Chubz

Technically, yes he did break international law. Another country cannot arrest a fugitive criminal without the help and co-operation of the country the fugitive is in. The FBI cannot go to Mexico and catch criminals, nor can they come to Canada and pick up criminals unless they have been authorized by the government in power.

By going into a country and illegally seizing a fugitive to hand over to American authorities, he is technically breaking international law.

__________________

Many Thanks To SasuraiHell For The Sig!

LordBarronmore

From what I understand, Dog did actually have the help of a local mexican officer. No, not permission from the government, but help from a local officer. He thought he had covered his bases and it's turned out he has not. The crime he has been arrested for is a minor misdemeanor in Mexico. Why this is comming up now is beyond me (or most anyone for that matter).

Aiora

personally i think its dumb to arrest Dog for doing a good deed, i mean he did take a pretty bad person off the streets

__________________



Catching one baddy after another

Arrianna

Yes, but Dog is not a representitive of another country he is a bounty hunter so that particular international law does not apply. Bounty hunters go to other countries all the time. They mearly have to take into account the laws of said country since they don't recieve the immunity that is extended to the CIA or other agents.

__________________

l Stone Hold l Now We're Cooking! l Thanks to Kaos for the awesome sig!

Chubz

from: FindLaw's Writ - Covey: The Perils of Bounty Hunting

"American bounty hunters traditionally have enjoyed broad powers. As the Supreme Court noted in 1872, in Taylor v. Taintor, a bounty hunter in pursuit of a bail-jumper "may pursue him into another State; may arrest him on the Sabbath; and, if necessary, may break and enter his house for that purpose."
But the Court also made clear in Reese v. United States that what American bounty hunters may not do is pursue their quarry across international borders. A U.S. bounty hunter's "power of arrest can only be exercised within the territory of the United States."


While Dog might not be a representative of the government authority, the adbuction DEALS with the american government, as he has to transfer the culprit over to the authorities. If the abduction is illegal, and he hands it over to authorities it still technically breaks international law.

Think of it this way: If the police raid a house WITHOUT obtaining a warrant, any evidence seized in the raid (whether it is incriminating or not) will be thrown out of court by the judges because the raid would have been done illegally. Even if it was a murder weapon, it would be thrown out of court.
Now....imagine Dog as the police in the scenario, Luster as "the evidence," Mexico as the house being raided, and the American Government as the judges. Since Dog took Luster illegally out of mexico, technically the government should not be able to prosecute, because of the illegality of the capture. Had it be done with co-operation of mexico, it would have been legal, but it wasn't....

So....like I said before.....he technically broke international law, acting as a middle man. (However, you are also correct because you can argue that he 'technically' didn't break international law.....it can be seen both ways)

But if I a bounty hunter leaves his country of origin, he has no authority outside. He has to cross customs, and if the bounty hunter crossed the canadian-american border, and the canadian customs found a fugitive locked in the trunk, they'd bring in both the bounty hunter and the fugitive to the local police station, because a citizen cannot take an unwilling person across the border. Right now, a divorced parent has to have written consent if they want to take their kid across the border, otherwise they could be stopped by police and shipped back. And that's taking their own kid....
So you can't just jump borders and steal someone without expecting legal ramifications.

__________________

Many Thanks To SasuraiHell For The Sig!

Arrianna

Your facts are good your conclusions don't make sense.

All that means is that bounty hunters don't have the authority outside of the country that lisenced them. That's it. That's also a no brainer. The country that gives them authority can only give them authority in area's that their laws extend to. It has nothing to do with international law.

That is also why when a bounty hunter goes to another country they are held to that countries laws and have no special protections. They are not representing their country or their government and they better have friends in the place they are.

The legal ramifications are because bounty hunting is illegal in Mexico and is considered kidnapping. The sad thing is that in Mexico "unlawful detaining" of another person is a minor misdemeaner with a three year statue of limitations. The maximum punishment is 4 years in prison. That's it. That is if they get prison time at all. The concern in this case is that bounty hunters don't usually survive prison be it 4 months or 4 years. Death is an awfully harsh punishment for a minor misdemeaner.

__________________

l Stone Hold l Now We're Cooking! l Thanks to Kaos for the awesome sig!

Yilona13

i know its totally stupid he was just doing his job he shouldnt be arrested!! grrr its not fair!!

__________________
Hi lifes life so im livin it!!
(even if i hate it)

Chubz

Grumble.......

Okay.....by foregoing the extradition treaty he is in effect being an accomplice to breaking international law. There are two nations/governments involved here, Mexico and America. Legally, they cannot partake in any action that threatens, or breaks, international law. Since the capture and transition of the fugitive breaks the laws of the extradition treaty the act itself breaks international law, THEREFORE; Dog the Bounty Hunter was involved in breaking international law.

Mexico is only going after him for bounty hunting and skipping bail, because if they wanted to see this thing the whole way through it would cost millions of dollars to involve the American government. Instead, they are trying to set a precedence by simply going after Dog, because it's cheaper to go after one person than it is a government, and it would get the message across that bounty hunters aren't welcome in Mexico.

I think what's happened here is you're debating over what Mexico is going after him for right now (just the bounty hunting and bail skipping) and I'm debating over what was broken when the capture originally happened, which is why we're seemingly on two different frequencies.

Yes, for a misdemeanor, a possible death sentence is pretty harsh, but I highly doubt the Mexican authorities will try and go the distance with this. Like I said, if they wanted to fully see this through they'd have to bring in the American government as a defendant in the case, so instead they're just going after Dog. My guess is that all they're trying to do is make him sweat like a pig, which is working (I caught a small portion of the tv show and Dog was goin on about dieing and how he's prepared to face it and whatnot). This is probably just a scare tactic, and a conditional deal will be worked out where jail time (if any) will be served elsewhere than Mexico. But since a bunch of people are going to see the show, and they'll go on about "Dog might die in jail!" it'll send a message to other would-be bounty hunters not to rear their heads in Mexico.

__________________

Many Thanks To SasuraiHell For The Sig!

Arrianna

No. You are still missing it. Just because someone is wanted in one country does not make the government a participant if one of their citizens break another countries law to retrieve them. Governments are involved in international treaties not their citizens. A government is only responsible for their citizens behavior in another country if they officially represent that country. Period.

There is no case of Mexico looking the other way on a larger crime. There is already precedent for bounty hunters who have "poached" into Mexico. Those they bring back are still brough up on trial but when the Mexican government charges the bounty hunter involved and requests extradition they receive it.

In fact Mexico has been pretty ticked off ever since the DEA crossed the border to get someone they put on trial. Ever since then when the US askes for an extradition they basically get told to forget it which is part of what lead to this problem in the first place. That may be starting to change however and it looks like Dog has been caught in the crossfire.

Here's a link to an article that was written when it originally happened that goes into the history of Bounty Hunting relations between the US and other countries. CNN.com - Chapman's possible legal battle underscore perils of bounty hunting - Jul. 11, 2003


Think of this... if he had broken international law don't you think it would be reported in the news that way? It is not. They are reporting that he broke Mexican law and the Mexican Government is asking for his extradition. That's it.

__________________

l Stone Hold l Now We're Cooking! l Thanks to Kaos for the awesome sig!

Barronmore

Chubz;

He's not breaking international law. He broke Mexican Law. Under the agreements Mexico and the U.S. have with each other Mexico has the right to ask for the return of suspects/convicts that have fled to the United States to Mexico. The United States has the same privilege. But each country also has the right to refuse extradition.

Chubz, all Dog did was break a Mexican law in Mexico. As such, he can only be tried in Mexico. Since he is here in the U.S., Mexico must ask the U.S. to arrest him and extradite him to Mexico for trial. That's it. Nothing else.

Dog is not a representative of the U.S. government on or off U.S. soil. Dog has legal enforcement powers (this does not mean he's a cop) given to him by the states, not the feds. Meaning he must obey the laws governing skips in each state. Just because he can hunt one way in Hawaii does not mean he can hunt the same way in California. If Dog had federal enforcement powers he would not be bound by state law. He would also not be being extradited back to Mexico.

Your reasoning that the Feds would be a defendant in this case is absolutely ridiculous. The feds did not send Dog down there. They have no right to send him down there. He's not associated at all with the Federal government. The case itself has nothing to do with the federal government, or international law. All Mexico is asking the U.S. to do is to take a suspect in a Mexican crime into custody and transport him back to Mexico.

Just because a law is broken by one person who is a different nationality then the country he broke it in does not mean international law is violated. It means a countries law is violated, that's it.

__________________

Chubz

*EDIT*

All right....I've had an epiphany......I did have a long-winded post on here, but I've deleted it because I've suddenly figured why this isn't mixing together....
I'm being theoretical, and posing a theoretical problem brought up by this case, whereas you are looking at the immediate case of what is happening.

Hehe, now, I'm not admitting defeat, but yes, you are correct that the only law really broken was that of bounty hunting/kidnapping. BUT, theoretically this case undermines extradition treaties set up between governments.

How's that sound?

__________________

Many Thanks To SasuraiHell For The Sig!