Death Penalty on Foreigner

[Jiro]

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]

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]

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]

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...

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]

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]

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]

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

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. :P

 

[darkdog]

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

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]

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

Who cares? :shrug:

 

[lsfoster]

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.

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.

 

[SFShawn13]

Yes.