Bush Overruled by Supreme Court in TX Death Penalty Case

[Samuel Dravis]

I was merely explaining a reason why Mexico would be reluctant to extradite criminals to the US.

[JCarter426]

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).

 

Except that they weren't subject to our laws.

[Web Rider]

I was merely explaining a reason why Mexico would be reluctant to extradite criminals to the US.

I wasn't taking issue with Mexico's extradition policies. I was only taking issue with saying that Mexican citizens who commit crimes against US citizens on US soil should be punished according to Mexican standards.

 

If Mexico wants to punish Americans who commit crimes against Mexicans in Mexico according to their laws, I think that's their right.

[JCarter426]

I wasn't taking issue with Mexico's extradition policies. I was only taking issue with saying that Mexican citizens who commit crimes against US citizens on US soil should be punished according to Mexican standards.

 

But they weren't punished according to US standards; their Miranda rights were violated.

[Web Rider]

But they weren't punished according to US standards; their Miranda rights were violated.

 

No, they were not. Miranda rights only include reading of your specific legal rights in the US. The WC rights given to them are not covered under your Miranda rights. The WC rights are a different set of rights.

 

They were punished according to US standards, not international ones.

[JCarter426]

But you just said that someone who commits a crime in the US should be held to US standards, did you not? What makes this case any different?

 

EDIT: Bah! Just read the NYT article. I misread it before.

 

He was arrested five days later, and signed a confession after being given his Miranda rights.

 

That pretty much settles that matter.

[Totenkopf]

Miranda rights or no, the solution isn't to throw the case out on a technicality, but rather to discipline the officers who failed to follow procedure. I understand that the dysfunctional system works the other way, but since none of us here are making policy it doesn't really matter. I'd rather some cops lose their jobs and violent perps be executed anyway than to have it the other way around (no punishment for either). Since when does an application for extradition axiomatically mean that it will be honored? Do nations now not have a right to refuse extradition?

[Web Rider]

Miranda rights or no, the solution isn't to throw the case out on a technicality, but rather to discipline the officers who failed to follow procedure. I understand that the dysfunctional system works the other way, but since none of us here are making policy it doesn't really matter. I'd rather some cops lose their jobs and violent perps be executed anyway than to have it the other way around (no punishment for either). Since when does an application for extradition axiomatically mean that it will be honored? Do nations now not have a right to refuse extradition?

 

that's what I was trying to get it. The Officers made the mistake, hold them accountable. The mistake however, does not negate the crime, and therefore, nobody should be released on that technicality.

[JCarter426]

Well, just because it's an unjust law doesn't mean it can be ignored. It should be repealed.

[Totenkopf]

I agree to the second part. Fact is, for every law that's freshly minted, at least 2+ should be taken off the books. Seems that ignorance of the law may soon become a viable defense (afterall, the lawmakers don't even know what all of them are anyway).

[mimartin]

Ignorantia juris non excusat

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

[Totenkopf]

Yeah, I'm aware of the expression. My point was that there are sooooo many laws on the books that ignorance of the law is inevitable (especially w/in the legal community itself). I guess that's the nice thing about being in control. Such technicalities can be blithely dismissed as irrelevant as the wheels of justice inexorably flatten all before them.

[mimartin]

Sorry I couldn’t resist as that is one of only two Latin phrases I know.

 

Well the law is not a Texas law; it is part of an international treaty. In Texas, you are given a phone call, why didn’t the convicted rapist and murder call the Mexican consultant. If I am arrested, is it the Police's reasonability to call my mother?

 

He was arrested five days later, and signed a confession after being given his Miranda rights. Crucially, however, the law enforcement authorities neglected to tell him of his right under the Vienna Convention to notify Mexican diplomats of his detention.[/Quote] My question is did he identify himself as a Mexican National at the time of his arrest and when they read him his Miranda? The article does not state that fact, which to me would be a deciding factor.

 

This is not a case where he would be let go if Texas followed the World Courts decision. He would be given a new trail and would have the help of the Mexican government. Also if I am not mistaken his signed confession would be thrown out.

 

Bush is correct, but personally, I hope Texas ignores the President and the World Court. It does not seem like Mr. Medellin was too merciful to the two young girls he raped and murdered.

[Rev7]

So I assume that Medellin is (was??) a United States citizen?

[SilentScope001]

Do nations now not have a right to refuse extradition?

 

I think they actually do. Countries which oppose the death penatly will usually choose not to extradite to nations who do practice the death penatly, as what Austraila did when it refused to extradite drug dealers to Indonesia.

 

EDIT: mimartin...uh? I, erm, know it's not good to question, but in the same thread, you appear to go against the death penatly for all cases...and then state that you happen to be for this death penatly, because he should have known that he'd be punished for his crime anyway. Um, I don't know. The ability to have two different viewpoints at the same time seems rather useful for anyone...but, ehm.

[EnderWiggin]

Sorry I couldn’t resist as that is one of only two Latin phrases I know.

 

Well the law is not a Texas law; it is part of an international treaty. In Texas, you are given a phone call, why didn’t the convicted rapist and murder call the Mexican consultant. If I am arrested, is it the Police's reasonability to call my mother?

 

My question is did he identify himself as a Mexican National at the time of his arrest and when they read him his Miranda? The article does not state that fact, which to me would be a deciding factor.

 

This is not a case where he would be let go if Texas followed the World Courts decision. He would be given a new trail and would have the help of the Mexican government. Also if I am not mistaken his signed confession would be thrown out.

 

Bush is correct, but personally, I hope Texas ignores the President and the World Court. It does not seem like Mr. Medellin was too merciful to the two young girls he raped and murdered.

 

Texas will ignore Pres. Bush. The thing is, when you said "did he identify himself" - that's irrelevant. Obviously he would have been found out to not be a US citizen (which doesn't make him an illegal, guys, as long as he went through customs/immigration at the border) and then the responsibility is then placed on the law enforcement to immediately phone the Mexicans. The guy's one phone call has no bearing on this.

 

So, while I agree that the crimes were horrible, but whether or not I agree with how our justice system works, the law states that if this were miranda then he would be entitled to a new trial in which he is able to use the aid of the Mexicans. And since we signed this, Article 38, then why shouldn't the same apply?

 

I know it might not be just. But it's following the rules, in my opinion, which is what is needed to keep order in the world.

 

_EW_

 

@SS

[mimartin]

The thing is, when you said "did he identify himself" - that's irrelevant.[/Quote] Not irrelevant to me. To me it would have a great deal of relevance in if his signed confession should be thrown out. If they knew at the time he was a Mexian National then it should be thrown out. If they had no reason to inform him of this right before the confession then it should be allowed.

So, while I agree that the crimes were horrible, but whether or not I agree with how our justice system works, the law states that if this were miranda then he would be entitled to a new trial in which he is able to use the aid of the Mexicans. And since we signed this, Article 38, then why shouldn't the same apply?[/Quote]Oh I agree, like I said I agree with President Bush’s request. I can still have a personal view that is not legally correct.

 

I know it might not be just. But it's following the rules, in my opinion, which is what is needed to keep order in the world.

The world is in order?

EDIT: mimartin...uh? I, erm, know it's not good to question, but in the same thread, you appear to go against the death penatly for all cases...and then state that you happen to be for this death penatly, because he should have known that he'd be punished for his crime anyway. Um, I don't know. The ability to have two different viewpoints at the same time seems rather useful for anyone...but, ehm.

I’m not against the death penalty in all cases. I don’t believe it is a deterrent and believe in most cases where the death penalty is warranted that life in prison without the possibility of parole is more of a true penalty than the finality of death. I also believe the old adage that it is better for the guilty to go free than for one innocent man to be put to death. In this case we have a signed confession so unless it was beaten out of him, it is pretty solid evidence.

 

In this thread, I voiced my thoughts on my own state's over use of the death penalty while at the same time not paying for public defender in death row cases and limiting appeals. Leading the nation in executions is not something I’m proud of Texas being known for.

 

I do not have two different viewpoints even though I can see both sides of the argument.

[Jae Onasi]

My question is did he identify himself as a Mexican National at the time of his arrest and when they read him his Miranda? The article does not state that fact, which to me would be a deciding factor.

.

And were the cops even allowed to ask if he was or not? Some sanctuary cities in the US (I think San Antonio and Houston are 2 of them) don't allow cops to ask if someone is or isn't a legal citizen of the US anymore. Also, did he have a MX passport or some fake US ID at the time of arrest?

[Web Rider]

Texas will ignore Pres. Bush. The thing is, when you said "did he identify himself" - that's irrelevant. Obviously he would have been found out to not be a US citizen (which doesn't make him an illegal, guys, as long as he went through customs/immigration at the border) and then the responsibility is then placed on the law enforcement to immediately phone the Mexicans. The guy's one phone call has no bearing on this.

Rights must be read at the time of arrest, not after. That's the problem. if the cops don't know the guy is a mexican citizen, say they got evidence of who the criminals were but either didn't have records of them or could not get records before the information had to be acted on, the only way to know is to be told.

[JCarter426]

Rights must be read at the time of arrest, not after. That's the problem. if the cops don't know the guy is a mexican citizen, say they got evidence of who the criminals were but either didn't have records of them or could not get records before the information had to be acted on, the only way to know is to be told.

 

Well, if that were the case, then they were acting in good faith.