Skip to main content

Editorial: Now They Care About What's Right?

Submitted by David Borden on (Issue #454)
Consequences of Prohibition

David Borden, Executive Director

David Borden
One of the stories carried by major news networks this week was the arrest in the US of famed bounty hunter Duane "Dog" Chapman, sought for extradition by Mexico over what authorities there said was an illegal detention. Chapman and members of his team had captured a wealthy cosmetics company heir, Andrew Luster, who was wanted in the US on rape charges (and who is now serving a 124-year sentence). The Mexicans wanted Luster turned over to them, arrested the bounty hunters after they refused, then released them on bond pending a court hearing, which Chapman and company skipped.

Chapman and his wife Beth are supremely colorful figures. They are especially well-known in their home state of Hawaii, but have a national following through a popular reality TV show based on his work, "Dog the Bounty Hunter." I was literally minutes away from appearing with Chapman on a national cable show earlier this year, discussing methamphetamine, before a format change nixed it.

Prosecutor-types appearing on news talk programs this week were fairly sympathetic to Chapman, and I found one of their arguments rather stunning. Basically, their take was that while he might have violated Mexican law, and while the violation might or might not be extraditable by the US under US law, the important issue -- this is the stunning part -- is what the "right" thing to do is. It's not right to extradite Chapman to Mexico, because the thing he got into trouble doing was good and important.

What's stunning is not the idea itself -- I am fairly sympathetic to the idea that that which is right and just is ultimately of greater importance than that which is legally prescribed when they are in conflict. Not everyone agrees with this, but it's not an unknown argument.

What's stunning is who was making that argument. Would the same prosecutors also say that judges should ignore mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses if they believe the terms of imprisonment required are unjustly long -- e.g., are "wrong"? Did they oppose the extradition requests by the US government to get back medical marijuana refugees like Steve Kubby and Renee Boje -- for prison terms many feared at the time would be draconian, or for denial of access to medicine -- because for Canada to give them safe harbor in the face of such sentences would be "right"? Would they lend their support to cities and police forces who allow illegal needle exchange programs to operate, because it's critical to stop the spread of Hepatitis and HIV and the people handing out the needles are praiseworthy for doing so?

Maybe they would. But I am guessing there is a good chance they would not, in some or all of these cases. For the most part, prosecutors and their allies profess the view that the law is the law, work politically to change it if you disagree with it, but if you break the law you knew you were risking punishment and you have nothing to complain about.

Not that I am rooting for extradition in this case. Chapman's supporters have some good arguments. The individual he captured was accused of a serious and vile crime, and Mexican authorities had failed to apprehend him. If allowed to stay on the loose, he could have committed the same crimes against women in Mexico. Chapman's capture of Luster did Mexicans, and his victims here in the US, a service. I don't think much of his random "citizen arrests" of meth users, even when he takes them to treatment instead of police, but that's not the issue here. And at least he's in favor of marijuana legalization.

But it's not as if there aren't arguments on the other side. Chapman did skip out on a court date. He violated the laws of a country that had allowed him in as a guest. If Chapman can ignore a nation's laws and enforcement procedures, others can ignore them too -- possibly victimizing innocent people by mistake or even causing harm or loss of life in the process. If the US can ignore the extradition treaties to which it's a signatory, other countries with people in custody who we want can also ignore them. Mexico's democratically-elected legislative bodies laid out certain rules governing this area of activity. Those rules may be wise or unwise, but presumably the legislative body that enacted them took more time to consider their implications, their benefits and costs, than Chapman did in the heat of the moment when he disobeyed the orders of Mexican police.

And so because there are arguments on the other side -- agree with them or not -- it is revealing to see people who effectively serve as spokespersons for the prosecutorial profession speak up for someone they like, but in a way they would likely argue against in most other cases.

Whatever the right thing is in this case, the right thing for prosecutors to start doing is to begin to honor their oaths to seek justice instead of just seeking as many convictions as they can, with the longest prison terms that they can, as is commonly the case now. If justice is to take priority over the letter of the law for their friends, they should also stand up for real justice for all.

Permission to Reprint: This content is licensed under a modified Creative Commons Attribution license. Content of a purely educational nature in Drug War Chronicle appear courtesy of DRCNet Foundation, unless otherwise noted.

Comments

Anonymous (not verified)

Like those worthless hypocrites would stand up for what's "right". What's "right" to them is them getting their way and everyone else be damned. I hope that scumbag bounty hunter spends the rest of his life being raped every day in a Mexican prison.

Fri, 09/22/2006 - 11:43am Permalink
Anonymous (not verified)

In reply to by Anonymous (not verified)

Your coment blew me away......Do you watch the show ? Do you know what kind of people they are ? Are you a ICE HEAD ? What an awful thing to say about them.......May God have Mercy on your soul...or do you have a soul ?? Linda in California

Fri, 09/22/2006 - 2:55pm Permalink
Anonymous (not verified)

This kind of "drug raid" activity is getting out of hand. If that dog urinated out of fear it was NOT aggressive, and the cops should have shut the bathroom door after it went in there and left it alone, alive and safe. I believe that cops kill people's dogs out of a desire to cause as much pain as possible, they are sadistic (which is the reason many becoem cops -- it has been proven that there is little to no difference between the mentality of a cop and the mentality of a violent criminal. As for handcuffing children under the age of 15, well that's just plain wrong!

Fri, 09/22/2006 - 11:51am Permalink
Anonymous (not verified)

Dog should have went to court but now since Mexico wants to extradite him and his team, he screwed up. When initially all he would of had to do was to get a U.S Ambassador to support him in court (and to show up), even with Mexicos court system being archaic, the judges would most likely to have seen the lesser of two evils with the capture of a degenerate, making women safer (in Mexico and the U.S.A.)
and sentenced him to a minimal sentence or even a cash fine. Now he should face the music and just GO to Mexico on his own to show that he really does believe and honor justice

Fri, 09/22/2006 - 8:31pm Permalink
Anonymous (not verified)

The post entitled "Killing dogs and handcuffing children" was in response to the "children handcuffed . . ." article under "latest news", it had nothing to do with Dog the bounty hunter. Just wanted to make that clear.

Sat, 09/23/2006 - 2:26am Permalink
Anonymous (not verified)

The bounty hunter gets popped for jumping bail. Man broke the law and than is confused when it catches up with him? Please.

Sun, 09/24/2006 - 3:25am Permalink
Anonymous (not verified)

I too find it funny that prosecutors are concerned about "what's right". I remember reading a newspaper article in the early 90's about civil forfeiture of cars because a joint was found in an ashtray. It quoted a federal prosecutor saying " Don't tell me what's right or what's fair. We don't operate that way.". Now they are concerned about whats fair? Give me a break.

Personally I think we should have to return Lusker to Mexico and give them Dog. Maybe if we lose a few we'll stop extraditing people for thing that are not a crime in their country or arresting foreign nationals for running a legal online gambling site because they happen to be changing planes in this country.

Wed, 09/27/2006 - 12:39pm Permalink

Add new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.