Editorial: Now They Care About What's Right?

David Borden, Executive Director

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.