Death Penalty on Foreigner

**Jiro** · 01-20-2009, 02:34 AM

U.N. court rules U.S. execution violated treaty

Quote:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A United Nations court has found that the United States violated an international treaty and the court's own order when a Mexican national was executed last year in a Texas prison.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued a ruling Monday in an unusual case that pitted President Bush against his home state in a dispute over federal authority, local sovereignty and foreign treaties. Mexico had filed a formal complaint against U.S. state and federal officials

"The United States of America has breached the obligation incumbent upon it" to stop the execution, the ICJ announced in a unanimous opinion.

Jose Ernesto Medellin's death by lethal injection in August followed a 15-year legal dispute after his conviction for two brutal slayings.

At issue was whether Texas and other states had to give in to a demand by the president that the prisoner be allowed new hearings and resentencing. Bush made that request reluctantly after the international court in 2004 concluded that Medellin and about 50 other Mexicans on various states' death rows were improperly denied access to their consulate upon arrest, a violation of a treaty signed by the United States decades ago.

Their home countries could have provided legal and other assistance to the men had they been notified, the court said.

In a separate judgment, the ICJ declined Mexico's demand that the United States provide guarantees against executing other foreign inmates in the future.

The U.S. Supreme Court last March ruled for Texas, allowing the Medellin execution to proceed.

Efforts stalled in Congress last summer over legislation that would have given foreign death row inmates like Medellin a new hearing before any punishment could be carried out.

State Department officials have said the international ruling will not help other foreign inmates in U.S. prisons, because federal officials cannot force states to comply. Administration officials also said that the president did all he could to force state compliance and that Congress now needs to intervene with specific legislation.

Medellin was 18 when he participated in the June 1993 gang rape and murder of two Harris County girls: Jennifer Ertman, 14, and Elizabeth Pena, 16. He was convicted of the crimes and sentenced to death.

The prisoner's lawyers argued that Mexican consular officials were never able to meet with the man until after his conviction.

Only Oklahoma has commuted a capital inmate's sentence to life in prison in response to the international judgment. Days after Medellin died by lethal injection, Texas executed Honduran native Heliberto Chi Acheituno, who also said his treaty rights were violated.

The ICJ in 2004 ordered the United States to provide "review and reconsideration" of the sentences and convictions of the Mexican prisoners. That world court again in July mandated that the United States do everything within its federal authority to stop Medellin's execution until his case could be further reviewed by American courts.

Based in The Hague, Netherlands, the ICJ resolves disputes between nations over treaty obligations. The 15-judge panel is the principal judicial organization of the United Nations, laying out rights of people detained in other nations.

The Supreme Court appeal turned on what role each branch of government plays to give force to international treaty obligations. After the ICJ ruling, the United States pulled out of that international court's jurisdiction in matters arising from the Vienna Convention.

In allowing the Medellin execution to proceed, the Supreme Court majority noted congressional "inaction" on the issue, efforts that had "not progressed beyond the bare introduction of a bill in the four years since the ICJ ruling."

**Jiro** · 01-20-2009, 02:35 AM

I am aware that some people do not support death penalty but this thread is not about whether or not to ban death penalty. As far as I'm concerned - death penalty is LEGAL in USA so STFU YOU MUST.

The purpose of this thread is to discuss whether or not should we execute the foreigner who have committed crime in USA which is punishable by death.

The Mexican national gang-raped and murdered 2 girls (14 years old and 16 years old) in Texas... thus was found guilty and sentenced to death by injection.

**Foxrac** · 01-20-2009, 02:58 AM

TX or USA will in trouble for violated of international treaty?

**Jiro** · 01-20-2009, 03:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Foxrac

TX or USA will in trouble for violated of international treaty?

no idea but I simply want to hear all of your opinions. Are we wrong to execute foreigner who committed heinous crime in USA?

Secretblend · 01-20-2009, 03:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

no idea but I simply want to hear all of your opinions. Are we wrong to execute foreigner who committed heinous crime in USA?

That would depend on what the words of treaty that USA agreed to. I don't know what it says.

Byrdie714 · 01-20-2009, 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

no idea but I simply want to hear all of your opinions. Are we wrong to execute foreigner who committed heinous crime in USA?

No.

authentic · 01-20-2009, 10:01 AM

I believe that Mexican dude should be in Mexico's court, not in USA's court to decide the conclusion.

**Foxrac** · 01-20-2009, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

no idea but I simply want to hear all of your opinions. Are we wrong to execute foreigner who committed heinous crime in USA?

Ok, in my opinion, any foreigners or immigrants whoever commit serious crime, such as murder on US soil then they should punished in US because crime incident happens on US soil.

PowerON · 01-20-2009, 10:24 AM

If you visit other country and you make tiny mistake, they arrest you and treat you like shit. It's worst than USA.

You won't get out of prison for quiet long time, unlike USA.

**Foxrac** · 01-20-2009, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PowerON

If you visit other country and you make tiny mistake, they arrest you and treat you like shit. It's worst than USA.

You won't get out of prison for quiet long time, unlike USA.

It's usually in most developing countries.

Byrdie714 · 01-20-2009, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by authentic

I believe that Mexican dude should be in Mexico's court, not in USA's court to decide the conclusion.

The "dude" committed a crime on American soil--not Mexican soil. Therefore should be tried in American courts, not his native country's.

If I went to Russia and committed the same crime, should I be punished in Russia or in the United States?

darkdog · 01-20-2009, 12:52 PM

Meh. It's the UN. What are they gonna do? Send over guys in blue helmets with BB guns?

I'm more worried about states rights than I am the UN. If the UN wants Texas to be part of their treaty, they should deal directly with Texas. They might find though that we Texans have an independent spirit and don't like foreigners dictating our justice.

**Jiro** · 01-20-2009, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkdog

Meh. It's the UN. What are they gonna do? Send over guys in blue helmets with BB guns?

I'm more worried about states rights than I am the UN. If the UN wants Texas to be part of their treaty, they should deal directly with Texas. They might find though that we Texans have an independent spirit and don't like foreigners dictating our justice.

thing is - we have to abide by the international treaty that we signed. If we didn't, then we don't have to but we DID sign it. If we do not respect the international law/treaty, then nobody is going to follow anything related to treatment of American citizens/soldiers in foreign country... such as Geneva Convention. We would be a hypocrite to demand foreigner to abide by international law/treaty when it comes to American citizens in foreign nation but when it comes to foreigner in America, we say "**** you we're above the law" ?

I find this issue bit troubling...

**Reba** · 01-20-2009, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkdog

Meh. It's the UN. What are they gonna do? Send over guys in blue helmets with BB guns?

I'm more worried about states rights than I am the UN. If the UN wants Texas to be part of their treaty, they should deal directly with Texas. They might find though that we Texans have an independent spirit and don't like foreigners dictating our justice.

Individual US states aren't allowed to make treaties. Texas can't deal directly with the UN. Only the United States government can do that.

US Constituion

Article I

Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation

darkdog · 01-20-2009, 01:45 PM

Thanks Reba.

You're right. That notwithstanding, it would be a blast to watch the UN try.

UN guy: "So would you please sign our treaty and subject yourself to our international court?"
Texas guy: "Do you even know who you're talking to? This is Texas! We do whatever the **** we want!"
UN guy: "Well, um, I mean..."
Texas guy: "Here, give me that treaty." *crumples it up and eats it*
UN guy: "Umm... well....... think about it."
Texas guy: "Yeah, we'll do that."

authentic · 01-20-2009, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Byrdie714

The "dude" committed a crime on American soil--not Mexican soil. Therefore should be tried in American courts, not his native country's.

If I went to Russia and committed the same crime, should I be punished in Russia or in the United States?

If you committed the crime in Russia, and managed to fly back to America, and they cannot do anything about it since it happened in Russia, their problem to find you, not US? This is not making any sense.

If you are committing a crime in Russia, and they send you to Siberia as for your punishment, US think it is way too harsh, and they cannot do anything to their own f*ckin US Citizen?

Byrdie714 · 01-20-2009, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by authentic

If you committed the crime in Russia, and managed to fly back to America, and they cannot do anything about it since it happened in Russia, their problem to find you, not US? This is not making any sense.

If you are committing a crime in Russia, and they send you to Siberia as for your punishment, US think it is way too harsh, and they cannot do anything to their own f*ckin US Citizen?

Unless Russia has an extradition agreement with the United States and vice versa.

Thing is--I don't think the US has extradition agreement with Mexico and if we do, it's not very enforceable on the Mexican counterparts.

I know that Americans have extradition agreements with Canada and Brazil but it's limited meaning that if an American commits an horrible crime in the US and flees to Canada and subsequently arrested in Canada--the Canadians have the right not to extradite the American back to face the dealth penalty as Canadians don't necessairly believe in the death penalty--same thing with Brazil.

SeanB · 01-20-2009, 04:16 PM

The moment you step on the ground of the US of A, you are subject to its laws, not your screwed up traditions.

**Jiro** · 01-20-2009, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.O.B.

The moment you step on the ground of the US of A, you are subject to its laws, not your screwed up traditions.

and if USA signed the treaty regarding foreigners on its soil.... then they have to respect that

**Beowulf** · 01-20-2009, 04:58 PM

Whoa. From the link it says that the US Supreme Court last March ruled for Texas, allowing the Medellin execution to proceed, apparently blaming congressional "inaction" on the issue of compliance. So a state can go rogue??? I know that Texas is the only state without a Supreme Court, but this is ridiculous. If the US disregards its legal abligation in this case, it will be hard pressed to argue that other countries should respect the rights of US citizens under arrest. What a fine fix we are in.

**Jiro** · 01-20-2009, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beowulf

Whoa. From the link it says that the US Supreme Court last March ruled for Texas, allowing the Medellin execution to proceed, apparently blaming congressional "inaction" on the issue of compliance. So a state can go rogue??? I know that Texas is the only state without a Supreme Court, but this is ridiculous. If the US disregards its legal abligation in this case, it will be hard pressed to argue that other countries should respect the rights of US citizens under arrest. What a fine fix we are in.

exactly my point!!! finally.... a person who actually READ the article!

Pinky · 01-20-2009, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Foxrac

Ok, in my opinion, any foreigners or immigrants whoever commit serious crime, such as murder on US soil then they should punished in US because crime incident happens on US soil.

Yeah that's true! Death Plenty is for career criminal on murders and rapist. I want to show you something. Simon suppose to go death plenty but he was suicide by hanging at cell's bed bunk. He is an illegal immigrant. Rios pleads | The Journal Gazette

Pinky · 01-20-2009, 07:33 PM

If you know who is sentence to death in your states. You might can find who was foreigner with death row. America's Death Row Inmates Pages - Page 10

darkdog · 01-20-2009, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

thing is - we have to abide by the international treaty that we signed. If we didn't, then we don't have to but we DID sign it. If we do not respect the international law/treaty, then nobody is going to follow anything related to treatment of American citizens/soldiers in foreign country... such as Geneva Convention. We would be a hypocrite to demand foreigner to abide by international law/treaty when it comes to American citizens in foreign nation but when it comes to foreigner in America, we say "**** you we're above the law" ?

I find this issue bit troubling...

Hey Jiro. I somehow missed your reply earlier today. I remember this whole controversy between Texas and the president from a while ago.

It's true that states are bound by treaties the federal government signs, but the problem is this particular treaty the United States signed onto isn't very strongly worded. The US Supreme Court said the treaty wasn't "self-executing" and thus isn't binding to domestic law. Basically, all the United States agreed to was to write laws to comply with the ICJ. Even if that doesn't happen (which apparently it didn't- at least on this issue) and there's a dispute, the only thing that can happen is the UN pass a Security Counsel resolution, and of course the US has veto power there.

The problem here is the President doesn't have authority to intervene and neither does the Supreme Court. I'm more worried about that than a weak treaty.

**Jiro** · 01-20-2009, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkdog

Hey Jiro. I somehow missed your reply earlier today. I remember this whole controversy between Texas and the president from a while ago.

It's true that states are bound by treaties the federal government signs, but the problem is this particular treaty the United States signed onto isn't very strongly worded. The US Supreme Court said the treaty wasn't "self-executing" and thus isn't binding to domestic law. Basically, all the United States agreed to was to write laws to comply with the ICJ. Even if that doesn't happen (which apparently it didn't- at least on this issue) and there's a dispute, the only thing that can happen is the UN pass a Security Counsel resolution, and of course the US has veto power there.

The problem here is the President doesn't have authority to intervene and neither does the Supreme Court. I'm more worried about that than a weak treaty.

don't call it a weak treaty. it's about keeping your word as the country signed by the President. If they cannot keep their word - then the other nations won't keep their word either.... meaning American citizens abroad will be in danger.

darkdog · 01-20-2009, 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

don't call it a weak treaty. it's about keeping your word as the country signed by the President. If they cannot keep their word - then the other nations won't keep their word either.... meaning American citizens abroad will be in danger.

I mean "weak" in the same sense I mean "isn't very strongly worded." In other words, the treaty has no teeth against the state of Texas. The only obligation from the treaty is on Congress to "undertake to comply" with the ICJ (i.e. make a law) and that hasn't happened yet. The state of Texas is under no obligation until Congress does that and the federal government can't force Texas to follow a law that isn't there yet.

**Beowulf** · 01-20-2009, 11:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reba

Individual US states aren't allowed to make treaties. Texas can't deal directly with the UN. Only the United States government can do that.

US Constituion

Article I

Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkdog

I mean "weak" in the same sense I mean "isn't very strongly worded." In other words, the treaty has no teeth against the state of Texas. The only obligation from the treaty is on Congress to "undertake to comply" with the ICJ (i.e. make a law) and that hasn't happened yet. The state of Texas is under no obligation until Congress does that and the federal government can't force Texas to follow a law that isn't there yet.

Sounds to me that all youse Texans are going Confederate. Yeesh.

darkdog · 01-21-2009, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beowulf

Sounds to me that all youse Texans are going Confederate. Yeesh.

Haha. Nope. Don't worry about that. I love my country and I thank God every day that I could be born in a time and a place where I have more freedom, more opportunity, and more prosperity than probably 99% of the Earth's inhabitants throughout history. While I'm turned off by the more obnoxious "Texas pride" stuff, I do appreciate my state's independent spirit.

My first two posts here are partially in jest, but my last two are serious. I basically gave a summary of the gist of the Supreme Court's reasoning. That would apply to any state; it just happens to be Texas that's caught up in this situation.

**Foxrac** · 01-21-2009, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beowulf

Sounds to me that all youse Texans are going Confederate. Yeesh.

Who cares? :shrug:

lsfoster · 01-22-2009, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Foxrac

Ok, in my opinion, any foreigners or immigrants whoever commit serious crime, such as murder on US soil then they should punished in US because crime incident happens on US soil.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Byrdie714

The "dude" committed a crime on American soil--not Mexican soil. Therefore should be tried in American courts, not his native country's.

If I went to Russia and committed the same crime, should I be punished in Russia or in the United States?

One of the things that I didn't see clearly stated in the article (to be fair, I only skimmed over it), is if he was living in the US illegally or not. It said he was a Mexican national, so does that mean he was an illegal immigrant? Personally, I think that foreigners or immigrants, people who visit this country legally, should be held accountable for their actions under our laws. But if he was here illegally, then you are basically holding him up to a standard for a citizenship you wouldn't give him. For me, I'm against illegal immigration, so I would feel hypocritical saying that they shouldn't be considered citizens and be held to all the standards involved in that, but that they should answer to our laws.

01-20-2009, 02:35 AM	#2 (permalink)
Jiro Aparecium Deletrius Legil Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: The Soprano State Posts: 60,439	I am aware that some people do not support death penalty but this thread is not about whether or not to ban death penalty. As far as I'm concerned - death penalty is LEGAL in USA so STFU YOU MUST. The purpose of this thread is to discuss whether or not should we execute the foreigner who have committed crime in USA which is punishable by death. The Mexican national gang-raped and murdered 2 girls (14 years old and 16 years old) in Texas... thus was found guilty and sentenced to death by injection. __________________ - Don't forget to buy Jiro's Special Edition Sunglasses for $19.95

01-20-2009, 02:58 AM	#3 (permalink)
Foxrac Need Stormtroopers? Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Zaphias Posts: 32,459	TX or USA will in trouble for violated of international treaty? __________________ In Moto We Trust

01-20-2009, 10:01 AM	#7 (permalink)
authentic Registered User Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: San Francisco Posts: 6,093	I believe that Mexican dude should be in Mexico's court, not in USA's court to decide the conclusion. __________________

01-20-2009, 10:24 AM	#9 (permalink)
PowerON Registered User Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: 37.5, 126.9 Posts: 10,319 Blog Entries: 5	If you visit other country and you make tiny mistake, they arrest you and treat you like shit. It's worst than USA. You won't get out of prison for quiet long time, unlike USA. __________________ • [Illustrator.Blog-alloon.com] • Don't shoot me! I'm only blogger!

01-20-2009, 12:52 PM	#12 (permalink)
darkdog Registered User Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 1,354	Meh. It's the UN. What are they gonna do? Send over guys in blue helmets with BB guns? I'm more worried about states rights than I am the UN. If the UN wants Texas to be part of their treaty, they should deal directly with Texas. They might find though that we Texans have an independent spirit and don't like foreigners dictating our justice. __________________ Playing guitar is my 2nd amendment right.

Today
Deafness	Sponsored Links __________________ This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members. Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com

01-20-2009, 01:45 PM	#15 (permalink)
darkdog Registered User Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 1,354	Thanks Reba. You're right. That notwithstanding, it would be a blast to watch the UN try. UN guy: "So would you please sign our treaty and subject yourself to our international court?" Texas guy: "Do you even know who you're talking to? This is Texas! We do whatever the **** we want!" UN guy: "Well, um, I mean..." Texas guy: "Here, give me that treaty." crumples it up and eats it UN guy: "Umm... well....... think about it." Texas guy: "Yeah, we'll do that." __________________ Playing guitar is my 2nd amendment right.

01-20-2009, 04:16 PM	#18 (permalink)
SeanB Registered User Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 723	The moment you step on the ground of the US of A, you are subject to its laws, not your screwed up traditions.

01-20-2009, 04:58 PM	#20 (permalink)
Beowulf Premium Member Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 10,514	Whoa. From the link it says that the US Supreme Court last March ruled for Texas, allowing the Medellin execution to proceed, apparently blaming congressional "inaction" on the issue of compliance. So a state can go rogue??? I know that Texas is the only state without a Supreme Court, but this is ridiculous. If the US disregards its legal abligation in this case, it will be hard pressed to argue that other countries should respect the rights of US citizens under arrest. What a fine fix we are in.

01-20-2009, 07:33 PM	#23 (permalink)
Pinky Registered User Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 5,898	If you know who is sentence to death in your states. You might can find who was foreigner with death row. America's Death Row Inmates Pages - Page 10

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode