51 Mexicans

So there are 51 Mexican citizens on death row in Texas, for murder and other savage crimes.

Their guilt for the most part is not in question (there were several beating/rape scenarios), but apparently many of them were denied the assistance of their consulate in the court proceedings.

The US signed a treaty about 40 years ago, agreeing that citizens that are in another country and accused of a crime are entitled to speak to and have the support of their embassy/consulate. Many US citizens have benefitted from this treaty.

In this case, at first the US pooh-poohed the treaty, and basically ignored it. (Yet another case of "the rules don't apply to us"). After review by the Supreme Court, it was ruled that a treaty has as much force as laws enacted by the government, and that the Mexicans were entitled to speak with and have the support of their consulate.

The federal government then ordered Texas to review each of the cases, to insure that the treaty was complied with. Texas has refused, stating that the federal government has no jurisdiction to mess with the court system of a state. I think this is improper and arrogant as hell; the Texas court system should adhere to rulings from the Supreme Court, not to mention that it should see the big picture.

Another battle between federal power and states' rights? Or will this end up giving the US another black mark on its international record?

Unless they feel that their cases are so weak, that they fear representation from Mexico, what's the harm?

Now if the Supreme Court were turning over a legally, and constitutionally obtained verdict, then I'd understand the resistance.

If the Texas prosecutors can't handle competition from Mexico, then they need to hire better prosecutors, I say.

The big issue that you brought up is the right of the state courts. The federal government can't order the state courts to do a damn thing.

Should the consulate have been called? That's the question. Whose responsibility is it? Is the state responsible (the prosecutor in this case) or the defendant (and their representative)? Was the defendant told and chose not to utilize it? What if it was contacted, what difference would it make? The consulate could have sent in a lawyer or it may not have. Would it have changed the verdict? I doubt it.

In my opinion, there might be reason to retry some of the cases if the appellate court sees anyplace that having the consulate lawyer would have made a difference. If that's all of them, then so be it. Again, the federal government can't force the state to do anything. There is no mechanism for them to do it. They should do it on their own and then execute the bastards after they are retried.

There is no harm, IMO, and the US should honor the treaty.

But TX isn't playing ball. It seems to me that Texas isn't admitting they failed to allow the contact in the first place, isn't playing it straight now by allowing that contact after being told about it, and is complaining that the federal government is overstepping their authority.

If the criminals get support from their embassy and get out of the charges they'll be deported.

Another example how there's too much "lawyerizing" of everything, and how the US may look bad because of it.

The big issue that you brought up is the right of the state courts. The federal government can't order the state courts to do a damn thing.

Should the consulate have been called? That's the question. Whose responsibility is it? Is the state responsible (the prosecutor in this case) or the defendant (and their representative)? Was the defendant told and chose not to utilize it? What if it was contacted, what difference would it make? The consulate could have sent in a lawyer or it may not have. Would it have changed the verdict? I doubt it.

In my opinion, there might be reason to retry some of the cases if the appellate court sees anyplace that having the consulate lawyer would have made a difference. If that's all of them, then so be it. Again, the federal government can't force the state to do anything. There is no mechanism for them to do it. They should do it on their own and then execute the bastards after they are retried.

I'd disagree; the big issue is that the US signed a treaty and is not adhering to it.

But you're correct, the feds can't order the state courts to do something; but the state courts should check federal law and adhere to it when prosecuting foreign nationals. Of course there are circumstances, whether they were afforded the opportunity to speak with their consulate,or even knew about that option.

The Texas courts should have enough integrity to do the right thing; issue a statement that they're not subject to orders from federal courts, but also that they will be following the treaty since they are, after all, a member of the USA.

On a parallel note how about the fact that Mexico will not allow extradiction for anyone that may face death penalty to a US state that has it? Now they've gone further so that if even a life sentence maximum penalty state is trying to extradict they consider life imprisonment too harsh to comply. Wacky.

Link please...

Here ya go.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0503090303mar09,1,3297442.story

On a parallel note how about the fact that Mexico will not allow extradiction for anyone that may face death penalty to a US state that has it? Now they've gone further so that if even a life sentence maximum penalty state is trying to extradict they consider life imprisonment too harsh to comply. Wacky.

I think you will find that most countries will not allow extradition to countries or parts of countries that torture and kill in the name of justice.There is an agreement to that effect covering most of the key players,the European Convention on Extradition of 1957, art. 11.

Figure someone will ask for a link on that:

http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/Treaties/Html/024.htm

I don't think it's out of line. If the country that has the criminal in custody doesn't agree with capital punishment, then they can choose not to release said criminal to the country that would prosecute the criminal for the death penalty. If the requesting country wants the criminal back bad enough, they can always give promises that they won't prosecute for the death penalty. Or at least that's the take I got from Article 11.

Figure someone will ask for a link on that:



.....I thought it was common knowledge.........:p

thanks for taking the trouble to Google it and interpret it so accurately, Fredsan. I was half expecting the usual 'we don't give a damn what Europe thinks, we are Americans' from the peanut gallery.

Thanks. Hey, wait! >sputter sputter< Dam, now I'm a peanut. You called me a peanut!!

Seriously though, I think law should be based on common sense; each country's right to rule itself in the manner which it desires should be respected. Article 11 makes good sense, and respects the laws of the country holding the criminal, insofar as that country chooses not to pursue the death penalty.

All reasonable.

i think the legality of them being in the US is the major flaw. if you are not in the country legally, there might be some kind of flaw or loophole that voids the agreement.

That's a great point Nismo, and one I hadn't thought of. I wonder if the language for that agreement is on the web somewhere....

1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.

The US apparently officially pulled out of the agreement last month.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/3/10/111848/744

Of course, if the prisoners at Gitmo are not 'prisoners of war', then they must surely be civilians, and should have been covered by this legislation....


Further evidence,I guess, that this administration does not intend to honour UN agreements lawfully signed by Americans on behalf of America.

Don't forget to add: ...and will be the first to cry "foul" when another sovereign nation gives a harsh penalty when a US citizen breaks a law there.

Its amazing we still have the death penalty at all.. Dosent texas kill the most people out of any other state?