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.

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]

Originally Posted by Feuer Frei!

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]

Originally Posted by Feuer Frei!

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]

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.

[Onkel Neal]

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'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]

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.

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.