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.

There is actually a thread about people being denied consular access. Not only a thread about it, but an actual state moving along with punishment for a crime while denying them their consular access. I know it's Texas, but still.

Frazzled wrote:There's a general lack of sympathy when you come here illegally and then claim you're a foreign citizen.

It doesn't matter how much sympathy you have, due process is due process.

It amazes me that you do not understand that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

remilia_scarlet wrote:God, things like this disgust me. What's next, get convicted of murder, spend a night in jail?

This isn't about letting a guy go, it's about ensuring he's convicted in a fair court of law.

Would you be similarly disinterested in an American receiving consular support after being arrested for a crime in Mexico?

Would you be similarly disinterested in an American being denied a fundamental right in an American trial, because 'we all know he's guilty anyway.'


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fifty wrote:This is like a RaW vs RaI argument. At the end of the day, he deserves the most extreme penalty available, and in Texas that is death. On the other hand, if killing him leads to some Americans, born and bred, not getting the access to an American Consulate that they should, is it really worth it? Personally, I suspect that not all that much damage will really be done to American foreign relations. After all, it is not like they normally negotiate from a position of "please be nice, just like we were to you..." anyway.

I don't think it's a particularly good idea to encourage government to act on 'we'll ignore the law to do what's right, as long as we think it won't harm us down the line.'

CT GAMER wrote:So the plan is to take back the white house so another military conflict can be initiated?

They told me if I voted for McCain we would get involved in another war in the Middle East...

ChrisWWII wrote:While I think that the man deserves the worst possible sentence possible, the fact that he didn't receive the due recognition he was allowed under the law does bother me.

Except he did get the protection due under the law. This circumstance has already been litigated (although he can re-litigate it if he wants). We already know what protections are due under the law: none.

ChrisWWII wrote:I'm a big proponent of the ideal that no one is above the law, and that the law should bend for no one. THat includes cases when it protects the guilty.

Totally agree.

ChrisWWII wrote:However, double jeaporday means we can't jut redo all of this.

This isn't double jeopardy. If the case is overturned on appeal, the government can prosecute him again.

sebster wrote:There is actually a thread about people being denied consular access. Not only a thread about it, but an actual state moving along with punishment for a crime while denying them their consular access. I know it's Texas, but still.

Its a messy issue. If you're interested, here is an interesting criticism specifically related to the Medellin case mentioned earlier in the thread.

The short version is that if any given treaty is not self-executing, and is not implemented into law by Congress, then the ratification of that treaty is not tacit to domestic law. This effectively added an additional layer of scrutiny beyond the Congressional process of ratification. Of course, what self-executing treaty actually is never clearly defined, as indicated by the dissent; presumably it relates to specificity in terms the treaties language; ie. "all signatory parties" vs. "All signatory parties, and their constitutive bodies."

This is worth reading too, if only for a laugh.

Texas Attorney General wrote:
Any Texas judicial authority who presides over the arraignment of a foreign national should offer the arraigned person an opportunity to contact the consular officials of his country of origin.

dogma wrote:Its a messy issue. If you're interested, here is an interesting criticism specifically related to the Medellin case mentioned earlier in the thread.

Yeah, I understand that Texas has a very sound case that they don't have to grant access. I'm simply amazed that they, or anyone else, have suddenly decided that doing so is a good idea.

As you second link shows, it's one of the basic things that everyone assumes is to simply be granted, until someone screws up and doesn't do it, then a bunch of people start pretending that it isn't really.

sebster wrote:
Yeah, I understand that Texas has a very sound case that they don't have to grant access. I'm simply amazed that they, or anyone else, have suddenly decided that doing so is a good idea.

As you second link shows, it's one of the basic things that everyone assumes is to simply be granted, until someone screws up and doesn't do it, then a bunch of people start pretending that it isn't really.

Definitely. There's a reason the otherwise realist Bush administration sided with an international institution when it ruled in favor of mandatory consular access over Medellin et al.

Frazzled wrote:

Goddard wrote:As long as he's kept from society, who gives a gak?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
He'll either rot or fry, and I'm fine with both.

Thats not what they are pleading for.

Do you really think the re-prosecution will result in any other outcome?

After carefully weighing the issue, I have to say that living here since he was two, in my mind if not the legal world, means he can get along with just the same trial an actual citizen would get.

Ok, the way I see it sebster, no matter where you are, or where you're from, if you commit a murder, you commit a murder, it doesn't matter if you're an illegal mexican in texas, or an american tourist in mexico, you commited a murder. There's no justifying killing another human being, it's wrong, and to go unpunished is salt in the wound, don't you think?

I understand that he does need a trial first , but, if he's found guilty and recieves death penalty, he recieves death penalty. Of course, you have to understand that him getting out of this can be an insult to the family of the victim, don't you think?

Or, are you going to condescend what I said?

biccat wrote:Except he did get the protection due under the law. This circumstance has already been litigated (although he can re-litigate it if he wants). We already know what protections are due under the law: none.

I'm not 100% sure of the law in this scenario, but if there are any remaining legal options for him that he was not allowed to pursue, he should be allowed to do so. If not, and that's what it sounds like, then he deserves whatever the court chooses to give him.

This isn't double jeopardy. If the case is overturned on appeal, the government can prosecute him again.

Oh, of course. The implication that I was getting was that the case was going to be droped on a technicality. If it's just an appeal, then let's prosecute him again, convict him again, and let him suffer the consequences for what he's done.

ChrisWWII wrote:If it's just an appeal, then let's prosecute him again, convict him again, and let him suffer the consequences for what he's done.

That's not how appeals work. Appeals are based on procedural malfeasance, not the absence of a decision one does not like.

dogma wrote:

ChrisWWII wrote:If it's just an appeal, then let's prosecute him again, convict him again, and let him suffer the consequences for what he's done.

That's not how appeals work. Appeals are based on procedural malfeasance, not the absence of a decision one does not like.

I'm confused, is this guy going to get off murder completely or is there going to be some sort of re-trial?

Neither, as it stands Leal will get injected and face his maker, and all the folks who hate the dealth penalty will hold him as a unjustly killed martyr and a victim of the Evil US.

http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/scheduledexecutions.htm

Here is some info on what a nice guy he is:

EDIT: Note that the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations allows traveling foreign nationals to call for legal advice from their home governments. Seems that a guy who has lived in the US almost his life cannot really be considered a 'traveling foreign national', and it is also hard to make any case what so ever that his trial and all the sibsequent appeals were not fair.

That's pretty damn gruesome. What will happen if he gets consular access?

ChrisWWII wrote:While I think that the man deserves the worst possible sentence possible, the fact that he didn't receive the due recognition he was allowed under the law does bother me. I'm a big proponent of the ideal that no one is above the law, and that the law should bend for no one. THat includes cases when it protects the guilty.

However, double jeaporday means we can't jut redo all of this. My personal belief is that we should offer to extradite him to Mexico, and if the Mexican government refuses to take him back, then Texas can just go kill the son of a :censored:.

Thats horse gak. He had the same right to a defense as you or I. He needs a dirt nap and in just a few days he should get it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

iproxtaco wrote:That's pretty damn gruesome. What will happen if he gets consular access?

Nothing. As I said Mexico will not provide legal support for defendants. It would benkrupt them as there are tens of thousands in our legal system.

Its an excuse to overturn the verdict and cost US taxpayers another million $.

Emperors Faithful wrote:
I'm confused, is this guy going to get off murder completely or is there going to be some sort of re-trial?

The request being made if essentially for a retrial, though it may be beyond the period in which such action can be taken, he has been on death row for awhile. This is basically a case of Texas doing whatever it wants, within the law, and a (large) number of federal officials and military personnel considering their choices to be stupid.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
Nothing. As I said Mexico will not provide legal support for defendants. It would benkrupt them as there are tens of thousands in our legal system.

Its an excuse to overturn the verdict and cost US taxpayers another million $.

Of course its an excuse to overturn the verdict, so what? That's how argument works when politics and law coincide.

In any case, whether or not Mexico would grant legal support to all of their nationals in the US justice system is not relevant. The relevant dispute is over whether or not this man was given access to his consulate.

The US regularly refuses to provide legal support to its nationals in foreign criminal disputes because, as you say, it would cost an immense amount of money. We tend to pay for defense high profile cases, or those cases in which there is an apparent absence of fairness in trial. That's how most states do things, and it is likely that Mexico would respond similarly.

dogma wrote:

That's not how appeals work. Appeals are based on procedural malfeasance, not the absence of a decision one does not like.

I'm not going to pretend to know all the details of how law works. I want to be a lawyer some day, but I'm still an undergrad for now.

I was speaking colloquially.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:

Thats horse gak. He had the same right to a defense as you or I. He needs a dirt nap and in just a few days he should get it.

It certainly is beginning to seem like that's the case, and I'd agree with you. Like I said, I'm a proponent of the ideal that everyone is equal before hte law, if he's had his fair trial (and it seems like he's had) let's kill him already. If he hasn't, let's give him on.e

remilia_scarlet wrote:Ok, the way I see it sebster, no matter where you are, or where you're from, if you commit a murder, you commit a murder, it doesn't matter if you're an illegal mexican in texas, or an american tourist in mexico, you commited a murder. There's no justifying killing another human being, it's wrong, and to go unpunished is salt in the wound, don't you think?

Absolutely. I don't think for one second justice would be served by having this guy go free. I also don't think for one second that's likely to happen.

I understand that he does need a trial first , but, if he's found guilty and recieves death penalty, he recieves death penalty.

Sure, but that part there - "found guilty"... that part relies on the assumption of a fair trial. Part of a fair trial is giving the accused access to every form of defence he can muster, and that includes giving a foreign national access to his government.

Of course, you have to understand that him getting out of this can be an insult to the family of the victim, don't you think?

The law has never been about whether or not we're being fair, or whether or not we're being insulting to the family of the victim. That kind of sentiment is too likely to lead to emotive trials, and that's too likely to lead to injustice. The power of the state is a scary thing, and it is too easily wielded by people claiming to be concerned for the family of the victim, and relying on emotion to have us all fall in to support them.

ChrisWWII wrote:
It certainly is beginning to seem like that's the case, and I'd agree with you. Like I said, I'm a proponent of the ideal that everyone is equal before hte law, if he's had his fair trial (and it seems like he's had) let's kill him already. If he hasn't, let's give him on.e

I think this issue has more to do with getting Texas to honor the US treaty regarding consular access than actually staying this particular execution. That would be a fringe benefit for some of those arguing for it, but I get the impression that its just one battle in a larger war regarding what many view as an irresponsible judicial practice. One which even Texas claims to uphold according to their Attorney General's website.

KILL THE XENOS!

Just a thought:

this guy did it. However, they're arguing that because he's a mexican immigrant he would've had a lawyer who would have told him to shut up because american defense lawyers don't?
Why? language barrier? this guy has lived in the states since he was 2. I don't think he would have any trouble with the language. At least, he shouldn't.

I'm with the crowd saying hang 'im high on this one.

I don't really have a problem with stringing this character up, but I'd also prefer that he did recieve every legal route available to him before he swings. If that means an entire re-trial that will ensure that this case has been dealt with appropriately, then I'd support that.

Emperors Faithful wrote:I don't really have a problem with stringing this character up, but I'd also prefer that he did recieve every legal route available to him before he swings. If that means an entire re-trial that will ensure that this case has been dealt with appropriately, then I'd support that.

You would.

He had a trial. He was in the US since he was two. I'd bet good money English was his natiuve language. He had representation.
him with a chainsaw.

The issue here is whether or not he received the full and proper process under the law. If he was still a foreign national, he should have had consulate acess.

How would you feel about a US national that was denied access to a US embassy in a similar situation?

Frankly, if a US national raped some 16 year old girl with a stick then bashed in her head with a rock, went through a fair trial and a ton of appeals and was convicted, it would not bother me that he was not offered the chance to talk to someone from a consulate.

The key is Fair Trial. Though there are countries other than the US where that is a right and a right that is actually given and protected, it is NOT the norm around the globe.

Go ahead and make a logical post about how access to a consular official would have made a difference in this case, and why it should have made a difference. The guy was guilty. He had a fair trial and exhausted the appeals process.

He DID receive full and proper process under the law. Period. See the case I referenced in an earlier post. What Pres Obama is trying to do is hold off on the execution in the hopes that a NEW law will be passed by our congress which would then trump Texas law. Currently that law has NOT passed. So, Texas is well within its rights. Period.

Emperors Faithful wrote:The issue here is whether or not he received the full and proper process under the law. If he was still a foreign national, he should have had consulate acess.

How would you feel about a US national that was denied access to a US embassy in a similar situation?

That raped and murdered a 16-year-old girl with construction materials?

I'd say send him back to the US because Mexico doesn't have the death penalty.

The issue here is whether or not he received the full and proper process under the law.
***And he did. Whats the whole argument here? The Mexican government does not provide any support for criminal defendant in the USA. There would have been no difference. They wouldn't have picked up the ing phone.

If he was still a foreign national, he should have had consulate access.
***He was here since he was two and lived as an American. The argument is being made in many circles that he's "an American" now. In fact in many states he could get the residency discount for college, whereas if I moved there I wouldn't be able to. If the polizei can't ask your nationality how exactly are they going to asertain you're a foreign devil in the first place?
Again him with a chainsaw.

How would you feel about a US national that was denied access to a US embassy in a similar situation?
***
1) Usually happens anyway in the plethora of shitholes in the world.
2) I wouldn't particularly give a gak if an American went to another country at age two. If you go to Mother Russia you live by Mother Russia's rules.

CptJake wrote:Frankly, if a US national raped some 16 year old girl with a stick then bashed in her head with a rock, went through a fair trial and a ton of appeals and was convicted, it would not bother me that he was not offered the chance to talk to someone from a consulate.

The key is Fair Trial. Though there are countries other than the US where that is a right and a right that is actually given and protected, it is NOT the norm around the globe.

Go ahead and make a logical post about how access to a consular official would have made a difference in this case, and why it should have made a difference. The guy was guilty. He had a fair trial and exhausted the appeals process.

He DID receive full and proper process under the law. Period. See the case I referenced in an earlier post. What Pres Obama is trying to do is hold off on the execution in the hopes that a NEW law will be passed by our congress which would then trump Texas law. Currently that law has NOT passed. So, Texas is well within its rights. Period.

I thought the whole point of this was that full and proper process under the law would have given him access to a consulate? Well, that and the hope of avoiding any detrimental affect on foreign relations.


As for all the arguments regarding "he's an American now". No, he's not a US citizen, otherwise this wouldn't even be an issue. That's pretty straightforward.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:2) I wouldn't particularly give a gak if an American went to another country at age two. If you go to Mother Russia you live by Mother Russia's rules.

It's not a matter of foreigners not being bound by a country's laws. The issue would be the US citizen not being given any access to an embassy or anything.

He had the full and proper process under the law. Thats the freeking point.

So, if he had gotten counsel from Mexico he wouldn't have admitted to the cops that he'd done it? Looks like we dodged a bullet there.

He should get the injection... A LETHAL INJECTION OF A PIECE OF LUMBER!

Emperors Faithful wrote:

I thought the whole point of this was that full and proper process under the law would have given him access to a consulate? Well, that and the hope of avoiding any detrimental affect on foreign relations.

That is what the anti-US and anti-depth penalty folks want you to think.

Again, look at the case I referenced earlier:

Medellín v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (2008) is a United States Supreme Court decision which held that while an international treaty may constitute an international commitment, it is not binding domestic law unless Congress has enacted statutes implementing it or unless the treaty itself is "self-executing"; that decisions of the International Court of Justice are not binding domestic law; and that, absent an act of Congress or Constitutional authority, the President of the United States lacks the power to enforce international treaties or decisions of the International Court of Justice.[1]

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medell%C3%ADn_v._Texas