The Sir Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 Someone please clarify. This guy was convicted in 1994. When was this treaty passed? People seem to be suggesting the treaty was passed after he was convicted. Is this true? I majored in criminal justice but I'm not a lawyer, so I could be wrong, but this sounds like a weird variation of the ex post facto concept (if you do A, they can't then pass a law banning A and hold you accountable). In which case, this only strengthens my conviction that Texas had no obligation to obey this treaty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 I get the purpose of the treaty and everything, but what purpose would it serve really? What would be the point? It's like "oh s***, damn I could've used that legal procedure X years ago when the window was open and I really wish I did, let me go ahead and see what I can get now" how is that? It doesn't make sense to me. I know it's more than just a technicality, but still. Go all the way back to start over? For what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 Let's see, guilt is no doubt, the guy brutally raped a 16 year old, and then after he raped her and she fought him he took a 40 lb. piece of asphalt and beat the s*** out of her until she died. Boo f***ing hoo, he didn't get a phone call to the consolate, when the law didn't exist at the time. Someone should have beat his ass with a 40 lb. chunk of asphalt, and very slowly, so this piece of s*** could suffer, while his so called rights of "liberty and justice" that he f***ed up on his own were taken slowly away. The guy lived 17 years too long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkey Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 8, 2011 -> 05:46 PM) Thats your opinion. I feel that if it wasnt a big deal, if it made no difference, why not let him contact the consulate? . . . He DID contact his consulate, met with them over a dozen times. it just wasn't in the order that some wanted it to be, like before the first trial. Still made no difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted July 9, 2011 Author Share Posted July 9, 2011 (edited) Flysox, The treaty is from 1963. So in 1994 the US had been subject to the treaty for a few decades give or take. lostfan, Because execution is final. What if he had gotten consular access and the Mexican govt provided him a better attorney who plead that Leal was disabled and therefore should be put in a mental institution? As a justice system, we cant rewrite the rules because "it wouldnt matter", the reality is, we dont know what would matter and what wouldnt. If we are going to say our justice system is fair and just, we must follow the rules, even if it doesnt matter, even if it means we have to spend extra money. Because that is what justice means. It means that you gave the Defendant all of their rights and they still lost. As soon as you take away 1, whats to stop you from taking away 2, or 3? I mean if we know they are guilty why even have a trial, why let them appeal? Why not just execute? Its because our system is based on the fact that for the majority of human history, there has been no semblance of justice for those who were not the extremely wealthy. That we our a society who created a system where even the most terrible, the poorest, the worst, get the same rights as the best of us. Because as long as we give the worst the fairest chance, we can be sure that we give everyone a chance. Kapkomet, Law didnt exist at the time? Does not compute. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/11-5001.pdf Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (Vienna Convention), Apr. 24, 1963, 21 U. S. T. 77, T. I. A. S. No. 6820. See the date, April 24, 1963. If the victim was 16 in 1994, she wasnt even born in 1963. See Lostfan, this is why it matters. Because there are people who will completely rewrite history to strip a Defendant of his rights. They will change the law to say it didnt exist, just so that they can execute someone today, instead of 15 years from now. Thats why its a big deal, because not many people in the world care about Defendants. They immediately assume they are guilty, they want to execute them instantly, they do not care that humans are imperfect and therefore prone to error. They would rather kill an innocent man today, than let a criminal not be executed and have to live in jail. Disputes arising out of the interpretation of applicationof the Convention shall lie within the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice.”, which means we changed the rules after we arrested Leal. So if you are upset about ex post facto, you should be made that the US changed the rules in 2005 after the ruling in 2004. (Its sad how dirty this all is.) Even more sad, all Texas was required to do was: And so far neither Texas nor any other judicial authority has implemented what the International Court of Justice found (in a related case brought by the Government of Mexico) to be the proper remedy for that Convention violation, namely a hearing to determine whether that violation amounted in effect to harmless error. Thus if you are all correct, that it was merely harmless, Texas would have still gotten to execute him. So why not have the hearing? If you are so sure this guy is guilty, why not in 2004 have the hearing? The only reason you dont want to, is because youre afraid that more than harmless error occurred. And maybe its not in this case, maybe its in one of the other X cases of Mexican nationals not being given these rights. But who cares about facts or the law, the state of texas said Leal murdered some one, the state of texas is never wrong!!!! Or maybe the story of Ruben Cantu will give you pause http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/executed-possibly-innocent. And just for fun of the 9 people mentioned, 6 were executed in texas. How do you explain killing an innocent man? (not that Leal was innocent, but the reason why its all important is because it all matters, from the before the arrest, until the execution, it all matters and small injustices can lead to big mistakes) Edited July 9, 2011 by Soxbadger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted July 9, 2011 Author Share Posted July 9, 2011 (edited) Alpha, Both the Supreme Court and I agree, that if a court found that what happened to Leal was harmless error, Texas was free to go on with the execution. Why would it have been so hard to give him 1 hearing on whether or not being given contact to the consulate did make a difference? If its such a closed case, why not just do it in 2004 and get it over with. Edited July 9, 2011 by Soxbadger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sir Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 (edited) QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 8, 2011 -> 09:11 PM) Flysox, The treaty is from 1963. So in 1994 the US had been subject to the treaty for a few decades give or take. lostfan, Because execution is final. What if he had gotten consular access and the Mexican govt provided him a better attorney who plead that Leal was disabled and therefore should be put in a mental institution? As a justice system, we cant rewrite the rules because "it wouldnt matter", the reality is, we dont know what would matter and what wouldnt. If we are going to say our justice system is fair and just, we must follow the rules, even if it doesnt matter, even if it means we have to spend extra money. Because that is what justice means. It means that you gave the Defendant all of their rights and they still lost. As soon as you take away 1, whats to stop you from taking away 2, or 3? I mean if we know they are guilty why even have a trial, why let them appeal? Why not just execute? Its because our system is based on the fact that for the majority of human history, there has been no semblance of justice for those who were not the extremely wealthy. That we our a society who created a system where even the most terrible, the poorest, the worst, get the same rights as the best of us. Because as long as we give the worst the fairest chance, we can be sure that we give everyone a chance. Kapkomet, Law didnt exist at the time? Does not compute. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/11-5001.pdf See the date, April 24, 1963. If the victim was 16 in 1994, she wasnt even born in 1963. See Lostfan, this is why it matters. Because there are people who will completely rewrite history to strip a Defendant of his rights. They will change the law to say it didnt exist, just so that they can execute someone today, instead of 15 years from now. Thats why its a big deal, because not many people in the world care about Defendants. They immediately assume they are guilty, they want to execute them instantly, they do not care that humans are imperfect and therefore prone to error. They would rather kill an innocent man today, than let a criminal not be executed and have to live in jail. , which means we changed the rules after we arrested Leal. So if you are upset about ex post facto, you should be made that the US changed the rules in 2005 after the ruling in 2004. (Its sad how dirty this all is.) Even more sad, all Texas was required to do was: Thus if you are all correct, that it was merely harmless, Texas would have still gotten to execute him. So why not have the hearing? If you are so sure this guy is guilty, why not in 2004 have the hearing? The only reason you dont want to, is because youre afraid that more than harmless error occurred. And maybe its not in this case, maybe its in one of the other X cases of Mexican nationals not being given these rights. But who cares about facts or the law, the state of texas said Leal murdered some one, the state of texas is never wrong!!!! Or maybe the story of Ruben Cantu will give you pause http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/executed-possibly-innocent. And just for fun of the 9 people mentioned, 6 were executed in texas. How do you explain killing an innocent man? (not that Leal was innocent, but the reason why its all important is because it all matters, from the before the arrest, until the execution, it all matters and small injustices can lead to big mistakes) QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 8, 2011 -> 03:17 PM) Im busy today I've said my piece here, but I just want to say, I wish my busy days could be as free and open as yours... Edited July 9, 2011 by FlySox87 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted July 9, 2011 Author Share Posted July 9, 2011 Fly, haha thats after I got home from work and was actually able to cite and reply coherently. And damn I was hoping to get to reply to you one more time and use your own line "you cant bend your morals, murder is murder. So even if you kill an innocent man with the best intentions, its still murder". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sir Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 8, 2011 -> 09:28 PM) Fly, haha thats after I got home from work and was actually able to cite and reply coherently. And damn I was hoping to get to reply to you one more time and use your own line "you cant bend your morals, murder is murder. So even if you kill an innocent man with the best intentions, its still murder". And that would probably lead to me making some quip about abortion, so...uh...let's just not go there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted July 9, 2011 Author Share Posted July 9, 2011 Well save that for another day, plenty of other times when Ill need distractions at work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts