UN: U.S. execution of Mexican national violates international law

[khaowong1]

...and the execution was completely in accordance with US laws, which is really all that matters.

Yes, as sad as executions are, you are correct. Even the Buddha talked about not only following moral laws, you also have to follow the laws of the land.

[Jingthing]

Most of the civilized world is against capital punishment so I don't really feel my position needs ANY defense at all.

First of all, I'm mystified by people who cite the number of people who agree with them as a means of supporting their positions. Always have been. Personally I've always come to my own conclusions based on the information I had available and my own best judgment without concern if my opinion conformed with the majority. (I was reminded of this recently when over and over the pro-red Shirts on this board said (often to you) how so many Thais agreed with them as evidence that they were right.)

Secondly, why didn't you say that in the first place instead of making it about semantics? Third, we're not talking about most of the civilized world (which is made of millions of people who presumably have varying reasons for their stance and thus don't necessarily always reflect yours): you gave a reason for your objection and I responded to it. If you your position is tenable, why not rebut? If you see that perhaps your reason is less than an ideal one in light of my refutation, then why not acknowledge that and offer a better one -- or even say you don't have one but you object anyway purely on inexplicable but sincere emotional terms.

Making an argument and when it's questioned saying "most people agree with me so I don't have to defend myself" is a cop-out, don't you think? And it's really sort of passive aggressive ('I'm right and on the civilized side and your wrong and with the uncivilized'), isn't it?

Oh, well. Obviously it's your prerogative to not engage in a reasonable exchange of ideas. Maybe another time.

EDIT for FORMAT

Yeah it's a cop out. But let me tell you, on issues like capital punishment and abortion, how many people change their minds? For most people, their opinions on that are set for life. So I don't waste my time on issues like that. But it's interesting that the countries in the world that are considered the most advanced, there is a much greater chance they have abolished capital punishment. You're right, doesn't mean its right or wrong ... Edited July 10, 2011 by Jingthing

[SteeleJoe]

Well, thanks Jingthing for deciding to give me some kind of response anyway. And I understand that you want to drop it and I am not trying to draw you out any further but just want to respond to a couple points before bed:

...on issues like capital punishment and abortion, how many people change their minds? For most people, their opinions on that are set for life.

Not sure. You may be right about that. But to be honest I don't post here to try and change people's minds -- do you? I mean I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility that something said on this forum - by me or any other poster -- might cause someone to examine a position they've never examined carefully before or see it in a different light. I know that that's happened with me on another forum (I've re-thought a position and people have told me that something(s) I said made them reconsider certain things). If that happens, that's great. And even if there is no change of relative positions on either side, I think there's inherent value in honing and perfecting one's arguments through debate and subjecting them to other's scrutiny and attempts at refutation. But mostly I'm here to enjoy the occasional fun and mental stimulation found in exchanging ideas, debating, or sometimes just saying ridiculous things that amuse me.

So when someone states a position on something that I have an opinion about and I think their argument, if not their position itself is weak, I enjoy challenging it for its own sake not to try and accomplish anything per se (this is just an internet forum after all). I take it for granted that they will enjoy rising to that challenge, as I do when someone questions my positions (even though I in fact know that some don't; too bad -- if you put on the forum, people have a right to comment).

So I don't waste my time on issues like that.

And yet you deliberately posted about such an issue twice and only decided not to 'waste time' when called on your reasoning.

But it's interesting that the countries in the world that are considered the most advanced, there is a much greater chance they have abolished capital punishment.

Interesting? I suppose. What would be more interesting to me - and more relevant to our discussion, would be the reason(s) why so many people opposed it. As I said, I myself oppose the death penalty but not on moral grounds (though I don't object strongly to those who do). I know that among the millions of Americans who also oppose it, some of them share my feelings and other oppose it on moral ground s AND for the reason that I do. Presumably that is true in other countries as well.

And as for the morality: I just don't see what some see as being incontrovertible -- that killing is always wrong or that all human life is sacred etc. I just can't in my heart of hearts see any reason why a person who deliberately kills a child (for example) shouldn't suffer the ultimate punishment or why they deserve to live (an obviously less than ideal) life reading, working out, watching TV, getting fan mail and being supported by taxpayers until they die of natural causes.

I wouldn't feel even slightly guilty if I killed someone who killed my child. So I don't feel any repugnance at the idea of the state doing it to a killer of someone else's child. If that means I'm uncivilized, so be it.

You're right, doesn't mean its right or wrong ...

Nope. Sure doesn't.

Enough rambling for now, methinks...

[Ulysses G.]

He does not have to ask for a consulate visit. It must be offered to him. There is no argument from me that he got what he deserved. But he still had to be offered the consulate visit.

Here is another version...

At the time of his arrest, Osvaldo Torres was an 18-year-old Mexican national without a lawyer who had had minimal prior contact with the US criminal justice system.(4) He was registered with the immigration authorities as a resident alien, which would have become known to the police when they conducted a routine background check on him upon his arrest

http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/AMR51/057/2004/en/cc200fe5-d5f5-11dd-bb24-1fb85fe8fa05/amr510572004en.html

Would you care to tell us what your case history has to do with the case in Texas?

The defendants are two entirely different people in two entirely different states and all you say is, "Here is another version".

It isn't another version, it's a different case entirely.

A whole different case and different circumstances. As far as I can find out, there was no evidence at the time of any kind that Garcia was not a US citizen, - and he probably thought of himself as American - so why would anyone advise him to contact the Mexican authorities?

As per usual, this whole con was thought up by his lawyers in order to circumvent justice for his heinous crimes.

Edited July 11, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[geriatrickid]

This a short-sighted decision from an intellectually challenged, faux cowboy, Texas governor.

Hmmm.

There seems to be a pattern emerging.

he plans to run for President. What better way to get some support than to hang a Mexican.

[slapout]

There are a couple other ethnic groups in the US who have far less influence on election day than the Hispanic population. There have been a few state officials who have a 'south of the border immigrant' in their family tree, and most are seemly pretty color blind.

[Wallaby]

The US Supreme Court have effectively said that a person charged can be denied his right to contact his own consulate.

No, I think maybe they have said that given that it happened inadvertently due to officers being understandably unaware of his alien status that it's not enough to overturn his conviction...

This seems to be clearly different from officers deliberately not informing a suspect of rights that they are required to inform all suspects of and routinely do so unless they failed to do so in order to intentionally deny rights or from negligence.

And you know what -- i think US citizens can expect to be afforded the right and in most cases will get it -- I suspect that when they don't it will be in countries or cases where they wouldn't have gotten it anyway. (By the way, "the US denies it" means that it routinely does so. Is that the case? Or is it rather "the US" denied it. In this case. Accidentally).

The US govt's top law officer doesn't agree with your point re US citizens gaining consular assistance in other countries because of this case.

http://www.skynews.com.au/world/article.aspx?id=635228&vId=

I have no idea what happens when one is arrested in the US but in oz you give details of your date and place of birth, amongst other details. Seems a bit far fetched that he would be in jail for so long and no one knew he was Mexican. I also note this guy was a sandwich short of a picnic which should also have caused the authorities to be quite cautious with this case. Though I note it isn't exactly a one off event, has been happening for years.

Perhaps the Texans are just sick of the Mexicans committing crimes and the Governor considered it politically advantagous to get the job done. Would it really have been that much of a problem for the Governor to stay it for a while, did it mean that much to him?

[SteeleJoe]

The US govt's top law officer doesn't agree with your point re US citizens gaining consular assistance in other countries because of this case.

http://www.skynews.c...x?id=635228=

No, it would seem he doesn't. And he's probably right.

I'm convinced. I still think this a poor choice of a case to get excised about or to highlight such things, but all things considered it was a mistake that I wish could be taken back. (Mind you this not much of a shift for me: I have acknowledged all along a procedural breakdown -- at best -- and the importance of procedures being followed and rights observed.)

Iny any case, I definitely don't care about this anywhere near as much as you clearly do.

[Wallaby]

I have no doubt in this particular case it wouldn't have made one iota of difference if he had lord buddha himself acting for him. It's really about the systematic problems that have been occuring.

Even George W's govt had asked for a stay till it was all sorted out so it just astounds me that it has taken so long to just put the law into the books and get everything in order.

I just hope someone gets their hand slapped and their finger out to fix it so that maybe the next person can have due process. I'm sure after all the kerffuffle this has caused it won't take long.

I will reiterate that I have no sympathy at all for the guy though.

Nevermind.

[koheesti]

Does this case mean that ALL illegals arrested have right to visit by their counsel? I completely support that. Imagine the headaches the Mexican consulates would have visiting their criminals who sneak over the US border on a daily basis and get arrested almost as often? Fantastic.

[koheesti]

Most of the civilized world is against capital punishment so I don't really feel my position needs ANY defense at all.

Where does most of the civilised world fall on the gay marriage issue? Hmmm.

[Jingthing]

Most of the civilized world is against capital punishment so I don't really feel my position needs ANY defense at all.

Where does most of the civilised world fall on the gay marriage issue? Hmmm.

Good question. That is a different class of issue from abortion and death penalty. Slowly but surely the more advanced countries are moving in the direction of the legalization of gay marriage. This has become a very dynamic issue where people and nations are changing their laws to allow it, and the overwhelmingly obvious trend is towards legalization. So that is an issue that IS worth spending time debating because many people are indeed changing their minds, and most of the change is for fairness and EQUALITY. Thanks for asking but it's off topic here so lets move on, shall we?

[koheesti]

I have no idea what happens when one is arrested in the US but in oz you give details of your date and place of birth, amongst other details. Seems a bit far fetched that he would be in jail for so long and no one knew he was Mexican.

The Dems in California have been fighting hard to make it illegal for the police to ask the nationality of people they arrest.

In Texas over 37% of the 25 million who live there are Hispanic. To assume each of them is a Mexican citizen borders on racism.

Edited July 11, 2011 by koheesti

[koheesti]

Most of the civilized world is against capital punishment so I don't really feel my position needs ANY defense at all.

Where does most of the civilised world fall on the gay marriage issue? Hmmm.

Good question. That is a different class of issue from abortion and death penalty. Slowly but surely the more advanced countries are moving in the direction of the legalization of gay marriage. This has become a very dynamic issue where people and nations are changing their laws to allow it, and the overwhelmingly obvious trend is towards legalization. So that is an issue that IS worth spending time debating because many people are indeed changing their minds, and most of the change is for fairness and EQUALITY. Thanks for asking but it's off topic here so lets move on, shall we?

To stay on topic, it is completely irrelevant how the rest of the world - civilised or otherwise - feel about the issue of Capital Punishment.

[Jingthing]

To stay on topic, it is completely irrelevant how the rest of the world - civilised or otherwise - feel about the issue of Capital Punishment.

That's cheeky, dude. You brought up gay marriage here, not me. You didn't expect an answer?

Next ...

[koheesti]

To stay on topic, it is completely irrelevant how the rest of the world - civilised or otherwise - feel about the issue of Capital Punishment.

That's cheeky, dude. You brought up gay marriage here, not me. You didn't expect an answer?

Next ...

Just pointing out the obvious that siding with the majority doesn't make one right.

[chuckd]

The US Supreme Court have effectively said that a person charged can be denied his right to contact his own consulate.

No, I think maybe they have said that given that it happened inadvertently due to officers being understandably unaware of his alien status that it's not enough to overturn his conviction...

This seems to be clearly different from officers deliberately not informing a suspect of rights that they are required to inform all suspects of and routinely do so unless they failed to do so in order to intentionally deny rights or from negligence.

And you know what -- i think US citizens can expect to be afforded the right and in most cases will get it -- I suspect that when they don't it will be in countries or cases where they wouldn't have gotten it anyway. (By the way, "the US denies it" means that it routinely does so. Is that the case? Or is it rather "the US" denied it. In this case. Accidentally).

The US govt's top law officer doesn't agree with your point re US citizens gaining consular assistance in other countries because of this case.

http://www.skynews.com.au/world/article.aspx?id=635228&vId=

I have no idea what happens when one is arrested in the US but in oz you give details of your date and place of birth, amongst other details. Seems a bit far fetched that he would be in jail for so long and no one knew he was Mexican. I also note this guy was a sandwich short of a picnic which should also have caused the authorities to be quite cautious with this case. Though I note it isn't exactly a one off event, has been happening for years.

Perhaps the Texans are just sick of the Mexicans committing crimes and the Governor considered it politically advantagous to get the job done. Would it really have been that much of a problem for the Governor to stay it for a while, did it mean that much to him?

You are really having a hard time with your links recently.

In the article you cited, you state the US govt's top law officer disagrees with the execution. For your information the person disagreeing with it is the US government's top lawyer, not top law officer. He is the Solicitor General and is a political hack appointed by the Obama administration. It is his job to support whatever position the President tells him to take.

The US govt's top law officer is Attorney General Eric Holder, another political hack appointed by Obama. It is his job to protect and defend the constitution and laws of the US and he has not been particularly impressive in his job either.

Now you are coming up with the notion that the convicted person was, in your words, "a sandwich short of a picnic". Your implication that he was mentally deficient in some way is astounding in one aspect. That aspect is you were somehow able to diagnose his mental condition without ever talking to him, reading a trial transcript or visiting with the mental health authorities that declared him competent to stand trial in 1994. You either have amazing physic powers or a darn good Quija Board.

The link you provided said this...

"In his last statement, Leal said he was 'sorry for everything that I have done' and asked the victim's family to 'forgive me.'

'I take the full blame for this,' prison officials quoted Leal as saying. 'Let this be final and be done."

That doesn't sound like an innocent man to me.

[slapout]

Many of the illegals have fake green cards , a drivers license with a legal social security number (not theirs). If the illegal, volunteers this info upon detainment, he is opening himself to further charges. The arresting officer is probably more concerned on felony arrests with other matters, other than consulate notification, unless/until he is made aware of the illegal status.

[Ulysses G.]

Most of the civilized world is against capital punishment so I don't really feel my position needs ANY defense at all.

Where does most of the civilised world fall on the gay marriage issue? Hmmm.

Good question. That is a different class of issue from abortion and death penalty.

But of course. A different class. !

[Wallaby]

The US Supreme Court have effectively said that a person charged can be denied his right to contact his own consulate.

No, I think maybe they have said that given that it happened inadvertently due to officers being understandably unaware of his alien status that it's not enough to overturn his conviction...

This seems to be clearly different from officers deliberately not informing a suspect of rights that they are required to inform all suspects of and routinely do so unless they failed to do so in order to intentionally deny rights or from negligence.

And you know what -- i think US citizens can expect to be afforded the right and in most cases will get it -- I suspect that when they don't it will be in countries or cases where they wouldn't have gotten it anyway. (By the way, "the US denies it" means that it routinely does so. Is that the case? Or is it rather "the US" denied it. In this case. Accidentally).

The US govt's top law officer doesn't agree with your point re US citizens gaining consular assistance in other countries because of this case.

http://www.skynews.c...x?id=635228=

I have no idea what happens when one is arrested in the US but in oz you give details of your date and place of birth, amongst other details. Seems a bit far fetched that he would be in jail for so long and no one knew he was Mexican. I also note this guy was a sandwich short of a picnic which should also have caused the authorities to be quite cautious with this case. Though I note it isn't exactly a one off event, has been happening for years.

Perhaps the Texans are just sick of the Mexicans committing crimes and the Governor considered it politically advantagous to get the job done. Would it really have been that much of a problem for the Governor to stay it for a while, did it mean that much to him?

You are really having a hard time with your links recently.

In the article you cited, you state the US govt's top law officer disagrees with the execution. For your information the person disagreeing with it is the US government's top lawyer, not top law officer. He is the Solicitor General and is a political hack appointed by the Obama administration. It is his job to support whatever position the President tells him to take.

The US govt's top law officer is Attorney General Eric Holder, another political hack appointed by Obama. It is his job to protect and defend the constitution and laws of the US and he has not been particularly impressive in his job either.

Now you are coming up with the notion that the convicted person was, in your words, "a sandwich short of a picnic". Your implication that he was mentally deficient in some way is astounding in one aspect. That aspect is you were somehow able to diagnose his mental condition without ever talking to him, reading a trial transcript or visiting with the mental health authorities that declared him competent to stand trial in 1994. You either have amazing physic powers or a darn good Quija Board.

The link you provided said this...

"In his last statement, Leal said he was 'sorry for everything that I have done' and asked the victim's family to 'forgive me.'

'I take the full blame for this,' prison officials quoted Leal as saying. 'Let this be final and be done."

That doesn't sound like an innocent man to me.

As I said, I'm not well versed in the US legal system so my reference to the Us govt's top lawyer is an honest mistake and I apologise. I'm sure that once you read the article you knew what I meant.

The ICJ requested a review of the situation because it is against international law under the Vienna Convention that the US is a signatory. The Bush govt requested a stay of execution until that review. The Obama govt requested a stay of execution until that review. So many political hacks from both sides of govt and internationally. If you chose to disagree with them it is a matter for you, perhaps you should address your concerns directly to them as I am not saying anything different.

I didn't pluck his mental illness out of think air...........

'Leal -- who is brain damaged -- had maintained his innocence and his defence team has argued that he was convicted with flawed evidence'.

http://www.skynews.com.au/world/article.aspx?id=635228&vId=

Have you ever heard of people with a mental illness confessing to crimes they didn't commit? I seem to recal a guy admitting to the murder of Jon Benet Ramsay then paraded in front of the cameras as a prize turkey only to be found later he didn't actually do it. It does happen often enough to be of concern. Of course this may not be the case here, but we will never know.

When a case involves something so final as execution I would hope a govt would act with extreme caution to ensure all issues were explored and investigated. The prosecution job is not simply to put people on trial, it is to act in a fair and impartial manner. I'm not sure about the US but in oz the prosecution must present ALL evidence whether it be for them or against them.

This case seems to have be just the tip of the iceberg, it is bordering on an endemic denial of rights to an accused. I just cannot understand why the Governor of Texas deemed it so critical to have the execution before any review was held and a decision handed down. It wasn't like the guy was going anywhere. In my view that is not satisfactory.

Of course you are quite entitled to disagree with the Bush and Obama govt's and the ICJ.

[Ulysses G.]

'I take the full blame for this,' prison officials quoted Leal as saying. 'Let this be final and be done.'

Sounds like he did it to me.

[Wallaby]

'I take the full blame for this,' prison officials quoted Leal as saying. 'Let this be final and be done.'

Sounds like he did it to me.

I don't see anyone arguing that he didn't do it.

[Ulysses G.]

Have you ever heard of people with a mental illness confessing to crimes they didn't commit?

Close enough and they usually do not go to their deaths still taking credit for the crime.

Edited July 11, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[slapout]

Many of the defense attorneys find professional experts to support their contention that many of those guilty of committing crimes are mentally ill. Those that confess to crimes in which they had no part and those who plead that they were mentally unstable at the time of the crime, they committed in many cases have something in common. They have a habit of doing the same things, again and again .

[Wallaby]

Have you ever heard of people with a mental illness confessing to crimes they didn't commit?

Close enough and they usually do not go to their deaths still taking credit for the crime.

Link please, or is that just your view after years of experience in such things. .

[Ulysses G.]

Link? You mean like to an article about someone else?

[koheesti]

This case seems to have be just the tip of the iceberg, it is bordering on an endemic denial of rights to an accused. I just cannot understand why the Governor of Texas deemed it so critical to have the execution before any review was held and a decision handed down. It wasn't like the guy was going anywhere. In my view that is not satisfactory.

I can't understand why it took so long to execute this guy. It's been 17 years since the crime. He never should have made it out of the 90's.

[ableguy]

If you cant do the time dont do the crime, no sympathy.

[Scott]

My understanding is that he was willing to do the time. Time is what they didn't give him.

[chuckd]

This case seems to have be just the tip of the iceberg, it is bordering on an endemic denial of rights to an accused. I just cannot understand why the Governor of Texas deemed it so critical to have the execution before any review was held and a decision handed down. It wasn't like the guy was going anywhere. In my view that is not satisfactory.

I can't understand why it took so long to execute this guy. It's been 17 years since the crime. He never should have made it out of the 90's.

The legal system in the US, which Wallaby finds so deplorable, is responsible for the lengthy delay in the death penalty process. Convicted rapists and murderers can file appeal after appeal, each of which delays the execution date, until the Supreme Court either rules on a final appeal or does not hear the case. There is no appeal process beyond the Supreme Court of the US, and that includes any and all so called international courts.

If there has been a rush to execution as Wallaby seems to believe, perhaps somebody forgot about David Lee Powell who sat on death row for 11,575 days (31 years) and Joseph Nichols who was on death row for 9,126 days (25 years). The shortest appeals processes have been 252 days and 256 days, but all of them had the same right of appeal. Some chose to get it over with quicker than others.

Mr. Leal's legal process ran it's course through the US court system and he was executed in accordance with US law. He enjoyed 17 more years of life than did his victim.

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