Texas execution 'violated international law', UN says

[AngusJS]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

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.

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]

Originally Posted by CCIP

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]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

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]

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?

[Feuer Frei!]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

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.

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]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

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.

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. 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

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[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.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

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]

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