Jose Medellin: to die or not to die

[Christopherr]

We all know that Jose Ernesto Medellin, an illegal immigrant from Mexico, has come to America, raped, and killed two girls in 1993. Jose was arrested and read his rights by the police, as they would do for any suspect, but the police did not tell him could request assistance from the Mexican consulate under the 1963 treaty (the lawyer Jose had a right to could have mentioned that, but he did not). He was sentenced to death , as he was a rapist/murderer in Texas, and put on death row in 1994, but that's not the issue.

International courts have now ordered a second hearing of this man, which is simply ridiculous. I personally believe that this man had a fair trial in America, and that we had an absolute right to try him under our rules. He pleaded guilty, wrote a confession, and went through the everyday legal process of our country, so what went wrong? Does it matter whether he had assistance from the Mexican consulate? I feel he would still be found guilty, because he was proven to have raped and murdered the girls, whose deaths are now being used as a political battleground.

It does not matter what country you are from--if you commit crimes in our country, then you will be tried in our country.

Any other opinions on this issue? Please, keep the thread respectful.

[tony4moroney]

At 10/12/07 12:21 PM, Christopherr wrote:

It does not matter what country you are from--if you commit crimes in our country, then you will be tried in our country.

ive got to disagree with this. by this philosophy any u.s citizen that travels overseas and is claimed to have committed a felony and put in that court effectively has no rights as a u.s citizen. we have no jurisidiction and power, no ability to bring our citizens home and grant them what we consider a fair trial under our system.

think about that the next time youre back-packing asia and get caught with drugs (possibly planted) in your bag.

keep the thread respectful.

fuck you

[Christopherr]

At 10/12/07 12:33 PM, tony4moroney wrote: ive got to disagree with this. by this philosophy any u.s citizen that travels overseas and is claimed to have committed a felony and put in that court effectively has no rights as a u.s citizen. we have no jurisidiction and power, no ability to bring our citizens home and grant them what we consider a fair trial under our system.

I am not so sure about many Asian countries, but most countries in Europe, for example, would have somebody tried under their rules. In Asia, one might be falsely tried, but this man was given a run-of-the-mill trial, complete with a lawyer. We tried him with the same basic rights we would give anyone who would commit a crime here. Who is to say that he should be given more rights than a detainee who is a legal citizen just because he came into the US illegally?

[Elfer]

At 10/12/07 12:21 PM, Christopherr wrote: the police did not tell him could request assistance from the Mexican consulate under the 1963 treaty (the lawyer Jose had a right to could have mentioned that, but he did not)

If the police didn't tell him that, and the lawyer didn't tell him, then he wasn't properly informed of his rights.

International courts have now ordered a second hearing of this man, which is simply ridiculous. I feel he would still be found guilty,

It's still a mistrial, even if he's definitely going to be found guilty again. That's just sort of the way the legal system works.

[morefngdbs]

At 10/12/07 01:09 PM, Elfer wrote:

At 10/12/07 12:21 PM, Christopherr wrote: International courts have now ordered a second hearing of this man, which is simply ridiculous. I feel he would still be found guilty,

It's still a mistrial, even if he's definitely going to be found guilty again. That's just sort of the way the legal system works.

;
If wasteing a bunch more tax payers dollars to retry this piece of garbage , gets him strapped into a chair & lit up or poisoned or whatever they do to kill inmates down there today.
Then it will still be a happy ending to a terrible tragedy.
Plus the 'law' will have been seen to be just.

[iEatFood]

I don't know enough to say for sure....

But if he was living in our country, and commits crimes in our country, then he should be tried in our country by our countries rules and pay the price our country gives him.

it's not fair for somebody to come here illegally, take our money, take advantage of our hospitality, kill our people, and then cry when he's caught and trated like any american citizen would be. He wanted to be an American Citizen... and now he is. And suddenly it's not good enough?

Too bad.

I would feel diffrently if the crime was less severe but in this case, I think he was treated fairly.

[Drakim]

When it comes down to things like this, people seem to forget something.

We don't judge and imprison based on what people feel. If so, then all the ugly rude people would be more convinced simply because people didn't like them. It's based on laws. And the minute you say that the laws shouldn't be be the ultimate authority (in this case, the law IS on his side), then you are going against the very basis of our society. You are effectively doing the same as the people that gather up some guy in the middle of the night, and hangs him, only you do it in a nicer way.

[Christopherr]

At 10/12/07 01:09 PM, Elfer wrote: If the police didn't tell him that, and the lawyer didn't tell him, then he wasn't properly informed of his rights.

I see this a lot, though. Many times, illegals are arrested, but the police never learn that they are illegal. I bet that this man did not say anything about being illegal. They probably learned he was illegal after they brought him to court.

It's still a mistrial, even if he's definitely going to be found guilty again. That's just sort of the way the legal system works.

True, the US legal system is terrible. This is a great example of it.

[Proteas]

At 10/12/07 12:33 PM, tony4moroney wrote: think about that the next time youre back-packing asia and get caught with drugs (possibly planted) in your bag.

Dem/Lib self contradiction #308; everybody in the world has rights under the U.S. Constitution based on their being here or their desire to be here... but they are free from being penalized under our laws because that's unconstitutional.

[Empanado]

I'm no law student, since, you know, I'm not a fucking dork, but wasn't U.S. law based on precedents?
So, yeah, to me it doesn't sound as a great idea to set a whole lot of precedents regarding people not having their rights met properly, regardless or the atrocity of the crime. Today's child rape/murder, tomorrow's multiple homicide, then gang shooting, then armed robbery, then burglary, battery and whatnot.

[Elfer]

At 10/12/07 04:46 PM, Christopherr wrote: I see this a lot, though. Many times, illegals are arrested, but the police never learn that they are illegal. I bet that this man did not say anything about being illegal. They probably learned he was illegal after they brought him to court.

In a murder trial? I don't think so. There's no way that a murder case could make it all the way to court before they found out he was an illegal.

[fli]

I'm taking an unpopular stance here and say that if he had a legal right to get this, then why didn't we inform him?

He would have more than likely had gotten the same punishment, and we would have come out of it with our credibility not questioned.

And this is certain. We LOVE to persecute all foreign visitors (legal or illegal) under our laws and we hold this righteous attitue, "He's in this country."

And yet--
So rarely do we hear US citizens who committe similarily horrendous crimes be persecuted by the full extent of foreign law without the Consulate involved... especially in cases where the crime is murder and the punishment death.

Let's not be hypocrites.
The right thing for us as a country was to give him his legal rights, as we would want our legal rights if we visited abroad.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 10/14/07 09:30 PM, fli wrote:

Let's not be hypocrites.
The right thing for us as a country was to give him his legal rights, as we would want our legal rights if we visited abroad.

I think....

To be fair. We should let him be tried in Mexico, and sent to a Mexican jail.
Because no one wants to go to Mexican jail, and I mean no one.

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

At 10/14/07 09:37 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

To be fair. We should let him be tried in Mexico, and sent to a Mexican jail.
Because no one wants to go to Mexican jail, and I mean no one.

The issue with that is that the D.A would have a lot harder time, since he doesn't have full access to the U.S governments information regarding the case and resulting police investigation.

[Christopherr]

In Mexico, the lowest age of sexual consent is 12 (source).

So a Mexican who illegally enters the US from Mexico should be pardoned for raping two girls?

Likewise, in many other countries, the age of consent is 14. If a man from one of those countries illegally comes to the US and rapes anyone, he gets to slide by?

Correct me if I am mistaken, but it is not right to pardon a man who rapes in the US.

[PhoenixTails]

I personally think that any illegals in the U.S. should have no rights except the right to a fair trial. If the cops didn't know this dude was illegal, then he got a fair trial. Also, Texas should just make an express lane for executions. Have the janitor walk past outstretched necks with a razorblade. Cheap, entertaining (if you have problems), and occupies the janitor for the next 10 days as he attempts to get rid of the blood.

[SmilezRoyale]

how would you solve the problem Tony [Lets asume your the 'Government' at this time... what would you do]

[Drakim]

Guys, try to turn the situation around.

An american goes out of country, and is arrested for a crime. Now, a lot of people hate him for that crime he is accused fo, but like everybody else, he is "innocent until proven guily".

Now, he WAS proven guilty. Case closed. Problem solved.

However, here comes the catch. When he was proven guilty, he didn't get his full rights. He wasn't hold equal to everybody else, who got all the rights that the law demands, but he didn't.

Would you be completely happy with that now? If you see no problem, then can countries start taking away a few rights here and there from Americans because nobody objects?

[tony4moroney]

At 10/12/07 05:10 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 10/12/07 12:33 PM, tony4moroney wrote:

Dem/Lib self contradiction #308; everybody in the world has rights under the U.S. Constitution based on their being here or their desire to be here... but they are free from being penalized under our laws because that's unconstitutional.

care to illustrate with some examples? i didn't say penalizing somebody under our laws would be unconstitutional, i think what could be done is our judicial system can get in contact and talk with mexico about a transfer of prisoner and both can mutually accept some sort of terms, which is what is often the case.

At 10/19/07 09:15 AM, Drakim wrote:

umm... that's pretty much what i said... but it's cool.

At 10/17/07 09:09 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: how would you solve the problem Tony [Lets asume your the 'Government' at this time... what would you do]

what i said to proteas. or i'd consider shooting him in the back of the head and scooping up his brains and serving it for prison gruel.