EnderWiggin Posted March 26, 2008 Share Posted March 26, 2008 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/25/washington/25cnd-texas.html?em&ex=1206590400&en=5eb899f8e9ba1726&ei=5087%0A http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/SCOTUS/story?id=4520197&page=1 Summary: The supreme court ruled today that President Bush had no power to tell the State of Texas to reopen the case of a Mexican who has been condemned for murder and rape. By 6 to 3, the court ruled that the president went too far in 2005, when he decreed that the states had to abide by a 2004 decision by the World Court. That decision found that several dozen Mexican citizens who had been sentenced to death in the United States had not been given the assistance from Mexican diplomats that they were entitled to receive under an international treaty. But it's not that simple. I know this sounds crazy, but I actually agree with our President for once. What we did by not notifying this man of his rights and not contacting the Mexicans, which were both granted to him by a World Court decision on the Vienna Convention (Artice 36, and we were signatories on it) was wrong. If someone's not read their mirandas in the US, the case usually has evidence thrown out, or it becomes a mistrial. But here, when the man is sentenced to die, TX is refusing to reexamine the case, even at the President's (since it can't be official without congress, hence the decision of the S. Court) unofficial orders. I know that Bush is just pushing his anti-death penalty agenda here, but I agree with what he's saying without the motives. Before we kill this man, even if he did do the despicable things he's accused/convicted of, maybe we should allow him to his right of, oh, I don't know.... due process? Something called the 5th amendment of the constitution? And before anyone bites my head off, I know this isn't technically a legal right, since it's not in our laws... but come on! We signed this! We agreed with this! But now, when it comes time to follow it, we're ignoring it and continuing on in our arrogant way. Comments? Thoughts? Disagreements? _EW_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommycat Posted March 26, 2008 Share Posted March 26, 2008 Honestly, It's hard for me to really make a decision on this. I know that for one the president does not have the power to overstep the decision of the Great State of Texas(smile mimartin). I personally am for the DP. Not to mention that here in AZ we had a few problems with criminals that we notified the Mexican Government about, they demanded them back, we gave them back, then we have them again for another crime here in AZ(Sherrif Joe put a stop to that... No more get out of jail free and come back in a week criminals). I dunno, If you commit a crime in another country, you should be held accountable to that country's laws. And as far as I understand it, that mexican citezen was afforded all the rights of council that any US Citizen is afforded. Basically, "If you cannot afford an attourney, we'll give you the dumbest lawyer we can find" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcesious Posted March 26, 2008 Share Posted March 26, 2008 I dunno, If you commit a crime in another country, you should be held accountable to that country's laws. Agreed. Please avoid these kinds of one-word responses--they're considered spam. --Jae Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted March 26, 2008 Share Posted March 26, 2008 I know that Bush is just pushing his anti-death penalty agenda here Huh?! Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Bush set some sort of record for capital punishment while governor of Texas? "Culture of Life". Riiiiiiiiiiight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderWiggin Posted March 26, 2008 Author Share Posted March 26, 2008 Huh?! Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Bush set some sort of record for capital punishment while governor of Texas? "Culture of Life". Riiiiiiiiiiight. Hmm..... I seem to have been mistaken in my thinking. It is pretty late here, and I apologize. @the other posters: The problem is not that "oh, he committed it here so should be punished here." That's not the dispute. The dispute is, "Oh, he committed it here and I know we're supposed to notify the Mexicans because we signed that thing called Vienna. Oops." Should the case be reexamined because of the errors on the part of Texas? _EW_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Web Rider Posted March 26, 2008 Share Posted March 26, 2008 Can't say I agree with the World Court...for a simple reason: if the criminals are found to have not been told of their rights, they get off scott free on a technicality. Which is unacceptable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommycat Posted March 26, 2008 Share Posted March 26, 2008 Can't say I agree with the World Court...for a simple reason: if the criminals are found to have not been told of their rights, they get off scott free on a technicality. Which is unacceptable. Um... Miranda? same thing really. My problem with the World Court is that it trumps state's rights which is against our Constitution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted March 26, 2008 Share Posted March 26, 2008 Given that Mexico would probably have demanded his release and then done what it's done in AZ, no. I'm reasonably sure that Bush's not acting on this for anything other than political motivations (perhaps he's in Mexico's pocket, so to speak). He did the crime, now he can do the time (what little he may have left). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcesious Posted March 26, 2008 Share Posted March 26, 2008 In order to fix this problem, we need to make a new set of laws that are internationally accepted, and the criminal would get the same punishment wherever he goes. The only problem is getting all of the countries to accept an 'International Constitution'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JediRevan Posted March 26, 2008 Share Posted March 26, 2008 If the Mexican in question is a legal resident of the United States, the State of Texas doesn't have to inform the Mexican Embassy or diplomats. If he isn't a legal resident, they shouldn't have to inform them because the person is here illegally. Mexico doesn't return convicted rapists to the United States, but let a bounty hunter go after the rapist and they want the bounty hunter extradited. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JCarter426 Posted March 26, 2008 Share Posted March 26, 2008 Was President Bush right (for once)? Maybe. But should he have been overruled? Absolutely. These days, the President of the United States has way too much power as it is, and it's because Congress or the Supreme Court usually turns a blind eye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JediMaster12 Posted March 26, 2008 Share Posted March 26, 2008 Did anyone forget to mention that our detainees were denied habeas corpus? True they are considered a danger, much like our Japanese citizens were in '42 but at least then the Japanese had the right to habeas corpus. Now our Arabic detainees cannot demand that. Seems to me that Bush is trying to right a few wrongs by interferring with the case unofficially in order to leave office witha bit of popularity. As if he had any from me However if the man's "miranda" under world court were not stated, then the case should be retried. Or better yet why did no one say anything during the proceedings? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted March 26, 2008 Share Posted March 26, 2008 Was President Bush right (for once)? Maybe. But should he have been overruled? Absolutely. These days, the President of the United States has way too much power as it is, and it's because Congress or the Supreme Court usually turns a blind eye. That is also pretty much the same reason that the USSC legislates from the bench as well, not to mention many of the lower courts as well. Congress has long shirked it's duty to handle controversial legislation b/c the members are more fixated on perenially running for reelction and hate the idea of taking a stand on issues that might cost them votes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted March 26, 2008 Share Posted March 26, 2008 Huh?! Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Bush set some sort of record for capital punishment while governor of Texas? "Culture of Life". Riiiiiiiiiiight. Don't know about that, but I do know he was governor when the first woman since the Civil War was executed in Texas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted March 26, 2008 Share Posted March 26, 2008 Don't know about that, but I do know he was governor when the first woman since the Civil War was executed in Texas.1,100 executions since 1976. 405 of those in Texas. 152 of those while Dubya was governor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tk102 Posted March 26, 2008 Share Posted March 26, 2008 http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/georgewbush/articles/story/5924840/bush__the_texas_death_machine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted March 26, 2008 Share Posted March 26, 2008 1,100 executions since 1976. 405 of those in Texas. 152 of those while Dubya was governor. http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/georgewbush/articles/story/5924840/bush__the_texas_death_machine I had no clue, really proud to be a Texan now. Thanks for the link, Bush is right about one thing, it is a deterrent against getting charged with a crime for me now, after reading tk’s link. I had no clue Texas does not pay for public defenders. Don’t get charged with a crime, if you can’t pay the lawyer. Texas does not pay for public defenders, yet Bush cut down on the appeals process? Yea that makes perfect sense in his own little world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted March 26, 2008 Share Posted March 26, 2008 Makes you view his "sanctity of human life" rhetoric a little differently, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted March 26, 2008 Share Posted March 26, 2008 Before this train of thought goes any farther, sanctity of life in regards to abortion is off topic for this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samuel Dravis Posted March 26, 2008 Share Posted March 26, 2008 Mexico doesn't return convicted rapists to the United States, but let a bounty hunter go after the rapist and they want the bounty hunter extradited.Something of note here is that Mexico does not have the death penalty. If you thought the death penalty immoral, would you actually want to give someone over to a state that's quite glad to chop off heads? I think some might consider that immoral, as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted March 26, 2008 Share Posted March 26, 2008 Something of note here is that Mexico does not have the death penalty. If you thought the death penalty immoral, would you actually want to give someone over to a state that's quite glad to chop off heads? I think some might consider that immoral, as well. Is there a death penalty for rape? I don't even believe Texas has gone that far, yet aleast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Web Rider Posted March 26, 2008 Share Posted March 26, 2008 Something of note here is that Mexico does not have the death penalty. If you thought the death penalty immoral, would you actually want to give someone over to a state that's quite glad to chop off heads? I think some might consider that immoral, as well. The death penalty was given for the manner in which the crime was committed and the age of the girls who were killed. If the crime was simply "rape" then a death sentence is unlikely. However, given that the girls were 14 and 16, raped, and then murdered, murdered in a horrible manner to "protect" the criminals, that's what earned them this penalty. Um... Miranda? same thing really. I am aware that such a technicality exists in our own laws. In such a case, it is equally unacceptable. The fact that somebody was or was not read their rights IMO should not be reason for them to be excused from their crime. The crime was still committed, and in such cases, I care little for their "rights". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JCarter426 Posted March 26, 2008 Share Posted March 26, 2008 I am aware that such a technicality exists in our own laws. In such a case, it is equally unacceptable. The fact that somebody was or was not read their rights IMO should not be reason for them to be excused from their crime. The crime was still committed, and in such cases, I care little for their "rights". Slippery slope, slippery slope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samuel Dravis Posted March 26, 2008 Share Posted March 26, 2008 The death penalty was given for the manner in which the crime was committed and the age of the girls who were killed. If the crime was simply "rape" then a death sentence is unlikely. However, given that the girls were 14 and 16, raped, and then murdered, murdered in a horrible manner to "protect" the criminals, that's what earned them this penalty. Mexico doesn't find the death penalty to be a legitimate punishment. The justifications given for utilizing the death penalty here do not serve as sufficient justifications there to use the death penalty or to condone it, even if it's the US doing the killing. I'm sure they'd be happy to agree with you that the crime was horrific though. mimartin: no, I don't think anyone's gotten death for rape here. One has almost gotten death (got saved a few hours before being executed) for being in the same car as a murderer though, so I wouldn't be surprised if someone did get killed for it sooner or later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Web Rider Posted March 26, 2008 Share Posted March 26, 2008 Mexico doesn't find the death penalty to be a legitimate punishment. The justifications given for utilizing the death penalty here do not serve as sufficient justifications there to use the death penalty or to condone it, even if it's the US doing the killing. I'm sure they'd be happy to agree with you that the crime was horrific though. I don't really care to be blunt. They did the crime here, people who do crimes here are subject to our laws here. If Mexico doesn't like it, they can keep the borders better in check instead of wanting all their illegals here to be citizens(and then fully subject to OUR laws). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.