I think we've all seen/heard the story. Dog the Bounty Hunter, his son, and associate were arrested last week on charges of "bail jumping" a charge in Mexico from 2003 related to picking up the Max Factor aire Andrew Luster on Rape and drug-related charges. Luster is now serving a 124 year sentence. Some have even called him a serial rapist.

The link to the story....


Questions for debate:

1. Seeing that Dog the Bounty Hunter picked up a rapist, who is now serving 124+ years in prison, should the US release him to the Mexican authorities?

2. Should there be some conditions upon which a diplomat refuses to release a US citizen?

3. If Dog is extradited and sentenced in Mexico, apparently for a first offense, what would a reasonable sentence be and should the US allow Mexico to inprison him?





Yeah... I'm replying to my own post.... live with it.

I have a sincerely hard time believing that a diplomat in the US couldn't smooth over a Mexican official who wanted to prosecute a US citizen for apprehending a rapist on Mexican soil.

My personal opinion is there are going to be times that being an American should be worth something. I'm confident that had Mexico been known for having "competent and cooperative" police that there would've been a far easier process. However, most of us that have been to Mexico know absolutely different.

If I was the US government, I might even be able to see how offering a deal would be plausible. Maybe say that Dog serves 30-days in a prison that's known to be safe, under the watch of US officials. If that's not feasible or acceptable, tell Mexico to shove it. Furthermore, I'd send US diplomats to the hearing, and if the conditions were not met, I'd say that we use force to ensure his freedom. The guy wasn't harming the Mexican people, causing unrest, or otherwise doing something that deserves more than a slap on the wrist. Heck- being arrested and having your name all over the TV should be bad enough in my eyes.

Why can't someone step in on a very visible scale and make a statement about how minor this offense is, and that our country will only accept such a discipline. Mexico is known for locking away Americans and holding them for large sums of money, known for political corruption, and hasn't exactly exuded a notion of political deference. In my eyes, Mexico has far more to lose than the US and they should tread lightly on this one.

Seeing that Dog the Bounty Hunter picked up a rapist, who is now serving 124+ years in prison, should the US release him to the Mexican authorities?

Well, yeah. We either have respect for the law or we don't. Chapman and co. jumped bail on charges of unlawful detention and deprivation of freedom, which are somewhat more serious than parking violations. If anyone should know the consequences of jumping bail, it is someone who earns his living by apprehending those who have jumped bail. No one is sorry that the aptly named Luster is off the streets, but even Chapman himself admits that he was captured "in the wrong way".

Should there be some conditions upon which a diplomat refuses to release a US citizen?

Possibly, but not in this case. As the California Superior Court judge already ruled, Chapman "violated... Mexican statutes" and we have an extradition agreement with Mexico. Unless there were extraordinary circumstances that abrogated Chapman's ability to seek permission to leave the jurisdiction, there should be no reason to refuse extradition.

If Dog is extradited and sentenced in Mexico, apparently for a first offense, what would a reasonable sentence be and should the US allow Mexico to imprison him?

The maximum sentence for the charges against Chapman is four years. Ordinarily, I wouldn't think one should serve the maximum sentence for a first offence and, as Chapman has already been refused the bounty for having illegally captured Luster, a hefty fine might be punishment enough. Then again, in addition to the unlawful detention and deprivation of freedom charges, this is a bounty hunter who jumped bail. Maybe some prison time would be in order...

Umm... some laws really aren't enforced in Mexico. Anyone that's been really understands this. This arrest, and subsequent charge I believe, is a direct reflection of who was picked up and the political (and probably financial) nature of the arrest.



I'm not advocating pooping on Mexican (or any nation's) law, but this one should've been relegated to the "come on Mexico- get real" file. The gov't response should be "as soon as you allow us to believe that your police force would actually handle something of this nature in an objective and fair manner (or remotely close), we'll hand him over. Right now, in my experience, it would be like handing over a black man to a Mississippi Judge in 1952 for (INSERT CRIME). It's just gonna be a witch hunt... and afterall, for what??

There should be a common sense clause in our extradition agreement. It should read, "we'll do it unless we decide not to- after all, we're America... what the hell are you gonna do about it???"

Umm, actually you are advocating pooping on Mexico's (or any nation's) laws with your last sentence - "we'll do it unless we decide not to- after all, we're America... what the hell are you gonna do about it???"

Maybe they wouldn't be able to do anything about it. But I guarantee you that word would spread throught th international world quickly.

You want to be able to extradict terrorists back to the US to interrogate and prosecute right? What makes you think that any country out there, including allies in the WoT, like Mexico, Great Britain, France, Canada, or anyone else is going to honor their treaty commitments, if they believe that we won't honor ours.

Let's say we do what you suggest, though. What pray tell, would you do, if we have a prisoner we want extradicted from England, and they tell us "we decided not to- after all, you don't keep up your end of treaties, and we're Great Britain.... what the hell are you gonna do about it?"

Your turn.....

I'm fairly certain that aevans was joking there. After all, if Americans really felt that way, our enemies would be right - this would be a country that deserves to be wiped off the face of the earth. You were joking, weren't you, aevans?

Of course I was kidding!

I just feel as if an offense so small should've been handled in a more diplomatic manner. I'm beginning to believe the conspiracy theorists on the notion that this was a set up for a trade. Frankly, from what I can gather, it would be like us calling Mexico to return someone that maybe got in a bar fight or something else relatively minor. Maybe shoplifting. Sure they need a slap on the wrist, but all this is a little excessive. I can't imagine that the expense and hassle would be worth it. The whole thing was caught on tape, cost him a LARGE sum of money, and frankly I hope C. Rice gets involved and talks them out of this mess. Laws are interpreted and alternative punishments are used regularly. Why on earth the US Marshals had to barge into his home w/ 15+ men armed to the teeth, hold them under house arrest until the hearing in November, and cost them thousands in legal fees for something so minor as bounty hunting when he shouldn't have been is beyond me.....

Would agree with Wertz that laws/treaties should be upheld and with aevans176 that often times it should be conditional. And evidently the U.S.-Mexican Extradition Treaty allows some consideration:

No luck finding the actually treaty but evidently there’s a bit of a loop hole where we could refuse to turn over the Dog even though he won’t face the death penalty. A little further reading reveals this:

Admittedly I couldn’t find any information that is more up to date so as far as I’m aware this is still current.

And under this ruling it further explains that Mexico would not extradite anyone unless the U.S. could guarantee a specific sentence, which we can’t. And at first you might consider this wouldn’t be that big of a deal until you read further:

And apparently this is just the tip of the iceberg:

Other cases include a priest who was charged with 19 cases of molestation and ran away to Mexico where he was basically acquitted. Nice.

So I think the possible extradition of the Dog underscores the “opportunities” to improve our extradition agreement with Mexico. The way it’s currently being interpreted, the worse the crime the less likely you’ll be extradited. And something is fundamentally wrong with that premise.

I’ve watched bits and pieces of his show and evidently it’s one of A&E’s most popular shows which indicates there’s a solid fan base. If he were extradited and given jail time and consider Mexico’s refusal to turn over cold blooded killers, I would imagine some backlash. But it does raise the question why the push for a newer treaty three years ago was apparently dropped.