Texas government being idiots

[a777pilot]

Bottom line....if you commit rape and murder in Texas don't go crying to the UN as the needle is being pushed into a vein.

Good for Texas!

 

[Argo]

May he rot in hell.

When you step back, yes - this fucks Americans,... who leave the US and murder 16 year old girls.



Frankly, they can rot in hell as well.

If someone is proven guility of a crime, even if it's my own mother, they deserve the punishment issued by the government, in the country they committed the crime.

For once, I agree with that Texas did. There was no doubt on what he did, why delay the process of issuing his punishment by letting someone from his country to drag out the trail and judgement?

Hey, remember what happened with that sick Dutch bastard? Killed a girl in the Bahamas, had his daddy take care of everything,... and then he did it again in Argentina!

It is not worth it to protect one sick scum bag, to ensure our own scumbags get US council in a country the commited a serious crime.

This is a situation where the heart does not bleed. At least this sick fuck had some back bone to admit to his crime.

I think the fear is that some other countries don't have a trust worthy legal process, and thus we need protection of federal government. For example imagine you are in a third world country and got accused of crime because you didn't pay some official a bribe (there are countries where this happens).

Protection of the consulate is what keeps those countries honest right now.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Meanwhile....in Mexico...
http://www.corrections.com/articles/2386-mexico-prisons-under-fire-over-torture-reports

http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/a...ca-11dd-bb24-1fb85fe8fa05/amr410212004en.html

 

[spacejamz]

Protection of the consulate is what keeps those countries honest right now.

Here is a site the offers some insight/advice about being thrown in jail in a foreign country.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/int23.htm

Some items of note:

The "under-developed" world's officials, even minor ones, sometimes have an amazing ability to invent new laws or void existing ones. These magical "judicial" powers are often predicated on the amount of cash they expect you have, or that you can produce

Be warned! Americans are subject to foreign, not United States, laws overseas, and you have no U.S. constitutional rights. If arrested, you will find that: Few countries provide a trial by jury; pretrial detention is often in solitary confinement and may involve months of incarceration in prison conditions that lack even minimal comforts - bed, toilet, and wash basin; officials may not speak English and trials are conducted in the language of the foreign country; prison diets are often inadequate and require supplements from relatives and friends; and physical abuse or inhumane treatment is possible.

Unless you are rich and powerful, there is little that a U.S. consul can, or wants to, do for you if you encounter legal difficulties. What American officials can do is limited by both foreign and U.S. laws. For example, a consular officer cannot get you out of jail or intervene in a foreign country's court system or judicial process to obtain special treatment.

f you are arrested, ask the authorities to notify a consular officer at the nearest U.S. embassy or consulate. Under international agreements and practice, you have the right to talk to the U.S. consul. However, don't expect too much. If you are denied this right, be persistent and try to have someone get in touch for you. So this happened before this d-bag was executed???

 

[blackangst1]

I think the fear is that some other countries don't have a trust worthy legal process, and thus we need protection of federal government. For example imagine you are in a third world country and got accused of crime because you didn't pay some official a bribe (there are countries where this happens).

Protection of the consulate is what keeps those countries honest right now.

This is absolutely false. There is no protection of US citizens while abroad. You have zero constitutional rights when you leave the country. Having about 13 countries stamped in my passport and spending a decent amount of time in about 5, and having traveled quite a bit oeverseas, I can tell you assuredly if you are arrested in a foreign country, that country is under NO obligation to get you council (unless their legal laws call for it), nor is there an obligation to allow you to call the embassy. I have seen on dozens of occasions Brits and Americans in other countries that seem to feel their country will come to their rescue should something happen. I personally have been held in a jail for 11 hours for having syringes on my person (Im a type 1 diabetic) and not having a prescription for them. It wasnt until I faced the judge the next day I was finally released. No phone calls, no embassy, no attorney, no nothing.

And God forbid you rape and murder overseas. Youre fucked.

edit: Spacejamz posted the same thing at the same time lol

 

[theeedude]

Nothing in the Constitution precludes the New London action. Eminent Domain is explicitly authorized, as is the seizure of property if due process of law is observed. So long as the owners were properly compensated for their property, it was all legal.

FWIW, I think the use of eminent domain in this type of case is reprehensible, but it is up to the legislatures to proscribe it, not the courts.

The Constitution is a living breathing document to Republicans. It says whatever Rush says it says.

 

[blackangst1]

The Constitution is a living breathing document to Republicans. It says whatever Rush says it says.

Revisionist much?

Who is the most famous person who said the Constitution is a living breathing document?

Hints for you:
-He's not Republican
-He invented the internet
-He's the biggest green hypocrite in the country

 

[Whiskey16]

Bottom line....if you commit rape and murder in Texas don't go crying to the UN as the needle is being pushed into a vein.

So much for the long enshrined view of presumption of innocence. Suspected of a certain crime? The incarcerating authority can employ its chosen course of justice and ignore legislated rights upon a whim.

An accused rights were thwarted. In what ended up being state level political grandstanding to appeal to perverse patriotism and revenge, the ills committed long ago were not to be recognised. A political immature point that can be set as an internationally disruptive precedent.

Many here cannot sit back and practically look at this case, from start to closure. The short take for'em is of the end justifying the means. Feel it, so be it. If one is perceived to be guilty of such a crime then criminals not just don't, but never did deserve the legal accordance available from the start. If corruption of due accordance is committed by the state/law enforcement then with satisfaction of successful revenge, such masses will applaud them along. No rectification of the legal ills will be fairly resolved. The precedent of isolating the alien is victorious and will continue.

Such it goes in a land with the warped sense of a mostly elected judiciary and local law enforcement leadership. Tyranny of the masses. Mob rule and lynching. A history of the USA, sadly infamous points within that history that some desire to maintain.

 

[OCGuy]

Good for Texas.

 

[theeedude]

Revisionist much?

Who is the most famous person who said the Constitution is a living breathing document?

Hints for you:
-He's not Republican
-He invented the internet
-He's the biggest green hypocrite in the country

Vint Cerf?

 

[Schadenfroh]

Meanwhile....in Mexico...
http://www.corrections.com/articles/2386-mexico-prisons-under-fire-over-torture-reports

http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/a...ca-11dd-bb24-1fb85fe8fa05/amr410212004en.html

Damn, where is the rage against Mexico?

Someone will be along soon to say that the Mexican government can do such things to Americans because of the way America treated Mexico during the Mexican American War.

 

[spacejamz]

So much for the long enshrined view of presumption of innocence. Suspected of a certain crime? The incarcerating authority can employ its chosen course of justice and ignore legislated rights upon a whim.

An accused rights were thwarted. In what ended up being state level political grandstanding to appeal to perverse patriotism and revenge, the ills committed long ago were not to be recognised. A political immature point that can be set as an internationally disruptive precedent.

Many here cannot sit back and practically look at this case, from start to closure. The short take for'em is of the end justifying the means. Feel it, so be it. If one is perceived to be guilty of such a crime then criminals not just don't, but never did deserve the legal accordance available from the start. If corruption of due accordance is committed by the state/law enforcement then with satisfaction of successful revenge, such masses will applaud them along. No rectification of the legal ills will be fairly resolved. The precedent of isolating the alien is victorious and will continue.

Such it goes in a land with the warped sense of a mostly elected judiciary and local law enforcement leadership. Tyranny of the masses. Mob rule and lynching. A history of the USA, sadly infamous points within that history that some desire to maintain.

Please do tell how the US was supposed to inform this murderer of his right to consult the Mexican consulate when he tried to pass himself off as a US citizen when he was arrested??

Why has this only been an issue that the past few months when he found he that might be able to exploit a legal loophole when he recently discovered this legislation that was being proposed that might allow him to escape the death penalty?

Why haven't his lawyers over the PAST 17 years ever brought this up?

It it truly disgusting that people cannot see how he is trying pervert something intended to help tourists and temporary workers to escape the punishment he deserves.

After living in this country illegally for 21 YEARS (since he was 2) where he has enjoyed the benefits and opportunities of the United States, he now suddenly tries to benefit from claiming he is a Mexican citizen...He is pulling a fast one over the bleeding heart liberals and they are falling for it hook, line and sinker as evidenced by the replies in this thread...

It is a shame that he was able to successfully turn this into a huge political mess which allowed the world to forget what truly happened to an innocent 16 year old girl and instead focus on his attempts to avoid the death penalty.

 

[werepossum]

Please do tell how the US was supposed to inform this murderer of his right to consult the Mexican consulate when he tried to pass himself off as a US citizen when he was arrested??

Why has this only been an issue that the past few months when he found he that might be able to exploit a legal loophole when he recently discovered this legislation that was being proposed that might allow him to escape the death penalty?

Why haven't his lawyers over the PAST 17 years ever brought this up?

It it truly disgusting that people cannot see how he is trying pervert something intended to help tourists and temporary workers to escape the punishment he deserves.

After living in this country illegally for 21 YEARS (since he was 2) where he has enjoyed the benefits and opportunities of the United States, he now suddenly tries to benefit from claiming he is a Mexican citizen...He is pulling a fast one over the bleeding heart liberals and they are falling for it hook, line and sinker as evidenced by the replies in this thread...

It is a shame that he was able to successfully turn this into a huge political mess which allowed the world to forget what truly happened to an innocent 16 year old girl and instead focus on his attempts to avoid the death penalty.

Damned well said.

 

[Fern]

So much for the long enshrined view of presumption of innocence. Suspected of a certain crime? The incarcerating authority can employ its chosen course of justice and ignore legislated rights upon a whim.

This has nothing to do with "presumption of innocence". He has been tried and found guilty. From all indications he received the full Constitutional rights afforded to citizens, including "presumption of innocence" which is a US concept that some other countries don't have.

An accused rights were thwarted. In what ended up being state level political grandstanding to appeal to perverse patriotism and revenge, the ills committed long ago were not to be recognised. A political immature point that can be set as an internationally disruptive precedent.

Thwarted?

I thought TX just failed to notify him of his right to see consular officials, likely because they didn't know. To say "thwart" means they did know and actively refused his request, I've never heard that.

I see political grandstanding. TX has mnay years and tons of money invested in this case. What should be the remedy for his not being informed he could see consular officials?

Many here cannot sit back and practically look at this case, from start to closure.

I'm thinking the same thing, but not like you.

As a practical matter, what could the consular official have done? I think as a practical matter we want citizens to have access in such cases so the official can help ensure basic human rights etc are respected and to serve as a pipeline of communication with the defendants family back in the home country.

How could a Mexican consular official have changed the outcome here? No one is claiming this guy's human rights, or Constitutional rights were ignored. The offical can't give 'extra rights'. My understanding is that we already give more rights than Mexico does. The consular official can't change the fact of whether he's guilty or not, not in the 'true sense' or adjudicated sense.

As a practical matter, I don't see anything here other than a (meaningless) technicality clung to by those who oppose the death penalty under any circumstance.

The short take for'em is of the end justifying the means. Feel it, so be it. If one is perceived to be guilty of such a crime then criminals not just don't, but never did deserve the legal accordance available from the start. If corruption of due accordance is committed by the state/law enforcement then with satisfaction of successful revenge, such masses will applaud them along. No rectification of the legal ills will be fairly resolved. The precedent of isolating the alien is victorious and will continue.

"Due process" (I'm assuming that's what you actually meant) is a US Constitutional principal/right. Every indication is that he received that, like any citizen would.

Fern

 

[Craig234]

What should be the remedy for his not being informed he could see consular officials?

...How could a Mexican consular official have changed the outcome here? No one is claiming this guy's human rights, or Constitutional rights were ignored. The offical can't give 'extra rights'. My understanding is that we already give more rights than Mexico does. The consular official can't change the fact of whether he's guilty or not, not in the 'true sense' or adjudicated sense.

The remedy requested, by the ICC, and as a result Presidents Bush and Obama, was for a court to review the case to determine whether the lack of contact with the consulate can be shown to have harmed the outcome in the case for him. I've seen some argue - I'm not sure if it includes his attorneys - that the assistance could have proven him innocent. I don't think many agree with that. But much more plausible is the claim they could have prevented the death penalty.

You should get informed about the circumstances of his legal representation and his history.

The consulate can provide language assistance and legal assistance if it likes.

The Mexican government is interested in doing so - it filed 51 cases for Mexicans where the US failed to honor its treaty obligations with the ICC (this case was one of them). Mexico requested that all the convictions be reversed and the cases retried. The ICC denied that request, but said the US needs to have court hearings for each case to determine whether the lack of access to the consulate harmed the defendant. The President and State Department agreed.

Texas did not, and they did not legally have to, thanks to 5-4 rulings, and to those in Congress who led the voting against bills like that of Sen. Leahy to address this.

Here is the summary on advocates for the defendant's web page about the issue.

The violation of Mr. Leal's consular rights was no mere formality. The Mexican consulate has a wide-ranging program of consular assistance, and commonly retains experienced capital trial lawyers, investigators and experts to assist its nationals who are facing the death penalty. Unfortunately, the Mexican consulate did not learn of Mr. Leal's detention until after he had been convicted and sentenced to death.

Prior to Mr. Leal's arrest, he lived in a poverty-stricken area of San Antonio with parents who had immigrated to the United States from Mexico to make a better life for themselves and their children. He had no criminal record and was only 21 years old at the time of his arrest.

In the absence of consular assistance, he was represented by lawyers who were inexperienced and unprepared. One of his lawyers has been suspended or reprimanded on multiple occasions for ethics violations. Trial counsel failed to challenge the "junk science" evidence that was used to convict Mr. Leal, including bite mark evidence, luminol testing, and outmoded DNA technology.

Moreover, lawyers failed to present powerful mitigating evidence at the sentencing phase of trial that has since come to light as a result of Mexican consular involvement. As a result, the jury that sentenced Mr. Leal to death did so without the opportunity to hear about his struggle to overcome learning disabilities and brain damage. Nor did they learn that between the ages of ten and eleven, Humberto was subjected to terrifying acts of sexual abuse by his parish priest, abuse that caused severe and lasting psychological damage.

If the Mexican consulate had been aware of Mr. Leal's detention, it would have provided extensive assistance. Among other things, the consulate would have assisted trial counsel by providing funds for experts and investigators. Most important, the consulate would have retained an experienced lawyer to assist in representing Mr. Leal. Aided by a competent and aggressive defense with adequate funds to challenge the shoddy evidence produced by the prosecution, it is doubtful that Mr. Leal would ever have been convicted, let alone sentenced to death.

I'm not going to endorse their claim about his being found guilty - but who knows what decent lawyers could do about reasonable doubt, as we just were shown in another case.

But as I said, these factors might be the sort that are appropriate for changing the sentence.

As much as people like to be black and white about people who are given capital punishment, they are far more likely to have mental problems, to be poor, minorities.

These are factors where the consulate might have made a difference - and where the ICC and the US executive branch determined a court hearing to look at that was required.

If his execution was justified with that review, it would not be changed. But Rick Perry's presidential race interest can't afford justice nor the law.

 

[Craig234]

Has anyone found a good link summarizing what happened regarding the police investigating his nationality, and when they learned of it?

If he misled the police and claimed to be American for an extended period, then that could influence my view on the situation.

I do not expect the police to go to great efforts to find out when they're being lied to about nationality, when it comes to their obligations under the treaty.

(They might do so for their own reasons to find illegals, but are not obligated to IMO.)

Once the government learns of his nationality, it should then follow the treaty, but if that was late in the process, I think it has a bearing on the issues.

 

[Argo]

This is absolutely false. There is no protection of US citizens while abroad. You have zero constitutional rights when you leave the country. Having about 13 countries stamped in my passport and spending a decent amount of time in about 5, and having traveled quite a bit oeverseas, I can tell you assuredly if you are arrested in a foreign country, that country is under NO obligation to get you council (unless their legal laws call for it), nor is there an obligation to allow you to call the embassy. I have seen on dozens of occasions Brits and Americans in other countries that seem to feel their country will come to their rescue should something happen. I personally have been held in a jail for 11 hours for having syringes on my person (Im a type 1 diabetic) and not having a prescription for them. It wasnt until I faced the judge the next day I was finally released. No phone calls, no embassy, no attorney, no nothing.

And God forbid you rape and murder overseas. Youre fucked.

edit: Spacejamz posted the same thing at the same time lol

But the counsel would at least help explain the laws to you, no? Otherwise, this agreement seems pretty useless.

 

[Fern]

-snip-

The quoted section about what Mexico would have done - hire a legal dream team etc - strikes me as utter fantasy.

No way anyone, including a consular official, would have known before hand that his defense wouldn't do a great job (and I'm taking their word on that). That's only after the fact kind of knowledge.

We have thousands, thousands of illegal Mexican immigrants on trial here every year, to claim that Mexico was automatically going to provide him great amounts of money for his defense is, at best, highly doubtful.

If his defense lawyer truly was that bad, US law allows for all types of appeals etc. If I understand correctly, he's been on death row now for many many years, and being indigent his legal bills would have been paid for by the government.

I remain unpersuaded.

Fern

 

[Craig234]

The quoted section about what Mexico would have done - hire a legal dream team etc - strikes me as utter fantasy.

No way anyone, including a consular official, would have known before hand that his defense wouldn't do a great job (and I'm taking their word on that). That's only after the fact kind of knowledge.

We have thousands, thousands of illegal Mexican immigrants on trial here every year, to claim that Mexico was automatically going to provide him great amounts of money for his defense is, at best, highly doubtful.

If his defense lawyer truly was that bad, US law allows for all types of appeals etc. If I understand correctly, he's been on death row now for many many years, and being indigent his legal bills would have been paid for by the government.

I remain unpersuaded.

Fern

You remain uninformed. What has Mexico done for other Mexican nationals charged with capital crimes - or more importantly, do you already have the info before your opinion?

What resources would the defendant need to prove a problem with his defense?

Even if his defense met basic requirements, what difference would consulate help make?

Mexico did care enough about the trials to fight the case for 51 Mexicans to the ICC.

And they won.

 

[Fern]

What has Mexico done for other Mexican nationals charged with capital crimes?
-snip-

You're the one making the claim that Mexico would have paid for attorneys (and that they would have been better).

So, you show us proof of this. Go back to the practices at the time of his original trial and show what % of defendants received money from Mexico.

Fern

 

[Craig234]

You're the one making the claim that Mexico would have paid for attorneys (and that they would have been better).

So, you show us proof of this. Go back to the practices at the time of his original trial and show what % of defendants received money from Mexico.

Fern

No, I'm not. You haven't read what I've written very carefully.

*My* position is that Texas had no good reason not to respect the US commitment in the treaty, and that the request by the ICC and Presidents Bush and Obama to have a court review the case to see if the lack access to the consulate harmed the defendant should have been granted, first by Texas, and second by the Supreme Court, and third by Congress.

I posted the advocates' position and said it's plausible the sentence might have been reduced if the consulate had assisted in the defense, with plenty of information on it.

*You* are the one who made an assertion that the Mexican consulate would not have done so, and does not do so in other cases - based on nothing as far as your post.

I'm saying the treaty should be followed. You are the one with assertions to back up.

 

[Svnla]

This is absolutely false. There is no protection of US citizens while abroad. You have zero constitutional rights when you leave the country......

I just look at my current US passport and it says: "while in a foreign country, you are subject to its laws".

The naive idea of US embassy personnel will bail you out if/when you are in trouble = pipe dream. And some of the rights we taken for grant in the US are big no no in a few countries, such as assemble, speech, question the authority, etc.

You can request/demand to see the US consul but if the local cops won't let you, you are in deep doodoo.

<<------have been to a few countries and continents and always careful with oversea trips.

 

[blackangst1]

But the counsel would at least help explain the laws to you, no? Otherwise, this agreement seems pretty useless.

IF youre afforded council. Most countries wont give it to you, nor is there any international law that says they must.

 

[FuzzyBee]

IF youre afforded council. Most countries wont give it to you, nor is there any international law that says they must.

Thanks, Texas!

 

[blackangst1]

Thanks, Texas!

What are you talking about? Its been this way at least for the 15 years Ive been traveling out of country...