• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mexican national executed in Texas

CarlF said:
How is that great then? You are obviously misinformed enough to think the justice system is there to exact revenge for the victims. The fact that we still waste millions of dollars to carry out this barbaric practice induces nauseousness in me.
Click to expand...

The idea of punishment is intended as a deterrent and we should be learning that as children. That's why we have parking meters, as well as electric chairs. There are consequences to unacceptable social behavior, from the trivial to the serious, and in order to make society as agreeable as possible to all, we have to work within acknowledged and acceptable boundaries, Murdering a 16-year-old girl is widely considered to be outside those established boundaries, and the killer should have been aware of that at the time, just as you and I have to be aware of a No Parking sign.
 
Degreez said:
Tell that to the thousands of journalists who are overseas, providing news coverage for you while you sit on your ass.
Click to expand...

I don't sit on my ass, I work hard sometimes 7 days a week. Today I was working in 102 degree heat doing the work they say Americans won't do. Nobody is forcing journalist to work in hostile countries. Most of them volunteer for those assignments.
 
Grant said:
Can you please point out where, before or during the trial, this Mexican was "refused home country counsel"? When did that occur?
Click to expand...

the court case which followed allows us to conclude it was not provided
since you asked me to prove a negative i will now ask you to divide by zero
 
Jeezy said:
...all you had to say.

A treaty is not binding domestic law unless Congress has passed laws implementing it, or unless it is a self-executing treaty.

Medellín v. Texas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's essentially not ratified.

So you're still wrong.
Click to expand...

OK, so judicial activism changed the Constitution... I late liberal judicial activism as well as "conservative" judicial activism
 
justabubba said:
the court case which followed allows us to conclude it was not provided
since you asked me to prove a negative i will now ask you to divide by zero
Click to expand...

First you say it was "refused" and now you say it was "not provided".

Do you understand the difference and, if so, which one is correct?
 
Grant said:
Can you please point out where, before or during the trial, this Mexican was "refused home country counsel"? When did that occur?
Click to expand...

He was not informed of his right to be able to contact the Mexican consulate as required under the Vienna Convention.
 
ludahai said:
He was not informed of his right to be able to contact the Mexican consulate as required under the Vienna Convention.
Click to expand...

Are you also claiming he was refused his rights? Are you placing blame on anyone here and, if so, on whom?

The Mexican? His defense council? The US Attorney General? The media?
 
ludahai said:
OK, so judicial activism changed the Constitution... I late liberal judicial activism as well as "conservative" judicial activism
Click to expand...

this is where i think the SC, by its 5-4 decision, got it wrong
the Constitution defines the criteria for entering into treaties
the Constitution cannot be trumped by subsequent law
such as a law requiring the implementing provisions to be effected as a condition of treaty acceptance
those conflicting provisions of federal law should have been stricken
another instance where the majority did not get it right ... for now, anyway
 
Grant said:
Are you also claiming he was refused his rights? Are you placing blame on anyone here and, if so, on whom?

The Mexican? His defense council? The US Attorney General? The media?
Click to expand...

The State of Texas... they held him in custody. It is their responsibility to ensure his legitimate rights are protected...
 
ludahai said:
The State of Texas... they held him in custody. It is their responsibility to ensure his legitimate rights are protected...
Click to expand...

It is their responsibility to know that he is not an American? As far as they're concerned they read him Miranda Rights and that should be the end of it.

What indications were there to show he wasn't an American? And is Texas responsible for enforcing Federal treaties?

It seems, if it was anyones fault, it was that of the murderer for not telling the authorities he was a Mexican and his lawyers for now doing due diligence. Certainly there comes a time when personal responsibility should play a part.
 
Grant said:
It is their responsibility to know that he is not an American? As far as they're concerned they read him Miranda Rights and that should be the end of it.

What indications were there to show he wasn't an American? And is Texas responsible for enforcing Federal treaties?

It seems, if it was anyones fault, it was that of the murderer for not telling the authorities he was a Mexican and his lawyers for now doing due diligence. Certainly there comes a time when personal responsibility should play a part.
Click to expand...
that bolded portion is the area in which we are in agreement

and we note that the state walks away from its responsibility for the error in affirming due process was provided
 
justabubba said:
that bolded portion is the area in which we are in agreement

and we note that the state walks away from its responsibility for the error in affirming due process was provided
Click to expand...

What about it, Justabubba?

Was access "refused" or it was "not provided".

Which one is correct?
 
Grant said:
What about it, Justabubba?

Was access "refused" or it was "not provided".

Which one is correct?
Click to expand...

what took place was the due process was not ptovided
if you have evidence/cites to the contrary, please post them
 
Grant said:
It is their responsibility to know that he is not an American? As far as they're concerned they read him Miranda Rights and that should be the end of it.

What indications were there to show he wasn't an American? And is Texas responsible for enforcing Federal treaties?

It seems, if it was anyones fault, it was that of the murderer for not telling the authorities he was a Mexican and his lawyers for now doing due diligence. Certainly there comes a time when personal responsibility should play a part.
Click to expand...

I find it amazing that in the process of investigation and trial, they never found out he was not a citizen. Seems like Texas's justice system has more serious problems if they can't establish such a basic fact.

And judges are supposed to enforce treaties in accordance with Article VI of the Constitution.

As for personal responsibility, you mean Texas doesn't have to be responsible for its mistakes? The Vienna Convention makes it very clear that the accused must be informed of his/her rights under the Convention. Texas apparently did not do that. How many people on this thread were actually aware of their rights in other countries under the provisions of this Convention before this? I knew about it -- but that is due to my academic specialty and the fact that I travel in many countries where it helps to know what rights you have - but I would wager the vast majority did not know.
 
ludahai said:
OK, so judicial activism changed the Constitution... I late liberal judicial activism as well as "conservative" judicial activism
Click to expand...

Eh. It doesn't really change much, and is pretty consistent with their rulings in similar cases.

This incarnation of the court doesn't take kindly to belated legal challenges based in international law.
 
Jeezy said:
Eh. It doesn't really change much, and is pretty consistent with their rulings in similar cases.

This incarnation of the court doesn't take kindly to belated legal challenges based in international law.
Click to expand...

Sure it changes things... it is an attack on the treaty making power of the President and Senate enshrined in the Constitution...
 
ludahai said:
Sure it changes things... it is an attack on the treaty making power of the President and Senate enshrined in the Constitution...
Click to expand...

Why?

NAFTA was signed into law via a similar procedure.
 
Jeezy said:
Why?

NAFTA was signed into law via a similar procedure.
Click to expand...

The Constitution clearly states that the President signs treaties, the Senate ratifies them and any treaties are bound on all judges in all of the states... what part of that don't you understand

At least you know understand that the US DID ratify it and you have the right treaty now... lol
 
Grant said:
The idea of punishment is intended as a deterrent and we should be learning that as children. That's why we have parking meters, as well as electric chairs. There are consequences to unacceptable social behavior, from the trivial to the serious, and in order to make society as agreeable as possible to all, we have to work within acknowledged and acceptable boundaries, Murdering a 16-year-old girl is widely considered to be outside those established boundaries, and the killer should have been aware of that at the time, just as you and I have to be aware of a No Parking sign.
Click to expand...
Of course, but there is very little evidence that the death penalty is effective at deterring criminals. So even if I put my philosophical position that the government shouldn't have that kind of power aside, I would still be against it on the grounds that it needlessly wastes money. It could also be argued that it violates the constitutional guarantee against cruel and unusual punishment.
 
justabubba said:
what took place was the due process was not ptovided
if you have evidence/cites to the contrary, please post them
Click to expand...

OK. Earlier you said it was refused, and it's curious why you would make that statement unless it was for obscure political reasons, and now you say it was 'not provided', which indeed it wasn't.

Why would i offer evidence to the contrary when that's been generally acknowledged to be true?
 
CarlF said:
Of course, but there is very little evidence that the death penalty is effective at deterring criminals. So even if I put my philosophical position that the government shouldn't have that kind of power aside, I would still be against it on the grounds that it needlessly wastes money. It could also be argued that it violates the constitutional guarantee against cruel and unusual punishment.
Click to expand...

What wastes money is the time it takes for all appeals to be exhausted. Only the lawyers benefit from that, certainly not the victims or their families.

It's not unusual if it's common practice and understood what can happen if you commit a murder. In that case it becomes the usual punishment.
 
ludahai said:
The Constitution clearly states that the President signs treaties, the Senate ratifies them and any treaties are bound on all judges in all of the states... what part of that don't you understand

At least you know understand that the US DID ratify it and you have the right treaty now... lol
Click to expand...

If the President has first responsibility then, in this case, Bill Clinton should be held responsible for failing to inform the Mexican government that one of their citizens murdered a 16-year-old American girl.
 
Grant said:
If the President has first responsibility then, in this case, Bill Clinton should be held responsible for failing to inform the Mexican government that one of their citizens murdered a 16-year-old American girl.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. It was the State of Texas holding him and it was their responsibility to tell the SUSPECT of his rights under the treaty in accordance with Article 36 of the treaty.
 
ludahai said:
Incorrect. It was the State of Texas holding him and it was their responsibility to tell the SUSPECT of his rights under the treaty in accordance with Article 36 of the treaty.
Click to expand...

Are all States of the Union now required to ask a person their citizenship whenever they are a suspect in a crime?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom