Mexican national executed in Texas

X Factor said:

Ok, now show me where he was not informed of his rights.

Click to expand...

Texas Urged To Stop Mexican National's Execution : NPR

He found out it was his right to seek legal counsel from Mexico at the time of his arrest from a prison inmate.

X Factor said:

Failing to exercise his rights has the effect of waiving them. It wasn't important enough for him to even bring it up it trial, so apparently, the defense was not all that concerned about it.

Click to expand...

wrong
you are aware that people are discharged from arrest because they were not provided notice of their miranda rights
clearly they did not exercise them, because it was that failure to exercsise them, caused by the failure of law enforcement to disclsoe them, that results in their release
try again

Degreez said:

Texas Urged To Stop Mexican National's Execution : NPR

He found out it was his right to seek legal counsel from Mexico at the time of his arrest from a prison inmate.

Click to expand...

Huummmm, I'd be interested in knowing how his conviction/sentence was upheld over numerous appeals. Admittedly, I don't know what the standard of review is on something like this. It could be like a speedy trial issue, where you don't get to claim your right to a speedy trial unless you've asked for a trial in the first place.

justabubba said:

wrong
you are aware that people are discharged from arrest because they were not provided notice of their miranda rights
clearly they did not exercise them, because it was that failure to exercsise them, caused by the failure of law enforcement to disclsoe them, that results in their release
try again

Click to expand...

No, Miranda has nothing to do with the initial and continued detention of someone (that's a whole other line of cases). Miranda has only to do with statements made to police by the defendant. If a cop fails to give Miranda warnings, then statements he makes can be surpressed. Now, a guy could walk if his statements are surpressed, but the state could continue to detain and prosecute him if they have other evidence of his guilt.

X Factor said:

No, Miranda has nothing to do with the initial and continued detention of someone (that's a whole other line of cases). Miranda has only to do with statements made to police by the defendant. If a cop fails to give Miranda warnings, then statements he makes can be surpressed. Now, a guy could walk if his statements are surpressed, but the state could continue to detain and prosecute him if they have other evidence of his guilt.

Click to expand...

but the salent point is there is an affirmative obligation by the state to notify the arrested individual of their rights
it appears tejas failed to do so, resulting in a flawed judicial process

The death penalty is crude and barbaric and has no place in modern society and what's more government shouldn't have the authority to take a life, at least of a citizen. I say life should be the one truly "inalienable" right. Also, my uncle was shot to death while trying to break up a bar fight, so don't pull the "you'd say differently if something happened to one of your friends or relatives" card on me.

CarlF said:

The death penalty is crude and barbaric and has no place in modern society and what's more government shouldn't have the authority to take a life, at least of a citizen. I say life should be the one truly "inalienable" right. Also, my uncle was shot to death while trying to break up a bar fight, so don't pull the "you'd say differently if something happened to one of your friends or relatives" card on me.

Click to expand...

The "State" isn't. The scumbag that committed the crime volunteered for it.

TurtleDude said:

our soft hearted posters think that an American in another country with a valid visa is somehow the same as an illegal. If one of our citizens was an illegal in say Botswana and raped and murdered some girl I couldn't care less if he wasn't allowed to see our consul. On the other hand if someone is on a valid visa or entered lawfully that is different-which would have been the case with a Mexican with proper paperwork here in the states

Click to expand...

You are completly missing the point. The U.S. signed and ratified a treaty. The U.S. has violated that treaty. It is pretty simple, but many knee-jerk "Conservatives" who have no idea about the notion of a "big-picture" really don't care about the law... pathetic...

WI Crippler said:

Didn't we allow that one kid to get caned in the Phillipene's or somewhere like that some years ago for vandalizing cars?

If the situations were reversed and an American citizen did this in another country, to one of their citizens, you bet your ass I'm ok with them carrying out an execution.

Click to expand...

It was Singapore, and President Clinton pressured the Singaporean government to reduce the sentence, which they did. Also, from the beginning, this kid had access to U.S. consular personnel in Singapore.

Jeezy said:

We did do it properly. The treaty has not gone through Congress and the states, therefore you cannot throw out a court ruling on its behalf. There's nothing more to be said.

Any argument about foreign policy implications is nonsense. Congress had seven years to do it. Clearly, the implications are not grave.

Click to expand...

According to the Constitution, all treaties signed and ratified are the law of the land and all judges in the states are bound to uphold them. This is CLEARLY stated in Article VI Clause 2.

MrVicchio said:

The "State" isn't. The scumbag that committed the crime volunteered for it.

Click to expand...

That's retarded. The government kills the person.

X Factor said:

It's not up to the state to assert his rights for him. He has to do it. People waive their rights all the time.

Click to expand...

The treaty required the receiving nation to inform him of his right under the Vienna Convention. Do you have any evidence that Texas in fact did that?

CarlF said:

That's retarded. The government kills the person.

Click to expand...

Only in response to the persons actions. The State doesn't just randomly decide "You're gonna die today".

First, a crime of a serious nature must occur, then evidence is collected, a case built, a trial held. Followed by an appeals process. But the ball starts rolling when the crime is committed.

ludahai said:

The treaty required the receiving nation to inform him of his right under the Vienna Convention. Do you have any evidence that Texas in fact did that?

Click to expand...

Who gives a fcuk at this point.

Fact, he'd been here since he was 2 YEARS OLD. Illegally I might add. He's dead.

No civilized country is going to retaliate on behalf of this scumbag, that's just a bunch of anti-DP hand wringing hoping to push their agenda forward.

MrVicchio said:

Only in response to the persons actions. The State doesn't just randomly decide "You're gonna die today".

First, a crime of a serious nature must occur, then evidence is collected, a case built, a trial held. Followed by an appeals process. But the ball starts rolling when the crime is committed.

Click to expand...

I understand, but I still believe that the government should have no right to take life away. They can take liberty away, because that's a necessity. You can't have violent criminals in society. But life is a fundamental right, or it should be. The death penalty frankly disgusts me.

Jeezy said:

The light green countries are ones that have signed but not ratified the treaty.

....aaand that's the end of that.

Click to expand...

Umm, not exactly because you have the wrong map. This is the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. We are talking about the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, which the U.S. has most definately signed and ratified.

Thanks for playing, but this is a complete FAIL!

MrVicchio said:

Who gives a fcuk at this point.

Fact, he'd been here since he was 2 YEARS OLD. Illegally I might add. He's dead.

No civilized country is going to retaliate on behalf of this scumbag, that's just a bunch of anti-DP hand wringing hoping to push their agenda forward.

Click to expand...

I care because the US violated its treaty commitments. The US calls itself a nation based on the rule of law, but the government of the State of Texas did not abide by that rule of law. The US violated a commitment in a treaty that was signed by the President and ratified by the Senate.

Yes, he deserved to die by all accounts, but Texas should have done it the correct way.

ludahai said:

I care because the US violated its treaty commitments. The US calls itself a nation based on the rule of law, but the government of the State of Texas did not abide by that rule of law. The US violated a commitment in a treaty that was signed by the President and ratified by the Senate.

Yes, he deserved to die by all accounts, but Texas should have done it the correct way.

Click to expand...

Cue the death penalty is a states right issue and Texas is above all that nonsense argument in.... 3.... 2.... 1....

WELL. Rick Perry for President.


the kinds of people who do this sort of thing to young girls (and boys)?

In my darker moments I only regret the shame we can't execute them twice.

I expected the general public to root for the guy's execution with no regard for the treaty system, but the fact that the upper political levels endorsed such a move disturbs me greatly. This isn't even about the death penalty, but keeping our word as a country. We signed a document in good faith with other nations and that means something important, whether or not we want to admit it. If the treaty system is bunk then so is the whole international system and we might as well return to pure anarchy again.

This move does definitely increase risk to Americans abroad. And yes, if you commit a crime on foreign soil, you should be tried in their system... but having legal access to a representative of your country is a huge upside to the consular treaty. Innocent or guilty, our people have no hope of defending themselves abroad if they are subjected to proceedings in unfamiliar territory, their rights are unknown, and if they don't even speak the language. If they are guilty they can rot overseas, but the treaties make sure that everything is being done to ensure fair and due process if it's possible. Consulates know your rights better than you do in the host country, and the best course of action.

SCOTUS ruled that failure to provide foreign nationals with access to their consular authority does not mean the case gets voided. They ruled solidly on that in both 2006 and 2008, and now the courts are standing by that precedent again now. They CAN do this, and they HAVE. But that's not my point - which is, the treaty system means something and this just pisses in the face of it. It shows the world - yet again - that America is a one way street and its toted values are hot air.

We could have fulfilled his treaty rights and still executed him, but blind ignorance wins yet again.

CarlF said:

I understand, but I still believe that the government should have no right to take life away. They can take liberty away, because that's a necessity. You can't have violent criminals in society. But life is a fundamental right, or it should be. The death penalty frankly disgusts me.

Click to expand...

That's great. The thought of a scumbag killer dying in prison 40 years later induces in me nauseousness. In fact, I'm all for bringing back public executions.

Hatuey said:

Cue the death penalty is a states right issue and Texas is above all that nonsense argument in.... 3.... 2.... 1....

Click to expand...

And normally I would actually be sympathetic with such an argument, except that treaty commitments trump state law in this case...

ludahai said:

And normally I would actually be sympathetic with such an argument, except that treaty commitments trump state law in this case...

Click to expand...

Well, he did in fact have access to a foreign consulate, he just never asked for it and when he wanted it was too late. Are you really sure Texas breach federal law?

I also completely disagree with your notion that US should follow all treaties we sign, and not just the ones who are approved by congress. If we have to follow all treaties we sign, then that would give Obama tremendous power.

Camlon said:

Well, he did in fact have access to a foreign consulate, he just never asked for it and when he wanted it was too late. Are you really sure Texas breach federal law?

I also completely disagree with your notion that US should follow all treaties we sign, and not just the ones who are approved by congress. If we have to follow all treaties we sign, then that would give Obama tremendous power.

Click to expand...

Did Texas inform him he had the right? That is part of the treaty.

Sign AND ratify... The Senate plays a role as well...

And Texas breached Article VI of the Constitution...

ludahai said:

Did Texas inform him he had the right? That is part of the treaty.

Sign AND ratify... The Senate plays a role as well...

And Texas breached Article VI of the Constitution...

Click to expand...

They didn't know he was a Mexican and he has lived here since he was 2 years old. If he doesn't inform them that he is a Mexican, then why should they inform him about consular access.

Also, he did get access to a representative of the Mexican government when he told them that he was a Mexican.

Leal claimed he did not learn of his consular access right until two years after his capital conviction. He said he learned of the right not from any official, but from a fellow prisoner.

Eventually, between 2010 and 2011, Leal was visited by a representative of the Mexican government more than 10 times, said Judy Garces, press relations spokeswoman with the Mexican Consulate in San Antonio.

The state argued that Leal -- who has lived in the United States since age 2 -- never revealed his Mexican citizenship at the time of arrest, and his defense team never raised the consular access issue at or before trial.

Click to expand...