Mexico Tells Texas Not To Execute one of Their Citizens

Quote:

Originally posted by moss

...
The death penalty is a Must & should be dealt more often & followed through swiftly. The people that are given this penalty aren't candy bar thieves, they are cold blooded murderers that have no problem taking your life or your kids life. Our system with the technology we have leaves no doubt when the proof is in front of you if the person is guilty or not. Not only is it expensive to keep them in jail, it shows that we allow this type of crime without proper penalty. There is a wife left without her husband & children without their father because of this guys senseless killing.

Yes, the system leaves "no doubt," which is why the innocence project has had 312 people exonerated. And of course, many others have been exonerated without the assistance of the innocence project. But sure, the system is completely perfect.

And yes, the death penalty is more expensive than life in prison due to the automatic appeals, and no, prisons aren't overcrowded due to not giving more violent criminals the death penalty (that's due to the war on drugs more than anything else and you can compare the states that incarcerate nonviolent offenders with those that tend not to).

But really, I'm the most blown away by the argument that the system will always give the correct result. On both the civil and criminal sides, the system fails and it fails a lot. Incarcerating an innocent person is bad enough- the death penalty for an innocent person is far worse. Honestly, I don't have a problem with the death penalty for some people, depending on what they did, but we would have to be absolutely positive the accused is guilty, which doesn't happen nearly as often as someone is convicted.

Quote:

Originally posted by moss

Once AGAIN lindros shows his true liberal colors of nonsense. Yep we are all that stupid & you are correct.
Maybe next time it will be your dad, mom, wife or child. I bet that would wake you up & change your ignorant way of thinking.

I should "flow" your arguments.

Don't worry - you're doing great. You haven't dropped a single point yet. I mean, you DID, but then you tossed out the Fox News a-bomb by calling EL a liberal. That solves everything.

Quote:

Originally posted by moss

...
Like I said "When there is NO DOUBT"

That is exactly the point. There will never be 100% "no doubt". these people that were killed (edit: deathpenaltied) while beeing innocent, there was "no doubt" too. until they found out they were wrong. and they can release someone from prison if they are wrong, but you can't release anyone from dead. and if someone is innocently killed, moss, who is the one accountable for that, in your opinion?

Quote:

Originally posted by moss

...
Like I said "When there is NO DOUBT"
The cost is higher for the death penalty ONLY because the amount of appeals that we allow. I believe that should be altered as well.

Actually, what you said was: "Our system with the technology we have leaves no doubt when the proof is in front of you if the person is guilty or not."

But the system doesn't leave us with "no doubt" in nearly all of the cases where a very lengthy incarceration or the death penalty is imposed. But you seem to state the contrary. Perhaps that isn't how you meant it.

However, you are discussing an event that occurred in 1994, twenty years ago. So even if we accept that the system and our technology are currently perfect or at least set up to be 100% if this case were to come before the courts right now, a lot has changed since 1994.

The appeals system is integral to our civil and criminal justice systems. It is entirely messed up to think of doing away with the appeals process. Judges and juries make bad decisions sometimes, and yes, sometimes they are heavily biased for whatever reason. Or simply just lazy. Or doing what is politically popular to get re-elected, rather than what is right (which differs from most appeals court judges who don't go thru elections, at least in the federal system). I think it sucks, but prison costs like that are just a necessity if you want to live in a civilized place.

Take this hypothetical. If an American woman were visiting Saudi Arabia, and broke one of their laws--say showing her face--and received a punishment we as Americans would find racist, sexist, and unjustified in any corner of Western society? Should the U.S. not be upset in that scenario?

Let me get one thing straight, I am in no way defending this guys actions, or chalking up his crime as that of a simple cultural difference as in the sample scenario. As a TX resident, I find the death penalty deplorable. It's permanent, and mistakes can't be fixed after the fact. And if there's one thing certain about the TX DoJ, mistakes are plentiful.

Quote:

Originally posted by txstud806

Take this hypothetical. If an American woman were visiting Saudi Arabia, and broke one of their laws--say showing her face--and received a punishment we as Americans would find racist, sexist, and unjustified in any corner of Western society? Should the U.S. not be upset in that scenario?

.

I get where you're going with this but the example is poor. Let's say a California man (no death penalty there) goes to another country and kills a police officer there. The country he has committed the crime in supports death for murderers. Does the U.S. or California have any right to demand that other country to change policy because the convicted murderer is not a citizen there?

The question isn't whether capital punishment is right or wrong. It's whether or not Mexico has any say in the way the United States punishes people who commit crimes in the United States. As far as I'm concerned, Mexico can suck an egg. If I went on a crime spree there and they threw me in jail would they be forced to accommodate me with a U.S. style prison? A lot prisons in Mexico are what Americans would consider cruel and unusual.

Quote:

Originally posted by Davey45

...

I get where you're going with this but the example is poor. Let's say a California man (no death penalty there) goes to another country and kills a police officer there. The country he has committed the crime in supports death for murderers. Does the U.S. or California have any right to demand that other country to change policy because the convicted murderer is not a citizen there?

The question isn't whether capital punishment is right or wrong. It's whether or not Mexico has any say in the way the United States punishes people who commit crimes in the United States. As far as I'm concerned, Mexico can suck an egg. If I went on a crime spree there and they threw me in jail would they be forced to accommodate me with a U.S. style prison? A lot prisons in Mexico are what Americans would consider cruel and unusual.

Right, this is a question of international law and to what extent a country may interfere to protect the perceived rights of its nationals when abroad.

I don't think it's an easy question to tackle. On the one hand, we all have the beliefs we are ingrained with due to living where we live and will take our sense of rights and justice with is, no matter where we are physically. On the other hand, if I don't want to be subjected to another country's laws, I shouldn't go there. A country can be as restrictive as it wants (to a large extent); the trade off is that people from other countries will stop going there. In the example from above - Saudi Arabia can have laws that I think are demeaning as hell towards women if it so chooses. But don't expect me to go there or bring the wife.

This thread is so full of stupid, except when most of the regular posters shows up. I don't agree with ELs views but he's the only one not just spouting random made-up fact from the top of head.

Kylecook. I tend to see eye to eye with you on most of these political threads. I would like to subscribe to your news letter.

Quote:

Originally posted by Davey45

...

I get where you're going with this but the example is poor. Let's say a California man (no death penalty there) goes to another country and kills a police officer there. The country he has committed the crime in supports death for murderers. Does the U.S. or California have any right to demand that other country to change policy because the convicted murderer is not a citizen there?

The question isn't whether capital punishment is right or wrong. It's whether or not Mexico has any say in the way the United States punishes people who commit crimes in the United States. As far as I'm concerned, Mexico can suck an egg. If I went on a crime spree there and they threw me in jail would they be forced to accommodate me with a U.S. style prison? A lot prisons in Mexico are what Americans would consider cruel and unusual.

Whether or not they have the right, they try and do it all the time. The are countless cases of US citizens in jails around the world that the US government is trying to get released. There are also countless cases of US citizens that have been charged with crimes in both a foreign country AND the US, that the US government tries to extradite to have face charges in the US.

Quote:

Originally posted by Davey45

Kylecook. I tend to see eye to eye with you on most of these political threads. I would like to subscribe to your news letter.

Let's get it done. We can team up and make a "KC and D45 tell you how it is" newsletter that'll rival all news programs out there.

Thank you, though. I try to stay as reasoned as possible with these kinds of things.

Quote:

Originally posted by Sugarpie

...

Whether or not they have the right, they try and do it all the time. The are countless cases of US citizens in jails around the world that the US government is trying to get released. There are also countless cases of US citizens that have been charged with crimes in both a foreign country AND the US, that the US government tries to extradite to have face charges in the US.

It's true they try to do that all the time. Still, I have mixed feelings about it. I would expect to be governed by the law of any country when I am in that particular country. Much like I expect to be subject to Maryland law when I'm in Maryland, rather than my state of residency. I realize international law adds a new wrinkle, but I don't really have a problem with that straightforward viewpoint as a general rule.

Kill him ! il work the syringe if ya scared..

Not so fast there. Obviously you are not aware that not all jurisdictions in the US allow private video taping of police actions. It may be illegal.

And then there are the cases where video tape is not evidence enough if the jury is predisposed to police innocence regardless of the truth. I live in one of the most conservative counties in the US and last week a local jury would not convict two cops who were caught on tape murdering a mentally ill local man with a long record of being a pain in the ass but not a criminal. ( Google Kelly Thomas) . The jury's decision surprised no one. Hopefully they can nail the bastards through a civil action a la OJ Simpson

Quote:

Originally posted by moss

...
NOT TRUE!
You are referring to cases from decades ago. When is the last time you have gone someplace and didn't see a video camera?
You can't even pump gas without being on video. That part of what I meant about technology as well as DNA testing. There are plenty of cases that are NO DOUBT

Quote:

Originally posted by moss

...
NOT TRUE!
You are referring to cases from decades ago. When is the last time you have gone someplace and didn't see a video camera?
You can't even pump gas without being on video. That part of what I meant about technology as well as DNA testing. There are plenty of cases that are NO DOUBT

The third paragraph of the article in question states that the defendant was convicted of the 1994 murder. So yes, exactly. I'm referring to a case that was from two decades ago. Again, just blankly assuming that you are correct that we could solve 100% of crimes with 100% certainty now, that doesn't change that this case had events from 1994. And many, many of those on death row or who are incarcerated are there for crimes purported to have been committed years or decades ago.

But I don't accept your proposition that cameras and DNA, etc. ensure 100% accuracy right now. How would anyone get away with any crime, ever? But they do. Every day, people do. The FBI reported in January 2013 that 35-40% of murders go unsolved: http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2013/01/rates-of-unsolved-murder-by-state.html?m=1.

See also: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/28116857/, which has the solve rate at about that same rate. People absolutely can and do get away with murder because the technology isn't as sophisticated and flawless as you are hoping it is. The innocence project has had exonerations for convictions as recent as 2008. So no, it isn't a flawless system by any stretch.

Quote:

Originally posted by moss

...
Your argument is silly & a stretch to get your point of view across,
I very simply stated when there is a "No Doubt" case it should be a very quick & harsh death penalty....but if that's the way you feel, Good Luck & you better hope one of these cold murderers don't take advantage of you or yours as well. I for one don't want them around even the people in prisons because if you have been around the prison system at all you would know that MOST of the high power crimes on the streets especially gang related are called shots from inside the prisons.

You've presented absolutely nothing at any point that would indicate you have any capability to support your point of view. So it's ballsy to say that my arguments are a stretch and silly, despite being backed by real sources and such. About 40% of murders go unsolved, yet you say that thanks to DNA and cameras, we can always have no doubt. Which is ridiculous, given the 40% unsolved murder rate. Not to mention, the assumption that the court systems work all the time.

Given my line of work, I'm well-versed in prisons and prison culture, almost assuredly more than you. But thanks for hoping the "cold blooded killers" don't come for me and mine. That means a lot and wasn't awkward or irrelevant this time or the time you said that to someone else earlier in this same thread.

And as I said earlier, I'm not against the death penalty on face value. It's application is fucked up, and without having the certainty that you seem to assume is there virtually always, it's a broken penalty.

Also, I'm really not sure how saying that the technology in 1994 (the relevant year for the topic brought up in this thread) wasn't as advanced as it is in 2014 is a stretch or silly. Or saying that people incarcerated were convicted of crimes allegedly committed years or decades ago is a stretch or silly, either.

But that's just me.

Moss, I've already quoted you enough in this thread. You say that our technology, etc, will leave no doubt when the information is out in front of people. But that isn't usually the case. There is doubt in most cases. So much doubt that they can't even get enough circumstantial evidence in nearly 40% of murders to get it to trial, much less have a "no doubt" verdict. The majority of convictions are obtained by eyewitness accounts, which are frequently shaky, and too many places use the jailhouse snitch who can get less time by testifying that someone just happened to confess while locked up and awaiting trial.

Even a lot of the forensic evidence is difficult when most violent crimes involve people who know each other, and thus, to leave DNA anyway due to regular interactions.

If you have a case where someone who isn't mentally handicapped murders someone else in cold blood and you have a very clear video of it happening, sure, the death penalty is fine, IMO. But we disagree about how frequently there is a "no doubt" situation. If it's open to doubt, the death penalty is a horrible gamble.

Quote:

Originally posted by moss

. If you would read what I have said, You would probably agree with my assessment on this particular topic since you are not against the death penalty.

And I could say that you would probably agree with my assessment that the death penalty shouldn't be used in cases where there is any possibility the jury was wrong.

Anyway, I think I'm just going to refer you to post 19 and EL's response going forward. That was an apt breakdown.