Agents punished too severely

The case of Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean - Border Patrol agents in Texas convicted in 2006 of shooting an illegal-immigrant drug smuggler as he headed back toward Mexico, and sentenced to 11-year and 12-year prison terms, respectively - has become a cause célèbre for conservative activists, especially those concerned about illegal immigration.

Supporters of the two men had hoped that the courts would throw out their convictions, but the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal upheld most of the convictions, which leaves them lobbying the Bush administration for pardons or commutations.

Ramos and Compean were prosecuted under federal statutes by the U.S. attorney's office, so few expect the administration to do anything here, which has only ratcheted up the emotions surrounding this case.

To the agents' supporters, the case is an example of the U.S. government's refusal to take seriously illegal-immigration issues. People are outraged that those patrolling the border have been prosecuted for shooting (nonfatally) a drug smuggler, and that the U.S. government actually gave that smuggler immunity to testify against the agents.

But if one gets past the emotions and looks at the specifics of the case, it's hard to draw broader immigration-policy issues from the prosecution or to be too critical of the government's prosecution here.

We agree that the prison terms are excessive, but that's a function of the mandatory minimum sentences Congress approved of for the specific gun crime for which the two men were prosecuted.

The two agents chased a man near the Mexico-Texas border. As the smuggler headed back to Mexico, the court explained that "the agents gave chase, fired their weapons at him several times, and hit him once, but the wound did not prevent his escape into Mexico. After the incident, there was a ‘cover-up' - including a cleanup of the area of spent shells and failure by the two agents to report the weapon-firing incident, as plainly required by well-established Border Patrol policies. ... It is well-established that the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution does not permit officers to shoot a fleeing suspect unless the suspect poses a threat to the physical safety of the officers or to the public."

The agents argued that they felt threatened, but the jury didn't buy the argument. The case ultimately centered on which version of events the jury believed.

So the court found no reason to overturn the convictions, although it did vacate one lesser conviction for tampering with an official proceeding. The courts understand that it would be a dangerous precedent to allow Border Patrol agents, police, deputies or federal officers to fire at fleeing suspects and to cover up evidence. In reality, this issue doesn't have much to say about immigration policy, although it touches on the topic of mandatory minimum sentences.

So it would seem that a commutation of their sentences, but certainly not a pardon, could be justified.

The courts understand that it would be a dangerous precedent to allow Border Patrol agents, police, deputies or federal officers to fire at fleeing suspects and to cover up evidence.