Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Envy89 wrote:

sebster wrote:And if you kid is arrested and denied proper consul? You'd be okay with him being executed before all legal elements of his case have been properly heard?

well i am not married yet, so i do not have kids. BUT i plan on giving them much the same upbringing that i got. teaching morals, and right from wrong and what not. there is a very very good chance that people with a good upbringing will never end up in jail because of the upbringing that they got.

So we don't really have to worry about proper process because it's unlikely to happen to you? I think we're looking at the world from very different POVs.

and that is wrong. people derserve a trail. in the case of texas the guy CONFESSED to the crimes and rightfully got a trial.

in the case you mentioned, no trial... HUGE differance.


though there are some people who get a trail and get off the hook because of some hoop they jumped through. it is a sad day to see a case like that.

But there is still legal debate going on. Process was breached, and it may or may not have resulted in an improper trial. All I'm saying is to wait until after the issue is properly decided before doing something that can't be taken back. It isn't a contraversial point.

grizgrin wrote:
As far as some of the commentary about a man's execution needing to be taken seriously, I don't think Mr. Soon-To-Be-Extra-Crispy-Party-Animal there was too sombre about his deeds. No-siree-bob, sounds like he had hisself a grand old time with all his buddies and their new-found "friends".

It doesn't matter if he was sombre or if he was gleeful or completely devoid of emotion. It's not him I'm commenting on, it's you. His behaviour was horrific, and he is being given the harshest possible punishment. That doesn't excuse you from decency. If you don't understand what I mean then I suppose we're coming at this from some pretty different angles.

sebster wrote:

Envy89 wrote:

sebster wrote:But there is still legal debate going on. Process was breached, and it may or may not have resulted in an improper trial. All I'm saying is to wait until after the issue is properly decided before doing something that can't be taken back. It isn't a contraversial point.

No there's not. It was settled by the US Supreme Court that the Federal Government had no jurisdiction. What the World Court or whatever that nonsense is called would like to do is irrelevant. Its a state issue. Its been fifteen years. Give him the needle.

Lets say he had a right to call the consul and then used it. So what? It would not have changed a thing. He confessed to the crime. He already had counsel (the Mexican government was not going to pay for a new one). There is no practical issue here.

Da Boss, I think decency has been pretty well served after 15 years of appeals and a Supreme Court appearance. He may have not been advised of his right to council, but the entire appeal process is a review of the legal process that brought thecase to that point. They look at the mechanics of the case, how the trial was executed. If he ran through all the appeals, that means that his case was deemed to have executed according to the letter of the law, not necc. with a "sense of justice". What this tells me is that this guy was judged to have been given all the process due. It tells me that if he was not advised of his right to consular access then it was judged to either have had no effect on the case or for some reason he wasn't DUE consular access. Was he in this country illegally? Would that have a bearing on whether or not he was even due consular access? There could very easily be a phrase or two in the treaty itself about that. Hell, if the guy had NO documents on him, he wouldn't even be considered an illegal; he would be a vagrant and therefore not due consular access to a damn thing. Some of that is pretty thin, but my point being that there is a lot about this case that is not known. There isn't a one of us here witthe case files in his garage. However, judging by what I can read here, the guy should fry, no doubt.

And if that puts me on a very different angle from you Da Boss, I'm cool with that. The guy confessed to heinous crimes and the society where he committed them has deemed him in need of killing. If my reactions and feelings about that are different from yours, well all I can say is I can live with that.

Also, it seems the posts in this thread are becoming confused about one point. Was he denied access, or was he not informed of his right to access? Two different things, and I see where some are saying one, and then others talk about the other.

Oh, you've misunderstood me. I'm not arguing the rights and wrongs of the case. I'm okay with his execution, and I'm not disputing that it is the right of the State of Texas to do it. I'm not arguing about any of that stuff. I'm commenting on the language being used to discuss his execution. Might seem like a trivial thing, but hey, it bugged me. I just think that when you talk about a serious issue like execution, murder or war, you should do so with a certain amount of restraint and respect. When I said we were coming from a different angle, I meant in that sense.
Hope we're clearer now. (Also, I'm not picking a fight or anything, and I know you have a right to talk about it in any way you want that doesn't break Dakka's rules.)

Oh no, I didn't misunderstand you , Da Boss. I just tend to stray off topic quite a bit, personal character flaw. The majority of that post was a ramble, I admit. Mea culpa. I am made of OT. However, I DID address the point you mention in my last post; second paragragh last sentence.

And no, I don't believe that I am "excused" from decency. I believe that I am me. Call me decent, call me indecent, it doesn't matter. It's a wargames forum.

edited b/c I care.

Cheers!

sebster wrote:So we don't really have to worry about proper process because it's unlikely to happen to you? I think we're looking at the world from very different POVs.

how so... you dont think he should fry?? the guy gang raped and murdered 2 girls.

dosent matter who it is they need to burn.

sebster wrote:But there is still legal debate going on. Process was breached, and it may or may not have resulted in an improper trial. All I'm saying is to wait until after the issue is properly decided before doing something that can't be taken back. It isn't a contraversial point.

ok.... HE CONFESSED... are you not understanding that???

Envy89 wrote:

sebster wrote:But there is still legal debate going on. Process was breached, and it may or may not have resulted in an improper trial. All I'm saying is to wait until after the issue is properly decided before doing something that can't be taken back. It isn't a contraversial point.

ok.... HE CONFESSED... are you not understanding that???

And because of an apparent breach of procedure, that confession may not be valid. He may not have understood his rights. He may have been told to confess even though he is innocent. He may have said anything just to appease the officials of our (to him) foreign government. He may not have understood the interrogators at all and simply said OK no matter what they asked him.

The rules of our court of law exist so that the results reached by the court can be upheld and withstand scrutiny. If those rules are breached and not thoroughly reexamined and satisfied, the ruling of the court has no meaning.

Is he guilty? Probably.
Are he and his legal team simply stalling for time? Quite possibly.
Do we know any of that for a fact yet? No.

The law must be honered and followed to its full extent. Procedure must be satisfied. Without these things, the execution is no more legal than the crime which precipitated it.

Envy89 wrote:how so... you dont think he should fry?? the guy gang raped and murdered 2 girls.

dosent matter who it is they need to burn.

What? I haven't, and won't, give an opinion on whether the guy should be executed.

I have said that executions should be delayed until all appeals are properly heard. That people are arguing otherwise blows my mind.

ok.... HE CONFESSED... are you not understanding that???

Justice is a lot more complicated than 'did confess therefore fry'. Was the defendant receiving proper legal advice when he made the confession? Was he advised to confess to avoid a higher penalty by incompetent or negligent state council?

Regardless, the law is more important than one man the desire of others to see him killed for his crimes. If you don't see how the subbersion of the law and proper process due to 'simple common sense' doesn't lead to some very bad things, then you need to read up on countries that have fallen from democracy to totalitarianism. Italy is a good starting point, or any of the fascist countries really.

jfrazell wrote:No there's not. It was settled by the US Supreme Court that the Federal Government had no jurisdiction. What the World Court or whatever that nonsense is called would like to do is irrelevant. Its a state issue. Its been fifteen years. Give him the needle.

Lets say he had a right to call the consul and then used it. So what? It would not have changed a thing. He confessed to the crime. He already had counsel (the Mexican government was not going to pay for a new one). There is no practical issue here.

Your assumption that a single appeal is automatically sufficient is a puzzling one. Seriously, why not wait a few months until the outstanding appeal is heard in the supreme court? No-one has given any reason not to delay a few months.

Its not a single appeal. He went through a fifteen year appellate process.

The reason is The World Court has no jurisidiction in Texas. Period. End of Story.

(edited for spelling that would make BabyJesus cry)

Remember boys and girls, today's catchy theme song is "rock me rock me, rock me sexy Jesus!"

jfrazell wrote:The reason is The Wrold Court has no jurisidiction in Texas. Period. End of Story.

I agree. The less contact Texas has with the rest of the World, the better. Think of the horrors us non-Texans could avoid.

The trouble is the precedent is set for someone to say.

"You cannot extradite me to Texas, my rights could be infringed."

A good lawyer will take this and run with it. Texas could soon be howling for people that cannot be extradited because of the state judiciarys refusal to abide by international court decisions.

Thats not a valid argument. Its not Texas specific. International court decisions have no power over US state courts on state matters. If the Federal Government does not have power over a certain state matter, it cannot use a treaty to bootstrap and gain that power.

Again what rights? He had the ability to pick up the proverbial phone and call who he wanted. Its his fault he didn't call the consulate. In the real world its irrelevant, as the consulate is not going to respond, there are thousands of ccriminal cases at this point along the southwestern border states. Even San Francisco is in a tizzy about an illegal immigrant kiling two people.

jfrazell wrote:Thats not a valid argument.

A good lawyer would disagree, and likely win.

jfrazell wrote: Its not Texas specific.

If what you say is correct it means the whokle US could have problems with extradition in future.

jfrazell wrote: International court decisions have no power over US state courts on state matters.

International courts overrule national courts on any grounds which are agreed. State courts are not special case, they just think they are. Scotland has its own courts as a subset of the UK and could not do this legally either.

Also state court rulings are likewise of no validity abroad. What matters is what agreements the US government has with the International courts, which grounds are for extradition, what rights foreign nationals have etc. Each nation ratifies as a nation, once International protocols are ratified they overrule local and regional judiciaries.
This is the way it has to be. Each nation ratifies, not each administrative region. If we tried to form an international system based around attempting a concensus of regional judiciary rather than national judiciary there would be chaos. Many nations dont have a seperate legislature and judiciary, many dont have seperate regional judiciaries and legislatures. The only thing every nationa has in common is a single identifiable central government. For international law this is the only legal body existing.

Simple example. If someone committed a murder and say California wanted to extradite him. California can from another state. But if the suspect is abroad, California cannot, only the USA can. now this can go entirely through Californian courts and piolitical bodies to appeal for the extreadition, but that is not in truth a state power, its a portion of the national authority. normally extradition is handled by the FBI for this reason, as the FBI is central government.
Likewise in the UK, Scotland has its own courts,m but must use the Uk legal system to claim an extradition.

In both cadees local lawyers may process the decisions and appeals, but they asre alweays made on the behalf of central government. with international law Texas cannot legally go it alone. To do so will only cause long term upsets.

Give this guy his consular visitation rights then deal with him afterwards. The process has taken long enough already. If all the state appeals and bureaucracy lasted 15 years already it is a little off to try blame Mexico for dragging out the procedures. The system can afford to wait a little longer for the consulate to have its say.

The system may and will sometimes suck, but ignoring it is far worse.

Every state, and country, has violated some prisoners rights at some point in time so it doesn't really work that well as an argument. You might as well say you can't be tried under any court system because they may violate your rights. How many judges will accept that argument?

Exactly (and if Ahtman and I agree then look out). To Orlanth, those arguments were tried, and found by SCOTUS to not be persuasive. This is not a theoretical argument, but already tested.

Orlanth your treaty summary is not correct. The US cannot create jurisdictional rights via treaty, when the federal government did not have those rights in the first place.

For example. The federal governement can sign (and Senate ratify) a treaty that says the 1st Amendment is null and void. Its irrelevant though, and will be struck down as contravening the US Constitution.

Frankly I'm saddened no one has related this yet to the rock me rock me sexy Jesus! theme song.

Actually, I find the disrespect of the World Court to be a more stressing affair. If it does not have a say in Texas, USA, why should any other country respect it?

You answered your own question, why should any country respect the World Court? Its a joke.

Destrado wrote:Actually, I find the disrespect of the World Court to be a more stressing affair. If it does not have a say in Texas, USA, why should any other country respect it?

Somebody actually respects the self-appointed so-called "World Court"?

Wow.

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:I wish they would bring back the death penalty here in Oz... not as deterent but as punishment for the really bad crimes.

I just wish there was some deserted island far away from where anybody lived where civilized folks could dump off their criminal / "undesirable" types and leave them to fend for themselves.

Well, after the Milosévic and Pinochet cases, world justice can hardly be called fair

At least, Saddam faced the gallows... Then again, this was bad for us since he loved Port wine.

Anyway, I do agree that some guys do deserve the death penalty, as they're a threat to society and law-abiding citizens in general. This mexican dude deserves what's coming.

The threat to society angle always worries me.
It can be extended to cover a lot of behaviours.
Not relevant to this I discussion suppose.

If people aren't listening to the world court, who should they listen to? The UN? Should there be no interaction between countries in this way?(This is not a retorical question, I am interested in what you think is the answer)

This seems to be a common misunderstanding. The States are not precints, or counties of the federal government. The US is 50 Governments that have agreed to band together, but in the end still have their own powers. Think of the Federal government as the UN of the 50 states. This is more true of Texas then most.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:I wish they would bring back the death penalty here in Oz... not as deterent but as punishment for the really bad crimes.

I just wish there was some deserted island far away from where anybody lived where civilized folks could dump off their criminal / "undesirable" types and leave them to fend for themselves.

Even the early Australian penal settlement had an isolated island to dump the worst crimminals... Norfolk Island.

jfrazell wrote:Thats not a valid argument. Its not Texas specific. International court decisions have no power over US state courts on state matters. If the Federal Government does not have power over a certain state matter, it cannot use a treaty to bootstrap and gain that power.

See, that's wrong again. The Federal Government can make this into state law by having the senate ratify the treaty. The supreme court ruled that the executive couldn't just do this by itself, it had to be ratified by the senate.

There was no constitutional problem with the suggestion of a Federal treaty automatically being null and void at a State level. That's crazy talk, and would depend on the treaty and it's relation to the constitution.

Again what rights? He had the ability to pick up the proverbial phone and call who he wanted. Its his fault he didn't call the consulate. In the real world its irrelevant, as the consulate is not going to respond, there are thousands of ccriminal cases at this point along the southwestern border states. Even San Francisco is in a tizzy about an illegal immigrant kiling two people.

The suggestion that individuals, especially illegal immigrants, are now empowered to look after their own rights and need to request their own rights without any responsibility falling on the state doesn't just ignore reality, it looks reality straight between the eyes and mocks it for being so sensible.

Ahtman wrote:Every state, and country, has violated some prisoners rights at some point in time so it doesn't really work that well as an argument. You might as well say you can't be tried under any court system because they may violate your rights. How many judges will accept that argument?

Spoiler:

None. It's been tried before

A person might be in a system that might breach their rights, therefore no actual breaches of individual rights should be considered?

That's zen like in it's lack of content. Seriously, think about what you're suggesting there.

jfrazell wrote:You answered your own question, why should any country respect the World Court? Its a joke.

The American contempt for international bodies is one of those really odd cultural things.

Da Boss wrote:The threat to society angle always worries me.
It can be extended to cover a lot of behaviours.
Not relevant to this I discussion suppose.

If people aren't listening to the world court, who should they listen to? The UN? Should there be no interaction between countries in this way?(This is not a retorical question, I am interested in what you think is the answer)

These matters are typically dealt with by individual treaties and by negotiation between embassies.

If both countries are signatories to the Int Court of Justice then it might be involved, but only to ensure both parties meet their obligations over the rights of the accused and the need for justice. The US isn't a signatory, which is why it's been so odd that people have got hung up over this ruling. The issue is the outstanding appeal that has been put before the Supreme Court.