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.

OK, getting back to The Law:

- Mexican Law is an oxymoron in and of itself. If Mexico weren't so hypocritical, this might be less amusing. Similarly, if the border weren't so porous, it'd be nice to be able to dump Mexican murderers back over the border.

- US Legal policy is that citizens are tried where they are arrested, unless there is some unusual arrangement (e.g. diplomatic / military immunity). That is why Americans *will* be executed in Malaysia for possession of drugs.

- If you commit a capital crime in the US, that's your fault. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, so if he wasn't aware that he was a captial crime, that's too bad. That said, he was in Tejas, so not even ignorance can be claimed.

- Whether the judicial processes are absolutely perfect is of no consequence, precisely because these are human processes. That is why the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt", not "beyond a shadow of a doubt". The only matter of consequence is that the flaws collectively did not signficantly alter the outcome. And in this case, there is no evidence of this being the case. Which is why that SOB is gonna to fry.

JohnHwangDD wrote:OK, getting back to The Law:

- Mexican Law is an oxymoron in and of itself. If Mexico weren't so hypocritical, this might be less amusing. Similarly, if the border weren't so porous, it'd be nice to be able to dump Mexican murderers back over the border.

- US Legal policy is that citizens are tried where they are arrested, unless there is some unusual arrangement (e.g. diplomatic / military immunity). That is why Americans *will* be executed in Malaysia for possession of drugs.

- If you commit a capital crime in the US, that's your fault. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, so if he wasn't aware that he was a captial crime, that's too bad. That said, he was in Tejas, so not even ignorance can be claimed.

- Whether the judicial processes are absolutely perfect is of no consequence, precisely because these are human processes. That is why the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt", not "beyond a shadow of a doubt". The only matter of consequence is that the flaws collectively did not signficantly alter the outcome. And in this case, there is no evidence of this being the case. Which is why that SOB is gonna to fry.

What are you talking about? No-one has suggested he should be penalised by Mexican law instead of US law. No-one has suggested legal standards must be perfect. No-one has suggested people shouldn’t be penalised if they were ignorant of the law. No-one has made any reference to the idea of beyond reasonable doubt.

It has been suggested that being denied consul access is a major breach of rights, one that it’s hard to find any reason to justify. It has been suggested that his execution should be stayed until this breach is fully heard by the Supreme Court.

sebster wrote:being denied consul access is a major breach of rights

If you could show me where in the US Constitution this right is granted that would make this much simpler.

Ahtman wrote:If you could show me where in the US Constitution this right is granted that would make this much simpler.

It's part of the rights upon arrest, a section of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This was ratified by the US in 1991 or 1992. It was ratified with a ludicrously complex set of exceptions, to the point where courts have generally held it to be non-binding on domestic law. But that's hardly a complete decision, more the default one. That's why it's good to have something like this taken before the Supreme Court.

Incidentally, pointing out that something may or may not be in the constitution and assuming that's the end of the issue is simplistic, to say the least. Rights don't end with the constitution, after all. If a family member of yours was accused of something vile and arrested while in, say, Thailand, wouldn't you think it important that he had access to the US embassy there. Would you have any confidence in the subsequent trial if that embassy access wasn't granted?

It wasn't sarcasm, I was really asking.

While I may know a thing or two about a thing or two, I don't know every single aspect of the Constitution. If I did, I'd probably be in a different line of work.

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.

Well, Antarctica is surrounded on all sides by water. On the other hand dumping them in Kodiak Island is cheaper and GREEN. Whats more green than dropping prisoners off on an island populated by the worlds largest type of grizzly bear. Mmmm convicted prisoner, chewy on the outside, and in the inside!

I keed I keed, ok not really.

sebster wrote:

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.

We have contempt for international bodies because most international bodies are comprised from bribe taking bureaucratic sycophants and dictators. This is especially true of anything in any way connected to the UN. As soon as you can find one that isn't I'll buy you a cookie, but not the good kind. Those belong to me.

sebster wrote:

Ahtman wrote:If you could show me where in the US Constitution this right is granted that would make this much simpler.

It's part of the rights upon arrest, a section of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This was ratified by the US in 1991 or 1992. It was ratified with a ludicrously complex set of exceptions, to the point where courts have generally held it to be non-binding on domestic law. But that's hardly a complete decision, more the default one. That's why it's good to have something like this taken before the Supreme Court.

Incidentally, pointing out that something may or may not be in the constitution and assuming that's the end of the issue is simplistic, to say the least. Rights don't end with the constitution, after all. If a family member of yours was accused of something vile and arrested while in, say, Thailand, wouldn't you think it important that he had access to the US embassy there. Would you have any confidence in the subsequent trial if that embassy access wasn't granted?

And pray tell, what would the "consular right" have done? He had a lawyer. Everyone in the US is entitled to legal counsel. He had the full penumbra of rights, privileges, and case law, despite not being a citizen and being here illegally. The Mexican consulate is not going to get involved in petty criminal matters. As JohnH noted, the southern border is porous with thousands of cases every year (we should be sending the legal bills to Mexico). This is not Japan or some place a foreign citizen is rarely arrested. in Texas, illegal aliens from below the border now comprise something on the order of 1/3 of all inmates.

Note if he had fled back to Mexico, Mexico would NOT have extradited him back to the US, despite treaty.

hay... you cant spell UNethical without U.N.

jfrazell wrote:

sebster wrote:

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.

We have contempt for international bodies because most international bodies

It should also be noted that we have contempt for most domestic bodies as well.

jfrazell wrote:And pray tell, what would the "consular right" have done? He had a lawyer. Everyone in the US is entitled to legal counsel. He had the full penumbra of rights, privileges, and case law, despite not being a citizen and being here illegally. The Mexican consulate is not going to get involved in petty criminal matters. As JohnH noted, the southern border is porous with thousands of cases every year (we should be sending the legal bills to Mexico). This is not Japan or some place a foreign citizen is rarely arrested. in Texas, illegal aliens from below the border now comprise something on the order of 1/3 of all inmates.

It does not matter what the "consular right" would have done. Just as it doesn't matter who you would have contacted with your "one phonecall" or how good your "state appointed defense counsel" is. The simple fact that it is denied is the point.

And what does frequency of similar cases have to do with the person's rights? One of three Americans in Japan or one of four million Mexicans in Texas, they should be handled with the same attention and given the same access to their native government consul. Or are not all men created equal anymore?

Try him and fry him, I don't really care. But an extra few months exhausting this last bit of legalese is not going to make a real difference to anyone. The dead will not come back no matter how fast you kill the guy. The only reason I can see in rushing the execution at this point, after 15 years of waiting, is that the state of Texas knows they screwed something up in the case and wants to make sure they can ease their itchy trigger fingers before they're found out.

Honestly, 15 or 15.5 years, whats the difference. Really.

For starters, it's an extra half year of taxpayer-funded room & board.

blue loki wrote:

It does not matter what the "consular right" would have done. Just as it doesn't matter who you would have contacted with your "one phonecall" or how good your "state appointed defense counsel" is. The simple fact that it is denied is the point.

Thats the point. He could have called the consulate at any time. Miranda rights don't include us having to tell every illegal immigrant murderer that the have the right to consul. They have access to a phone and can do what they want. Further, his attorney could have made said call. Its a bogus argument by a killer so bad that when he told his story to other inmates, they put him in the hospital.

Justice delayed is justice denied.

Pricing fair justice now, are we?

Arguing about having a right to consul is fine and expected, but arguing about the cost?
Can you seriously put a price on the ability of the legal system to thoroughly fulfill a defendant's rights during the course of a trial?

jfrazell wrote:Justice delayed is justice denied.

How so?

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

And remember everyone, if you're arrested in Texas, you get to call your consulate. Unless you're arrested for cattle rustlin' or disparaging the awesomeness of Tex-Mex. Thats a hanging offense. No appeals permitted with on the spot execution of justice

No problem. All my exes live in Texas anyway. That's why I hang my hat in ... Atlanta? Wait, that's not right...

blue loki wrote:Pricing fair justice now, are we?

Arguing about having a right to consul is fine and expected, but arguing about the cost?
Can you seriously put a price on the ability of the legal system to thoroughly fulfill a defendant's rights during the course of a trial?

You're the one who asked the question. If you don't like the answer, that's not my fault.

Why not? The idea that justice is, or should be free, is pretty crazy, because then if necessarily follows that justice is worthless.

jfrazell wrote:And pray tell, what would the "consular right" have done? He had a lawyer. Everyone in the US is entitled to legal counsel. He had the full penumbra of rights, privileges, and case law, despite not being a citizen and being here illegally. The Mexican consulate is not going to get involved in petty criminal matters. As JohnH noted, the southern border is porous with thousands of cases every year (we should be sending the legal bills to Mexico). This is not Japan or some place a foreign citizen is rarely arrested. in Texas, illegal aliens from below the border now comprise something on the order of 1/3 of all inmates.

Note if he had fled back to Mexico, Mexico would NOT have extradited him back to the US, despite treaty.

It's very dangerous to start considering which rights people really need, and which are just nice to have. Especially when its just the Governor making the decision.

As you point out, if he was given fair legal representation then consular support probably wouldn't have helped. That's likely part of the argument the Supreme court will consider. All I'm suggesting is to wait until the Supreme Court has considered the argument before killing the guy.

Ahtman wrote:It should also be noted that we have contempt for most domestic bodies as well.

There's a line in Greene's The Quiet American, when the narrator notes the 'lazy cynicism' of the new batch of journalists. Simply sounding off and condemning this, that and everything is often used to make someone seem worldly and wise, but it's no replacement for actual knowledge.

Yeah, the UN has problems. But a sweeping dismissal is a very lazy thing to do, ignoring the wide range of achievements of major and minor organs. It ignores just how hard many of the jobs done by the UN actually are.

JohnHwangDD wrote:For starters, it's an extra half year of taxpayer-funded room & board.

It's a very dangerous thing to get cheap when you're talking about the state's ability to kill a man.

And yet, it's unfair to ask how much counsel or consideration his victims received?

It's too bad we don't execute like China does.

Then we could bill his family for the bullet.

JohnHwangDD wrote:And yet, it's unfair to ask how much counsel or consideration his victims received?

It's too bad we don't execute like China does.

Then we could bill his family for the bullet.

The responsibilities of the state are very different to the responsibilities of the accused.

The idea of procedure being more important than personal agendas is exactly the key difference between a country like the US and a country like China.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Why not? The idea that justice is, or should be free, is pretty crazy, because then if necessarily follows that justice is worthless.

So, both sunlight and a breathable atmosphere are worthless?

Price does not dictate nor define worth. Anyone who claims otherwise is trying to sell you something.

"Quit hyperventilating. Air is not free citizen!"
Pay for some in hospital and they charge you through the nose!

potentially offensive post removed

--yakface

Why do I get the feeling that a previously banned user is posting under a new account?

what are you talking about?!

Gangsta_Tau:

While you are free to express your opinion, you must do so in a polite manner, and not in a way that is likely to insult others and incite a negative backlash.

Why you guys so mean to me?!!!