jump to last post 1-40 of 40 discussions (432 posts)

Texas executed a Mexican national last night, what's your opinion?

  1. KK Trainor profile image61
    KK Trainorposted 5 years ago

    Texas executed Humberto Leal yesterday evening. Leal murdered a 16 year old girl after raping and brutalizing her and bashing her head in with a huge chunk of asphalt. He was kind enough to leave a stick with a nail on the end of it sticking out of her vagina. As a Mexican national, Leal was living in the US since the age of about 2, like many of our illegals. He was given a fair trial and confessed to the crime. On his deathbed he shouted "Viva Mexico!"

    Obama tried to stop this execution to gain some hispanic votes, but his request went unanswered by Gov. Perry. The Supreme Court also denied the request for a stay, stating that the claim was meritless. There is an internaitonal treaty stating that foreign nationals should be given consular advice upon arrest, but foreign treaties do not apply to states. This treaty was never ratified by the Congress, so doesn't even apply to our federal courts. Many are saying that Texas broke international law, and the UN is especially outraged.
    So, what is your opinion about what has happened here in Texas and does it bother you that Texas does not submit to the demands of foreign courts, specifically the UN's court of justice?

    1. 0
      Carliismiles<3posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I'm from Mexican parents.. we all agree that if it would have been something no where near as bad it would have bothered us. But what that man did is clearly not right.

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
        Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        You are assuming he was guilty. However, his defense lawyer was incompetent. If he had been allowed to consult with the Mexican consul he might have had a more competent defense lawyer and a different result. In any event, Texas failed to comply with a binding treaty signed and ratified by the United States. This may effect the rights of Americans charged with crimes in Mexico or other countries that are parties to the treaty.

        1. KK Trainor profile image61
          KK Trainorposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Actually you are wrong on each point.

          He confessed as he laid down to die, so that implies guilt I would think.

          Who's to say a Mexican attorney would be better than an American one? No one would say that unless they were deluded.

          The treaty was not ratified by the Congress, as I stated, so it was not binding. And treaties, whether ratified or not, do not apply to states anyway. They apply to the federal government.

          Make sure you have your facts straight before you comment.

          1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
            Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I wasn't aware that he confessed prior to his execution. At least that indicates he was guilty.

            The point is not that a Mexican attorney would have been better but rather that the Mexican consul would have provided money to hire a competent Texas defense lawyer to assure a fair trial.

            However, the important point is that it's not in the interest of the U.S. to thumb its nose at treaty obligations accepted by nearly all other countries. Both Bush and Obama urged Texas to comply with the ruling of the international court and treaty providing for consultation with their own government when charged with a crime in another country. This procedure is followed routinely in most countries. Failing to do so in this case damages our relations with Mexico and puts Americans charged with crimes in Mexico in jeopardy.

            Humberto Leal isn't a poster boy for abolition of capital punishment. However, 1. Execution costs more than life in prison; 2. Mistakes are made and innocent people are executed; 3. A disparate number of minorities are executed (African Americans represent 41% of those executed and only 12% of the population); 4. Most studies show that capital punishment doesn't deter capital crimes; and 5. Nearly all advanced countries (135) have abolished capital punishment leaving the U.S. in the company of some of the least civilized countries in the world.

            1. 0
              Travis_S_Musicposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Statistics...are B.S. They take numbers out of a few thousand, not numbers on a whole basis. Number 3 is inaccurate, by a long shot. Take some law classes and see the real numbers and studies. Number 4 is based on a really bad "study" that has yet to have any grounding proof. Look at the "less advanced" countries that have the simple rule following "An eye for an eye." They have the LOWEST crime rates as opposed to places like our own country that think it's better to baby our criminals, giving them free food and a pretty damn comfortable life style. People say "Prison is horrible and bad things happen there." But they fail to actually go into prisons, not based on media, but based on your own sight, seeing that they get pretty comfortable living for the small price of being stuck in one place for a certain amount of time.

          2. sunforged profile image63
            sunforgedposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            You know you titled this "whats your opinion" and then got pretty controlling about how one should present an opinion?

            "So, what is your opinion about what has happened here in Texas and does it bother you that Texas does not submit to the demands of foreign courts, specifically the UN's court of justice"

            and

            "This is not a discussion of our wars, this discussion involves only the laws governing a state and how foreign treaties apply to states"


            Im going to keep it at the uneducated opinion level/ Ive only read this thread and a small handful of articles that came up in google after I read this thread.

            Seems to me, Texas has once again lived up to the "king of The Hill" backwards redneck short sighted foolishness we expect from them.


            You keep trying to keep the discussion on states rights when everyone is trying to point out that is not the important issue. Texas seems to want to stress that they are big boys who dont have to listen to no one (officially) and any wiser advice on how there actions could effect foreign relations for a great many of Americans abroad for the foreseeable future can be damned.

            My opinion is that Texas is the unwashed anus of America and ya'll aint gonna be getting any cleverer this decade

            (Last Years Changes to the Texas Educational Curriculum are quite telling)

            "The Texas State Board of Education was set to vote Friday on changes to social studies standards that have angered and, in some cases, baffled critics, including President George W. Bush's first education secretary, who is protesting the politicization of the process.
            Among the proposed changes: calling the USA's slave trade the "Atlantic triangular trade" and minimizing the role of Thomas Jefferson, who espoused a strict separation of church and state."


            "Numerous attempts to add the names or references to important Hispanics throughout history also were denied, inducing one amendment that would specify that Tejanos died at the Alamo alongside Davy Crockett and Jim Bowie. Another amendment deleted a requirement that sociology students "explain how institutional racism is evident in American society.""

            "Cynthia Dunbar, a lawyer from Richmond who is a strict constitutionalist and thinks the nation was founded on Christian beliefs, managed to cut Thomas Jefferson from a list of figures whose writings inspired revolutions in the late 18th century and 19th century, replacing him with St. Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin and William Blackstone. (Jefferson is not well liked among conservatives on the board because he coined the term “separation between church and state.”)"

        2. HattieMattieMae profile image69
          HattieMattieMaeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Don't think he should have any better representation then the rest on death row in America. Youwant to be American, we don't get fair treatment, you get the lawyer they give you if you don't have the money. lol It's a crappy system, but if you want to jump the border play by American rules!

        3. tony0724 profile image60
          tony0724posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          You are assuming he was guilty.

          Uhh Ralph when the perpetrator confesses to the crime I do not call it an assumption. It is about time for people to stand up for the victims and quit defending the guilty.

          1. John Holden profile image60
            John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            But how was his confession obtained?

            1. tony0724 profile image60
              tony0724posted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Does not matter John, he did it. I guess you and Ralph are big supporters of murderers then.

              1. psycheskinner profile image80
                psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Murderers like people that perform executions?

                1. tony0724 profile image60
                  tony0724posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  An execution is not murder , that was justice.

                  1. TMMason profile image73
                    TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    The murderer is the one who got got.

                    I agree.

                    I love the people who call Capital Punishment murder... but whole heartedly support Abortion.

            2. KK Trainor profile image61
              KK Trainorposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              John Holden, he confessed to his brother when he returned home in a bloody shirt; he told his brother that he had just killed a girl.

              1. John Holden profile image60
                John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Pretty conclusive I'd say.

          2. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image94
            Wesman Todd Shawposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            There was once a man who's mailbox had been vandalized several times.  Knocked off by baseball bats.  The man got sick of it, and tilled his mail box with concrete, and got a post office box.

            The kids who'd been knocking his mail box off with bats came back, and one of them broke both of his wrists trying to knock a concrete filled mail box off of it's pole.

            The man was successfully sued.

            I think the case for victim's rights is grossly over stated.

            1. KK Trainor profile image61
              KK Trainorposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Are you saying that the rape and murder victim shouldn't have rights? What is your argument here? Surely you don't feel her murder shouldn't have been ignored. There is no correlation between a vandal with broken wrists and an innocent rape victim. I'm sure that's not what you were saying, right?

              1. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image94
                Wesman Todd Shawposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                My argument is that Cameron Todd Willingham was executed, and was innocent - and that ONE is too many.

                1. lovemychris profile image79
                  lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes, and it's about to happen again! Troy Anthony Davis is scheduled to die, and he is innocent. Framed and set up, just like a friend of mine.
                  There is a great quote about it...if I could remember...something about the law it there not to punish the wrong-doers but to protect those unjustly accused...something like that.

                  This blood-lust is very disturbing.I thought we had grown out of it....evolved from Apes?....errrr, when did we evolve???

                  1. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image94
                    Wesman Todd Shawposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    We are merely Romans without a Colosseum, and we are watching the fall of our Empire as we type on Hubpages.

                  2. KK Trainor profile image61
                    KK Trainorposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    It's interesting that the courts have upheld his conviction but you seem to know more than them. Just because you have a friend who got into trouble doesn't mean you know all the facts and can pronounce someone innocent.

                2. American View profile image59
                  American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Sorry Wes,

                  Cameron Todd Willingham was guilty

                  1. Doug Hughes profile image60
                    Doug Hughesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    A good article on the proper use of quotation marks, and guidance on the ethics of accuracy.

                    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotation

                  2. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image94
                    Wesman Todd Shawposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    You are guilty too, but you, just like Cameron Todd Willingham, are innocent of the crime that Cameron Todd Willingham was MURDERED by the state of Texas For committing. . . .

                    Or perhaps you are a fire scientist who's knowledge supersedes that of the New York State fire scientist that investigated after the fact?????


                    OH YOU AREN'T?????????????????  That's what I thought!

                    Shut the fuck up then, dumbass!

        4. Reality Bytes profile image94
          Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          If an American performs the same kind of crime in Mexico, I for one would not lose any sleep over their execution.

        5. 59
          Spikeitposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          All I can say is if this causes problems for the American criminals in foregin countries, OH WELL. This man deserved what he got and this proud 'redneck' is glad Texas sent him to Hell. One less burden on society....but thousands to go.

          1. thebrucebeat profile image59
            thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            A silly position to take.  Allowing him access to representation from the Mexican consulate wouldn't have changed the outcome.  It would simply have been an opportunity for his country to aid in his defense if they saw fit.  It is a courtesy between countries, and has nothing to do with the accused or their crime, their guilt or innocence. 
            If you don't care what happens to our citizens when they are incarcerated overseas, consider yourself as part of the cause of their treatment.  If you don't care about them, I certainly don't want you on my side in a foxhole.

            1. livewithrichard profile image84
              livewithrichardposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Where was his Mexican consulate during the 16 years he spent in prison? Did they make no attempt to reach out to him during that period?

              1. KK Trainor profile image61
                KK Trainorposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I'm pretty sure they were involved in the case since they appealed to Obama for him to stop the execution. The issue is not that he was denied access, he just wasn't advised upon his arrest that he could have help from the Mexican government with his defense. He had adequate representation, as the many appeals he filed determined. He had already been convicted by the time he asked for help from Mexico, and he got it from that point forward.

              2. thebrucebeat profile image59
                thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                The whole point of the treaty is to guarantee consular access.  As far as we know Mexico attempted to be involved and were refused access by Texas.  That would be in keeping with that states record, don't you think?

                1. livewithrichard profile image84
                  livewithrichardposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Wasn't it pointed out above that there was no treaty ratified by Congress?

                  1. KK Trainor profile image61
                    KK Trainorposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Bruce, that's not factual. Texas never denied him access, the only thing they did wrong was not to inform him, someone who had been living in America almost all of his life, that he could call the consulate. Once he asked for them, they were involved in the entire process.

                  2. thebrucebeat profile image59
                    thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    I acknowledged that and said that Texas was within their rights based on that.  No argument there.

        6. American View profile image59
          American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Humberto Leal García, Jr. (January 16, 1973 – July 7, 2011) was a Mexican inmate on death row in the U.S. state of Texas for the May 21, 1994, rape, torture, and murder of Adria Sauceda in San Antonio. U.S. President Barack Obama, the U.S. State Department and Mexico had all asked Texas for a last-minute reprieve for Leal to stop his execution, which was carried out, as scheduled, on July 7, 2011, by lethal injection.
          Leal, a mechanic, was born in Monterrey, Nuevo León, Mexico, and moved to the USA when he was two years old, but never became a United States citizen. He was an illegal immigrant. ILLEGAL!!! No one is saying anything about that though, are you Dems?
          On May 21, 1994, Leal kidnapped, raped, and murdered 16-year-old Adria Sauceda. The girl had been at a party and become intoxicated, and a group of men gang-raped her. Leal is said to have offered to drive her home, and the two struggled when Sauceda tried to get out of the car a little distance away from the party. Official court documents state "There was a 30- to 40-pound asphalt rock roughly twice the size of the victim's skull lying partially on the victim's left arm; Blood was underneath this rock. A smaller rock with blood on it was located near the victim's right thigh.” There was also a 15 inches (380 mm) stick extending out of her vagina, with a screw at the end. Leal claimed that she fell and hit her head. No one was charged in the gang rape. NO ONE CHARGED!! Now there is a real travesty of justice. Why is no one screaming about that?
          Leal was never informed that, as a Mexican national, he was entitled to assistance from the Mexican consul. However, at the time of his arrest he did not reveal his Mexican citizenship, and the issue of consular access was not raised during the trial. Although the case against him was strong, critics of the decision to execute him said that he incriminated himself, which a better lawyer might have advised him not to do, and that he had other legal difficulties, including the court-appointed lawyer's failure to challenge questionable evidence. The jury convicted him after 45 minutes of deliberation. Texas maintained that he confessed before his arrest and so a change of legal counsel or strategy would have made no difference.
          As Texas law does not allow the death penalty for murder alone if the victim is over age five, prosecutors had to prove, in order for Leal to be sentenced to death, not only that he had killed Adria Sauceda, but that the murder was committed in the course of another felony offense—in this case, rape and kidnapping. So as you can see it is not easy to get a death sentence, MURDER ALONE DOES NOT QUALIFY.
          The failure to inform Leal of his rights created legal controversy in 1998. He was not executed till July 2011. That’s 13 years of knowing about contacting Mexico. 13 YEARS.
          The administration submitted a 30-page brief to the Supreme Court asking them to stay Leal's execution while Congress considered legislation relating to the right of foreign nationals on death row to contact their consulate for legal aid. On July 7, 2011, the court ruled 5-4 that Congress had had adequate time to do so, and wrote in an unsigned majority opinion that it would not "prohibit a state from carrying out a lawful judgment.
          After 16 years of appeals, Leal was executed by lethal injection at 6:21pm C.S.T. on July 7, 2011. He admitted responsibility for the crime and said he was sorry, and his final words included "Viva México".
          On July 8, a spokesman for Texas governor Rick Perry stated "If you commit the most heinous of crimes in Texas, you can expect to face the ultimate penalty under our laws." Arturo Sarukhan, Mexico's ambassador to the United States, said that "the government of Mexico has never called into question the heinous nature of the crimes attributed to Mr. Leal and in no way condones violent crime" Even the Mexican ambassador knows the US followed the law properly.

          There is no binding law that forces the US to folow. IT was approved by Bush, but congress at the time shot it down. The reason for the last Supreme court appeal was to give time for congress to ratify a deal and get Obama to sign it. If that was such an important issue, then why since the Supreme court ruling till today is the issue still not being addressed by Congress? Or by Obama? Can you say Campaigning? Thats the only reason Obama even spoke on the subject. Now its over, so are the political speeches

        7. elenox profile image61
          elenoxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I don't think that this man's rights were ever really violated.  He had 17 years of appeals.  As far as the treaty goes, I would hope an American who finds himself in another country and is accused of raping and killing a teenage girl would get half of the accommodations this man received.  I would say he had his day in court...and then some.

          If we bow to this rule blindly, then the logical conclusion is that if you enter this country as a foreign national and commit murder you will not have to suffer the consequences of the laws of the country that even its' own citizens have to follow.  By the way, you do realize he came to this country with his parents when he was two years old, don't you?

        8. Jim Hunter profile image59
          Jim Hunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          "You are assuming he was guilty"

          He confessed right before the State of Texas made him assume room temperature.

          What do you assume?

          Viva la Tejas!

          1. recommend1 profile image71
            recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            You are missing the point - International treaties and laws were not complied with, so next time an American gets tried and shot without representation in a foreign country - you can thank your arrogant Texas governor.

            1. Jim Hunter profile image59
              Jim Hunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I would thank my Governor but he doesn't have anything to do with the death penalty in Texas.

              If an American goes to another country and does what this animal did I would be ok with him being shot.

              Viva la Tejas!

              1. recommend1 profile image71
                recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I guess you are deliberately missing the obvious point - nobody is objecting to the execution, even those who do not support the death penalty I notice - it is the breaking of international treaties and protocols that is the really really stupid part.  You say IF an american and does what this animal did . . . but the operation of the law of another country is their business and your hypothetical American could be executed for anything that country chooses - and without regard for those international protocols and agreements America would not even know.  Many countries around the world consider certain members of your armed forces to be criminals and they need special protection from prosecution, without these protocols and agreements then they can be tried and shot and nobody even tell the US that it is happening.

    2. 0
      Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Isn't there a saying that everything's bigger in Texas?
      From the facts I've heard, sounds like patriotism and justice and boldness is bigger there too, than in some other States.
      The States' laws and rights should always take precedence over a group of foreign-influenced people, including our current Federal lawmakers.

    3. Diane Inside profile image86
      Diane Insideposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      No it does not bother me that Texas does not submit to the demands of foreign courts, especially the UNs court of justice.

      As you said he was given a fair trial and even confessed to the crime.

      In my opinion I'd like to see more states be as agressive with following through with their death penalty policies.  It seems that many say they have the death penalty but honestly they do not usually go that far because of the appeals process. 

      Texas says you commit murder, DEATH PENALTY!  and  they should also add FRONT OF THE LINE!

    4. Ralph Deeds profile image68
      Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The execution was a huge, ignorant mistake which could have unfortunate repercussions for Americans charged with crimes in Mexico or other countries. Texas failed to comply with an international treaty to which the United States is a party which obligated Texas law enforcement authorities to allow the accused Mexican citizen to consult with the Mexican consul in Texas and get his assistance in finding a competent defense lawyer.

      It's about what one would expect from the state that holds the record for executions and from a jackass like the current Texas governor and from the Republican ideologues on the US Supreme Court.

      Mexico abolished the death penalty in 2005, however, that's neither here nor there for crimes committed in Texas or any other state that hasn't abolished the death penalty. Quite a few states have abolished the death penalty. Michigan did so in the 1800s shortly after becoming a state.

      1. KK Trainor profile image61
        KK Trainorposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Once again, get your facts straight before commenting. You sound ignorant and misinformed.

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
          Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          What did I say that was misinformed?

          1. KK Trainor profile image61
            KK Trainorposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            The fact that Texas failed to comply with an international treaty; first of all, the treaty was never ratified by the US Congress, second the states are not obligated to abide by an international treaty which applies only to the federal government, not to state governments. That's where you were misinformed.

        2. recommend1 profile image71
          recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          This is an unnecessary personal attack.

          The issue is not about what the guy did or did not do - you specifically include these details to solicit emotional resoponses only - the issue is international laws and rights.

          If we take your ideas that the US can execute a foreign national without representation from their country then it is ok for Iran to execute the 'students' who illegally and provocatively entered Iran through a war zone, OK for N Korea to execute the missionaries who entered their country illegally with backpacks of forbiden books.

          This Mexican guy broke US laws, your citizens have broken  laws of other countries - and the right or wrong of the laws themselves is nothing to do with you.

          Maybe more importantly, US troops taking civilian holidays in countries that have agreements with those countries you have attacked - ILLEGALLY - could be arrested and charged with murder.  Bush is already indicted for war crimes in several German areas and can already be arrested there.  So now theoretically they can execute him also without allowing representation from the US ?

          1. KK Trainor profile image61
            KK Trainorposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            This is not a discussion of our wars, this discussion involves only the laws governing a state and how foreign treaties apply to states. Don't try to make this about foreign wars, that wasn't the question and it's not a discussion I want to have here. Create your own forum if you want to discuss that issue.

            1. recommend1 profile image71
              recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

              This is about illegally executing foreign nationals which is the central pank of US foreign policy at the moment.

              The very simple relevance of this is that your troops are murderers in areas where there is no legal declaration of war that makes them liable to the Geneva Convention (that the US also shooses to ignore).

              This is very simple even for a stupid person - if you execute foreigners without observing  proper international law then you can expect US citizens to be treated the same all over the world - especially your armed forces !

              1. American View profile image59
                American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                And they are treated fairly now? Where have you been? Americans have and always been mistreated overseas. So do not act like the US is some kind of criminal

          2. Ralph Deeds profile image68
            Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Very true. Several members of the Bush administration have to be careful where they travel. And during the Bush governorship of Texas he and Speedy Gonzalez ran an execution mill. Bush wasn't interested in looking at the cases that came to him from Gonzales for review.

            1. KK Trainor profile image61
              KK Trainorposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              And President Bush was the one who wanted this treaty ratified by Congress so that the cases of foreign nationals on death row could be reviewed; it was Congress that never acted. The Supreme Court told him it was up to Congress to act so he couldn't comply with the treaty until that happened, which still hasn't.

      2. HattieMattieMae profile image69
        HattieMattieMaeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        From what I understand Mexico has no sympathy for Americans when we get in trouble over there. So Where is everyone when one of our people get in trouble there.

      3. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image94
        Wesman Todd Shawposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Exactly.  I live there.  I recall when "W" was governor, and we murdered a CANADIAN national.  All "W" said was something like, "go tell the people in Canada not to commit crimes in Texas!"

        I'm ashamed of my state government. DEEPLY ashamed.

        1. KK Trainor profile image61
          KK Trainorposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          You live in Mexico? Maybe your comment is in the wrong spot, but I don't see what  you're agreeing with. Just wondering...

          1. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image94
            Wesman Todd Shawposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            um. . . .what?  I don't understand.  I live in TEXAS and here we execute even innocent people.

            1. KK Trainor profile image61
              KK Trainorposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Sorry, I thought you were responding to Hattie, my mistake. Murder is a strong word to use for a legal act carried out by the justice system, but to each his own.

              1. IntimatEvolution profile image80
                IntimatEvolutionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Murder is murder, legal or not.  Just the same death is death is it not?  It doesn't matter how you died your still dead, right?  Well killing someone is still killing someone.  There is no justification for that when my money is used to kill with.  I think it should be totally voluntary whether or not you want to support capital punishment with your hard earned money.   If you want the death penalty then you pay for it.  Why do I have to pay for it when I don't approve of it, be it in a planned parenthood facility or prison facility?  You want it you support it is my motto.

                1. KK Trainor profile image61
                  KK Trainorposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Ok, so you pay for the death penalty and I'll pay for abortions, neither of us has a choice. At least in the case of criminals they deserve it, while unborn children don't.

              2. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image94
                Wesman Todd Shawposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Cameron Todd Willingham was innocent - how could that NOT be murder?

                1. DannyMaio profile image61
                  DannyMaioposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  The bottom line here is we actually do not know if he was actually innocent. But He should have never been put to death! I personally believe he may have been innocent and the evidence I have read shows there is no way they should have given him the death penalty! When you have top professionals refuting the evidence an automatic stay should have been placed. Texas was wrong on Todd Willingham.

                  As for this other Creep he got what he deserved!

                  1. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image94
                    Wesman Todd Shawposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    We have Judgement to "get what we deserve"  We can not give life, and so we ought not take it.  Humans are not GOD or GODS, and never will they be.

                    Besides - life in prison is often a more dreaded punishment for the guilty.

                  2. American View profile image59
                    American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Danny,

                    You are right the creep was given his punshment for his crime.

                    I disagree with you on Cameron Todd Willingham. He was guilty. The 2 reports were done by PHDs in Chemistry. Neither have firefighting experince nor do they have a degree in fire science. Please read my earlier post for a breakdown as to why the reports are inacurate. Civilians who read the report will not see the inacuracies. Despite what others think, Governors do not just ignore evidence or reports. They have experts that disect the reports and advise them as to their accuracy. There are several witnesses that heard him confess including his wife. I included a video of her at a news conference stating so.

                    Lets face it, if you are against the death penalty, you will grasp at a report written by Bugs Bunny to back your position. There is nothing wrong with being against the death penalty. No system is perfect.

        2. American View profile image59
          American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Joseph Stanley Faulder (19 October 1937 – 17 June 1999) was the first Canadian citizen to be executed in the United States since 1952.
          Stanley Faulder, a Jasper, Alberta native, was convicted for murdering Inez Philips, an elderly woman, in Texas in 1975 during a robbery in her house. He was caught, convicted, and sentenced to death in 1977.

          Faulder had been in prison for 15 years before the Canadian government was informed of his arrest and conviction. The Supreme court granted a stay of execution so Faulder could persue assistance from the Canadian Government. When the case was presented again to the Supreme court, they turned down his appeal stating he exhausted his avenues including contacting the Canadian government.

          For 15 years he never once complained about not contacting Canada for assistance. When he was out of options, he tried that avenue. The Supreme court gave him time by issuing a stay. So using the excuse about him being Canadian does not fly for he did.

      4. elenox profile image61
        elenoxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Okay, so you don't like the death penalty.  We get it.  I am not fond of it because I would like to see everyone have the chance for redemption from their savior.  Hard to do that when you will be executed.

        However, these laws are duly presented, passed and enforced through Constitutional means.  If the people don't want it, they can get rid of it.  What about the rights of the victim.  Where is the outrage for his crime and her inability to have her rights upheld.  He acted as judge, jury and executioner in her case.  Seems like he is getting his just desserts.

    5. R.S. Hutchinson profile image85
      R.S. Hutchinsonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Where did you get your story? The story I read on this didn't have all the details you have posted.

      1. KK Trainor profile image61
        KK Trainorposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        The story is on every news site from BBC to our local ABC13 page.
        ( http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?secti … id=8236188 ) check it out.

    6. tony0724 profile image60
      tony0724posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      No I am glad Texas did not cater to the whims of foreign Governments. The treatment this animal gave that young girl is beyond appalling. Sorry but some people just do not deserve to live.

    7. IntimatEvolution profile image80
      IntimatEvolutionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Under their state constitution they broke no laws period....


      Now did they have the right to take someone's life?  No. No state does when using taxpayer money.

      1. tony0724 profile image60
        tony0724posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        But does the state have the right to keep animals like this alive at taxpayer expense ?

        1. IntimatEvolution profile image80
          IntimatEvolutionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          In the state of Missouri it is a fact that imprisonment is waaaaayyyyy cheaper. So for my state it actually saves us money keeping them in their respectful cells.  Plus it helps to  provide Mo jobs and keep families fed.  Why we kill inmates in my state is beyond me.  I think it must be for fun.  Because it has NO monetary benefits!  Disgusting if you ask me.

          1. tony0724 profile image60
            tony0724posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            They are not inmates they are criminals and the lowest life forms possible. If we did not give them 20 years of appeals and did the job quicker the expense might not be so great.And the money wasted on pieces of S**t tying up the courts could go towards children's and seniors programs instead of keeping an evil individual alive.

            1. IntimatEvolution profile image80
              IntimatEvolutionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              You will not get any arguments from me on your assessment of our court  of appeals....  because you are right. But some sort of safety net needs to be put into place before we systematically go around killing people. 

              And, whether you call a person an inmate, prisoner, or criminal (as you prefer them to be called) they are still human beings.  Personally for me there is no justification in murdering someone...  Nobody has the right to use my hard earned money to kill an imprisoned man.  Its not like they can go and kill again... not to say there hasn't been mistakes in made releasing people early and such, but that's a whole other issue.  Another point I'd like to make is that it is not our jobs to play maker and judge; not when it comes to placing a value on  somebody else's life.

              1. tony0724 profile image60
                tony0724posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                And, whether you call a person an inmate, prisoner, or criminal (as you prefer them to be called) they are still human beings

                Intimate these animals by the actions they have taken have rescinded their rights to be called human beings. They are sub human.
                This guy poked the girls eye out with a stick. Beat her with a rock and left a stick with a nail in it in her private parts. Still call that human ?

                1. IntimatEvolution profile image80
                  IntimatEvolutionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I understand the horrible details.  I have personally seen first hand accounts of this type of uncivilized, horrific behavior.  I know all to well the effects of subhuman type of behaviors.  Like burning the bottoms of an infants feet to the bone just to give the one month year old baby something to cry about....  I know the pains of this world and the tragedies people do to other people.  But it still doesn't give me the excuse to take money out of your checking account and away from your supper table to buy a gun and bullets to kill that person.  I have no right to take your money to buy myself anything.  That would be stealing.  But just the same I don't feel the state has right to use my money to pay for toxic drugs that will purposefully stop a man's heart!  It is my personal opinion that more pain and suffering is inflicted on a person when they are only given 15 minutes of time outside their cell and completely isolated from everyone else.  So...

          2. 59
            Spikeitposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Waaaaaaaayyyyyyyy cheaper as opposed to what???

            1. tony0724 profile image60
              tony0724posted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Tell me about it !

              1. KK Trainor profile image61
                KK Trainorposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I have heard that it is cheaper to keep someone in prison than it is to execute them; the point is that execution is the punishment and that's what they get. It's not always about money, sometimes it's about justice. If you don't want to be executed then don't rape and kill. Simple.

                1. tony0724 profile image60
                  tony0724posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I keep hearing it is cheaper to house inmates then kill them too. But my next question is who has said so A Liberal University opposed to the Death Penalty ? Or a Prison Guard lobby ? Mathematically it seems to me one bullet is way cheaper for a piece of s**t then housing them and tying up the courts with 20 years of appeals. That math does not add up.

                  1. KK Trainor profile image61
                    KK Trainorposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    I know, but this is an interesting answer I found, although not scientific. It does make sense though.

                    http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index … 151AArbHQ7

                  2. 59
                    Spikeitposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    What a lot of people DON'T think about is crime in this country is a HUGE business and when u snuff a convict out, you've taken food off someones table. Think about it; for a prison land  has to be bought, construction companies including electricians, painters, roofers, all of the hardware in it, security, cooks, beds and it goes on and on. On the outside you have police/toppers/sheriffs, vehicles + maintainence, weapons, uniforms, footwear, business/home alarms, motion lights, home security doors, personal firearms carry pernits + the required classes, court systems, lawyers, clerks. It is a HUGE business and these idiots don't realize or maybe not care about is once they do a crime, they're just a piece of meat that's feeding the system. So, cheaper to house one then to kill one? I don't see how.

    8. Onusonus profile image84
      Onusonusposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Texas did the right thing. It is puzzling and alarming to see liberals try to defend the rights of murderous lunatics.

    9. Beth Godwin profile image86
      Beth Godwinposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I am not aware of the facts of this case so I can;t give an opinion whether he deserved the death penalty  Death should be reserved for persons caught in the act or in sight of numerous witnesses.  But the fact he was from Mexico does not matter. He was killing people in the USA and has to anwser for his crime to the USA.  If he received a fair trial then the justice system has spoken. Had the goverment enforced it's policy againest illegal immigration, this crime would not have happened. He would not been here to commit thr crime.

    10. PsychicHecate profile image60
      PsychicHecateposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I believe that rape and murder and those that commit these crimes should be held accountable for their crimes.  But, I don't believe in the death penalty justice cannot be done with this act.  Is it not better for those who are guilty to rot in prison for life, instead of giving them an exit route from their crimes by giving them death.  This way the only ones suffering the death of the victim is the family and friends.  If the guilty person was alive but, rotting in prison he has to deal and suffer the consequences of life behind bars.

      Americans often make out their such big Christians but, the death penalty is murder and the taking of a life and Christianity and the Bible says 'that taking a life is wrong'.  So, does believing in the death penalty and those willing to vote for it, and to carry it out make these people any more or less murderers because they stamp the word justice on it, to me murder is murder, it is not for man or woman of flesh and bone to decide the right of life or death, in my opinion.

      Also, for you so called American Christians who was it that said 'thee without sin cast the first stone'. Meaning their is not a man, woman or child that can say that they have not sinned in a small or big way so why do some people want to act like a divine power and say who lives and who dies.

      I'm not saying those who are guilty shouldn't pay for their crimes especially when it come to rape, murder and brutality.  But, I think life in prison for rapists and murderers is a better solution than the death penalty.

    11. Stone Gifts profile image61
      Stone Giftsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      He definitely deserved death

    12. platinumOwl4 profile image41
      platinumOwl4posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      First, you must remember that part of this countries foundation is defiance. Then, what legal explanation can one give to the child''s parents. To see, read and hear how your child's life was destroyed, in such a brutal fashion. The question should have been, what conditions created such a savage mind?

    13. Phillip Ball profile image60
      Phillip Ballposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Please tell me we're not making this a racial issue. The death penalty is wonderful I hear the argument that it doesn't deter people from murder. So we should end it.
        Locks on your car or home don't stop people from being able to break in either, should we ban them.
        The death penalty is just that a penalty, not a scare tactic.
        Why should my tax dollars go to feeding someone who killed someone in cold blood. If someone were to kill a family member of mine and I knew who it was. I'd kill them myself. Now, mind you, I'd have my day in court and I would insist on the death penalty for myself, the punishment would fit the crime.
         The man was found guilty and punished to the fullest extent of the law.
        Many in California are trying to abolish the death penalty, I wish they would expand it to include child molesters and rapists.

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
        Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        If you're only worried about your tax dollars you should know that thanks to interminable appeals it costs taxpayers more to execute someone than to keep them in prison for life.

  2. Jonathan Janco profile image81
    Jonathan Jancoposted 5 years ago

    It's not as though I would fare much better in Mexico had I been supected of such a crime.

    1. KK Trainor profile image61
      KK Trainorposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      You're so right. The attorney's tried to argue that this decision would endanger Americans abroad, but I think we're in danger already and it has nothing to do with this situation. I don't think a lot of countries respect international treaties outside of Europe and North America, and of course our laws protect everyone regardless of where they're from. This guy had very good legal representation, provided by our legal system.

  3. Greg Sage profile image61
    Greg Sageposted 5 years ago

    It's not people in NY or CT that have to deal with criminals shipped back across the border who just come right back like nothing happened.

    If a crime was committed in TX, it's that state's duty to protect it's citizens and do something about it. 

    The mexican court system is a joke.

    While we argue the finer points of how much free medical care to extend to illegals, and whether police are even allowed to ask about citizenship or take note even in cases where identity fraud is present...

    ... simultaneously, those caught ENTERING Mexico from the south are routinely just sent to rot and starve in prison for a year or more... with the ONLY crime being illegal immigration.

    The double standard is insane.  We debate these issues as if there is any sanity or human rights being represented on the other side of the border.  In many cases, the areas these people come from are controlled entirely by drug cartels.

    Are we supposed to work out a deal with those cartels for extradition?  Who then?  The Mexican government that would like nothing better than for them to hop back over so they don't have to deal with them?

    Should we be like Mexico or some of the Central American countries that are all too happy to drive known murderers to the border and let them go so long as they don't turn back?

    Let's get real about what the alternatives are to bringing people who commit violent crimes here to justice.

    1. KK Trainor profile image61
      KK Trainorposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Yep, but unfortunately it's those people from up north who usually make us sound like savages for protecting ourselves. Our tax dollars pay for the defense of people like Leal and then his attorneys complain that his "rights" weren't respected. Ridiculous.
      We have no rights in Mexico or any other south/central american country and if I commited a heinous crime there I would expect never to return home. Luckily I'm not a rapist or murderer.

  4. HattieMattieMae profile image69
    HattieMattieMaeposted 5 years ago

    well think the thing is, if you come into this country and do such a crime, you kind of created the problem you're self. He brutally killed someone and raped them. Can't get more horrific. I'm not one for the dath penalty, and can't judge someone because I am not God. Yet it wasn't like he was robbing a bank. He did something very sickening and terrible. I don't know much about the laws, or what the U.N. would say, but I don't think I would have fought for his rights. There are causes to fight for, and others that are just plain outrageous. If you have harmed someone intentionally and have no remorse, or are just plain evil, I think you should paid for the crime. With this one you could say eye for eye, tooth for a tooth, and not feel bad about it all.

    1. KK Trainor profile image61
      KK Trainorposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      yes, and the fact is he had 17 years of constant appeals and filings by his attorneys, so it's not as if he didn't have adaquate representation.

  5. Jonathan Janco profile image81
    Jonathan Jancoposted 5 years ago

    Yeah I'm not an enthusiast of capital punishment either. I can only imagine, however, that there are more than a few on death row in any number of places that ought to be heard out before this guy. Just a guess, of course. It's great that we insist on setting some sort of example for other counties, but international law was created for prisoners of conscience in dictaorships and for small countries defending itself from aggressive superpowers and not really so much for this sort of thing. You could be executed in Indonesia for having pot even though it grows all over the friggin country. Now there's a country that really takes a crap on international law.

    1. HattieMattieMae profile image69
      HattieMattieMaeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      That is so true, there are better causes around the world to be concerned about, and plenty of countries that are doing wrong in their justice system. I remember watching countless death row casualities on some program that law students were going over their cases to find out if they were guility or not, and some were innocent, but I believe this man probably was guilty, and lots of evidence pointing his way.

      1. KK Trainor profile image61
        KK Trainorposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        well his deathbed confession should be enough to convince you

  6. Evan G Rogers profile image83
    Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago

    If the government can prevent me from killing people, why can't I prevent them from killing people?

    1. American View profile image59
      American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The Government does not prevent you from comitting murder, they just punish you, only an individual can prevent themselves from doing something. The Government does not Kill people, they carry out the sentence imposed by a jury of people.

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
        Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        The government can do much more to prevent murder--more effective handgun control. That would also help prevent other killings--accidents, suicides, drug wars, etc.

        1. American View profile image59
          American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          So if there were no guns  murderers would use knives or other means at their disposal. If someone wants to kill someone, they will find a weapon to do it. I agree with you though there does need to be better gun control. To many kids have guns these days

        2. elenox profile image61
          elenoxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Yes, we all know how criminals obey gun laws.  Let's let the government be the only entity that can have guns to enforce "control".  That has worked so well in the past. 

          Criminals are less likely to commit crimes when they think someone might be armed or if they are unsure.  Taking guns away from law-abiding citizens, such as you and I, invites MORE criminal activity.

          Gun ownership and use is a responsibility as well as a right.  If you give your responsibility away to someone else, they will misuse it.  The examples throughout history are too numerous to post here.

  7. Paul Wingert profile image79
    Paul Wingertposted 5 years ago

    Whether he had an incompetent lawyer or not, someone sentenced to death goes through a series of appeals and if the courts find that he had an inadequate defense, he'd get a new trial or something along those lines. But if he's guilty of this screwed up crime, illegal immigrant or not, euthanize this SOB.

    1. tony0724 profile image60
      tony0724posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      You got it Paul ! This crime was beyond sick !

  8. Ralph Deeds profile image68
    Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago

    Texans should be ashamed of the state's sorry capital punishment record.

    "...In Texas, though, they do come close. In 2008, the district attorney of Harris County, Chuck Rosenthal, resigned after news emerged that he had sent and received racist e-mails. His office had sought the death penalty in 25 cases; his successor has sought it in 7. Of the total 32 cases, 29 involve a nonwhite defendant.

    "Since 1976, Texas has carried out 470 executions (well more than a third of the national total of 1,257). You can count on one hand the number of those executions that involved a white murderer and a black victim and you do not need to use your thumb, ring finger, index finger or pinkie.

    "Well, you might need the pinkie. On June 16, Texas executed Lee Taylor, who at age 16 beat an elderly couple while robbing their home. The 79-year-old husband died of his injuries. Mr. Taylor was sentenced to life in prison; there he joined the Aryan Brotherhood, a white gang, and, four years into his sentence, murdered a black inmate and was sentenced to death. When Mr. Taylor was executed, it was reported that he was the second white person in Texas executed for killing a black person. Actually, he should be counted as the first. The other inmate, Larry Hayes, executed in 2003, killed two people, one of whom was white...."

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/09/opini … ef=opinion

    1. tony0724 profile image60
      tony0724posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Ralph anybody knows that the NY Times is not worth a damn now. They finally did a report on " Fast and Furious " and are trying to make it sound like it was just a harmless miscommunication even though Holder was talking about it since 2009.

    2. KK Trainor profile image61
      KK Trainorposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Why not look at the actual numbers from a reliable source? Here you go:

      http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/deathrow.htm

    3. American View profile image59
      American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Ralph,

      Since 1984 Texas has executed 471 people, so I think from 1976 till 1984 there would have been a few executions.

      As for race, your statement or your source were not even close. FACT since 1984 46% executed where white. I know I could not count that number on one hand.

      When you want facts instead of opinion, go to the source

      http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/annual.htm

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
        Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        The fact is that in this country minorities who commit capital crimes are much more likely to be executed than are whites who are convicted of capital crimes. Similar to being arrested for DWB. Texas executes more people than the entire rest of the US and the most backward other countries. Barbaric!

        1. American View profile image59
          American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          True, Te3xas does execute more people than the other states in the US, But I disagree that blacks are more likly to be executed.I use to believe that for I always heard it said and no one say different. The Facts bear different. Texas was not the only report I read on executions by race. In every state that I could find a report on, it showed whites are the biggest percentage of executions.
          As to whether it is Barbaric, we will have to agree to disagree

          1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
            Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Of course more whites are executed because they represent the majority in our population. Blacks are about 12 percent of our population, but a much higher percentage are executed, especially in Texas, in relation to their representation in the population.

            1. American View profile image59
              American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              According to the 2010 Census the population percemtage is 72 % white, 13% black. So based on that you would be correct. But according to the DOJ, when it comes to violent crimes for every 5 blacks convicted, 1 white is convicted. So with a ratio of 5 to 1 , one would think blacks would be the higher percentage executed. But it is not the case, whites are the higher percentage executed.

  9. TMMason profile image73
    TMMasonposted 5 years ago

    Good riddance... may God have mercy on his soul.

    He served his time and took his punishment... the rest is up to God.

  10. Reality Bytes profile image94
    Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago

    The United Nations have absolutely zero authority within the borders of the United States!

    What do I think of the U.N.'s opinions.  #@$& them!!!!!!

    1. tony0724 profile image60
      tony0724posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Thumbs up big time !

  11. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image94
    Wesman Todd Shawposted 5 years ago

    Capital Punishment is MURDER, and whether you realize it or not, a doctor still has to do a death certificate, and on that death certificate the cause of death is always listed as "homicide."

    Homicide is Murder, and Texas has committed MURDER over and over and over again.  Texas has even committed murder against persons who were Innocent of the crimes for which they were Murdered.

    Also, calling one's self a Christian and then having someone put to death via MURDER is an absolute disgrace, so disgusting and so hypocritical that the English language strains to describe such blatant illiterate apostate hypocritical demonic persons as Rich Perry.

    1. livewithrichard profile image84
      livewithrichardposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Sorry, but by your logic then our soldiers that are sent to the battlefields and kill the enemy would be considered murderers, and as a former soldier, I take offense to that.

      The death penalty is a lawful act, good or bad, it is still lawful.

      1. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image94
        Wesman Todd Shawposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I'm not sorry, I don't give a fuck if you are offended or not.

        1. livewithrichard profile image84
          livewithrichardposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Such an eloquent reply, I should have expected as much.

          1. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image94
            Wesman Todd Shawposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            You, Sir - attempted to put words into my mouth, which makes you beneath the dignity of anyone who wishes to speak the truth.

            I don't give a fuck what you think, when you think you can speak for me, Sir.  you are a moron.

            1. livewithrichard profile image84
              livewithrichardposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I attempted no such thing, I used your own irrational logic to prove that homicide is not always murder.  It seems you are too enamored with your ideology to see the whole picture. But come on back with an I don't give a f*** response and show everyone here how they debate in Texas.  Calling me names because you don't agree with me is a personal attack... don't worry, already reported.

              Homicide is not murder when the weight of the law is behind it no matter who signs the death certificate. Soldiers are not murders, prison wardens are not murders, Governors that do not stay an execution are not murders, the judges that sentence the criminal are not murders, the jury that convicts the criminal are not murders.

              1. KK Trainor profile image61
                KK Trainorposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Hey! I'm a Texan too, so we don't all debate using the f word. That being said, I agree with your point about homicide and murder. Homicide simply means death other than from natural causes, not murder. But there are those who do say our troops are murderers, so we can't always find agreement on that point.
                However, I am pretty sure that's not what Wesman meant, even if his logic could be twisted into that meaning. I disagree with his point, but don't believe he hates our troops unless he says so himself. He may be one of the few liberals living in Texas, but we need diversity here too.

                1. livewithrichard profile image84
                  livewithrichardposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  smile Sorry KK, I know for a fact there are good Texans, I have some great family members living in San Antonio (they once owned a chain of El Pollo Locos from Dallas to Los Angeles) and I spent some time there in San Antonio as well as El Paso.  I've only encountered one other Texas hubber as rude as Wesman, also a liberal, by the username of Bluedog.  They can write some really good hubs but disagree with them and the F bomb starts dropping, name calling, and then the threats smile

                  You called it right, I was not suggesting he is a soldier hater only that his logic could be twisted to support that conclusion.

                  Back to the OP though, since this murderer came here at the age of 2, committed the heinous crime 18 years later, spent the next 16 years in prison, at what point is he no longer considered a citizen of Mexico? Also, I asked this earlier, but why didn't the Mexican consulate reach out to him during the 16 years he was incarcerated?

                  1. KK Trainor profile image61
                    KK Trainorposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    copied from my reply above:

                    I'm pretty sure they were involved in the case since they appealed to Obama for him to stop the execution. The issue is not that he was denied access, he just wasn't advised upon his arrest that he could have help from the Mexican government with his defense. He had adequate representation, as the many appeals he filed determined. He had already been convicted by the time he asked for help from Mexico, and he got it from that point forward.

                  2. Michael Willis profile image76
                    Michael Willisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Your last paragraph makes excellent points!
                    Why are the points not being addressed by those who object to his execution?
                    Oh, by stating that his "Mexican citizenship" should allowed him special treatment because of an international treaty?
                    He obviously grew up in America and so he knew the law. He knew the possible punishment. OH...he can claim Mexican citizenship IF it helps him beat a murder charge??? I don't buy that.
                    Sounds more "political" than an issue of jurisdiction to the person's rights here.

              2. American View profile image59
                American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Do not lump all us Texans with that person

    2. lovemychris profile image79
      lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      No kidding! Next time one of em goes on about "the sanctity of life", we have permission to puke.

      It's like this: Pro-Life until they're born. Then life becomes precious only when THEY say so.
      THEY decide who is worthy....sanctity be damned.

      Man oh MAN, would I love to see Bushco get trapped in a place where there is an arrest warrant out for them, and a death penalty in place.....think they would say they deserved to die? Would that be justice?

      Bet not.

      It all boils down to one word: Ego.

      They decide who is worthy. Their principles can be laid at the door of ego-satisfaction.

      They really need to watch this movie: AWESOME MOVIE! Learn something.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJi5o_AITMc

      1. KK Trainor profile image61
        KK Trainorposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I think you're forgetting that this was not an innocent unborn child, but a grown man who chose to commit a heinous crime. There is a difference you know. 
        And there is no country on this planet that would execute a former US President and to think they would is just plain stupid. Ego or not, it's a fact.

        1. lovemychris profile image79
          lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Doesn't matter!!

          Either life is precious, or it's not. Jesus did not discriminate....who are you?

          and Spain did try to arrest Bush, and Bibi and Tipi were afraid to go to England there for a while.

          Sorry--but you all are the ones who scream "sanctity of life"...live up to it!

          1. TMMason profile image73
            TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            You forfiet that sanctity when you do something as atrocious as he did.

            Unlike the innocent children.

            1. lovemychris profile image79
              lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Wrong!

              Go back and read the book that you preach!

              YOU are not God. YOU do not decide.

              1. American View profile image59
                American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Even God commited and endorsed several murders.

                1. lovemychris profile image79
                  lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  So--you are God now, too?

                  1. American View profile image59
                    American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Did I say that? I will give you $1,000 if you can show me where I said that. You know from reading other threads I do not believe in God, so God arguments do not work on me. So take me up on my challenge, time to put up

          2. KK Trainor profile image61
            KK Trainorposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            It wasn't Spain, it was one Spanish person. And he's not included in that ridiculous legal battle going on there either. That's a joke and will come to nothing, even the Spanish legislature is changing its laws so that judges can't pursue cases like it because they are embarassed by the whole thing.

            1. lovemychris profile image79
              lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Really? Vincent Bugliosi wrote a book about how he could prosecute Bushco for murder.

              Bet you loved him when he got Manson a life sentence....

              They are lawyers who want Bushco and Bibi/Tipi. Lawyers and people with a friggin brain.

              Hmmmm, seems some people are very discriminating in who gets to live or die, AND who gets to get off scott free from crimes, and who doesn't.

              Life is life or it isn't.
              People should pay for committing crimes, or they shouldn't.
              It's not up for debate, is it??

              1. KK Trainor profile image61
                KK Trainorposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                OK so someone wrote a book about it. That doesn't exactly make it fact, or even legally possible. And who said anything about Israel here? What's your point? This has nothing to do with the topic we're supposed to be discussing.
                We live in a nation of laws, and this scumbag broke them. Now he's dead.

                If you care so much about Bush, etc. then start a forum about it. Frankly I don't care and don't want to hear about it here.

              2. American View profile image59
                American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Manson is why you do not sentence crimals like him to life. He has had as many appeals a a person on death row. Not to mention all his parole hearings. Yes I said it, he got life but can get parole. He was in Texas, this would not be an issue

    3. elenox profile image61
      elenoxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Do you feel the same about abortion?  Just looking to see if you are consistent.

  12. Reality Bytes profile image94
    Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago

    Osama Bin Laden was executed without a trial.

    Does anyone want to cite any treaties on this one?

    Seeing as the President is still pounding his chest.

    1. tony0724 profile image60
      tony0724posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I like that one alot !

    2. Reality Bytes profile image94
      Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Anyone?  Please explain the difference?  How many people were shouting about treaties when Osama was killed?

      1. IntimatEvolution profile image80
        IntimatEvolutionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I wasn't aware that we had any International treaties with him.  Do tell?

        1. Reality Bytes profile image94
          Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          You do not believe we have treaties with Pakistan?

          The U.N. court discriminates depending on what country you are from?

          Execution WITHOUT a trial, really?

          I am not saying I disagree with Osamas death, just sayin "what is the difference between these two "human beings"?

          1. IntimatEvolution profile image80
            IntimatEvolutionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Wasn't aware of any treaties with Pakistan dealing with the subject matter.  If you know of one what is it?  Are you sure it included him?

            No, I am not aware of any sort of treaty not with him or with Pakistan.   I am aware that there was an International kill order/arrest for Osama since 2001.  Made by G.W. Bush.  It was always our goal to capture and kill him by force or by military tribunal.  He was always going to be a dead man in this case.  Which makes him a poor analogy to use.  Another reason too is that one is a federal situation and the other is a state issue.  By the way we weren't the only country hunting down Osama. The twin towers housed many other nationalities not just American citizens.

            1. Reality Bytes profile image94
              Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              The Targeted Assassination of Osama Bin Laden [international legalities]
              POSTED BY DIEGO ON SATURDAY, MAY 14, 2011 NO COMMENTS
                          [only in this Alice-in-Wonderland world that is the US could we be discussing the 'legality' of wiping out other human beings, whether we have the right - to their lives, as well as their resources; and all this in the context of accepting unsubstantiated and wildly suspect US government conspiracy theories]

              The Targeted Assassination of Osama Bin Laden

              By Marjorie Cohn, May 9, 2011

              When he announced that Osama bin Laden had been killed
              by a Navy Seal team in Pakistan, President Barack Obama
              said, "Justice has been done."  Mr. Obama misused the
              word, "justice" when he made that statement.  He should
              have said, "Retaliation has been accomplished." A
              former professor of constitutional law should know the
              difference between those two concepts.  The word
              "justice" implies an act of applying or upholding the
              law.

              Targeted assassinations violate well-established
              principles of international law.  Also called political
              assassinations, they are extrajudicial executions.
              These are unlawful and deliberate killings carried out
              by order of, or with the acquiescence of, a government,
              outside any judicial framework.

              Extrajudicial executions are unlawful, even in armed
              conflict. In a 1998 report, the United Nations Special
              Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary
              executions noted that "extrajudicial executions can
              never be justified under any circumstances, not even in
              time of war." The U.N. General Assembly and Human
              Rights Commission, as well as Amnesty International,
              have all condemned extrajudicial executions.

              In spite of its illegality, the Obama administration
              frequently uses targeted assassinations to accomplish
              its goals.  Five days after executing Osama bin Laden,
              Mr. Obama tried to bring "justice" to U.S. citizen
              Anwar al-Awlaki, who has not been charged with any
              crime in the United States. The unmanned drone attack
              in Yemen missed al-Awlaki and killed two people
              "believed to be al Qaeda militants," according to a
              CBS/AP bulletin.

              Two days before the Yemen attack, U.S. drones killed 15
              people in Pakistan and wounded four. Since the March 17
              drone attack that killed 44 people, also in Pakistan,
              there have been four drone strikes. In 2010, American
              drones carried out 111 strikes. The Human Rights
              Commission of Pakistan says that 957 civilians were
              killed in 2010.

              The United States disavowed the use of extrajudicial
              killings under President Gerald Ford. After the Senate
              Select Committee on Intelligence disclosed in 1975 that
              the CIA had been involved in several murders or
              attempted murders of foreign leaders, President Ford
              issued an executive order banning assassinations. Every
              succeeding president until George W. Bush renewed that
              order. However, the Clinton administration targeted
              Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, but narrowly missed
              him.

              In July 2001, the U.S. Ambassador to Israel denounced
              Israel's policy of targeted killings, or "preemptive
              operations." He said "the United States government is
              very clearly on the record as against targeted
              assassinations. They are extrajudicial killings, and we
              do not support that."

              Yet after September 11, 2001, former White House press
              secretary Ari Fleischer invited the killing of Saddam
              Hussein: "The cost of one bullet, if the Iraqi people
              take it on themselves, is substantially less" than the
              cost of war. Shortly thereafter, Bush issued a secret
              directive, which authorized the CIA to target suspected
              terrorists for assassination when it would be
              impractical to capture them and when large-scale
              civilian casualties could be avoided.

              In November 2002, Bush reportedly authorized the CIA to
              assassinate a suspected Al Qaeda leader in Yemen. He
              and five traveling companions were killed in the hit,
              which Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz described
              as a "very successful tactical operation."

              After the Holocaust, Winston Churchill wanted to
              execute the Nazi leaders without trials. But the U.S.
              government opposed the extrajudicial executions of Nazi
              officials who had committed genocide against millions
              of people. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert H.
              Jackson, who served as chief prosecutor at the
              Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, told President Harry
              Truman: "We could execute or otherwise punish [the Nazi
              leaders] without a hearing. But undiscriminating
              executions or punishments without definite findings of
              guilt, fairly arrived at, would ... not set easily on the
              American conscience or be remembered by children with
              pride."

              Osama bin Laden and the "suspected militants" targeted
              in drone attacks should have been arrested and tried in
              U.S. courts or an international tribunal. Obama cannot
              serve as judge, jury and executioner. These
              assassinations are not only illegal; they create a
              dangerous precedent, which could be used to justify the
              targeted killings of U.S.leaders.

              http://windowintopalestine.blogspot.com … a-bin.html


              Marjorie Cohn is a professor at Thomas Jefferson School
              of Law and past president of the National Lawyers
              Guild. She is deputy secretary general of the
              International Association of Democratic Lawyers. Her
              latest book, "The United States and Torture:
              Interrogation, Incarceration and Abuse" was published
              earlier this year by NYU Press.

        2. KK Trainor profile image61
          KK Trainorposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I'm pretty sure he's pointing out the fact that we snuck in under the radar and shot the madman who the Pakis were afraid to touch. That would seem to violate something, but who's complaining?

          1. IntimatEvolution profile image80
            IntimatEvolutionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I got the point, but that still doesn't mean someone can go making up facts to make their case....

            ______________________

            It cost MO taxpayers an average of $1,000,000 - $1,500,000     to house someone for life.  To put somebody to death in my state costs on average $8,000,000+.  Now you do the math.

            1. KK Trainor profile image61
              KK Trainorposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I guess that would be the costs of all of the appeals and housing them separately, etc. It is expensive, but that shouldn't influence the penatly someone pays for their crime. If the people of Texas don't want the death penalty then they (we) can always lobby and vote to abolish it, but that's never going to happen. We feel strongly about it and the costs are not a consideration for those of us who want to keep it. It's not about deterring, it's about punishing.

              1. IntimatEvolution profile image80
                IntimatEvolutionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Very true....  and I will make this argument again, when it comes to taking human life nobody has the right to take it whether voted by the majority or not.  This isn't about being a Democracy.  Its about putting value on human life.  I have a very high value on life. I personally feel when a portion of my money is being used to kill someone it violates my beliefs which are suppose to be protected under the first amendment.  I feel that when a portion of my money that I have worked hard to earn gets used in this way, it is just the same as if I went out an killed that person myself!  Now nobody has that right to persecute me in this manner.  What have I done to deserve this?  Except for paying my taxes and following the law?

                1. KK Trainor profile image61
                  KK Trainorposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Well that's exactly how I feel about federally funded abortion through planned parenthood. Innocent unborn children have the same rights as grown men who choose to rape and murder, but my tax dollars are taken and given to an organization that promotes aborting them.

                  1. thebrucebeat profile image59
                    thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    But your tax dollars do NOT fund abortion.  I'm sure you know that, but choose to pretend it isn't true.  There will be easily influenced people that will believe you.

                  2. IntimatEvolution profile image80
                    IntimatEvolutionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    What????

                    There is no federally funded money going to planned Parenthood to kill!  Not one dime has ever been spent in that place for death.   I don't know where you got that information or whether you just assumed that on your own, but it is completely wrong.  Another thing it isn't a federally funded program like a prison can be.  It isn't even a state funded program.  It's a private company.  It is a cash/credit card only place.  What makes you think that your tax dollars are being spent there to kill people?  That's just absurd.


                    That's not even a comparable argument.  The person who told you such false information is complete moron.  If I was you I wouldn't be going around making that argument again.  Your intelligence might just be confused with theirs.  But seriously, there has never been tax dollars used to fund Planned Parenthood for killing purposes. Like  capital punishments do.

  13. thebrucebeat profile image59
    thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago

    The issue gets emotional and leads to unrelated issues, like the death penalty itself.
    These are not the issue this case represents.
    The only issue is that of the honoring of an international treaty.  If the treaty had not been ratified by congress, then Texas was within its rights to ignore it.  Whether it was wise or not can be debated, but they could not be compelled to observe it.
    However, had it been ratified they would absolutely be beholden to the treaty.  Treaties have the force of law.  The states can not ignore these laws, nor is it an honest argument to describe such laws as being the laws of foreign courts.  They aren't.  They are agreements that the U.S. has entered into freely and have agreed to abide by.  If we are to be a country of integrity, then we must honor our commitments.  Blowing off such things makes us an ethically third world country.

    1. TMMason profile image73
      TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Exactly, Bruce.

      I knew eventually we would agree on something.

    2. KK Trainor profile image61
      KK Trainorposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Bruce, the Supreme Court said that states are not bound by international treaties unless Congress passes pertinent legislation. The legislation has been on the table for many years and has never been passed. Treaties apply only to the federal government, because that's the government who agrees to the treaty. The states are not automatically bound to abide by treaties made by the federal government. Besides that, the treaty wasn't even ratified so it applies to no one at this time.

      "In 2005, President George W. Bush agreed with an International Court of Justice ruling that Leal and 50 other Mexican-born inmates nationwide should be entitled to new hearings in U.S. courts to determine if their consular rights were violated. The Supreme Court later overruled Bush, negating the decision"

      "He (Leal) was among about 50 Mexican-born inmates affected when President George W. Bush in 2005 agreed with an International Court of Justice ruling that they should be entitled to new hearings in U.S. courts to determine if their consular rights were violated at the time of their arrests. Congressional action is needed now because the Supreme Court subsequently overruled Bush and negated any impact of the Netherlands-based court's decision."

      The ball has been in Congress's court for a while, so let's see what they do, if anything.

  14. thebrucebeat profile image59
    thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago

    If the costs of twenty years of appeals led to the exoneration of a falsely accused inmate, could those costs ever be considered to be too high?
    Would they be if the inmate was you?

    1. KK Trainor profile image61
      KK Trainorposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      No, I definitely see the need for the appeals, even though the costs are high. There are many cases of people being exonerated during that process, and it also proves that the counsel is adequate along the way. I would never suggest that the appeals process be changed for capital cases.

    2. tony0724 profile image60
      tony0724posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      And Bruce how many of those have a history of violent offenses ? I would wager that the percentage is astronomical. And I have said it before and I will say it again, Good people do not find themselves in those circumstances.

      1. thebrucebeat profile image59
        thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        You asked me a question you have no answer for, so you are making a completely specious argument.  You don't have a clue how many of the hundreds who have been released from death row have a violent history.
        People get into all kinds of situations that they didn't expect or deserve.  You are making a presumption of some kind of negative behavior by these people.  Why?  Does this make you feel better about the probability that we are executing innocent people?
        You are making an irrational and unfounded and unsupported argument because you don't have any other kind of argument to support your position.
        Very sad exhibition of critical thought.

        1. Cagsil profile image84
          Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          And, you're one to talk with a post like you just made. roll

          1. thebrucebeat profile image59
            thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            What do you mean?  Do you think he has made a good, logical, supported argument?  What's your point?

        2. tony0724 profile image60
          tony0724posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Bruce I did answer your question. I just did not give the pacifist answer you wanted.

          1. thebrucebeat profile image59
            thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            No, you didn't.  You specifically stated that you had no idea how many people that have been let out of death row had violent pasts.  You are making an argument up out of whole cloth with no data, no info, just bs.  That's not an argument, not the defense of a position.  It's a man who is caught with his pants down around his ankles with nothing to say.

            Why would anyone take you seriously?  I really want to know.  What do you think you are bringing to the table?

      2. Ralph Deeds profile image68
        Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        "Good people do not find themselves in those circumstances."
        That's a quite ignorant statement. I hope it never happens to you.

        1. tony0724 profile image60
          tony0724posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Ralph anybody who considers the NY Times credible is just a source of amusement to me.

        2. IntimatEvolution profile image80
          IntimatEvolutionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Ralph I don't feel that his statement was an ignorant statement as it was more on level of being an incredibly naive one instead.  I don't feel that the poster is stupid in his understandings, as I am sure that you weren't stating as such. 

          But being ignorant about something, does mean that that person is completely unaware of any knowledge of a said subject, in essence stupid  Well...  that really isn't the case here.

          Tony your statement was incredibly naive.  Good people get themselves into trouble and into bad situations all the time...

          1. KK Trainor profile image61
            KK Trainorposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I believe it was Tony who said that. And it is a bit naive, as anything can happen.
            But I do know where he's coming from when he wonders how many of those released have other criminal acts in their past. Many do, some do not. Many who have been arrested at one time or another are more likely to be in the path of the law and therefore may end up in trouble from something they didn't do.
            Living in a law enforcement household I will say that officers do remember faces, and if they know someone has been involved in something before they are more likely to want to speak to that person if they happen to be in the area when something happens.

            However, many cases also rely on identifications that end up being false, or evidence that is mishandled or even corrupted. Look at the evidence handling in the Amanda Knox case, ridiculous. And she is certainly at the mercy of the Italian system, as I would expect to be if I traveled overseas. We always have to hope that in those cases the truth comes out during the appeals process, which it often does.

            1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
              Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              "But I do know where he's coming from when he wonders how many of those released have other criminal acts in their past. Many do, some do not. Many who have been arrested at one time or another are more likely to be in the path of the law and therefore may end up in trouble from something they didn't do. "

              That's very true from what I read in our local crime blotter newspaper.

              1. KK Trainor profile image61
                KK Trainorposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Any cop will tell you, if he's honest, that they get to know the "regulars" and those faces will stand out if something happens in an area they frequent. It's human nature. But evidence has to be there to back up any suspicion, and that's where the courts come in. It's their job to to make the case and decide whether or not it's worthy of prosecution.

                In this case I did read that Leal had raped another girl, but I don't have any facts to back that up. But if it were true, it might influence whether or not he was a serious suspect. The fact that he confessed makes that moot though, since he wasn't even trying to hide his guilt.

                1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
                  Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  There are more holes in the procedures from suspicion to conviction than a swiss cheese--deficient lineups, failure to disclose exculpatory evidence to defendant's attorney, incompetent attorneys assigned to represent defendants in capital cases, erroneous eye witness identifications, incompetent crime labs and medical examiners, politically ambitious prosecutors, prejudiced policemen, and so forth. You know them better than I. The result: a certain number of convictions of innocent defendants and some executions of innocent individuals.

                  As I observed above 40 percent of individuals convicted of capital crimes are African Americans who represent only twelve percent of the population. Perhaps the crime rate is higher among African Americans for various reasons--higher unemployment, poorer education, etc. but not that much higher.

                  Every year another state or two abolishes capital punishment for various reasons practical and moral.

  15. prettydarkhorse profile image63
    prettydarkhorseposted 5 years ago

    it is a shame that Tx still implements this capital punishment. Perry is so arrogant, he think he is above international law and moratorium.

    1. KK Trainor profile image61
      KK Trainorposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      He is above international law because international law does not apply to states. Every governor is "above" laws passed outside of our (national) borders, no matter how mad it makes those in other coutries.

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
        Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Well, four members of the Supreme Court don't agree with that conclusion.  As far as I'm concerned it would be a blessing if Texas seceded from the union.

        1. KK Trainor profile image61
          KK Trainorposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          OK, but we'll need to take the largest medical center in the world, the second largest economy in the US, the petrochemical industry, our many military bases, American and Southwest Airlines along with two of the largest airports in the country, three of the ten largest cities in the US, the nation's largest cotton production and wind farm, $100 billion a year in foreign trade, the Port of Houston (largest in the US in international commerce), and we'll also take NASA.

    2. IntimatEvolution profile image80
      IntimatEvolutionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I agree.

  16. Reality Bytes profile image94
    Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago

    Oh yeah killing Osama probably did not have any effect on Americans abroad?

    1. KK Trainor profile image61
      KK Trainorposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Yes, but most of us non-military travelers probably won't be going to the countries where his death would endager us. I'm not going to Pakistan or Yemen anytime soon, how about you?

      I realize some live overseas, but they are usually pretty aware of what their situation is and they will watch their backs if necessary.

      1. Reality Bytes profile image94
        Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        So there are no Al Qaeda in Mexico.  You sure?

        1. KK Trainor profile image61
          KK Trainorposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Well traveling to Mexico by choice is just crazy since the drug lords run the place, but if you choose to go there watch your back. As for Al Qaeda, I'd be more worried about the Mexican govt. than whatever muslims happen to be lying around waiting for instructions.

  17. lovemychris profile image79
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    "We live in a nation of laws, and this scumbag broke them. Now he's dead."

    He's a dead foreigner in our nation because we took upon ourselves the right to kill him.
    Foreign nations then have just as much right to kill us.
    Bush has been deemed a criminal by a foreign nation.
    Let them kill him??

    Completely ON topic.

    1. livewithrichard profile image84
      livewithrichardposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      He was no more a foreigner than you are. He was brought to the US when he was 2 and lived as an American Citizen for 18 years before he raped and murdered and desecrated the body of that young girl then spent another 16 years in a US prison.

    2. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image94
      Wesman Todd Shawposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      agreed.

  18. Ralph Deeds profile image68
    Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago

    People who cheer when someone is executed are just as barbaric or more so than the guilty criminal, assuming he or she is guilty of the capital crime for which they were convicted. Moreover, many of these people are just as rabidly against abortion because of the "sanctity" of human life. Just a bit hypocritical.

    1. livewithrichard profile image84
      livewithrichardposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I guess I'm barbaric then because I'm going to stand and cheer every single time a child killer gets put down.

      1. IntimatEvolution profile image80
        IntimatEvolutionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Deleted

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
          Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Yep.
          What's your position on abortion?

          1. KK Trainor profile image61
            KK Trainorposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            My position is that unborn innocent children deserve a chance at life. Discarding them into the trash because the "mother" doesn't want the inconvenience of a child is disgraceful and disgusting.

            A tiny percentage of abortions are for reasons of incest and rape, so don't argue that point please. It has no merit and very few people want to deny women the right in those cases.

            Innocent unborn children haven't hurt anyone and may never hurt anyone. They don't deserve punishment. Rapists and murderers do, and that's where capital punishment applies.

      2. IntimatEvolution profile image80
        IntimatEvolutionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I agree.

      3. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image94
        Wesman Todd Shawposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Exactly.  I thank you, Sir, for providing some sanity to this bit of forum.

    2. frugalfamily profile image81
      frugalfamilyposted 5 years ago

      It angers me often.  I don't care if the law says that my governor doesn't have to head to international laws. He should not be acting in a way that causes harm to the US's reputation.  The UN would have eventually yielded to the US court decisions but our governor snubbed his nose at them.  I truly hope that Americans remember his disregard for our national reputation when he finds his way as a candidate for the US which he puts below his own pompous agenda.

      1. tony0724 profile image60
        tony0724posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Tell that to the parents of the young girl that animal killed BRUTALLY.

        1. frugalfamily profile image81
          frugalfamilyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I delay in an execution is not a wiping of the crime.  It would only prolong his agony to go through another delay before the ultimate demise.

          1. tony0724 profile image60
            tony0724posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            By your statement I can only surmise you believe that a psycho has a conscience, they don't ! The world is a better place without him.

            1. lovemychris profile image79
              lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              By your statement, the world would have been a better place without Hitler....he should have been aborted.

          2. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image94
            Wesman Todd Shawposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            We aren't exactly trying to torture someone here - but life is a punishment for the guilty.  Prison isn't fun - not on death row it's not.

        2. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image94
          Wesman Todd Shawposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Tony - you're not a dumb person.  Not even close.  You should know that every single time a state murders a citizen - violent crime INCREASES in that area.  Why?  Violence ALWAYS creates MORE violence.

    3. IntimatEvolution profile image80
      IntimatEvolutionposted 5 years ago

      Bottomline it appears that some of you have a problem with the very idea of taxpayer money being used to pay for abortions because it is the killing of a human, but have no problem with state funded killing of a human in a prison.  Well I have a problem with both....  Killing is killing.  Does that clear up my position. I don't think I should have to pay for abortions or capital punishments.  Now call me silly, but i am not aware of any political affiliation to one party.or another that belief would fit into.  But it does fit my spiritual beliefs rather nicely, and the fact that I clearly don't feel we have a right to play maker and executioner when it comes to placing value on human life.  It goes against everything that i believe to be right to play in essence God.

      1. DannyMaio profile image61
        DannyMaioposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I have no problem with killing a killer. Of course they should receive a fair trial and have conclusive evidence before committing to the death penalty. Not even beyond a reasonable doubt! Full conclusive evidence! An eye for an eye. Also to compare a murderer to an innocent baby is not even the same!

        Just like those animals who killed that family in Connecticut.
        They should burn to death as they raped and killed and set the house on fire!

        I do not think you would be saying the same thing if it was your daughter that was raped and killed and had a stick with a nail from her private spot and being 16 like this girl was.

        1. KK Trainor profile image61
          KK Trainorposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Thanks Danny for the info on Planned Parenthood. I hadn't originally meant to debate abortion here but it gets me so upset that I have to respond, and I appreciate your information which makes it clear that no one can distinguish the dollars going to abortion from those going to other services. It's clear as day, but those who approve of abortion will never agree or understand this.

          I was also wondering about your opinion on this forum topic, so thanks for that. You're so right about comparing an innocent baby with a murdering rapist; it just seems too ridiculous to imagine, but the anti execution people always seem to bring that up anyway.

        2. IntimatEvolution profile image80
          IntimatEvolutionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Please don't assume that you know what I have or have not been through.  Don't do that.  You have no freaking idea what I have or haven't personally dealt with.  Do you own a crystal ball or something?  Yeah... 
          I am done chatting with you.

          1. KK Trainor profile image61
            KK Trainorposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            intimatevolution,
            No one here knows one another and we shouldn't get too personal. Please don't get upset and leave, even as angry as it gets we should keep it civil. I'm sure we each have our own personal stories that would promote some understanding, I know I do, but let's just try not to be too offended by each other.

            1. DannyMaio profile image61
              DannyMaioposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I personally do not know how I offended? I do not know her and have no crystal ball. I never said I knew her life and never intended to offend. All I stated was I believe she would not think the same if it was her daughter that this creep murderer attacked. Sorry if it was taken that way. I read it a few times and truly do not see where I said I knew anything about her???

              1. KK Trainor profile image61
                KK Trainorposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Well we don't always know what might set someone off, hopefully she will come back soon. It didn't sound like you were trying to offend.

                1. DannyMaio profile image61
                  DannyMaioposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  How come the UN waited 16 years to say something?? It isn't like this guy was just convicted and put to death, 16 years is a long time. Also If an American did the same in another country they too should be put to death. Again first they should have conclusive evidence.

                  I bet These states that have the death penalty have less murders and crime per capita. Does anyone have the statistics?

                  Commonsense would tell me that states with strong penalties and the right to a fire arm would have lower crime rates than states with no death penalty and gun laws. Criminals never have legal guns! and I believe more criminals would take the chance if they know they will not get the death penalty and knowing the victims do not have a gun.

                  1. KK Trainor profile image61
                    KK Trainorposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    I wouldn't claim that our crime rate is lower than other states, but you're right about gun ownership; at least we can shoot an intruder in our home without fear of prosecution. Gun laws have nothing to do with criminals getting guns, unless someone were to round up all of the guns in America and destroy them. As you said, criminals don't have legal guns, they buy stolen ones. But most criminals act without thinking of the conesquences, so I don't think the death penalty is a deterrent. It's the nature of the criminal mind, act without thinking.

                  2. thebrucebeat profile image59
                    thebrucebeatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    What we do know is since the reinstatement of the death penalty in 1976, crime statistics soared.  While this doesn't make a correlation between them, it certainly shows it has not been the slightest deterent.
                    The death penalty does not make us safer.  It doesn't deter crime.  It is more costly than life imprisonment.  It has the risk of the most egregious error a government could possibly make.
                    Its sole value is as a way of venting our need for revenge.  It has no other discernible value.  It allows us to display one of our basest motives.

                    1. DannyMaio profile image61
                      DannyMaioposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                      After reading on the subject, I have to agree with you.
                      It looks like it doesn't have any effect on the numbers of murders. As I stated before I'm actually not opposed to the death penalty for outrageous crimes but we have to have conclusive evidence that clearly proves without a doubt.

                      The Cameron Todd case is a very good example of the death penalty gone bad! This was an egregious error. People like the prosecutor and Perry should have to answer for this, Horrible.

                      On the other side, The murderers in Connecticut, Which were seen on camera in the bank and full proof they committed the crime, should be put to death quickly as there is not doubt they committed the Outrageous crime.

                      Sometimes the family could have closure after these animals aren't breathing anymore.I would want someone who murdered a loved one put to death and tortured.

        3. lovemychris profile image79
          lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Funny--maybe you can understand now how other country's feel about us, with missiles, bombs, white phosporous, drones, exploding on and killing their children?

    4. thisisoli profile image65
      thisisoliposted 5 years ago

      He committed the crime, he needs to face the punishment.

    5. thisisoli profile image65
      thisisoliposted 5 years ago

      I have complaints about bush starting the wars, and Obama continuing them. Sad though it is how some dictatorships turn out, it is simply not America's role to invade these nations and try to make them adhere to their own standards, which really do not work in these countries.

      As a modern country I think that it is worrying that the entire government has not decided that with a deep economic crisis, it might be a good idea to pull out of these countries and redistribute the billions upon billions of dollars back in to the country.

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
        Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Agreed.

    6. optimus grimlock profile image62
      optimus grimlockposted 5 years ago

      justice was served

    7. thisisoli profile image65
      thisisoliposted 5 years ago

      Death Penalty - I support it.  I am against violence, against killing people. But there are some people out there who realy just don't care at all if they hurt someone. I don't think we shoudl support these people in jail.

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
        Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        But significantly often innocent people are convicted and executed. How many innocent people are you willing to execute in order to execute those who are guilty?

        1. thisisoli profile image65
          thisisoliposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          By that logic lots of innocent people are jailed, deprived of their lives, yet does that mean people should not be jailed. 

          Incompetencies, mistakes, etc, in the justice system are unfortuantely not always that rare.  However that simply means we need to question our legal system rather than the punishments provided by it.

          With more sophisticated methods become available to police, hopefully incresingly fewer innocent people will be jailed, or executed.

          The last thing I want is for an innocent person to die for a crime they did not commit.  But it is impossible to reach 100% accuracy, and many more guilty people are held. The ratio of people who are arrested, jailed and then re-commit crimes is huge. This suggests that the deterrent to criminals is simply not enough.

          Despite the fact that Jail systems do hold innocents, I do think we need to ensure that these systems are more of a deterent. At the moment people are more afraid of the inmates in jails than the jails themselves, the most dangerous criminals thrive in this environment, they do not fear it.  Something is very, very, wrong.

          Cutting back on the capital punishment for those who simply cannot be rehabilitated does not help anything.

        2. KK Trainor profile image61
          KK Trainorposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Often?!? Not even close. There have been some, not enough to say it happens often. Yes, one is too many, but it doesn't happen 'often'. It's not worth scrapping the whole system because mistakes have been made.

          1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
            Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I agree innocent people are not often executed. What I should have said is that quite a few death row convicts have been exonerated in recent years by DNA and other evidence. Some have been released after serving many years. The Detroit crime lab was closed a year or so ago because of incompetence. Even the FBI crime lab has made mistakes. Within the past month I read an article saying that many or even most cases of deaths attributed by coroners to "shaken baby syndrome" were actually due to other causes. The article went on to say that medical authorities are even going so far as to question the entire concept of shaken baby syndrome, especially in cases where there are no other signs or evidence of abuse. There have been plenty of convictions based on this diagnosis which is now going out of style.

            1. KK Trainor profile image61
              KK Trainorposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Well sure, there are so many medical theories I would question as being pure crap. (1 in 110 kids are autistic now? huh?) And believe me, the Houston crime lab has had terrible problems, as have many big city crime labs. Any time you have government employees dealing with things that complex there will be problems. We just had a guy released from death row in the past few months and it was bad evidence once again. He had served many years, and is collecting a lot of money from the state to "make up for it" although it doesn't really.

              But I don't think that's a reason to change the entire system. The appeals process should take care of the problem cases, although I realize some will get through. Bad witness id's and poorly handled evidence cause a lot of problems, and sometimes lead to innocents being executed. Hopefully technology can solve these issues going forward, since it's come so far in recent years.

    8. lovemychris profile image79
      lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

      oh yeah:
      "You just show your true colors with every post. You have got to be the most angry person ever on Hub Pages.

      Stay angry and bitter, I would hate to be you."

      Ive been banned for less, that's all I'm sayin. Watch it.

      Fair Warning Righty's!!!!

      1. KK Trainor profile image61
        KK Trainorposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        You are too sensetive to criticism. You can dish it out but can't take it? He didn't say anything worth being banned over so get over it. You are angry, what's wrong with telling you so?

    9. lovemychris profile image79
      lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

      Or maybe you'll just take the babies from them once they're here....brood mares for the state kind of thing.

      sweetie.

    10. 60
      My neck is redposted 5 years ago

      it makes no difference to me.

    11. kateperez profile image74
      kateperezposted 5 years ago

      This man was in his 40's.  he lived in the USA since he was 2.  he was probably in one of those amnesty things that Presidents keep talking about.  Didn't Reagan do that?

      He raped a child, he killed a child.  The child was American.  He committed a crime against an American child in America and he should be held to the legal and judicial system of America.

      The UN is not allowed to tell us what to do, based on the Monroe Doctrine.  Mexico does not write our laws or vote for our President unless the rumors about rigged elections are true. 

      Texas is here to protect Texans.  This man was a criminal who would likely have done it again.  He broke not only man's law, but God's law.  He answered to man and now he must answer to God.

      I agree with this man's death sentence and that Texas did not pay attention to the idle cries of justice for a murderer who admitted he did the crime.

      Why is it so hard to defend the innocent?  Why does everyone try so hard to keep alive those who eliminated a beautiful life?  Why do victims have fewer rights than their killers, abusers, burglar/robbers, rapists?  Why?

      Mexico should keep their nose in their own country.  They have bigger problems than one criminal murderer who got his just desserts.

      1. KK Trainor profile image61
        KK Trainorposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Amen to that. Thanks.

      2. DannyMaio profile image61
        DannyMaioposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Very nicely put! bravo! I think I'm in love!

      3. American View profile image59
        American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Outstanding Kate!! You said it well.

      4. lovemychris profile image79
        lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        The IDF shot an American kid point blank in the head. How do you feel about that?

        1. American View profile image59
          American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          How do I feel? I feel you made it up. First it was not the IDF, it was border police. I checked, the gentleman who was shot in the head was a Palestinian. His wife who was not there or anywhere near there is an American citizen from California. As for the guard who killed him, though not at point blank range as you said(he was 10 meters away). He was shot with a rubber bullet. He died because the border police would not get him medical care. It was 2 hours before he recieve medical care.  I think the border policeman who killed him  should be tried, found guilty, and given the death sentence.

          THe first link is an article on this, the next link is the actual shooting.

          http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun … tle-help/.

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17Hv6C4rziU

          Just wanted to clear up a few mistakes

          1. lovemychris profile image79
            lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I'm talking about on the Mavi Mamra (?) Flotilla boat.....
            And yes, he was shot in the head..an act of war as far as I'm concerned.
            But I already know where your loyalties lie.
            Opposite of mine.

            1. American View profile image59
              American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              LMC,
              OK, so now it’s the Mavi Mamra Flotilla boat. No problem, lets take an honest factual look at this one.
              The Turkish IHH has pulled the Mavi Marmara out of this years "Freedom Flotilla 2," the AFP reported.
              IHH representatives held a press conference on members said that port authorities in Turkey did not provide them with the necessary permits for the Mavi Marmara, which organizers hoped would serve as an iconic flagship for this years flotilla.
              The Mavi Marmara was at the center of an international media fire-storm during the 2010 flotilla when self-proclaimed 'peace activists' on board attempted to lynch members of the IDF Shayetet-13 – Israel's naval commando unit – which boarded the ship in accordance with international maritime law.
              Nine members of the lynch-mob were killed when the commandos were forced to open fire to save their imperiled comrades.

              During the boarding of the ships, the demonstrators onboard attacked the IDF Naval personnel with live fire and light weaponry including knives and clubs. The demonstrators had clearly prepared their weapons in advance for this specific purpose.
              The ships plan to attempt to breach Israel's naval blockade of the Gaza Strip, which Israel has imposed to prevent weapons from reaching the Hamas terror organization, and others, in its territory.
              Ahmed Dogan, father of Furkan Dogen is in the United States to ask the government to investigate the circumstances of his son's death last year on the Mavi Marmara. On 5/31/11 he appeared on Democracy Now with his lawyer, who also served as translator.
              Furkan Dogan was one of eight Turkish nationals killed during the Israeli raid on the flagship of the first Freedom Flotilla that was bringing aid to Gaza. He was 18 years old, and had planned to visit his birthplace in Troy, NY and to study languages in Chicago. He had been born while his father was a graduate student at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, and left this country at age two. His autopsy reported that he had been shot with five bullets, three in the back, two in the face.
              So as we look at the truth, he was not an American citizen but citizen of Turkey. He was born here because his father, also not a citizen was here at the time. But he gave up his American by birth  citizenship when he was in Turkey. And as you can read he was not killed at point blank range as you claimed earlier, he was shot 5 times with live rounds. An interesting point since the IDF was using rubber bullets, not live fire. FACT!!!
              I am beginning to think that when some people get here on Hubpages something comes over them to twist and make things up. So yes LMC, you do know where my loyalties lie. They are on facts and honesty. Like you said, opposite of you.
              Here are some clips showing the activists attacking first. The IDF  responded in self defense. Also a fact!! You can see it yourself. But I know you will not watch it.

              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYjkLUcbJWo
              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6sAEYpHF24

    12. 59
      rmontesposted 5 years ago

      Capital punishment exists in Texas.  Good for them to execute an ignorant, savage Mexican.  This comment is coming from a Mexican.

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
        Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I hope he was guilty, at least. You never know, especially in Texas. They execute more people there more quickly than any other state. Their rate of executions probably exceeds that of most other countries.

      2. 59
        rmontesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Look, do we want the same outcome as in the Casey Anthony trial.  A guilty person getting away from consequence.  Who cares from where this beaner is.  The point is he committed a heinous crime.  The question should be, did he get a fair trial?  The united states is already full of homegrown third world country attitude.  We call it ghettolicious, or something like that, then more illegal, third world criminal minded people come to join that; so, where the hell r we going?  If this guy did what he did, he deserved what was given.  Let dogs lie.

        1. frugalfamily profile image81
          frugalfamilyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Its seriously larger than that.  If you are so very sure he was guilty, then giving a courtesy to another country after two presidents beg you to do so, isn't going to change the outcome.  No one said we should let a murderer go free.  Now Perry is considering running for the office of president.  I don't believe that someone that disrespects the office that much has any right to be in it.

        2. lovemychris profile image79
          lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          "A guilty person getting away from consequence"

          No--that was because they did not prove it beyond a reasonable doubt!
          You can't convict on media-driven bias and emotion!

          1. 59
            rmontesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            The defense did great in closing arguments.  Nevertheless, we must use better judgment.  1) All dogs bite kids. 2) Sam is a dog. 3) Sam will bite a kid.  Although, this is a logical and deductive argument, it doesn't mean it is actually true.  This bitch partied for 30 days not caring about her child, and the more likely reason was, because she already knew the outcome; therefore, why bother on something u already know.  Of course sooner or later, she knew it had to be faced, but let me party for some time.  Sociopath behavior.  The jury was distracted in the same manner the jury from the OJ Simpson case were distracted with the glove.  Thirty days your child missing and u don't report it, then u blame someone else, creating deceptions?  Come on, I know middle stream mentality is very easily to persuade with trickery logic, but her sociopath behavior was the evidence of her guilt!!

            1. lovemychris profile image79
              lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              And how do you know all this? WHO told you???

              The media and the prosecution, right?

            2. KK Trainor profile image61
              KK Trainorposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I am sorry to disagree, but it is not evidence of her guilt. It is evidence of her being a bitch and a horrible 'mother', and it definitely makes it seem like she killed her daughter, but it is not evidence. You can't convict someone just because you want to, or because they are disgusting and immoral. The rules of evidence and the jury instructions are very specific, and the prosecution screwed up.

              Her attorney certainly pulled enough crap for the prosecution to appeal the verdict, but I haven't heard anything about them doing that. So, she walks free and we can't do anything about it. Unless some new evidence turns up someday, which would open her up to another prosecution without the double jeopardy issue, she's free.

          2. KK Trainor profile image61
            KK Trainorposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I can hardly believe it, but I totally agree. Just because the media wanted Casey convicted doesn't mean the jury should bend to their will. It's not their job to convict, it's the prosecution's.

            1. 59
              rmontesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              when I was fifteen years old, without going into all the details, I used to take one of the cars for rides without having a license and while my parents were at work.  I was always very good with covering the evidence and they could not find much proof, and the proof that they did find was argumentative, but my behavior was evident.  You see, they worked second shift m-f, and I would take the car for a ride around 9pm, a few hours before they came home, and that's the time they would call to check up on me during a break, of course I would not answer.  They checked the odometer and we always argued about a few miles used up and if I had the spare keys they had lost etc.  The point is, with a good trial lawyer  without any solid evidence, they could never prove of me driving.  One thing though, was my behavior.  How I deceived and how I was always out at the same time when they were at work, and more.  I watched the whole closing remarks and knew the defensive team had won and the jury was going to decide on their win, but I also knew in my mind she was guilty.  Come on, give me an explanation for those thirty days, man?  The jury had the responsibility of questioning and examining more how could a mother not report of a child missing for thirty days, 720 hours or so?  And then she blames a babysitter while in prison.  That is a defensive mechanism behavior, trying to hide truth.  If you truly believe she was innocent than you must also think OJ Simpson was innocent under the same rule of reasonable doubt.

              1. KK Trainor profile image61
                KK Trainorposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Well I hope you don't think I believe she's innocent, I couldn't tell from your statement. I don't, because I'm not stupid. She clearly had something to do with killing her daughter. That's not the point though. Proving it is the point. Our justice system doesn't allow someone to be convicted without evidence, and behavior is not evidence. It's an indicator, but not evidence.

                1. 59
                  rmontesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  The system has convicted people on less evidence, but let's pretend the system is always noble and consistent, then point taken.  The jury, I believe, did have the power to find her guilty on something harsher, besides not telling the truth to the police, but refused.  I do believe, and could be wrong, that behavior may be admissible as proof in court when approached scientifically as profiling.  I thought the "Motive" was solid, and anyone who's had children might be able to understand.  How some can't wait for them to grow up and leave.  Behavior is science and proof of ones act.  But let's forget that.  When OJ was convicted, was the jury right as with Casey?  What was the difference, or was there a difference.  I'm noticing more support for the Casey jurors than the OJ.  Why?

    13. Ralph Deeds profile image68
      Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago

      It strikes me as barbaric for people like you to cheer at an execution as if it were a football game won by the home team and simultaneously whine about the sanctity of human life on abortion. I haven't claimed that Leal was innocent, but rather that his defense lawyer was incompetent and that Texas would have been better advised to follow US treaty obligations and allow the execution to be delayed. Instead the governor used a sensational murder case to further himself politically by thumbing his nose at Bush and Obama and the rest of the world, throwing some red red meat to the populace.

      1. Reality Bytes profile image94
        Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        We should have brought him to Mexico before the trial, released him, and had the Navy SEALs put a bullet in him?

        Does that make more sense?

        "used a sensational murder case to further himself politically"

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
          Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          No.

          1. Reality Bytes profile image94
            Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            So this must have simply added to your outrage at the U.S. assassinating individuals without a trial.


            With that I agree.

            1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
              Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I don't have a lot of enthusiasm for our drone assassination program. However, I'm not losing sleep over our killing of Bin Laden although it would have been more "correct" to capture him alive and bring him to trial as was done with Nazi war criminals.

              By chance have any of you cheerleaders for capital punishment seen the movie "The Ox-Bow Incident?" It's one of the truly great B&W Hollywood movies. It was made in 1943 starring Henry Fonda, Dana Andrews, Mary Beth Hughes and Anthony Quinn.

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ox-Bow_Incident

              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lljIrAfBzYs

              1. Reality Bytes profile image94
                Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I agree.  smile

    14. frugalfamily profile image81
      frugalfamilyposted 5 years ago

      I'm beginning to understand why our founders thought we were too dumb to cast our own votes.

    15. Ken Barton profile image59
      Ken Bartonposted 5 years ago

      Personally, I'm glad they didn't knuckle under to any pressure and hold off the execution.  No President, foreign law or treaty,has any business dictating whether a brutal murderer like Leal should be executed or not.  If someone like the President doesn't respect the Laws of the U.S.A., then who will or who should?  Leal committed the crime in this country and he paid he price for his crime just as anyone here would have.

      1. recommend1 profile image71
        recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        This is a normal gut reaction - but you have to consider the nature of International law, it only works if countries respect it.  It is these relatively minor things that break International law (or agreements) that mean that you cannot now scream if any foreign country executes an american citizen without involving the US in the process - whether you agree with his 'crime' or not.

        This guy would appear to have earned himself the death penalty, I don't think anyone is arguing otherwise, breaking International law by not following protocol is the issue, and the actions of Texas are tantamount to warmongering in some respects.

        1. KK Trainor profile image61
          KK Trainorposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Warmongering? Seriously? I think you misspoke. First of all, international law does not even apply to states, only to the federal government. Second, this treaty was never ratified by Congress in the many years it has been sitting there waiting, so how is it even law in our country? It isn't. Warmongering? Ridiculous. States have sovereignty to you know, they don't have to bow down to the President so that he can win a few hispanic votes. If he was so concerned about this case then why wait until the week before the execution date to protest it? Why not get Congress to pass that pesky treaty that had been sitting around for several years? He had control of the entire Congress for a couple of years didn't he? Please don't go around accusing a state of warmongering, it's disgusting.

          1. recommend1 profile image71
            recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            The only disguisting thing is the arrogance of the Texan governor.  You will be the first to start screaming when an American gets shot for importing a pocketful of drugs to a country that will not stand for such irresponsible behaviour, or one of the fat American (among other) paedophiles who flock to Thailand and other countries too poor to resist the big bucks of selling children.

            1. KK Trainor profile image61
              KK Trainorposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I would scream about neither situation. Anyone who does either of those things deserves whatever they get.

              1. recommend1 profile image71
                recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                They do - but then it also applies to any US citizen that the 'foreign' country considers is a murderer.

                1. KK Trainor profile image61
                  KK Trainorposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  That's right. So what is your point? You think that I would have a problem with an American being subject to another country's justice system? You don't know anything about me and I don't know why you would assume that, but I happen to think that people who act criminally should be punished. And it happens all the time overseas. Do you really think that all Americans who are detained overseas get help from the American consulate? That's very naive. Americans are thrown into foreign prisons all the time and never heard from again unless they are able to bribe someone to contact their family back home. Not just Americans, but people from everywhere are treated this way. So please don't tell me what I would scream about. I think criminals should be punished wherever they happen to be from and no matter where they commit their crimes.

                  1. recommend1 profile image71
                    recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    That is patent nonsense - in virtually every country any foreign national gets access to their consulate or a representative.

                    The point of this is that in many countries your armed forces are regarded as murderers, without the International agreements that protect them when they travel overseas they can be arrested and tried and your government ignored.  This is basic diplomacy and infringements of these codes, laws and agreements is a serious matter - and your Texas Governor is a meddling fool to play with other peoples lives.

                    1. Reality Bytes profile image94
                      Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                      You must be outraged that America has no problem assassinating foreign citizens within countries that are not part of any ongoing war.  All this done without a trial.

                      Throughout this thread I have not seen anyone show any compassion for the victim or her family.

                    2. Ken Barton profile image59
                      Ken Bartonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                      As has been pointed out, the Governor didn't meddle with any international law because that the law you're referring to does not apply here. Congress never ratified this law, therefore the Governor was not under any obligation to any country for anything.  We need to respect our own laws right here at home 1st, before we worry about international laws that do not apply to this country.

                      The point here is a brutal murder was put to death for his crime according to the laws of this country.  Had he not entered illegally into the US, then killed a young girl so brutally, he could have gone on his merry way, but he choose to do what he did.  No one else!  "And He Paid the Price Due His Decisions."

    16. thisisoli profile image65
      thisisoliposted 5 years ago

      The victim committed a crime in a country, and he was given trial under it's laws.  That is identical in most countries that you will visit.

      it will be very distressing for the families, however responsibility has to lay somewhere, and in this case it lays with the man who decided to rape and murder a young girl. I have little compassion for someone who did something like this, he did the crime, he knew that he would be in serious trouble if he got caught, even as he was doing this, throughout the entire ordeal he could have stopped at any time, but he raped, beat and murdered the girl from start to finish.

      As to America's foreign policy, I disagree with a lot of it, and I am surprised more Americans are not more up in arms about hteir fact that their country was foudned with a 'Hands off' policy on foreign affairs, which has been completely ignored.

      1. KK Trainor profile image61
        KK Trainorposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        So you think the murdering rapist is the victim? Wow, that says a lot.

        1. thisisoli profile image65
          thisisoliposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Did you actually read what I wrote?

          I am saying the murdiring rapist was responsible for his own actions and should be tried under the laws of the country he committed the crime in.

          1. KK Trainor profile image61
            KK Trainorposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Yes, I read this:

            "The victim committed a crime in a country, and he was given trial under it's laws.  That is identical in most countries that you will visit."

            1. thisisoli profile image65
              thisisoliposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Yes, I was stating what happened, and I agree with it, the mexican national committed a crime in texas therefore he should be tried under texan law, I agree with this.

              The same can be said in most countries you visit, if you visit a country you have to follow it's laws.

              by the way, when I said have you read my post I was referring to the entire thing, not just the part you decided to misinterpret.

              1. KK Trainor profile image61
                KK Trainorposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I was pointing out that you said "the victim committed a crime...", and I don't see the Mexican national as the victim. But maybe you meant to say the perpetrator.  I still don't know. I don't think I misinterpreted it, and I agree with the part about paying the price. I was just confused by your use of the word victim I guess, as if he was a victim because he was executed.

                1. thisisoli profile image65
                  thisisoliposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Ahh sorry, you are right, a bad use of language on my part, I do not view the murdering rapist as a victim.

                  1. KK Trainor profile image61
                    KK Trainorposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    I didn't think so, just wanted you to clear it up so everyone realized what you were saying.

    17. Disturbia profile image60
      Disturbiaposted 5 years ago

      "Leal murdered a 16 year old girl after raping and brutalizing her and bashing her head in with a huge chunk of asphalt. He was kind enough to leave a stick with a nail on the end of it sticking out of her vagina." 

      Too bad they couldn't execute him more than once.

      1. KK Trainor profile image61
        KK Trainorposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        agreed.

      2. uncorrectedvision profile image59
        uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        RIGHT ON!

    18. thisisoli profile image65
      thisisoliposted 5 years ago

      I am on the same side here, it is the judge and jury who see all the evidence and decide on the sentence.  The media have jumped all over this, and we all know how good they are on moulding the publics opinion.

      The Jury had to decide based on the evidence, they were not shown any of the media frenzy.  On the evidence provided they made a decision.

      Whether the decision was right or wrong, thats not my call to make. It was the people who were given the opportunity to make a decision without bias and with evidence that decided that womans fate.

      Yes the case was a mess, yes she lied a lot, yes there is something wrong with that woman.  But verdict of murder was turned down based on the evidence provided.

      I strongly believe that the law should be enforced by evidence.

    19. JON EWALL profile image46
      JON EWALLposted 5 years ago

      hubbers
      AMERICAN JUSTICE WAS SERVED ACCORDING TO THE LAWS OF OUR COUNTRY.
      NO ONE ever considers what the families have to bear in the future for their losses.
      AMEN

    20. PosseSocialMedia profile image77
      PosseSocialMediaposted 5 years ago

      I agree... in this case there was a confession so either he really commit the crime or he had a major death wish.

    21. Ralph Deeds profile image68
      Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago

      Sharia is alive and well in Texas. Did they stone him first?

    22. kateperez profile image74
      kateperezposted 5 years ago

      if the UN is defending this man, in any way, then they are the criminals and should be disbanded as such.

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
        Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Not likely. I'm not sure what the UN is doing. But if anything it is defending the integrity of an international treaty or convention which was adopted for good reason, among others, to protect citizens from advanced countries like the US who are arrested and jailed in countries whose judicial systems are unreliable. Think about it, nobody is defending the crime that the individual apparently committed, but rather compliance with a treaty that was adopted for good reasons and signed by the US as a protection for out citizens abroad. Why is that so hard for you to comprehend? Even George Bush urged Texas to observe the treaty.

        Maybe you should apply for a job as a researcher for Nancy Grace.

    23. Stump Parrish profile image60
      Stump Parrishposted 5 years ago

      Here's what the American government demands of other counties. Explain why there should be a difference.

      http://www.time.com/time/nation/article … 89,00.html

      Just over three years and two months ago, Steven Green raped 14-year-old Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi and murdered her, her parents and her 6-year-old sister in the family's isolated farmhouse 20 miles south of Baghdad.

      Darren Wolff, a Louisville, Ky., lawyer in private practice who helped defend Green, said international opinions should not be relevant to the pursuit of justice.


      http://www.time.com/time/world/article/ … 17,00.html


      In the mind of U.S. officials, the emerging "troop withdrawal" deal between Iraq and the United States would apparently look much like the many agreements the U.S. has with other countries around the world hosting U.S. forces. But five years of war and occupation have left many Iraqi leaders reluctant to accept what the U.S. considers standard practice for U.S. forces overseas: immunity from prosecution in foreign courts.

     
    working