There has been a fuss raised over Texas executing a Mexican National. I will not debate here the lack of merit of that action, it has none. The person had dual citizenship, lived as and considered himself an American citizen until his lawyer saw his Mexican citizenship was a way to avoid the death penalty. I must give President Fox credit for one thing. When he went to Africa recently he protested their use of the death penalty. He is consistent in his opposition. But American citizens are executed by other countries for every reason under the sun including those who have been executed for practicing their faith. When overseas they are exposed to terror attacks by every kook group under the sun. Something needs to be done with this, maybe if we start executing foreign nationals with the same fervor that other nations execute ours, maybe someone else will get interested. But I have a better way.
I believe justice would be better served if rule by international law would be applied to people accused of crimes in another country. One suggestion I have had with this over the years is for the host country - (where the crime occurred - the US in the case I cited above) to arrest, try, convict, and sentence a person for the crime. And when the trial ends, they would be jailed in the host country with no parole pending action by an international review board. Exercising the death penalty would be placed on hold. During this time appeals can be filed but the person remains in jail unless the host country decides to issue parole. The person is forbidden to leave the host country and if they do, any country participating including the native country would allow summary extradition. When the person is satisfied that the appeals have run their course the case would be submitted to an international panel. There legal experts from the host and home countries compare the sentence imposed by the host country and possibility of parole during that sentence for that crime in both the host and home country. They set the sentence based on what the person would get for that crime at home under like circumstances. At that point the person can be returned to serve the sentence there if he chooses or remain in the host country to serve their sentence. For example if the person got the maximum sentence the host country could sentence to, the maximum at home would be set even if that were a different number of years. Likewise if he got the minimum he would serve the minimum for his home country. If the host country sentence were longer it would only have an impact if he were released early at home and then returned to the host country. If he decides to appeal he can return to the host country to appeal but no appeals can be made unless he returns.
Let's say this guy, convicted of murder, got the death penalty. But in Mexico the maximum is 35 years with possibly of parole after 25 years. He would have been sentenced then returned to Mexico after the trial and jailed. Let's say after 30 years he gets out of jail on parole. He returns to the US we pick him up and execute him - it is his choice to return to the US, there is no return trip to Mexico except in a casket. The execution is carried out within 30 days of arrest with no appeals. If he stays in Mexico for the rest of his life, fine. They want a murderer running free, that is their problem. Likewise if a US citizen is convicted of a crime and is sentenced to 20 years in Brazil but it carries a 10 year in the US, if he returns to Brazil before the 20 years he is jailed and serves whatever time he did not serve in the us. Let's say at 19 years after being out for 9 years he returns to Brazil he has 10 years to serve unless let's say he got early release in the us of 3 years, then he has 13 years in a Brazilian jail.
This would end the international haranguing and it would end some of the jailing for non-crimes.
Look at a couple of other examples. An Eastern European Diplomat killed someone in a DUI accident a few years ago in Washington DC. I do not believe diplomats should get special treatment for crimes against persons. Under this we would have tried him, sentenced him, given him opportunity for appeals. When they ran their course the case would go to the international panel. The sentence would have been negotiated and he would have been sent home to serve his sentence. Let's say he got 10 years here, the sentence at home is seven. He could not come back to the US till after ten years or even if his home country left him out. If he serves eight years at home and comes back before the ten years are up, he goes to jail till the ten years have been served.
Let's take another example, an American, Canadian or Brit (someone from a country with personal freedoms) is arrested for some religious or free violation in another country where this would result in jail or execution. (Yes, we are called barbaric for executing for a cold blooded murder but more than a few countries execute for religious offenses. Since we do not have this as a crime, the international panel can set no penalty and the person comes home to freedom. They serve no time beyond jail time during trial. They cannot return to the country of sentencing without threat of arrest or death in some Moslem countries.
This makes more sense to me than what we have now.
