Texas execution 'violated international law', UN says

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by August

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." Does that not hold any weight? Does this not make our being a signatory to any treaty worthless?

Originally Posted by Armistead

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]

Originally Posted by Freiwillige

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[razark]

Originally Posted by AngusJS

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.

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

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?

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

[gimpy117]

Originally Posted by 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.

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?

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[gimpy117]

Originally Posted by Aramike

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

[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.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Aramike

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.

[August]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

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.