, Guy-Jin.
I'm also a little perplexed. Your stated position on Capital punishment is broadly the same as mine,
and that of Canada. Logically one might assume therefore that with Canada precluding the possibility of execution as a condition of extradition, all our aspirations would be satisfied. But it appears not.
So, either you're drawing (mistaken) inferences about what I said or didn't say (or mean) for sheer bloodymindedness, which is fine I suppose - although for what purpose I have no idea. Or, your motivation an objection to the US having to defer to the moral or legal position of another nation. That's certainly the stance by some in this thread but, as I said in my first post to you, I'd never considered you so narrow minded. Or some other unknown reason that you will need to explain!
While I can't say this discussion isn't devoid of fun, I can't see where it's going - other than round in circles.
