World Court urges U.S. to halt Mexicans' executions

[Griffin]

"The Bush administration has said the World Court does not have jurisdiction in the case."

Yet the Bush administration seems to think it has jurisdiction through out the rest of the world.



http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americas/07/16/mexico.court.ap/index.html


What are your thoughts on the subject? I know there is more to the story than what we see.

[ZX2guy19]

Link doesn't work :/

[Griffin]

Fixed. Thanks.

[dragon2200]

What are they on death row for?

[JonsZX2SR]

The Texas courts should give each case one serious review. In the cases where someone is guilty of a heinous crime without a shadow of a doubt the execution should go forward. In cases where uncertainty exists perhaps the sentences should be commuted to life in prison.

I think the people behind this want to stop executions no matter what the grounds, but won't come out and say it. The best way would be to hold the reviews, cull the obvious cases where execution was earned by severe criminal behavior, revisit these one more time, then let the executions go ahead.

If the human rights activists who are behind this in the world court want to oppose these executions it would force them to try another tactic, rather than calling for a borad review of cases.

In some cases, execution might not be appropriate, but people who have committed horrible crimes shouldn't be spared because of doubts about opther cases. (their victims certainly didn't receive any mercy at the hands of thier killers.) This is one approach to resolve that.

[vega]

The Texas courts should give each case one serious review. In the cases where someone is guilty of a heinous crime without a shadow of a doubt the execution should go forward. In cases where uncertainty exists perhaps the sentences should be commuted to life in prison.

I completly agree with you on this one. But they should remain in prision over there and not deport them back to mexico.

[SoCalZX2]

My question to that Vega is why? If they're here illegaly, they should be deported. Why should more of my tax dollars go to keeping illegals in prison in the US?

I agree that the US should review the cases as suggested though.

[vega]

My question to that Vega is why? If they're here illegaly, they should be deported. Why should more of my tax dollars go to keeping illegals in prison in the US?


I understand what your saying but if they bring them back, they are going back to the streets, they are not going to jail here for something they did in another country.
They are going to go back doing exactly what they where doing before in mexico and in the US (killing, stealling, keednaping, crossing drugs, crossing people, etc, etc).
Many people say its the mexican problem not ours, but like it or not it afects us all, the drugs cross from mexico to the us, but the arms to help them cross come from the USA to mexico. and the people that do this, work in mexico and in the USA. There are drug lords living VERY nicely in the US.
This is mainly why i think they should be keep in the US jails.

Last year the US ask for several drug lords that where capture here in mexico, many of them are doing time in San Diego for crimes they did over there.

[JonsZX2SR]

Vega has a valid point. Like it or not this is a US AND Mexican problem... either side thinking they can dump off or blame the problem on the other just propagates the problem.

I also think people who oppose the death penalty for violent criminals are unwilling to consider what they have done to their victims, their victims families and their societies.

[J-Dizzle!]

I might be wrong but as far as my understanding goes giving someone the death penalty has less to do with how heinous a crime is and more to do with whether or not there are mitigating factors.

Either way with the information given we can't really make an educated guess as to whether or not it's right for a world court to get involved until we know what exactly the crime entails.

Or did I miss that?

[JonsZX2SR]

I brought up the heinous crime versus mitigating factors for a point for a reason.

In some cases defense lawyers of people convicted of horrific crimes try to invoke mitigating factors, abused as a child, discriminated ethnic group, etc., to avoid the death penalty. Sometimes people are mentally ill or incompetant and shouldn't be held accountable for thier crimes.

Other times they are just plain mean or angry over things that happened in the past. While this might count towards something for lesser crimes, in no way should it be used to mitigate horrible crimes such as rape, multilation, torture killing of innocents. I can understand why someone might justifying robbing or assaulting another over past injustices, but to horribly kill them goes beyond reason.

However, crimes such as mutilation, torture, killing are terrible acts that someone, no matter how angry should recognize are wrong. Similarly premeditated murder where the victim is first stalked is another example. If a person is insane or mentally incompetent thsoe should be mitigating factors.

However, in the case where someone is found mentally competant who commits horrible crimes like this some mitigating factors should be overlooked. To horribly kill someone is something that should bring the death penalty, regardless of mitigating factors other than insanity or mental incompetance.

[J-Dizzle!]

Well, it's for the jury to decide what a mitigating factor should or shouldn't be. Putting mitigating factors into black and white terms can only limit the hands of the judicial system.

Every situation is unique and yes, most of the time the more grotesque crimes (when the murderer is more or less in their right mind) should more often be tried to the fullest extent. However, it's just not realistic to expect every single case of a grotesque or horrific crime to have absolutely no legitimate mitigating factors.

[JonsZX2SR]

While many cases have legitimate mitigating factors, if the crime is severe why should the punishment be diminished ??

You and others argue that mitigating factors shold have some effect ?? Why ?? The only reason is that you say so. I say the opposite, that in some, severe cases the crime is so heinous, even the death penalty is a diminished punishment.

Since we do not torture or prolong suffering (and rightly so) for these crimes the punishment is already diminished, why lessen the punishment even further ??

[J-Dizzle!]

Who says that a punishment is diminished because a person gets life imprisonment over the death sentence? That is merely a matter of opinion that people have been arguing forever.

And I think mitigating factors should have some effect because it's the law, and it makes sense. I'm not the only one that says so, there's an entire sytem of law out there based on the premise that mitigating factors play an important role in deciding someone's fate.

Besides... you're arguing that any heinous crime should be given the death penalty regardless of whether or not there are mitigating factors. Even if you were right, what would you say constitutes heinous and not heinous? And even if you could draw some magical line that was right, there will be hundreds of cases where that line will mean nothing because there is always something new on the table that people never thought of before.

[gunman_sr5]

The way I look at it is. If they are here illegally they should expect no help from their homeland. If they where here legally though I can see allowing the injunction.

[jdrzx2]

Subscribed