Bush Overruled by Supreme Court in TX Death Penalty Case

[EnderWiggin]

Originally Posted by mimartin

Sorry I couldn’t resist as that is one of only two Latin phrases I know.

Well the law is not a Texas law; it is part of an international treaty. In Texas, you are given a phone call, why didn’t the convicted rapist and murder call the Mexican consultant. If I am arrested, is it the Police's reasonability to call my mother?

My question is did he identify himself as a Mexican National at the time of his arrest and when they read him his Miranda? The article does not state that fact, which to me would be a deciding factor.

This is not a case where he would be let go if Texas followed the World Courts decision. He would be given a new trail and would have the help of the Mexican government. Also if I am not mistaken his signed confession would be thrown out.

Bush is correct, but personally, I hope Texas ignores the President and the World Court. It does not seem like Mr. Medellin was too merciful to the two young girls he raped and murdered.

Texas will ignore Pres. Bush. The thing is, when you said "did he identify himself" - that's irrelevant. Obviously he would have been found out to not be a US citizen (which doesn't make him an illegal, guys, as long as he went through customs/immigration at the border) and then the responsibility is then placed on the law enforcement to immediately phone the Mexicans. The guy's one phone call has no bearing on this.

So, while I agree that the crimes were horrible, but whether or not I agree with how our justice system works, the law states that if this were miranda then he would be entitled to a new trial in which he is able to use the aid of the Mexicans. And since we signed this, Article 38, then why shouldn't the same apply?

I know it might not be just. But it's following the rules, in my opinion, which is what is needed to keep order in the world.

_EW_

@SS

[mimartin]

Originally Posted by EnderWiggin

The thing is, when you said "did he identify himself" - that's irrelevant.

Not irrelevant to me. To me it would have a great deal of relevance in if his signed confession should be thrown out. If they knew at the time he was a Mexian National then it should be thrown out. If they had no reason to inform him of this right before the confession then it should be allowed.

Originally Posted by EnderWiggin

So, while I agree that the crimes were horrible, but whether or not I agree with how our justice system works, the law states that if this were miranda then he would be entitled to a new trial in which he is able to use the aid of the Mexicans. And since we signed this, Article 38, then why shouldn't the same apply?

Oh I agree, like I said I agree with President Bush’s request. I can still have a personal view that is not legally correct.

Originally Posted by EnderWiggin

I know it might not be just. But it's following the rules, in my opinion, which is what is needed to keep order in the world.

The world is in order?

Originally Posted by SilentScope001

EDIT: mimartin...uh? I, erm, know it's not good to question, but in the same thread, you appear to go against the death penatly for all cases...and then state that you happen to be for this death penatly, because he should have known that he'd be punished for his crime anyway. Um, I don't know. The ability to have two different viewpoints at the same time seems rather useful for anyone...but, ehm.

I’m not against the death penalty in all cases. I don’t believe it is a deterrent and believe in most cases where the death penalty is warranted that life in prison without the possibility of parole is more of a true penalty than the finality of death. I also believe the old adage that it is better for the guilty to go free than for one innocent man to be put to death. In this case we have a signed confession so unless it was beaten out of him, it is pretty solid evidence.

In this thread, I voiced my thoughts on my own state's over use of the death penalty while at the same time not paying for public defender in death row cases and limiting appeals. Leading the nation in executions is not something I’m proud of Texas being known for.

I do not have two different viewpoints even though I can see both sides of the argument.

[Jae Onasi]

Originally Posted by mimartin

My question is did he identify himself as a Mexican National at the time of his arrest and when they read him his Miranda? The article does not state that fact, which to me would be a deciding factor.
.

And were the cops even allowed to ask if he was or not? Some sanctuary cities in the US (I think San Antonio and Houston are 2 of them) don't allow cops to ask if someone is or isn't a legal citizen of the US anymore. Also, did he have a MX passport or some fake US ID at the time of arrest?

[Web Rider]

Originally Posted by EnderWiggin

Texas will ignore Pres. Bush. The thing is, when you said "did he identify himself" - that's irrelevant. Obviously he would have been found out to not be a US citizen (which doesn't make him an illegal, guys, as long as he went through customs/immigration at the border) and then the responsibility is then placed on the law enforcement to immediately phone the Mexicans. The guy's one phone call has no bearing on this.

Rights must be read at the time of arrest, not after. That's the problem. if the cops don't know the guy is a mexican citizen, say they got evidence of who the criminals were but either didn't have records of them or could not get records before the information had to be acted on, the only way to know is to be told.

[JCarter426]

Originally Posted by Web Rider

Rights must be read at the time of arrest, not after. That's the problem. if the cops don't know the guy is a mexican citizen, say they got evidence of who the criminals were but either didn't have records of them or could not get records before the information had to be acted on, the only way to know is to be told.

Well, if that were the case, then they were acting in good faith.