Texas execution 'violated international law', UN says

[mookiemookie]

The US breached international law when the state of Texas executed a Mexican citizen convicted of raping and killing an American girl, the UN's senior human rights official has said.

...

He was not told he could have access to Mexican consular officials, in violation of the Vienna Convention.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14089246

Your feelings on the death penalty are irrelevant. Your opinion on his guilt or innocence are irrelevant. Your shock and horror at his crime is irrelevant. Your sympathy or lack of it towards Leal is irrelevant.

What is relevant is the precedent that this sets worldwide. The danger it puts U.S. citizens everywhere in. By taking away an internationally recognized right, this state in it's pissing match with the rest of the world in a short sighted attempt to show everyone that "You can't tell Texas what to do!" has jeopardized the rights of Americans everywhere. How stupid. :nope:

The reciprocity of international law apparently means diddly to Governor Goodhair and his cronies. Perhaps he should go pray about it.

[Feuer Frei!]

So why DIDN'T the Supreme Court stop it? Or at least postpone it for 60 days?

[CCIP]

Yeah, breaking an international treaty is a bad thing, no question. This is the kind of thing that for lesser countries usually results in (justified, imo) sanctions. Sadly this will just be interpreted by other countries as a sign of US arrogance and raise anti-American feelings elsewhere.

[Armistead]

So why DIDN'T the Supreme Court stop it? Or at least postpone it for 60 days?


The Supreme Court sided with Texas, that's why. We don't give murderers stays because of international law. Geesh, the guy used a large tree branch to rape her before he killed her.

Anyone know if he was an illegal to boot, most reports just say non-american.

Don't mess with Texas.

[August]

So why DIDN'T the Supreme Court stop it? Or at least postpone it for 60 days?

Because the United States has not ratified the Vienna Treaty would be my guess.

[mookiemookie]

Because the United States has not ratified the Vienna Treaty would be my guess.

But the U.S. is a signatory, and while that's non-binding, it does mean that "a state that signs a treaty is obliged to refrain, in good faith, from acts that would defeat the object and purpose of the treaty." (http://europatientrights.eu/countries/signing_and_ratifying_a_treaty.html) Does that not hold any weight? Does this not make our being a signatory to any treaty worthless?

Geesh, the guy used a large tree branch to rape her before he killed her.

Anyone know if he was an illegal to boot, most reports just say non-american.

Don't mess with Texas.

All irrelevant. Focus on the issue, not the circumstances.

[Freiwillige]

He was an illegal, was hearing about it on talk radio all day. And you said so yourself, Its not binding. Texas wants to send the right message, You rape and kill you get no breaks. Good for Texas.

The other side of the coin is that Texas could spare its tough image and show mercy but whats the greater message it sends to other criminals?

This guy died screaming viva Mexico.

[mookiemookie]

He was an illegal Not the issue at hand and completely irrelevant to the question. And you said so yourself, Its not binding. If you were merely dating a girl and not married to her, do you think it'd be okay to cheat on her because you're not in a binding contract? Texas wants to send the right message, You rape and kill you get no breaks. I feel like a broken record here: that is completely irrelevant. It's not about sparing someone. It's about the rights of an accused.

The other side of the coin is that Texas could spare its tough image and show mercy Again, you completely misunderstand what this is about. It has nothing to do with guilt or innocence, mercy or toughness, the death penalty or anything else along those lines. but whats the greater message it sends to other criminals? That you can't get a fair trial in Texas and screw you, U.S. citizens abroad. Texas has just screwed all of you if you are accused of a crime in a foreign country.

This guy died screaming viva Mexico. So what does that have to do with the Vienna Convention?

[AngusJS]

So will all the supporters of Texas in this thread be happy to see Americans denied these same rights abroad?

What's to stop Mexico from retaliating in kind?

I guess the Texas government can't think that far ahead.

[mookiemookie]

So will all the supporters of Texas in this thread be happy to see Americans denied these same rights abroad?

What's to stop Mexico from retaliating in kind?

I guess the Texas government can't think that far ahead.

Give this man a cigar.

[CCIP]

Both this and the Casey Anthony thing (that I successfully stayed away from) irritate me because people incessantly moralize everything instead of looking at it from the perspective of due process, which is far more important here. Let me spell it out: while I don't know the details of the case that closely, as far as I'm concerned the guy did morally deserve to hang. And if a lynch mob came to him the night of his arrest and hung him, morally that might have been justified in this case. But that's not the issue here. The issue has nothing directly to do with moral judgment of the crime.

The problem here is not about what the man did at all, but about the justice system and the legal/constitutional/international obligations to due process. Again let me spell it out: it doesn't matter how guilty this person is. The legal system is supposed to afford him due process and allow him to invoke legal assistance from any means guaranteed by this process. There is precedent and there are obligations and legal understandings for this process. If these are ignored, than this sets a new precedent. It's not about the executed man that, we can rightly or wrongly assume, is guilty. It's about what this means for everybody else. It sets a precedent for what up to now had been understood as part of due process to be ignored and bypassed. Which is completely not about what this man did, but what it will mean for many other people who follow him, who may (or may not) be innocent. It is also about reciprocal application of this process to Americans in trouble in other countries.

Again, this isn't about him. It's about the fact that due process was not followed and a dangerous precedent was set that may in the future deny an innocent man or woman a necessary legal resort. However small, it also marks an increase in probability that even YOU could one day be denied your right to due process because of precedents set by this.

[Onkel Neal]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14089246

Your feelings on the death penalty are irrelevant. Your opinion on his guilt or innocence are irrelevant. Your shock and horror at his crime is irrelevant. Your sympathy or lack of it towards Leal is irrelevant.

What is relevant is the precedent that this sets worldwide. The danger it puts U.S. citizens everywhere in. By taking away an internationally recognized right, this state in it's pissing match with the rest of the world in a short sighted attempt to show everyone that "You can't tell Texas what to do!" has jeopardized the rights of Americans everywhere. How stupid. :nope:

The reciprocity of international law apparently means diddly to Governor Goodhair and his cronies. Perhaps he should go pray about it.

I'm not sure I like being told my thoughts are irrelevant, but that's how you want to start, fine. The right thing was done. You kill someone in Texas, you pay the price. No way some vapid international bs should give this guy a pass. If the exact same situation occurs with a Texan who rapes and murders a 16 yr old girl in Holland, Sweden, Indonesia, Peru, etc. they have the right to apply their justice. Technicalities that defy common sense should be considered as such.

[CCIP]

I'm not sure I like being told my thoughts are irrelevant, but that's how you want to start, fine. The right thing was done. You kill someone in Texas, you pay the price. No way some vapid international bs should give this guy a pass. If the exact same situation occurs with a Texan who rapes and murders a 16 yr old girl in Holland, Sweden, Indonesia, Peru, etc. they have the right to apply their justice. Technicalities that defy common sense should be considered as such.

But like myself and mookie have said, that wasn't the issue. Noone's questioning the likely guilt here or the moral imperative to execute rapists. The issue is that he was denied counsel from his country of citizenship and potentially received a trial that was unfair. He should've been able to have a stay and receive counsel from the Mexican officials, and possibly another trial. Then he should've been executed if guilty after a fair trial where all legal/international/constitutional obligations to due process are met. Simple as that. No need to touch moral issues here at all, this isn't about that.

And there's no nonsensical technicality here. Nothing nonsensical about being able to receive assistance from your consulate if tried abroad. It doesn't factor into guilty/not guilty, but it does factor heavily into due process.. Texas just jumped the gun and set a dangerous precedent, simple as that.

[Onkel Neal]

Sorry, I feel the moral issue is the most important aspect, how could it not be. That he was not courted and granted everything that some treay accords him is secondary, as long as he was guilty. And he was guilty, he admitted it. Some people just love for things like this to occur so they can CRUSADE for justice!

Justice was done.

[CCIP]

Again, I don't disagree with that necessarily. Sure, it seems the case against him was pretty clear and the penalty constitutional.

And again, that's not the issue here. The problem isn't that justice was or wasn't done here, the problem is that this opens the door for some potentially major injustices to be done to other people in the future, both in the US and elsewhere. And that should worry everyone. That's the nature of precedents in legal process - you can't undo them once they happen.

Besides, they'd been holding him for ages already. Why the rush now? What did Texas have to gain from pulling such an internationally-irresponsible move? This isn't going to make anything better, and it just makes the justice done against him look far less convincing and fair. If you're gonna execute anyone, you may as well have the satisfaction of knowing that your hands are clean and noone but the criminal will suffer as a result.

[AngusJS]

I'm not sure I like being told my thoughts are irrelevant, but that's how you want to start, fine. The right thing was done. You kill someone in Texas, you pay the price. No way some vapid international bs should give this guy a pass. If the exact same situation occurs with a Texan who rapes and murders a 16 yr old girl in Holland, Sweden, Indonesia, Peru, etc. they have the right to apply their justice. Technicalities that defy common sense should be considered as such.And if a Texan doesn't do that, but is accused and convicted anyway, then I guess it'll be perfectly ok when he can get no help from the US, thanks to his own state's actions. :doh:

Will it still be vapid international bs then? Or does the vapidity of international law depend on whether you happen to approve or disapprove of the accused?

[mookiemookie]

But like myself and mookie have said, that wasn't the issue. Noone's questioning the likely guilt here or the moral imperative to execute rapists. The issue is that he was denied counsel from his country of citizenship and potentially received a trial that was unfair. He should've been able to have a stay and receive counsel from the Mexican officials, and possibly another trial. Then he should've been executed if guilty after a fair trial where all legal/international/constitutional obligations to due process are met. Simple as that. No need to touch moral issues here at all, this isn't about that.

And there's no nonsensical technicality here. Nothing nonsensical about being able to receive assistance from your consulate if tried abroad. It doesn't factor into guilty/not guilty, but it does factor heavily into due process.. Texas just jumped the gun and set a dangerous precedent, simple as that.

Exactly. Neal, I'm sorry if I came across a bit blunt but the circumstances of the crime are inded irrelevant to the issue at hand. I agree that the guy was scum and if ever there were someone deserving of the death penalty, it was him. But just because we don't like a person, or if their crime is egregious, doesn't mean that we get to deny them rights.

The issue in my mind is that while the United States has not ratified the Vienna Convention and thus has no legal obligation to it, does that not mean that we don't have a practical obligation to abide by it in the interest of affording our citizens abroad the same rights to a fair trial? I see this as arrogant and short sighted on Texas' part. They've jeopardized the rights of all U.S. citizens abroad. And for what? To rush to execute a guy who most likely would have been found guilty even with consular assistance from Mexico? They could have declared a mistrial, let the guy get a Mexican lawyer and it still would have been an open and shut case. And there would have been no international incident.

Texas needs to realize that it's part of the United States which is in turn a citizen of the world and its actions have wider repercussions.

[Krauter]

It says in the article the actual murder and rape occurred in 1994... So what does that mean? He sat in a cell for 7 years and then a Governor said fry him?

I can understand if the incident occurred last year say or recently and they quickly called for the death penalty, but the guys been in a cell for 17 years..

So why DIDN'T the Supreme Court stop it? Or at least postpone it for 60 days?

Says that Bush even tried to step in and get the right legal formalities in place but the Supreme court ruled he overstepped his authority, to quote the article

[mookiemookie]

Sorry, I feel the moral issue is the most important aspect, how could it not be. Because the moral aspect does not outweigh the rights of an accused. Regardless of if you're put on trial for jaywalking or capital murder, you're entitled to a fair defense. This guy was denied the rights that the U.S. believes he should have. What's to stop another country from denying those same rights to one of our citizens? Texas has opened that door with this.

[razark]

What's to stop Mexico from retaliating in kind?
This:
Capital punishment in Mexico was officially abolished in 2005, having not been used in civil cases since 1937, and in military cases since 1961.Yes, I do actually understand your point.

I feel like a broken record here: that is completely irrelevant. It's not about sparing someone. It's about the rights of an accused.
Geez. You act like there's some sort of well established process that's supposed to be followed. What a crazy idea. What kind of country would set up a system of precisely defined policies to be used in obtaining justice?:haha:

[Snestorm]

Rights in USA are derived from the US Constitution, NOT international agreements.
This is to ensure that The People, NOT The International "Community" retain control over THEIR government.

[Stealhead]

Right on:salute:

[gimpy117]

Rights in USA are derived from the US Constitution, NOT international agreements.
This is to ensure that The People, NOT The International "Community" retain control over THEIR government.

yes, but he is a member of another country...and not a US citizen. He needs to abide by our rules, yes, but if you get in trouble in another country you should be allowed legal counsel from your own consulate

but Im not surprised Texas would do something like this. I mean two words: Illegal Mexican. Why would they not throw the book at him?

[Feuer Frei!]

This guy was denied the rights that the U.S. believes he should have.
Well, apparently not. Why? From a legal point of view.
Anyways, why the heck are the Legalists accusing the Moralists from being moral?
It's no-one's fault here that this has gone this way.
So, rather than holding to account the other person for making moral mentions or telling people at the start of the thread to put your morals and ie your humanness aside is fascinating, to say the least.
And before the legalists say that the moralists, as soon as being moral about any of this, are supporting this guy or saying that he should be let off, well, that's crap too.
So what are you basing your arguements on, that someone can't be moral about this story, apart from "it has nothing to do with this case"?

If you want to hold someone accountable for this then look at your own Supreme Court.
And surely the Court didn't just quash the appeals because Bush overstepped his authority on this.
I'm googling as i type this, to find out why the court made a decision such as this, and furthermore what they base their decision (s) on.

[Randomizer]

Shoe on other foot... American citizen convicted of rape and murder in Saudi Arabia, denied access to American consular services and publicly beheaded in accordance with Saudi law.

One can just imagine the cries of injustice and accusations of barbarism here on the General Topics thread.

What hypocrisy.

The SOB deserved what he got but he also deserved counsel from his native land as any American would demand.

[FIREWALL]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14089246

Your feelings on the death penalty are irrelevant. Your opinion on his guilt or innocence are irrelevant. Your shock and horror at his crime is irrelevant. Your sympathy or lack of it towards Leal is irrelevant.

What is relevant is the precedent that this sets worldwide. The danger it puts U.S. citizens everywhere in. By taking away an internationally recognized right, this state in it's pissing match with the rest of the world in a short sighted attempt to show everyone that "You can't tell Texas what to do!" has jeopardized the rights of Americans everywhere. How stupid. :nope:

The reciprocity of international law apparently means diddly to Governor Goodhair and his cronies. Perhaps he should go pray about it.

I for one understand what your pointing out and totally agree.

And in your case that's a rarity for me. :haha: We don't agree to often.

This was a good post that got to the ,as you put it, Biggger Ramifications of this.

I just hope an innocent American doesn't suffer for what this scum did and the punishment he deserved getting and, Texas powers that be, didn't look at the biggger picture.

Good Post :up:

[Onkel Neal]

It's not about sparing someone. It's about the rights of an accused.



I understand that, and I can nod in agreement, procedures should be followed. However, if a mistake is made, in a case as clear as this one, what's the result? He has a reduced sentence? Retrial, with all the expense and time wasted on a dog like this? I could understand if there was some doubt as to his innocence.

People are acting like a poor fellow was dragged out his house in the middle of the night and shot in the street.

Shoe on other foot... American citizen convicted of rape and murder in Saudi Arabia, denied access to American consular services and publicly beheaded in accordance with Saudi law.



What the case as clear as this Mexican killer? Well, I doubt having US councel would have helped. Maybe the US Supreme Court, the Texas court, and the Saudi court should pay a fine for failing to follow procedure or treaty terms.


Edit: dammit, now look what you've all done, I'm getting banner ads about stopping the execution of Troy Davis or someone:damn:

[Aramike]

So will all the supporters of Texas in this thread be happy to see Americans denied these same rights abroad?

What's to stop Mexico from retaliating in kind?

I guess the Texas government can't think that far ahead.If an US citizen brutally raped and murdered a teen abroad I have no problem with that nation putting him to death. Sorry.

[Aramike]

yes, but he is a member of another country...and not a US citizen. He needs to abide by our rules, yes, but if you get in trouble in another country you should be allowed legal counsel from your own consulate

but Im not surprised Texas would do something like this. I mean two words: Illegal Mexican. Why would they not throw the book at him?Interesting choice of two words for throwing the book at him. I would have picked three: rape, murder, child.

[gimpy117]

If an US citizen brutally raped and murdered a teen abroad I have no problem with that nation putting him to death. Sorry.

well i also agree, but that's not the issue, it's about him being denied the right to Mexican counsel at his trial

[Onkel Neal]

If an US citizen brutally raped and murdered a teen abroad I have no problem with that nation putting him to death. Sorry.


Mike, I don't think they are arguing against that. Their point is, in this case, the Mexican was arrested and tried and he didn't tell them he was a Mexican national until after the trial, so they didn't call the Mexican counsel and set up someone from that body to defend him.

Texas is not bound by a foreign court's ruling. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that the treaty was not binding on the states and that the president does not have the authority to order states to review cases of the then 51 foreign nationals on death row in the U.S.

So, that's it. Obviously, the US Supreme Court says the International Court of Justice, has no authority in the US. That's good enough for me, I'm an American citizen, not an "International citizen." The treaty is not binding, and therefore was not violated.

[Onkel Neal]

but Im not surprised Texas would do something like this. I mean two words: Illegal Mexican. Why would they not throw the book at him?


Ha, that say more about you than it does Texas. I guess you are implying Texas is hot to grab and execute illegals.


Oh wait, his child victim was Hispanic, what do you say, Texas is eager to bring justice to killers of Hispanic children?

http://www.mysanantonio.com/mediaManager/?controllerName=image&action=get&id=1091440&width=628&height=471

[Sailor Steve]

I'm confused. The trial and conviction happened in 1994. The man has been sitting on death row for almost 17 years. Have any of the appeals involved Mexican council? While he may be officially illegal he has been living in the United States since he was a small boy. I'm not sure how any of that ties together, but no one has mentioned it, so I thought I would. Has Mexico been protesting the conviction since it was decided, or is this a new thing. As said, it's not like he was dragged out and lynched.

No answers, just questions.

[Krauter]

I'm confused. The trial and conviction happened in 1994. The man has been sitting on death row for almost 17 years. Have any of the appeals involved Mexican council? While he may be officially illegal he has been living in the United States since he was a small boy. I'm not sure how any of that ties together, but no one has mentioned it, so I thought I would. Has Mexico been protesting the conviction since it was decided, or is this a new thing. As said, it's not like he was dragged out and lynched.

No answers, just questions.

It says in the article the actual murder and rape occurred in 1994... So what does that mean? He sat in a cell for 17 years and then a Governor said fry him?

I can understand if the incident occurred last year say or recently and they quickly called for the death penalty, but the guys been in a cell for 17 years..



:O:

[TLAM Strike]

Soooo.... foreigners have the right of Extraterritoriality in the US? :doh:

If you are in the US you are subject to both its laws and protections. :salute:

He violated American law, he was punished under American law. Now that he has paid his debit to America he may return to Mexico.

[Freiwillige]

From what I understand, the issue is not that he was denied Mexican counsel, It is the fact he never was informed that he could seek it in the first place.

But then again nobody on our side knew he was a Mexican national in the first place until after the conviction so Mexican council was never recommended.

Just clarification of the facts, are they correct?

[gimpy117]

Ha, that say more about you than it does Texas. I guess you are implying Texas is hot to grab and execute illegals.


Oh wait, his child victim was Hispanic, what do you say, Texas is eager to bring justice to killers of Hispanic children?



when i say: "throw the book" I was implying about the fact they never allowed someone from his home country to represent him. and it makes me wonder if somebody else from a country like in Europe (for example) would be given the same treatment.

[August]

So, that's it. Obviously, the US Supreme Court says the International Court of Justice, has not authority in the US. That's good enough for me, I'm an American citizen, not an "International citizen." The treaty is not binding, and therefore was not violated.


This ^

Also I find no validity in the argument that this would increase the chance of someone else doing the same thing to an American. Any foreign nation who finds it convenient to deny an American similar rights will do so regardless of this case.

[Anthony W.]

My feelings will get me chewed out.

But... TO TEXAS!

You DO NOT kill Americans and get away with it.

[Sailor Steve]

:O:
Your original quote said 7 years. :O:

I didn't claim to be original, just backing you up. :D

And the question is still valid, and needs answering. Where was Mexico and the internation court in 1994? 2000?

[Krauter]

My feelings will get me chewed out.

But... TO TEXAS!

You DO NOT kill Americans and get away with it.

I don't understand? When did Texas kill an American? They killed a Mexican National.... :doh:

Your original quote said 7 years. :O:

I didn't claim to be original, just backing you up. :D

And the question is still valid, and needs answering. Where was Mexico and the internation court in 1994? 2000?

:O: Looked at your post, did the math in my head, came up to what was in mine, redid the math then thought d"oh!
:D

[Sailor Steve]

I don't understand? When did Texas kill an American? They killed a Mexican National.... :doh:
He meant the killer killed an American, and Texas didn't let him get away with it. But was she an American? I didn't check her citizenship. On the other hand my personal feeling is that no one should let anyone get away with murder.


:O: Looked at your post, did the math in my head, came up to what was in mine, redid the math then thought d"oh!
:D
Let's be honest. You said it first and I wasn't paying attention. :oops:

[Krauter]

He meant the killer killed an American, and Texas didn't let him get away with it. But was she an American? I didn't check her citizenship. On the other hand my personal feeling is that no one should let anyone get away with murder.



Aah, I was kind of confused there for a sec.
Thanks for clearing that up!

[Anthony W.]

But was she an American? I didn't check her citizenship.

If she wasn't then I'm angry and both Texas and Mexico.

[Krauter]

Can you spellcheck please? I don't mean to be a grammar nazi but I don't understand what you're driving at..

Your angry and Texas and Mexico?

Your angry at both Texas and Mexico?...

[HunterICX]

Gee....all this because a Child raper&murderer got zapped?
I say good riddance one less to worry about and that leeches of the taxpayers.

I honestly don't give a damn about someones nationality when it comes to child rapers and murderers.

and the I see the UN seems to care more about a rapers&murderer's rights then the victim he had his way with....way to go UN :nope:

HunterICX

[Feuer Frei!]

Gee....all this because a Child raper&murderer got zapped?
I say good riddance one less to worry about and that leeches of the taxpayers.

I honestly don't give a damn about someones nationality when it comes to child rapers and murderers.

and the I see the UN seems to care more about a rapers&murderer's rights then the victim he had his way with....way to go UN :nope:

HunterICX

/thread winner!

[Skybird]

I simply don'T care.

Ten years ago I would have cared. Today I don'T anymore. Vienna treatie, international courts, Islamophile human rights authorities, international watchdogs that want to push their ideologic views through evberywhere, and take it upon them tpo demand that all and every nations and people must obey them.

I don't care. I applaude them - in the irrational hope that this will anger them even more, and they< become red faces and their tiny little yelling heads one day just make "popp!" - and gone they are.

Why I don't care anymore? Because I realised that mentioned institutions and attached moral "authorities" have lost the credibility and trustworthy they claim for themselves. Corrupted institutions remain corrupted, no matter how them call and describe themselves.

The crime this guy carried out, was a very brutal one. He got the penalty the laws in the place where he committed it called for. What somebody in Vienna thinks about that - is not relevant by content. It is up to Washington now to not allow getting engaged in a discussion with "international partner" about it, but to simply show them the cold shoulder.

[MH]

Don't you just love UN.
99% of countries are signed on the convention but all they can do is power struggles with free countries that obey low but still maintain some individuality.
They always have to stir the pot in wrong places.
I wouldn't worry about American citizens arrested in western countries as for the others...it doesn't matter whether they signed the convention or not anyway.

[mookiemookie]

Every one of you who's claiming "they killed a rapist, good I have no problem with that!" needs to go back, re-read and understand what the issue is here because no one is claiming he should have gotten off, he didn't do it or he didn't deserve to die. We are discussing the ramifications of the process used to find him guilty. Put your emotions aside because they are not germane to the question and put on your rational and logical thinking caps.

Texas is not bound by a foreign court's ruling. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that the treaty was not binding on the states and that the president does not have the authority to order states to review cases of the then 51 foreign nationals on death row in the U.S.

So, that's it. Obviously, the US Supreme Court says the International Court of Justice, has no authority in the US. That's good enough for me, I'm an American citizen, not an "International citizen." The treaty is not binding, and therefore was not violated. I'll ask you the same question I asked August earlier. If you were dating a girl (i.e. a signatory) and not married to her (i.e. not in a binding and ratified treaty with her) does that make it proper to cheat on her? What is the point of being a signatory to a treaty if that means you're going to flaunt it and act in complete contradiction to it? Why does that status hold no weight in Texas?

Also I find no validity in the argument that this would increase the chance of someone else doing the same thing to an American. Any foreign nation who finds it convenient to deny an American similar rights will do so regardless of this case. Then why recognize the status of any treaty at all? That's a position that makes absolutely no sense. You're going to ignore a treaty because there's a chance that someone else would be an a-hole and ignore it. Don't you see that makes us the a-hole?

[MH]

Then why recognize the status of any treaty at all? That's a position that makes absolutely no sense. You're going to ignore a treaty because there's a chance that someone else would be an a-hole and ignore it. Don't you see that makes us the a-hole?

Technically you are 100% correct but as far as this case it seems to me that its no more than political mud fight.
Someone had an interest to make fuzz out of it for political reasons-nothing more.

[Dan D]

"International Treaties -- How Far Apart Are We?" /Andrew Hammel
http://andrewhammel.typepad.com/german_joys/2007/03/germany_decides.html

Good and easy-to-read summary of the legal situation by a Texan law professor who teaches law in Germany:

Extracts:
"...In 1999, Germany sued the United States before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on behalf of two German nationals, Walter and Karl LaGrand, who had been convicted and sentenced to death in Arizona for 1982 bank robbery in which one man was killed and a woman severely injured. The ICJ issued an order requesting the United States to stop the executions, but the State of Arizona concluded that this order was not binding upon its own justice system, and executed the brothers even before the ICJ had issued its final judgment. The decision itself is somewhat complex, you can read a summary of the case here. The case was extremely controversial; German Green Claudia Roth condemned (G) the United States as "arrogant" and claimed it was setting itself above international law...

...Paraguay and Mexico have also sued the U.S. on behalf of their nationals before the ICJ and received judgments favorable to their legal positions. To avoid more of these embarrasing judgments, the President withdrew the United States from the jurisdiction of the ICJ on March 7, 2005. (For the record, I disagree with that decision). This means that the U.S. is still bound to obey the Vienna Convention, but cannot be sued in front of the ICJ for a violation...

[AngusJS]

and the I see the UN seems to care more about a rapers&murderer's rights then the victim he had his way with....way to go UN :nope:Where do you get that from? What is more in the UN's purview - a murder trial, or international law?

It's scary how so many people are happy to throw law and due process under the bus and let emotion take over. Cause you know, that's the best way to achieve justice. :doh:

And apparently you're all ok with the same thing happening to innocent Americans who are accused abroad.

[TLAM Strike]

But was she an American? I didn't check her citizenship. That should not matter, for better or worse anyone on US soil is granted the protections of US law. If we start thinking about such crimes as "well it was a Mexican on Mexican crime so its their county's problem" its becomes a very slippery slope for US law and jurisdiction of it. :03:

[mookiemookie]

Where do you get that from? What is more in the UN's purview - a murder trial, or international law?

It's scary how so many people are happy to throw law and due process under the bus and let emotion take over. Cause you know, that's the best way to achieve justice. :doh:

And apparently you're all ok with the same thing happening to innocent Americans who are accused abroad.

Exactly. It's the mark of a mature mind to be able to separate the emotional component from the factual and precedent-setting component of the case. The ramifications for this are unsettling.

[August]

Then why recognize the status of any treaty at all? That's a position that makes absolutely no sense.

By recognize you mean Ratify?

We ratify treaties because our system of government requires it. They are not binding until we do that.

You're going to ignore a treaty because there's a chance that someone else would be an a-hole and ignore it. Don't you see that makes us the a-hole?No, I'm going to ignore a treaty because I don't feel we should be accountable for not granting a confessed child murderer/rapist a privilege that we didn't know he was entitled to under a 40 year old treaty that we never ratified. Other nations will either ignore the treaty or abide by it irregardless of our actions.

Are you claiming that other signatories will ignore their own treaty responsibilities because of this?

[August]

This means that the U.S. is still bound to obey the Vienna Convention

The US is not bound by a treaty it did not ratify.

[MH]

It's scary how so many people are happy to throw law and due process under the bus and let emotion take over. Cause you know, that's the best way to achieve justice. :doh:


So what is due process?
What the rapist convicted in some mocked up court or according to TX criminal law.
Just an example if US citizen is smuggling drugs into Singapore should in give him some immunity or he does it at his own risk.
(not talking about morality of capital punishment for drug trafficking)
At the end of the day it seems its all about US arrogance.

[mookiemookie]

So what is due process?
What the rapist convicted in some mocked up court or according to TX criminal law.
Just an example if US citizen is smuggling drugs into Singapore should in give him some immunity or he does it at his own risk.
(not talking about morality of capital punishment for drug trafficking)
At the end of the day it seems its all about US arrogance.

This guy was never going to be tried in any court other than in Texas, and under no laws but Texas law. He was going to be granted no immunity at all. He was just going to have access to Mexican consul.

[mookiemookie]

The US is not bound by a treaty it did not ratify.

But being a signatory does signal a country's intention to honor a treaty. The state of Texas has unilaterally decided against that. Is that interpretation incorrect? What, in your mind, is the point of signing but not ratifying a treaty? Why would a country do that? If they're going to act contrary to it, why even sign it at all?

We're going in circles here and you won't answer the question I've posed twice in this thread and instead you keep repeating yourself. You're sticking your fingers in your ears and going "na-na-na-na can't hear yoooooou!" so what's the point?

[MH]

This guy was never going to be tried in any court other than in Texas, and under no laws but Texas law. He was going to be granted no immunity at all. He was just going to have access to Mexican consul.

Ok then:damn:
I don't see why he wasn't given access to Mexican consul if the trial would be carried under TX criminal law anyway.
Thought the capital punishment was the issue or validity of the trial under international law.
:salute:

[Dan D]

The US is not bound by a treaty it did not ratify.

If the US would not be contracting state of the vienna convention on consular relations, that would be really bad for them. Art. 36 which is about foreign nationals who are arrested is on thing. Other provisions are e.g.:

Article 35. Freedom of communication between the consul and their home country must be preserved. A consular bag must never be opened. A consular courier must never be detained.
Article 31. The host nation may not enter the consular premises, and must protect the premises from intrusion or damage.

Those standards are really important. Remember the Iran hostage crisis?

But anyway, from the article I have linked to:
If you raise the question what legal consequences would a violation of Art. 36 have in Germany compared to the US?

Quote:
Case: Turkish national in Germany: "case involved a Turkish national being investigated for murder. Again, no Vienna Convention warnings. The court took evidence from the very police officers who had failed to advise the defendant of his Vienna Convention rights. The Federal Supreme Court of Justice held that this evidence was admissible, and upheld the conviction."
...Therefore, it's entirely possible that the violation of the Vienna Convention will, at the end of the day, result in the same practical result in both the U.S. and in Germany: the country's courts will hold that (1) the protections for defendants offered by that country's own judicial system are sufficient to protect the defendant's rights; and (2) all evidence gathered by the state can be used against the defendant even if there was a violation of the Vienna Convention in his case.

You see?

[Dowly]

IMHO, Texas did stupid here. According to the BBC article, requests were
coming left and right to stop the execution (and I assume that the reason
was made clear as to why), but they still went with it. :doh:

Very bad move imho.

[Buddahaid]

The UN is, and always will be, a worthless waste of money good for nothing but political grandstanding about international issues and applying punishment after the dust settles over the losers of wars.

It is ignored by every country when push comes to shove in the little deadly sandbox disputes that we children of the world enjoy so much. Human behavior is very, very slow to evolve and hasn't really changed much over all recorded history, which is why I support a strong national, and local, defense.

[Ducimus]

Let me get this straight:
- This illegal (meaning hes not even supposed to be here to begin with),
- rapes (One of the two worst crimes someone can commit)
- a girl with a tree branch (which ratchets that crime up a bit)
- and then murders her (that's the other one of the two worst crimes someone can commit).



Excuse me while I don't give a **** he couldn't talk to anyone from his home nation. An animal like that doesn't deserve any rights.

[Rockstar]

This rapist had his rights when brought to trial he was found guilty and deserving of death.

Fek the rapist he got what was due to him, fek the U.N. and fek the Vienna treaty. Let me add also I don't care if you think any less of me of me, my neighbors, the court system or the U.S. If you do, you too can pack sand and fek off.

Good on Texas

[sidslotm]

When in Rome

[mookiemookie]

It's stunning how bad the above posters have missed the point of the entire exercise. :nope:

[Sailor Steve]

That should not matter, for better or worse anyone on US soil is granted the protections of US law. If we start thinking about such crimes as "well it was a Mexican on Mexican crime so its their county's problem" its becomes a very slippery slope for US law and jurisdiction of it. :03:
No it shouldn't matter, and I agree. I was responding to Krauter's apparent misreading of Anthony W's comment.

[Dowly]

It's stunning how bad the above posters have missed the point of the entire exercise. :nope:

What did you expect? :doh:

BTW, the OP article mentions Texas also broke the ICCPR treaty (which US
has signed and ratified). I take this is because of breaking the Vienna treaty?

[Sailor Steve]

It's stunning how bad the above posters have missed the point of the entire exercise. :nope:
Perhaps it was foolish of you to think you could force everyone else to confine themselves to a very limited part of the whole problem. Or did you want people to confine themselves to agreeing with you? Either way it looks to me like it would have been a very short discussion.

By taking away an internationally recognized right, this state in it's pissing match with the rest of the world in a short sighted attempt to show everyone that "You can't tell Texas what to do!" has jeopardized the rights of Americans everywhere. How stupid. :nope:
Several people did address that, but it's hard to keep on such a tight focus when even the article you quoted goes beyond that single problem.

[Anthony W.]

Can you spellcheck please? I don't mean to be a grammar nazi but I don't understand what you're driving at..

Your angry and Texas and Mexico?

Your angry at both Texas and Mexico?...

Gah, cursed 4AM posts

I should've said "AT

[mookiemookie]

Perhaps it was foolish of you to think you could force everyone else to confine themselves to a very limited part of the whole problem. Or did you want people to confine themselves to agreeing with you? Either way it looks to me like it would have been a very short discussion.


Several people did address that, but it's hard to keep on such a tight focus when even the article you quoted goes beyond that single problem.

On the contrary, I think it's a short discussion to say that this guy's scum, he deserves to die and he's guilty. That's not much of a discussion because I doubt anyone would disagree with that assessment. I wouldn't have posted the article if that's all there was to it.

I disagree with your statement that it's a "tight focus." I think it's an interesting discussion to explore why a country would sign a treaty and not ratify it. What practical and pragmatic obligations are involved in that, as obviously legal ones are not there. What is the effect of a single state acting on behalf of the entire country in this matter? What about the issue of state's rights - how far do they go when they are in violation of the spirit of a treaty that the country as a whole signed? What is the responsibility of a state to uphold that treaty? Does it have one at all? Does the Federal government have the right to force a state's hand in the matter? Should it? Those are a lot of interesting questions that could make for intelligent and thought provoking discussion that goes beyond the tired and tedious "he's guilty, let's kill the bastard, he don't deserve no rights, screw them pansy librul UN weak sisters!"

I was trying to hold the discussion to a higher standard than the typical bloodthirsty lynch mob mentality, which isn't a very interesting to me. Shame on me I guess.

[Sailor Steve]

I think it's an interesting discussion to explore why a country would sign a treaty and not ratify it. What practical and pragmatic obligations are involved in that, as obviously legal ones are not there. What is the effect of a single state acting on behalf of the entire country in this matter? What about the issue of state's rights - how far do they go when they are in violation of the spirit of a treaty that the country as a whole signed? What is the responsibility of a state to uphold that treaty? Does it have one at all? Does the Federal government have the right to force a state's hand in the matter? Should it?
Well why didn't you say that in the first place? :O:

Honestly I didn't get any of that from your first post. Good questions, and I'll have to think a bit before I try to give my own answers. :sunny:

[Anthony W.]

Texas is getting increasingly agitated on the illegal immigration thing. According to friends of mine, some are talking of taking it into their own hands. Apparently everything they do or want to do to keep people from crossing the border illegally is now against federal or international law, which I find to be BS on the part of the feds and the UN.

[Thomen]

I think, I can see where Mookie is coming from or is heading with it.
In my opinion, the problem here lies with the sovereignty of states and questions about if Federal Law supersedes state law or can impose restriction on said state sovereignty/law.
However, I think the supreme court would have decided differently if the case in question would have been a Federal case.

[Anthony W.]

In my opinion, the problem here lies with the sovereignty of states and questions about if Federal Law supersedes state law or can impose restriction on said state sovereignty/law.

In my opinion individual states shouldn't be affected by federal international treaties.

As was stated by the founding fathers, unless a law or action committed is specifically enumerated in the Constitution as unconstitutional, the Feds have no say in the law or how it is carried out, unless the state law violates existing (constitutional) federal law (not laws passed and made retroactive)

[mookiemookie]

In my opinion individual states shouldn't be affected by federal international treaties.

As was stated by the founding fathers, unless a law or action committed is specifically enumerated in the Constitution as unconstitutional, the Feds have no say in the law or how it is carried out, unless the state law violates existing (constitutional) federal law (not laws passed and made retroactive)

But the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution would disagree with you:

Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. (Emphasis mine)

[Rockstar]

I disagree with your statement that it's a "tight focus." I think it's an interesting discussion to explore why a country would sign a treaty and not ratify it.You know that IS a good question.

But that's not how you first posed it. You hit us with something completely different and expected everyone to ignore your opinion how stupid the specific situation was involving an independent state, politics, a rapist and the Vienna treaty.

Then enter another emotional question, if I would feel happy about someone else's actions which have nothing to do with treaties and ratification but again with a certain specific case in Texas. Him you're ready to give a cigar for such a great question! Yet when once again when someone answers how they feel about it you tell them the response is irrelevant.

In regard to the above question. As far as my feeble mind can comprhend it's because the United STATES will not allow the Federal government, world community, UN or whatever outside influence you can think of tread upon or infringe on the rights of the states. As far the treaty being signed but ratified by this country I imagine it was done for the same reasons other nations do it. To put on a song and dance pat each other on the back and tell themselves good job?

It is nearing election time again so I imagine someone needs to start stirring the pot. Long live the party!

Speaking of irrelevance I think it was your own rant about the specifics of a certain case in Texas, your emotion, and the Vienna treaty which is irrelevant to your question why some nations including the U.S. sign but do not ratify.


.

[Anthony W.]

But the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution would disagree with you:

(Emphasis mine)

Which is why I wish the South would've won. Save for the whole slavery thing.

[mookiemookie]

You know that IS a good question.

But that's not how you first posed it. You hit us with something completely different and expected everyone to ignore your opinion how stupid the specific situation was involving an independent state, politics, a rapist and the Vienna treaty.

Then enter another emotional question, if I would feel happy about someone else's actions which have nothing to do with treaties and ratification but again with a certain specific case in Texas. Him you're ready to give a cigar for such a great question! Yet when once again when someone answers how they feel about it you tell them the response is irrelevant.

In regard to the above question. As far as my feeble mind can comprhend it's because the United STATES will not allow the Federal government, world community, UN or whatever outside influence you can think of tread upon or infringe on the rights of the states. As far the treaty being signed but ratified by this country I imagine it was done for the same reasons other nations do it. To put on a song and dance pat each other on the back and tell themselves good job?

It is nearing election time again so I imagine someone needs to start stirring the pot. Long live the party!

Speaking of irrelevance I think it was your own rant about the specifics of a certain case in Texas, your emotion, and the Vienna treaty which is irrelevant to your question why some nations including the U.S. sign but do not ratify.


.

Sorry if I was unclear and/or insulting in the beginning. That is my fault. :oops:

[Tchocky]

The general path of threads like these being what it is, can't exactly blame you for trying to avoid it.

[mookiemookie]

Yeah, I was hoping for some input from another point of view on the finer points of it. I live in Texas - believe me I've heard all the "kill the dadgum slimeball and be done with it, he don't git no rights" arguments, so that's not where I wanted to go with it.

I get frustrated when someone doesn't get my meaning. I envy people who are eloquent and can succinctly and gracefully get their point across. Hence my rude behavior earlier in the thread. One of my flaws. :dead:

[Armistead]

No treaties override the U.S. Constitution, the supreme court has ruled such many times.

[Krauter]

That should not matter, for better or worse anyone on US soil is granted the protections of US law.

Going by this logic then, what Texas did was correct, as I see it. He raped a girl and subsequently murdered her. On US soil, the girls rights are being protected and he is being tried under US Law. Rape + Murder on Texan Soil (US Soil) = Death Penalty.

This guy was never going to be tried in any court other than in Texas, and under no laws but Texas law. He was going to be granted no immunity at all. He was just going to have access to Mexican consul.

So if the end result would've been that he would've been fried in the end, what is the point in calling in consul? Waste tax payers dollars as they draw on the process for another half decade and deny the victims family closure?

Waste of time, money and effort.

[mookiemookie]

So if the end result would've been that he would've been fried in the end, what is the point in calling in consul?

To maintain the reciprocity of international law and to preserve the rights of American citizens abroad to have access to a U.S. consul in the event that they are charged with a crime.

[Feuer Frei!]

To maintain the reciprocity of international law and to preserve the rights of American citizens abroad to have access to a U.S. consul in the event that they are charged with a crime.
So let's say this guy did get consular representation, would a US citizen then get the representation overseas?
Or would that be in good faith only?
Is there any guarantee that that would happen?
Or is it simply just a case of: look, we gave him the right legal avenues and exhausted our responsibility to the Vienna Constitution, now do the same for John Smith who is sitting in the French jail?
You can't tell me that this case GUARANTEES, if handled properly in the first case, by the book, that US citizen J smith gets the same deal?
Because if that's all we have to go on, possible guarantees, then that's not good enough.

[Snestorm]

Presidents sign treaties.
They are NOT binding until ratified by two thirds of The Senate.
In this way no president has the power to overwrite US Law, or the US Constitutionn.
This is why some treaties are signed, and never ratified.

Link from the US Senate:
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Treaties.htm

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Because the United States has not ratified the Vienna Treaty would be my guess.

Just to make this one point clear, she did ratify said Convention on 24 Nov 1969:
http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=UNTSONLINE&tabid=2&mtdsg_no=III-6&chapter=3&lang=en#Participants

then in 2005, the US decided that it does not want the ICJ to have jurisdiction if there is a conflict. (Ultimately, this is the US saying "I am Hyperpower. Ha ha!").
,
In 2008, the Supreme Court basically declared (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medellin_v._Texas)that even in cases that the United States had ratified are not binding on the States. Which makes the whole point of ratifying rather moot...
================================
Ultimately, leaving aside international consequences, this is Rough (or "Substantive") Justice vs Due Process. There is a reason for all the checks and balance in modern Western constitutions and law, rather than allowing "Rough Justice" to run amok.

And what is this about Reciprocity anyway? Is Due Process only to apply if some Third World country reciprocates? What happened to America's sense that they are indeed a little fairer than the rest of the world?

Quite frankly, the Supreme Court might be backing Texas, but the blow American prestige is a little big for the desire to hang one man.

[Feuer Frei!]

So where do we stand with this then? Ratified or not, currently?
If ratified currently, my question stands, post# 87.

[Krauter]

I think mookie your putting too much faith that other countries will see this case and follow suit (if the guy had a consul that is).

I can understand that a country like the UK or France say is not going to do this to a US citizen, but countries like Libya (current regime..) Iran, N. Korea and such won't care if he did or didn't they'd still find a way to be a. holes.

Who exactly do you think is monitoring this incident to go and lop off the head of some US citizen who imports drugs or kills someone?

[Aramike]

Mike, I don't think they are arguing against that. Their point is, in this case, the Mexican was arrested and tried and he didn't tell them he was a Mexican national until after the trial, so they didn't call the Mexican counsel and set up someone from that body to defend him.

Texas is not bound by a foreign court's ruling. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that the treaty was not binding on the states and that the president does not have the authority to order states to review cases of the then 51 foreign nationals on death row in the U.S.

So, that's it. Obviously, the US Supreme Court says the International Court of Justice, has no authority in the US. That's good enough for me, I'm an American citizen, not an "International citizen." The treaty is not binding, and therefore was not violated.Fair enough. Admittedly I knee-jerked at this one.

As far as the nuts and bolts of this one goes, I agree with you. And while mookie has a point that a treaty, Constitutionally, would be the supreme law of the land.

However, I suggest that Mookie is missing the point regarding ratification. The purpose of ratification is that those entering into a treaty via executive signatory processes do NOT have the legal authority to bind the United States to said document. And while I appreciate the "girlfriend" example, I don't think it's accurate. More accurately, an analogy would be one's girlfriend signing a paper selling her boyfriend's property - its worthless because the boyfriend owns the exclusive right to do so. Ergo, until the boyfriend agrees and ratifies the sale, it's nothing more than essentially the girlfriend stating that she'd like to sell the property,

Ratification serves an important purpose regarding the separation of powers. Unfortunately mookie, the flaw in your Constitutional argument is that the Constitution requires the CONGRESS to ratify any treaty.

Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2 of the US Constitution is EXTREMELY clear about this. From it:He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur...It seems odd to argue that the Constitutional clause dealing with honoring any treaty can be in effect when the Constitutional CLEARLY defines that which makes the treaty in effect, and that part of the process (ratification) has not occurred.

Your "girlfriend promise" example is dangerous - what you're saying is that any president (and his cabinet) could enter into any agreement with any nation whatsoever and that we are somehow obliged to follow it as a nation without any true check on that power. I must disagree with that premise completely.

[Hottentot]

I think mookie your putting too much faith that other countries will see this case and follow suit (if the guy had a consul that is).

I can understand that a country like the UK or France say is not going to do this to a US citizen, but countries like Libya (current regime..) Iran, N. Korea and such won't care if he did or didn't they'd still find a way to be a. holes

As I see it, it's also about living like we (the west in general) preach. If we assume the right to call certain countries a. holes (which some of them certainly are), because they don't honor certain traditions, then we don't get to act like that ourself. And one of those traditions is giving every criminal, no matter who or what the crime, the same rights that we have agreed to give to the others as well.

To simplify it a little, those a. hole countries believe in mob and lynching, whereas the west believes in law and order. The result in both cases may be the same, but the process is not. And it's the process that partly gives us the right to call those others a. holes.

[Aramike]

And one final point:

It seems as though the "danger" of the actions of Texas have only been amplified by our amateurish executive branch through their public, loud protests to the execution regarding so-called "dangers". This kind of foreign policy approach is, well, freakin' bizarre. Why would our Secretary of State and President give an on the record excuse and talking point to any nation looking to cause harm to an American citizen? Considering the specific details of this case, I find it disturbing how President Obama can take such a public approach which undermines our future bargaining power. I understand that political theater is part of the game, but it seems as though theater is all this White House knows, damned be the consequences.

[Aramike]

And it's the process that partly gives us the right to call those others a. holes.You are absolutely, 100% correct.

But, if the process is sacred and tantamount, I fail to understand how yours and Mookie's position is so blatantly willing to circumvent the Constitutional process required to enter into a treaty in the first place. Are we to skip one process in favor of another process then fall back upon our honoring of Constitutional processes as a basis for any moral high ground?

[Hottentot]

I am not American, therefore I admit freely not having enough knowledge to answer the question properly. I was speaking generally as part of the western culture and values that our countries share. As I see it, the process, whatever it is, is simply a tool of values.

Law and order is value, whereas international treaties, constitutions etc. are just its extentions. If the extentions are flawed, then it's them we should start fixing, not the values. The lynching mentality seen on this case, on the other hand, makes me worried that it's the value that is in danger instead of its possibly flawed extention.

I would be similarly worried, if people here were openly talking about assassinating the leaders of their respective countries, when another value we base our societies is democracy. They are the things that make us what we are and hopefully keep our heads above the water in this crappy world.

[Aramike]

The lynching mentality seen on this case, on the other hand, makes me worried that it's the value that is in danger instead of its possibly flawed extention. I like your post, and I truly get it. I just disagree. We do not share that value. An illegal immigrant who brutally rapes and murders a child and is granted every right in one of the most criminally friendly justice systems shouldn't be able to use an unratified treaty as a loophole in order to avoid execution for a heinous crime.

I don't see this as a lynching mentality - it's not like this was a suprise. Rather, I believe the mentality is around the fulfillment of justice and how contrived perversions of law should not be used at the last minute as a prevention of said fulfillment.

[Hottentot]

I just disagree.

Well, I believe that's one of the other rights that we have in west, that the people in the a. hole countries don't necessarily have, so fair enough :).

An illegal immigrant who brutally rapes and murders a child and is granted every right in one of the most criminally friendly justice systems shouldn't be able to use an unratified treaty as a loophole in order to avoid execution for a heinous crime.

First, just to make this clear as water: I'm not defending the criminal any more than my belief in law and order requires it. If in your country his crimes are worth death penalty, then so be it. I'm not shedding tears and in some cases I find myself wondering if we too should start using it again. But since we don't I have to be content with our maximum penalties or try to get into a government and start changing the laws.

However, what we don't know is, if he would have managed to avoid execution with this loophole.

I believe the mentality is around the fulfillment of justice and how contrived perversions of law should not be used at the last minute as a prevention of said fulfillment.

I understand this and agree to certain extent: we have ridiculously many laws and clauses and it's not surprising that they can be twisted for many purposes. The lawyer stereotypes are not there for nothing. But it's still not the fault of an individual person if the system contains loopholes: as long as we don't try fixing the loopholes, it just means there are going to be more persons trying to exploit them.

[Sailor Steve]

Now it's getting interesting. Aramike has pointed out the problems with conflicting points of law, and I don't see an answer. But then I don't see a lot of things. But it's interesting just the same.

Two things I would like to address, and I hope I'm not going off on a tangent, but they are interesting points to me.

Their point is, in this case, the Mexican was arrested and tried and he didn't tell them he was a Mexican national until after the trial, so they didn't call the Mexican counsel and set up someone from that body to defend him.
Is that true? If so, it puts paid to the question of Mexican representation. But did he not say anything until after the trial was concluded? If that's true, then why? Not that it's relevant, but I have to wonder why not one single person involved brought it up, and then wonder again if it's true.

As was stated by the founding fathers, unless a law or action committed is specifically enumerated in the Constitution as unconstitutional, the Feds have no say in the law or how it is carried out, unless the state law violates existing (constitutional) federal law (not laws passed and made retroactive)
Which is why I wish the South would've won. Save for the whole slavery thing.
The problem then becomes how the aftermath of the Civil War influenced Federal and State policy. Not to go into "the whole slavery thing", but it had a direct influence on what happened after the war. The Thirteenth Amendment prevents slavery from happening anywhere in the United States. The Fourteenth Amendment prevents the States from contravening Federal laws concerning citizens' rights, and the Fifteenth Amendment specifically bars any State from preventing its citizens from voting. The relevant point I'm trying to make here is that not only was Congress protecting citizens from abuse by the States, but in doing so it also granted the Federal Government the power to make the States submit to Federal Law. Certainly the intent was to protect all citizens from abuses by the States, but it also opens the question of how much autonomy the States still have.

Can Texas contravene Federal law in this case? Has Texas contravened Federal law in this case? The Supreme Court didn't seem to think so, but a close split decision, while still law, opens the question of the posibility of future revisions. Add to that Aramike's observations on the question of forcing any State to adhere to an International Law, especially the question of signing a treaty is even binding, and you have a real can of worms. Some see it as cut-and-dried, but there are many who disagree with that assumption.

I don't have answers, or even opinions in this case, but I see ever more questions.

[Snestorm]

However, what we don't know is, if he would have managed to avoid execution with this loophole.

It matters not, as there the said loophole was not legitimate.

[Krauter]

However, what we don't know is, if he would have managed to avoid execution with this loophole.



As mookie pointed out, this loop hole would not have resulted in him being set free or missing out on the Death Penalty. As he said, he would be tried under Texas Law.

Which is to say, with or without consul, he would have faced the death penalty regardless.

[Hottentot]

Which is to say, with or without consul, he would have faced the death penalty regardless.

Then I don't see the problem with letting him see the consul, or at least giving him a chance to do it while being told that it will likely not change the outcome. It might be seen as waste of time, but if the system provides the chance to the others, then it should provide the chance to him as well. The nature of his crime should have nothing to do with that, especially if he would get executed anyway.

Then again, if the US doesn't give the chance to anyone else either, because it's not following the convention...well, boohoo, I guess. All I'm asking here is logic by the law, not if he was a rapist or if he had gray or brown eyes. Even my opinion regarding if the US should allow such option or not is completely irrelevant to the case.

[Krauter]

I did not come close to mentioning that the nature of his crime should affect the fact that he received consul or not.

What does intrigue me and somewhat angers me, is that he'd been in custody for 17 years and, if it is true, did not notify the authorities about his status as a Mexican National (he'd entered the country as a child..).

I should think that the Mexican authorities would've heard something about the case, either from News or by the executed's (executioned's is that a word? Apparently not!) family.

[Hottentot]

I did not come close to mentioning that the nature of his crime should affect the fact that he received consul or not.

True. I was generally referring to the "he shouldn't get rights because he did X" attitude to emphasize my actual point, the logic and consistency of the system.

I simply do not want to have societies, where people can be stripped of their rights because they are criminals. On the contrary, they should be watched especially carefully, because of two reasons:

1) Criminals are one of the easiest group of people to take them from and still have people accepting it, because people by definition don't think the second point, that is...

2) Anyone can become a criminal. Or be made one.

As someone interested in Soviet Union, I'm sure you know what I'm talking about.

[Feuer Frei!]

What does intrigue me and somewhat angers me, is that he'd been in custody for 17 years and, if it is true, did not notify the authorities about his status as a Mexican National (he'd entered the country as a child..).
More to the point, did the Authorities not investigate? Seems not.
executioned's (is that a word?) family.
executed

[Krauter]

2) Anyone can become a criminal. Or be made one.

As someone interested in Soviet Union, I'm sure you know what I'm talking about.

Indeed it's all too easy to be made to look like a criminal. Which is why when I talk about stripping criminals of their rights and such I mean only for those who've been proven beyond a doubt to be either a murderer or a rapist.

The argument that I see here defending criminals all too much is, well what if they were framed, or if 16 yo girl says her 19yo boyfriend raped her. Obviously these situations should be closely looked at so that no one is falsely charged.

And also, yes I believe I know what you're talking about in referral to the Soviet Union :03:



executed

Ahh thank you :)

[mookiemookie]

Indeed it's all too easy to be made to look like a criminal. Which is why when I talk about stripping criminals of their rights and such I mean only for those who've been proven beyond a doubt to be either a murderer or a rapist.

It's a little late for that after the trial that proves beyond a doubt that he was a murderer or rapist. ;)

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

... not quite the same thing. Besides, now that we know the court did omit one procedure, it opens the door that they omit other due process procedures. It is well known the urge to convict someone in these kind of cases is very high and the jury is even more affected by this than the judge.

[Krauter]

It's a little late for that after the trial that proves beyond a doubt that he was a murderer or rapist. ;)

Late for what? Proving that someone who confessed to murdering and raping this girl is in fact the person who did these things?

... not quite the same thing. Besides, now that we know the court did omit one procedure, it opens the door that they omit other due process procedures. It is well known the urge to convict someone in these kind of cases is very high and the jury is even more affected by this than the judge.

Again, he confessed A confession I think carries more weight then someone elses heresay

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Late for what? Proving that someone who confessed to murdering and raping this girl is in fact the person who did these things?

I think he's on your side, Krauter :)

Again, he confessed A confession I think carries more weight then someone elses heresay

Yet, Americans criticize Japan for treating confessions as the "King of Evidence".

[mookiemookie]

Late for what? Proving that someone who confessed to murdering and raping this girl is in fact the person who did these things?


Well the right this guy was denied was the right to access the Mexican consul before he was tried and found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Krauter]

Yet, Americans criticize Japan for treating confessions as the "King of Evidence".

In my eyes, if someone confesses to a crime, and the evidence supports his confession then the case should be closed...

Well the right this guy was denied was the right to access the Mexican consul before he was tried and found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Yes but he was held in custody for 17 years. I believe you when you say that Texas is at fault here. But who else is at fault? The family for not notifying the Mexican Authorities? The criminal for not notifying the authorities of his status as a Mexican National? The MexicanAuthorities for not stepping in after 17 years?...

[razark]

Yes but he was held in custody for 17 years. I believe you when you say that Texas is at fault here. But who else is at fault? The family for not notifying the Mexican Authorities? The criminal for not notifying the authorities of his status as a Mexican National? The MexicanAuthorities for not stepping in after 17 years?...
The point is that the proper procedure was not followed before the trial. Anything from the trial itself and after is not part of the problem. He was denied his right before the trial, not afterward.

[Krauter]

He never let them know he was a Mexican National before the trial.

[razark]

He never let them know he was a Mexican National before the trial.
True. But I was addressing your "17 years" comment.

Also, that position shows that one has no rights, unless they assert them. If the U.S. Army shows up at my door and says "We're quartering the troops in your house." and I fail to assert my 3rd amendment right, does that mean I don't actually have that right?

[Krauter]

Also, that position shows that one has no rights, unless they assert them. If the U.S. Army shows up at my door and says "We're quartering the troops in your house." and I fail to assert my 3rd amendment right, does that mean I don't actually have that right?

I'm Canadian so I'm not exactly sure what the 3rd amendment right entails you to. But in my estimation, until you let them know about that right (which should be pretty much when they knock on your door) they can do as they please. (OK well not exactly as they please...)

In the case of this man, he should have made clear BEFORE THE TRIAL that he was a Mexican National. And afterwards, he should have made it clear again and again and asked for help from his mother country until given that help. The fact that he was both ignorant to confessing his national status, the fact that Texas went ahead with this execution and the fact that the Mexican authorities made no attempt to help this man (whereas the US President did so) is mind boggling to me.

[Sailor Steve]

... not quite the same thing. Besides, now that we know the court did omit one procedure, it opens the door that they omit other due process procedures. It is well known the urge to convict someone in these kind of cases is very high and the jury is even more affected by this than the judge.
Did the court omit one procedure? Is it the court's job to establish country of origin? I'm not sure, but I think the court's only job is to establish innocence or guilt. Should the the defence council try to find this out? Is it even their job? If the defendent didn't think it worth mentioning at the time, then where does that leave us?

It seems to me you're trying to prove culpablility on the part of the court system when it can't even be shown that the nationality problem was their fault.

[Osmium Steele]

The point is that the proper procedure was not followed before the trial. Anything from the trial itself and after is not part of the problem. He was denied his right before the trial, not afterward.

The defense did not inform the state of their client's alien status, so the state is clearly not at fault. Texas is under no obligation, in fact is denied the ability, to check a defendants immigration status. One aim of Texas's controversial SB 9 (http://www.senate.state.tx.us/75r/Senate/members/dist4/pr11/p060211a.pdf) is to change that.

Did the defense know of his alien status at any time prior to, or during the trial? If the answer is yes, then he was denied his rights by his own defense. (Possibly in an unsuccessful attempt to get a likely conviction overturned on appeal)

If the defense did not ask his immigration status, then it is the fault of a crappy defense.

If the defendant knew of his alien status prior to, or during the trial, and deliberately kept it secret, then he alone is responsible.

So, the federal government did not deny the defendant his rights. The state of Texas did not deny the defendant his rights. His own defense MAY have, or he was responsible himself.

Now, post-trial is another thing altogether. Was the convict denied a right to speak with the Mexican Consul during the appeals process? Does he have that right once lawfully convicted in a Texas court?

My 2 cp worth.

[Krauter]

Did the court omit one procedure? Is it the court's job to establish country of origin? I'm not sure, but I think the court's only job is to establish innocence or guilt. Should the the defence council try to find this out? Is it even their job? If the defendent didn't think it worth mentioning at the time, then where does that leave us?

It seems to me you're trying to prove culpablility on the part of the court system when it can't even be shown that the nationality problem was their fault.

I'm not sure whether it's the courts job to establish the country of origin, and I agree the the courts primary goal should be to determine the innocence or guilt of an individual.

I do think that if I were the defence counsel or the defendant that I should let it be known that my client/I am not a US national but rather a Mexican national. That changes the circumstances of the trial a whole lot more then saying it afterwards.

Also, if it was made known afterwards why not hold a "re-trial" where proper procedure is taken?

[Osmium Steele]

Also, if it was made known afterwards why not hold a "re-trial" where proper procedure is taken?

Because the state is under no obligation to determine legal status in the first place. The post trial revelation did not compromise the legitimacy of the initial trial, or verdict.

[Sailor Steve]

Also, if it was made known afterwards why not hold a "re-trial" where proper procedure is taken?
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/q071.htm

The defendant himself witholding evidence is not on the list. If he thought it would have made a difference he should have said something. He also should have made this known to defence council early on. If he did, and they withheld it, a retrial might be warranted on the grounds of incompetent council. The fact that he confessed changes everything. It has been suggested here that confessions are suspect, based on the fact that in other countries confessions are often coerced. I'm not saying that doesn't happen in the United States, but after seventeen years one would think that would have come to light. Add that to the fact that he confessed once again immediately before his execution and the case seems pretty cut-and-dried.