Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I didn't read the whole thread, but I was rather annoyed by this decision. It could severely hurt US citizens abroad, since any country can now claim since the US doesn't follow the obligations it agrees to, why should they when they arrest US citizens.
We are only the Western nation that still has the death penalty, and it puts us in a very negative spotlight with the rest of the world. We no longer can get the lethal injection drug that we've been using, because all countries refuse to export it to us since they don't support the death penalty. As a result, states are now using the same drug used to euthanize animals for their executions, which is not acceptable as it wasn't designed for use on humans.
Actually, you are inaccurate in the statement that we are the ONLY western nation to practice the Death penalty.
Belarus, The Bahamas, Barbados, Peru, Jamaica, Guatemala, Dominica, are just a few of European, and north/south Americas that still support the Death penalty.
All the pro-illegals now must agree that Arizona law is right. When someone is arrested, the first thing the state should do is ascertain the criminal's citizenship. Otherwise, how can Mexico be notified?
What I'm referring to as a Treaty is a treaty. The Supreme Court did not say that we were not bound to the treaty. The Supreme Court said that the treaty was not binding as domestic law without specifically enacting legislation. It's a narrow distinction, but it's critical here. Texas did not violate domestic law, but the US violated its treaty obligation.
Had this been in a FEDERAL court, then I would agree with you.
I didn't read the whole thread, but I was rather annoyed by this decision. It could severely hurt US citizens abroad, since any country can now claim since the US doesn't follow the obligations it agrees to, why should they when they arrest US citizens.
We are only the Western nation that still has the death penalty, and it puts us in a very negative spotlight with the rest of the world. We no longer can get the lethal injection drug that we've been using, because all countries refuse to export it to us since they don't support the death penalty. As a result, states are now using the same drug used to euthanize animals for their executions, which is not acceptable as it wasn't designed for use on humans.
If we are in a negative spotlight because of those killed via the Death Penalty, how do we rate with all those killed via abortions in this nation?
I don't see how this is a liberal/conservative issue. It's about respecting international law. The man had a right to have a member of the Mexican consulate present and wasn't informed of this. This puts Americans jailed in other nations in danger.
For example...
There's a lot of people, myself included, who think Amanda Knox isn't getting a fair shake in Italy. I don't think it's just liberals either.
The man had been living in the US since age 2! Having a foreign consul present is just a loophole he is trying to exploit. He had his due process rights and he should not be entitled to mroe rights than a US citizen would have. This rapist/murderer is scum and should have been put down years ago.
I don't see how this is a liberal/conservative issue. It's about respecting international law. The man had a right to have a member of the Mexican consulate present and wasn't informed of this. This puts Americans jailed in other nations in danger.
For example...
There's a lot of people, myself included, who think Amanda Knox isn't getting a fair shake in Italy. I don't think it's just liberals either.
Yet an American citizen faces the penalty but not an illegal?
Good thinking.
The crime is the crime, the punishment the punishment- no free lunch...................
The greater question and issue at hand, which the US Supreme Court looked at was the following:
1. Was he DENIED the "right" to speak with his consulate, or was it merely a simple mistake.
2. Would it have made ANY different outcome, on the sentencing. If he still would have been convited of rape/murder, with/without consultation with Mexico, the sentence still stands. This occurs ALL THE time with citizens and non citizens.
If a police officer officer improperly or, for what ever reason, does not "Mirandize" the suspect and conducts an interrogation, and obtains a confession. If that confession is used in court and is used to convict him/her and is later ruled "inadmissable," it still does not "throw the case out." If the case can stand on its own merit, based upon physical evidence, witness statements, and a whole helluva lot of other things, the confession, in and of itself, is immaterial. The death sentence and any sentence, for that matter, can still be enforced.
This situation is no different. The fact this worthless excuse of a human being, didn't speak to his consulate, would not have effected the outcome of the case. And before all the left wing liberals start frothing at the mouth, about how do I know, just look at the INVESTIGATION to the murder of the 16 yr old girl. There is absolutely NO DOUBT he committed the crime and, morever, deserved to die. In alot worse way then he did.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
however
