Texas Death Penalty Case (Obama requests stay)

[Soxbadger]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/obama-...-165829939.html

 

Here are the basic facts:

 

There is a treaty the US is a party to, that basically states that if a foreigner is arrested they have to be granted access to their consulate. Both sides agree that this Defendant was not granted that access. Disregarding the arguments of whether or not a state is bound by the treaty before Congress passes the treaty, what do you think the best course of action is?

 

I personally think this is one of those times where you have to smart and not rush to do something. I would hate for an American national to end up in a similar situation and have that country use this as a reason to not give our citizen the rights they deserve under the treaty.

 

Since the Casey Anthony is the past now, I figured some people may want to discuss some more legal issues.

[Quin]

This is a great idea, to break Treaty's because of Texas' wants that will end up screwing over tons of Americans.

[The Sir]

Let him meet with his consulate. When they're done, carry out te sentence as planned.

 

I'm not much of a fan of treaties that impede on our national sovereignty and subject our inner workings to foreign scrutiny, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms. What I'm worried about here is that this may turn out to be a backhanded attempt to entirely prevent the otherwise legal execution of a convicted murderer. That mustn't be allowed.

[Soxbadger]

I think your option is the minimum solution, at that point the question would be if he had been allowed to do that earlier would it have changed what happened. If the answer is no, I think you can go ahead with the execution and feel at least comfortable that he wasnt screwed (id probably lean towards a new trial, but thats just me.)

 

In terms of death penalty, Im against, but as of now its up to states to decide. I have a few reasons I dont agree with death penalty mainly, 1) humans are imperfect, I dont trust humans to make the right decision, we convict people wrongly all the time, but you cant undo death, 2) Im not sure death is a punishment, while people would like to believe that killers go to hell we have no idea, for all we know they are going somewhere better, or even worse that by executing them they get off the hook in another life. As im not sure what happens, id rather let them suffer in jail, knowing that eventually they will die anyways.

 

As for sovereignty, I agree its a tricky issue. Its one of those it depends on what side of the fence you are on, I like that our citizens will be treated with certain rights in other countries, but obviously I dont like that another country could potentially tell the US what to do.

[Quin]

Let him meet with his consulate. When they're done, carry out te sentence as planned.

 

I'm not much of a fan of treaties that impede on our national sovereignty and subject our inner workings to foreign scrutiny, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms. What I'm worried about here is that this may turn out to be a backhanded attempt to entirely prevent the otherwise legal execution of a convicted murderer. That mustn't be allowed.

 

Yeah, but if we want to be a player on the world stage, which we need to sustain our economy and go about our lives, we have to sign treaties.

 

If Iran can agree to this treaty, then no reason we can't. Unless we want to see American's arrested left and right and not being given the right to the American consulate then being executed, then by all means we should execute the guy. But even if meeting with the Mexican consulate somehow gets him out of the sentence, so be it.

 

His death isn't worth the death of dozens of possible Americans.

 

[The Sir]

Yeah, but if we want to be a player on the world stage, which we need to sustain our economy and go about our lives, we have to sign treaties.

 

If Iran can agree to this treaty, then no reason we can't. Unless we want to see American's arrested left and right and not being given the right to the American consulate then being executed, then by all means we should execute the guy. But even if meeting with the Mexican consulate somehow gets him out of the sentence, so be it.

 

His death isn't worth the death of dozens of possible Americans.

 

I'm not against all treaties. Official agreements with other nations are vital to any nation's survival. I'm just against treaties that offer up our national sovereignty. Crime and punishment, to name one area, is something that is an internal affair and should not be subject to the scrutiny of foreign nations. Similarly, another treaty I've ranted against is the UN Small Arms Treaty. Obviously, I love my guns and have no intention of ever giving them over to any authority, but much worse is the idea of submitting our Constitution to the whim of the UN.

 

I honestly don't see where all these Americans are going to be dying abroad. From what I can find, the last American to be executed by a friendly nation (excluding Nazi Germany, the USSR and various rebel groups who wouldn't abide by such "rights" anyhow) was Hawley Crippen for the murder of his wife in London in 1910. So, of the nations that would actually play along with such a treaty, no death sentence has been placed on an American in over 100 years. That's not going to change with the revocation of consulate rights.

 

I believe the US consulates in each country have the duty to ensure that all Americans who have legal troubles in said country receive fair trials to prove guilt surpasses reasonable doubt. Beyond that, my only suggestion is that Americans obey the laws of the countries they venture to. If you don't, you should get a fair trial, and as long as that is met, you're subject to their system. Wanna tape several kilos of heroin to your body and try to board a plane out of Bangkok? You're probably going to be executed. And as long as the trial is fair, I don't think the consulate has any part in that. I certainly don't think it's their part to free Americans from bad judgment they used abroad. They knew the consequences and they shall face them.

 

Same goes for people who come here. Break our laws and be subject to our system. The consulate can observe your legal procedures and even provide you with an attorney, but beyond that, I don't think they have any place interfering in our criminal justice system.

[Quin]

I'm not against all treaties. Official agreements with other nations are vital to any nation's survival. I'm just against treaties that offer up our national sovereignty.

 

100 years ago, sure.

 

In this world where every nation is slowly becoming interconnected, that's impossible. Official agreements are necessary for our trade, which without, we would flounder.

[Texsox]

BTW, some countries will not extradite criminals to the US because we have the death penalty.

[The Sir]

100 years ago, sure.

 

In this world where every nation is slowly becoming interconnected, that's impossible. Official agreements are necessary for our trade, which without, we would flounder.

 

Umm, that's what I just said...

[Jenksismyhero]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/obama-...-165829939.html

 

Here are the basic facts:

 

There is a treaty the US is a party to, that basically states that if a foreigner is arrested they have to be granted access to their consulate. Both sides agree that this Defendant was not granted that access. Disregarding the arguments of whether or not a state is bound by the treaty before Congress passes the treaty, what do you think the best course of action is?

 

I personally think this is one of those times where you have to smart and not rush to do something. I would hate for an American national to end up in a similar situation and have that country use this as a reason to not give our citizen the rights they deserve under the treaty.

 

Since the Casey Anthony is the past now, I figured some people may want to discuss some more legal issues.

 

Well wait, that's THE question isn't it? Texas supposedly did something wrong, but in 2008 the Supreme Court ruled that they didn't. I fail to see what the issue is here.

 

And not rush anything? This guy was convicted back in 1994. Unless you're willing to throw out that conviction/sentence on a technicality, what's the point in staying this even further?

 

Also the article's examples of the people in NK and Iran are a whole different bag since they were alleged to have been spies for the US. That necessarily involves some US representative. This guy was a rapist and a murderer. What would him talking to the Mexican consulate do? Was the US going to hand him over after clearing up a "mistake" like in the other cases? Doubtful since, again, the dude raped and murdered someone.

[Soxbadger]

Thats the legal question, which has already been decided by the Supreme Court. Since we arent arguing in a courtroom, we are entitled to our own opinions. Just because the Supreme Court rules a certain way doesnt mean they are right and it doesnt mean we shouldnt have conversation about it.

 

So I guess you agree that its okay for Texas to execute?

[Jenksismyhero]

Thats the legal question, which has already been decided by the Supreme Court. Since we arent arguing in a courtroom, we are entitled to our own opinions. Just because the Supreme Court rules a certain way doesnt mean they are right and it doesnt mean we shouldnt have conversation about it.

 

So I guess you agree that its okay for Texas to execute?

 

Yeah, I mean the guy was convicted of rape/murder. I don't see how him being given the chance to talk to a rep from Mexico would change that. It's akin to staying an execution because the guy didn't get his one phone call on the initial night he was locked up.

 

Plus, what's the end game with the stay? If there was some grave injustice done here, you gotta let him free right? That's not gonna happen, so what's the point in delaying the inevitable?

[Quin]

Umm, that's what I just said...

 

Wow, misread that as "aren't".

 

Carry on.

 

[Texsox]

Yeah, I mean the guy was convicted of rape/murder. I don't see how him being given the chance to talk to a rep from Mexico would change that. It's akin to staying an execution because the guy didn't get his one phone call on the initial night he was locked up.

 

Plus, what's the end game with the stay? If there was some grave injustice done here, you gotta let him free right? That's not gonna happen, so what's the point in delaying the inevitable?

 

It sounds like you are arguing that the government does not have an obligation to follow the law if later someone is found guilty.

[Jenksismyhero]

It sounds like you are arguing that the government does not have an obligation to follow the law if later someone is found guilty.

 

What law did Texas violate?

 

[Texsox]

Yeah, I mean the guy was convicted of rape/murder. I don't see how him being given the chance to talk to a rep from Mexico would change that. It's akin to staying an execution because the guy didn't get his one phone call on the initial night he was locked up.

 

Plus, what's the end game with the stay? If there was some grave injustice done here, you gotta let him free right? That's not gonna happen, so what's the point in delaying the inevitable?

 

 

What law did Texas violate?

 

I was just reading your earlier post. If someone doesn't get a phone call. It sounds like you are writing that once someone is convicted it doesn't really matter, why delay the inevitable.

[EvilMonkey]

I was just reading your earlier post. If someone doesn't get a phone call. It sounds like you are writing that once someone is convicted it doesn't really matter, why delay the inevitable.

Tex, what injustice was done by him not contacting the consulate? It was already ruled that Texas didn't have to adhere to that, so whether people think it is right or wrong doesn't matter. From what i read this case is actually one of the more air-tight ones with no doubt as to his guilt, as opposed to the ones that relied on a 65 year old granny from 4 blocks away to identify a mole on an accusers face. So unless you think he got inadaquate representation, which should have already come out in the numerous appeals, what is the legal reason for delaying any more? WHat could a consul visit have done that would/could have changed the outcome?

[Texsox]

Tex, what injustice was done by him not contacting the consulate? It was already ruled that Texas didn't have to adhere to that, so whether people think it is right or wrong doesn't matter. From what i read this case is actually one of the more air-tight ones with no doubt as to his guilt, as opposed to the ones that relied on a 65 year old granny from 4 blocks away to identify a mole on an accusers face. So unless you think he got inadaquate representation, which should have already come out in the numerous appeals, what is the legal reason for delaying any more? WHat could a consul visit have done that would/could have changed the outcome?

 

The example that was used was not getting a phone call. Sorry I thought the thread had digressed and I was moving with it. Why stop the inevitable if a technicality was not followed like not getting a phone call was, to paraphrase the comment, what I was referencing.

[Texsox]

I was responding to the comment: He was convicted so what's the point in delaying the inevitable?

 

The point would be, in my mind, to be certain that before we kill him, everything was done exactly as required. That's probably why we don't just shoot the offender as soon as the jury says guilty.

 

Now I want the guy killed as much as every other Texan. We execute more people than all the other states combined. That makes Texas the safest state to live, and I like it that way. It does seem as if Todd Willingham was executed for a crime he didn't commit, but hell he's one out of a thousand. By making an example out of these guys, people think twice before committing violent crimes in Texas. Plus, you never know who is carrying a concealed weapon.

[Soxbadger]

Jenks,

 

Texas didnt violate any US law, the US will be in violation of the treaty.

 

The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, a treaty that includes 170 countries, says a foreigner who is arrested must be allowed access to her home country's consulate. The International Court of Justice ruled in 2004 that the United States was in violation of the treaty for state level death sentences handed out to 51 Mexican citizens who had not been allowed to contact the Mexican Consulate. Then-president George W. Bush ordered the states to review their policies, but Texas refused, suing for its right to ignore the ruling.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/perry-...-165615922.html

 

I just think its interesting that you have Obama, George Bush, etc saying that the states should agree to follow the treaty. You have 1 state, Texas, who is basically saying they arent going to do it, unless Congress makes them. The question is, will Perry back down. Its not just liberal v conservative, this is basically Texas v the US.

 

Tex,

 

It does seem as if Todd Willingham was executed for a crime he didn't commit, but hell he's one out of a thousand.

 

I find 1 innocent person being killed unconscionable. Who pays for that crime? The premeditated murder of an innocent civilian is murder in the first, so who do we get to convict when the state wrongly puts to death an inmate.

 

My guess is that if the rule was that whoever wrongly executes a prisoner is then executed for murder, you would have very few if any executions. The question is, why is the murder of an innocent civilian ever okay? The answer (imo) is that it is not. An innocent person should never be killed by the state and I think the laws should be written to ensure that would never happen.

 

Death is final and humans are prone to error.

 

[Cknolls]

to Texas, and you too Supreme Court. 15 years too late for my liking. Burn in hell scumbag.

[Quin]

Jenks,

 

Texas didnt violate any US law, the US will be in violation of the treaty.

 

 

 

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/perry-...-165615922.html

 

I just think its interesting that you have Obama, George Bush, etc saying that the states should agree to follow the treaty. You have 1 state, Texas, who is basically saying they arent going to do it, unless Congress makes them. The question is, will Perry back down. Its not just liberal v conservative, this is basically Texas v the US.

 

I really want someone to call Rick Perry's secession bluff.

 

[Texsox]

I really want someone to call Rick Perry's secession bluff.

I can't believe people took him seriously.

[Soxbadger]

Sad day for the US.

 

Wish that we could have done better, but hopefully one day we do.

[Quin]

I can't believe people took him seriously.

 

Seriously.

 

I just want the Federal Government to be like "Well, fine. Go for it."