Mexico Tells Texas Not To Execute one of Their Citizens

But according to you it should be without due process, laws and since our tech now is flawless maybe we should just get a death squad or two for every town in the world that kills criminals... Sounds familiar?

Quote:

Originally posted by moss

...
I Never said "Our Tech Is Flawless" !!

Yes you did :

Quote:

"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"

The problem being that "proof" is rarely something that is 100% sure. That's why there is a system and technologies and according to you, they leave no doubt.

Quote:

Originally posted by moss

...I Never said anyone should be punished "Without Due Process" !!

I guess that part was directed at bob11 who basically said that if you are in a state/country you are judged by the law of this state/country (which is true), but illegals can't have access to the legal system of the country because they are from somewhere else (which doesn't make sense with what's been said previously).

Quote:

Originally posted by moss

...Is that all you have??

Considering people have brought you numerous facts, examples and tried to make you understand some analogies or principles (but I guess it's hopeless) and you kept ignoring all that only to answer "you're wrong, you're stupid" over and over. I guess we could ask you the same question.

OK, my first post was a quick one. And it was intentionally inflammatory. I still stand by most what I posted but can clarify a bit and respond to some comments.
EricLindros: Do I break laws on a daily basis? Yes, if you count speeding and such. Have I broken laws in the past? Sure, but in each and every case I knew the consequences of my actions and was prepared to pay the penalty. Why? Because they were minor infractions where I live. I wasn’t out shooting folks in the head.
Sugerpie: Execution for being here illegally, no deportation would be fine with me if that was the only crime. Deportation for killing someone, nope I have seen it here too many times and I don’t like it. If I kill my neighbor do I get sent home? No. If you killed someone while traveling would you expect to be sent home?
Jennygurl23: I travel both on business and pleasure. When I am in another country I try to respect their laws even if I don’t agree with them. If I do chose to bend the law a bit I know the penalty and make a decision if I can deal with the consequences. Death penalty, not for me. A big fine? Maybe if it was worth it.
Many of the postings seem to come from a viewpoint of younger folks. I used to be a bit more liberal when I was younger and have to admit that as I age I have become more conservative and less tolerant of criminals. Especially when I am the one that is paying to defend, house, feed, and provide medical care for individuals that even if released will most likely continue of the path of being a career criminal. As the years go by I see more examples of senseless crime with far too little punishment. Murder, rape, etc. It’s almost become a status symbol in some areas. For those reluctant to enforce the death penalty, wait… eventually it could be your friend, lover, sister, child or neighbor that is the victim. Wait long enough in this country and you most likely will suffer a loss.
Tamayo broke into my home (my country) and killed my neighbor (a fellow citizen) who left behind his wife and unborn child. Death penalty, yeah, I’m OK with that….

Quote:

Originally posted by B0b11

OK, my first post was a quick one. And it was intentionally inflammatory. I still stand by most what I posted but can clarify a bit and respond to some comments.
EricLindros: Do I break laws on a daily basis? Yes, if you count speeding and such. Have I broken laws in the past? Sure, but in each and every case I knew the consequences of my actions and was prepared to pay the penalty. Why? Because they were minor infractions where I live. I wasn’t out shooting folks in the head.
Sugerpie: Execution for being here illegally, no deportation would be fine with me if that was the only crime. Deportation for killing someone, nope I have seen it here too many times and I don’t like it. If I kill my neighbor do I get sent home? No. If you killed someone while traveling would you expect to be sent home?
Jennygurl23: I travel both on business and pleasure. When I am in another country I try to respect their laws even if I don’t agree with them. If I do chose to bend the law a bit I know the penalty and make a decision if I can deal with the consequences. Death penalty, not for me. A big fine? Maybe if it was worth it.
Many of the postings seem to come from a viewpoint of younger folks. I used to be a bit more liberal when I was younger and have to admit that as I age I have become more conservative and less tolerant of criminals. Especially when I am the one that is paying to defend, house, feed, and provide medical care for individuals that even if released will most likely continue of the path of being a career criminal. As the years go by I see more examples of senseless crime with far too little punishment. Murder, rape, etc. It’s almost become a status symbol in some areas. For those reluctant to enforce the death penalty, wait… eventually it could be your friend, lover, sister, child or neighbor that is the victim. Wait long enough in this country and you most likely will suffer a loss.
Tamayo broke into my home (my country) and killed my neighbor (a fellow citizen) who left behind his wife and unborn child. Death penalty, yeah, I’m OK with that….

Bob 11 Thank you for the truth and logic you brought to this...I Agree with you.

Quote:

Originally posted by moss

...
I said "technology leaves no doubt WHEN THE PROOF IS IN FRONT OF YOU" Now are you clear or do you want to take only half of the statement AGAIN??
People have NOT brought me facts to this case, they brought up cases that are 22 years old.
Hopefully you are done now, but if not we can keep going.

Yet this very case we are talking about it is 20 years old, and you still feel the same way.

The problem is that yes, the judicial system is flawed at times, you can't dispute that...and in my opinion there can be zero mistakes with the death penalty.

Quote:

Originally posted by moss

I guess if you don't believe in or trust the system or evidence, should we never find anyone guilty because there is a slight possibility it's wrong? .

This is a point on which reasonable people differ. William Blackstone said that it is better that 100 guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer. Many people disagree with this philosophy. But let's not kid ourselves regarding the reality.
The classic study from Northwestern Law School showed that 50% of the people who were on death row at the time were actually innocent. Several people in this thread have championed better "technology", implying that guilt or innocence is now more certain because of forensic advances. Unfortunately, that is simply not reality in a courtroom. Unless the defendant has significant financial resources (Michael Skakel, O.J. Simpson, etc.), court cases do NOT usually rely on hi-tech forensics. That stuff is reserved for T.V. shows like CSI. It is entertaining and interesting, but not real life.

If you are going to impose the death penalty and take someone's life, you need to be reasonably certain that all rights are respected and that proper procedure was followed.

And I absolutely agree with EL in his statement that no one should revel in the death of another. Society may be entitled to its quest for judgement, but shouldn't degrade itself in a quest for vengeance.

So let me throw in another scenario: an American soldier, while on duty in a foreign country, murders 17 civilians. Is he tried in the country where he committed the crime? Nope! He's brought back to the U.S. where he's put on trial. You can't argue on the one hand that a person is subject to the laws of a country where s/he may (temporarily) be residing, and then when it's one of your own, argue that any capital crimes committed on foreign soil and s/he should be remanded to the U.S. for trial.

Quote:

Originally posted by theoriemeister

So let me throw in another scenario: an American soldier, while on duty in a foreign country, murders 17 civilians. Is he tried in the country where he committed the crime? Nope! He's brought back to the U.S. where he's put on trial. You can't argue on the one hand that a person is subject to the laws of a country where s/he may (temporarily) be residing, and then when it's one of your own, argue that any capital crimes committed on foreign soil and s/he should be remanded to the U.S. for trial.

Yeah, war time crimes are a different entity all together. In your scenario, the soldier shouldn't face charges in the US either, ideally they should face charges in the country the crime committed, but as is with so many war time crimes...there really isn't any sort of judicial system remaining to try said soldier. They should be tried by a international war crimes court.

A regular citizen breaking a crime in a foreign, should be and tried and convicted (if guilty) by the country in which the crime was committed...and usually is. Often though, their home country will petition for their release if the punishment doesn't meet the same "moral" standards as their home country.

This dude schooled yet?

Quote:

Originally posted by moss

...
I Agree with that as i have this whole time, The death penalty should only be enforced if the evidence is solid beyond a shadow of a doubt.

I'm not sure how you can agree that the judicial system is flawed, that technology isn't 100% foolproof, and still be so caviler about the death penalty. Although....I guess I'm kinda in the same boat. Like I said in an earlier post, when that crime effects you personally, you may very well want what you consider justice, and I wouldn't blame a person for thinking and wanting that. But when I'm not close to a situation, I think the death penalty is not the right thing. so yeah, basically I'm not sure what I'm trying to say. lol

Quote:

Originally posted by exocet

...

This is a point on which reasonable people differ. William Blackstone said that it is better that 100 guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer. Many people disagree with this philosophy. But let's not kid ourselves regarding the reality.
The classic study from Northwestern Law School showed that 50% of the people who were on death row at the time were actually innocent. Several people in this thread have championed better "technology", implying that guilt or innocence is now more certain because of forensic advances. Unfortunately, that is simply not reality in a courtroom. Unless the defendant has significant financial resources (Michael Skakel, O.J. Simpson, etc.), court cases do NOT usually rely on hi-tech forensics. That stuff is reserved for T.V. shows like CSI. It is entertaining and interesting, but not real life.

If you are going to impose the death penalty and take someone's life, you need to be reasonably certain that all rights are respected and that proper procedure was followed.

And I absolutely agree with EL in his statement that no one should revel in the death of another. Society may be entitled to its quest for judgement, but shouldn't degrade itself in a quest for vengeance.

You are an excellent reporter, writer & great at selling your story however a lot of the content is simply non factual.
The study you are referring to is almost 3 decades ago or more if it's the same one I saw.
I have a partner that is a homicide investigator & on cases like we are discussing he spends a ton of time with forensic experts, DNA experts and labs using the highest level of technology available. This is especially true when you are considering the death penalty.
It's absolutely false & silly to even think that we have all this high tech equipment & technology & we leave it in the closet til Hollywood wants to spin a CSI episode.
That is simply not true!

I do agree with you & EL that it's not a time to revel, mostly for me because if they are given this penalty that means they have changed a families life forever with the crime they committed ,so both families lose.

Quote:

Originally posted by moss

...
I said "technology leaves no doubt WHEN THE PROOF IS IN FRONT OF YOU" Now are you clear or do you want to take only half of the statement AGAIN??
People have NOT brought me facts to this case, they brought up cases that are 22 years old.
Hopefully you are done now, but if not we can keep going.

And again you ignored the rest of my post which stated that the proof you are talking about can only be brought by the system and/or the technology.
So the system is perfect IF the proof is in front of us. BUT the proof is being brought by the system itself (investigation, technology etc.)... That doesn't make sense.

Basically, the only case where it would be true is if someone committed something in front the police, a judge and the jury altogether. Basically never.

Quote:

Originally posted by moss

...
You are an excellent reporter, writer & great at selling your story however a lot of the content is simply non factual.
The study you are referring to is almost 3 decades ago or more if it's the same one I saw.
I have a partner that is a homicide investigator & on cases like we are discussing he spends a ton of time with forensic experts, DNA experts and labs using the highest level of technology available. This is especially true when you are considering the death penalty.

Even if the technology is better, it doesn't mean it's perfect.
People never learn and we very often hear "we can't go any further in technology ; we can't improve this" and yet, a few years later everything has changed. It happened in the past, it still happens now.
Also : yes a study is factual. What is not factual is 100% of your posts. And "I have a buddy who knows that" isn't really a hard fact.

The justice system isn't perfect as it still is part of the system and ruled by humans. It doesn't mean we have to stop judging people and mistakes will be made but at least with prison, you can go back if a mistake is done, not with death.

Lindros, I dont think anyone really takes execution lightly. But I think many people are just expressing their frustration. This was a case where there was no question that the prisoner had committed this brutal crime, as well as other violent crimes. And yet despite his confession and the fact that the law surrounding the other issue here (where he was entitled to consular notificaion) had already long been settled by the Supreme Court, the appeals still drug on and on and on. Delay simply for the sake of delay. This man's death was quick and painless and peaceful. 99% of people will not have such a peaceful death.

Quote:

Originally posted by moss

...
Yes I do because he was tried by our justice system & found guilty. What else is there to say or do? GUILTY OF MURDER!!

Lol, I'm glad I left this thread for a while.

There have been multiple references to the innocence project in this thread, noting that quite a few people have been released from prison following convictions for serious felonies (including murder) that they didn't commit. These "criminals" were tried by the US justice system and found guilty. Still, those convictions were wrong.

And the innocence project is just one group. Many others have undertaken the process of clearing themselves without their assistance. And since many states make access to evidence and other information related to a crime/alleged crime not accessible after an execution takes place (or some other triggering event), there may be many more who never got the chance to clear themselves. Plus the number of people who lack the resources- believe it or not, most people charged with felonies tend to lack the resources that the state uses against them, so they would need a group like the innocence project to volunteer time for that persons cause.

Anyway. I'm not saying anything was wrong in tamayo's case, and frankly, it sounds like he almost assuredly was guilty. However, a conviction doesn't guarantee guilt.

I said "it's not perfect, there is going to be some mistakes". You read "it's shitty, it never works". Do you have some kind of reading issue ?
Either you're not even capable of understanding your own thoughts or you can't reconsider your opinion.
Either way discussing with you is pointless.

I think I'd take lethal injection over a life sentence in a maximum security prison.

Quote:

Originally posted by Davey45

I think I'd take lethal injection over a life sentence in a maximum security prison.

It's hard to tell what you would do in this kind of situation. When faced with death, the survival instinct often kicks in. And even if that means staying in jail, you're still living and might get a chance to get out one day.

Quote:

Originally posted by Davey45

I think I'd take lethal injection over a life sentence in a maximum security prison.

I think it probably depends on the culture of the prison as well. They aren't all created equal.

All the same, it's no way to live and without the option looking me in the face, I'd probably rather get lethal injection.

Quote:

Originally posted by lynn-23

Lindros, I dont think anyone really takes execution lightly. But I think many people are just expressing their frustration.

When someone says, "Justice has been served!!" complete with double exclamation marks in response to a news update about the execution of a convict, I take that as an exuberant declaration. I think some people here--despite their protests to the contrary--get some level of satisfaction out of the state killing convicted killers. I do not; furthermore, I feel ashamed to be a member of a society that continues the practice.

Again, innocent people have been killed under this system. To support the death penalty in its current incarnation (and declare that it should be used "a whole lot more" ) is, to me, an endorsement of the process that has put innocent men to death. Until a perfect system exists such that no innocent people are ever convicted of capital crimes (good luck with that), I cannot support such a system.

Quote:

Originally posted by lynn-23

This man's death was quick and painless and peaceful.

He was taken to the Huntsville prison, subjected to a cavity search, placed in a holding cell--presumably while contemplating his impending death, given a last meal consisting of whatever the prison cafeteria was feeding the general population that day, if he was a smoker he'd be denied last cigarettes, strapped to a stretcher, and restrained as sodium pentobarbital (which, by the bye, the Danish manufacturer Lundbeeck prohibits from being sold to states in the US that allow capital punishment) is injected into his bloodstream, and declared dead something like 7-8 minutes thereafter. He is not surrounded by his friends and family. He is not being given palliative care in a hospital, nursing home, or hospice setting. He killed by strangers who strap him to a stretcher and inject poison into his veins inside a prison with members of the media and family members of his victims--likely people who hate him more than anyone else on the planet--in attendance.

If that's your definition of "peaceful" I'd hate to see your definition of a non-peaceful death.