Thank you for answering me (upvote). With respect, it seems that you've misunderstood. I'm not comparing at all, I'm contrasting. The fault of your misunderstanding may well be my writing.
I wanted to delve into the issue of weather or not any person to be deported should have the benefit of the punishment faced in his home country (edit) being considered when determining weather to exile or deport . There isn't an objective "correct" answer, just a philosophy.
Different example for clarity's sake: I'd say that if a Chinese dissident facing death in China gained assylum in America and then got a DUI , we may want to exile him, but not deport him. Exile would give the him a chance to avoid death by petitioning another host county to grant him assylum.
The example is meant to illustrate the idea, rather than to compare these two, as you correctly pointed out, apples to orange cases.
I won't go into the topic at length only to say that someone immigrating here who commits a crime here, is different than someone who committed a crime in their home country and then coming here.
The topic of what an appropriate punishment is depends on whether the individual is the former or the latter.
As cold as it sounds, there is also a cost/benefit analysis to do: if they're more a detriment to the host country than they're worth, and they're a criminal in either case (whether they stay or are sent back), then it's clear they shouldn't have been in the host country to start with.
Whether they are deserving of death depends on the crime, the culture (the "way of their people" as it were), and a host of other factors. Above all, was the crime reprehensible (murder, rape, cannibalism, massive fraud on society, etc, etc?).
I think this comes down to asylum laws, which are a matter to be decided on a nation by nation basis.
Very thought provoking question.
(post is archived)