Death Penalty on Foreigner

Jiro

Jiro

If You Know What I Mean
Premium Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2007
Messages
69,254
Reaction score
144
U.N. court rules U.S. execution violated treaty

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."
Click to expand...
 
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.
 
TX or USA will in trouble for violated of international treaty?
 
Foxrac said:
TX or USA will in trouble for violated of international treaty?
Click to expand...

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

That would depend on what the words of treaty that USA agreed to. I don't know what it says.
 
I believe that Mexican dude should be in Mexico's court, not in USA's court to decide the conclusion.
 
Jiro said:
no idea but I simply want to hear all of your opinions. Are we wrong to execute foreigner who committed heinous crime in USA?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
PowerON said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's usually in most developing countries.
 
authentic said:
I believe that Mexican dude should be in Mexico's court, not in USA's court to decide the conclusion.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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.
 
darkdog said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 "fuck you we're above the law" ?

I find this issue bit troubling...
 
darkdog said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
Thanks Reba. :ty: 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."
 
Byrdie714 said:
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?
Click to expand...

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?

:hmm:
 
authentic said:
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?

:hmm:
Click to expand...

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.
 
The moment you step on the ground of the US of A, you are subject to its laws, not your screwed up traditions.
 
S.O.B. said:
The moment you step on the ground of the US of A, you are subject to its laws, not your screwed up traditions.
Click to expand...

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