Texas executed a Mexican national last night, what's your opinion?
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?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.
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.
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.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.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.
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.”)"
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!
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.Does not matter John, he did it. I guess you and Ralph are big supporters of murderers then.
Murderers like people that perform executions?
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.
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.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?
My argument is that Cameron Todd Willingham was executed, and was innocent - and that ONE is too many.
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???We are merely Romans without a Colosseum, and we are watching the fall of our Empire as we type on Hubpages.
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.
The courts are just as corrupted as any other org where money and black-mail can be used as influence.
Hell--Scaleria said innocence is not the most important thing--precedent is!
But of course, let his big fat behind be on the line....he'd sing a different tune.
AS would all of you.
I Know my friend was set up. It is blatantly obvious.
And the Pope spoke out on behalf of Davis, as did Gorbachev.
The witnesses all but one said they were co-erced to point the finger at Davis by the police. Uh oh....
But the courts are like stubborn little know-it-alls.
They HAVE to be right, at ALL times.
Hard to find one honest man....just ask God.
Sorry Wes,
Cameron Todd Willingham was guiltyA good article on the proper use of quotation marks, and guidance on the ethics of accuracy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QuotationYou 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!Wes,
I am so glad you know who I am and all about me. I see you are from Kaufman I live in Plano, though currently in a Rehab/nursing home. I almost died last December from a culmination of things I breathed on my job and during 911. To save me one of the things they did was put a trach in my throat. If you doubt me, since Plano is not far from where you are, you can come here to verify. I guess you may you might see where this is going. Here comes a plate of crow for you to eat.
I was a NY firefighter for 15 years FDNY, the job I mentioned. But you knew that, it is listed in my profile. I had the rank of LT. I served my entire time in an Engine company, one of which was the busiest house in NY. My company answered over 3000 alarms a year. I have 9 medals of honor, 2 medals of valor, I was at 911(where were you), and I am a graduate of NYU with a Bachelors degree in Fire Science /Fire administration. And if that was not enough, I was also a volunteer firefighter in the communities I lived in, Centereach when I was younger, Ridge after I was married.
Now having said that, without being on scene and without seeing Photos of the scene, I can only go by what I read in several online reports and by what Wikipedia has written on the subject.
Before I start Play the video of his wife speaking. It is on the left side of the video. She said he confessed to her. Remember, she was totally behind him and supported him throughout the trial until he made his confession
http://www.kxan.com/dpp/news/local/will … t-to-begin
Also, the Scientists were not from NY, One is from Baltimora Maryland, one is from Austin Texas
I have has the unfortunate experience of being in several flashovers in my career. Not standing on the outside looking at it, I mean in the room as it flashed. They do not happen all the time, but are not as rare as backdrafts. Each one that I was in has occurred in residential buildings. Basically, a flashover begins at the ceiling and instantly engulfs the room. The flashover does not always include the floor. The fire must achieve a higher temperature for that to occur. A flashover occurs when superheated gases reach a certain temperature, somewhere between 500 degrees and 1,000 degrees. Here’s a definition:
A flashover is the near simultaneous ignition of all combustible material in an enclosed area. When certain materials are heated they undergo thermal decomposition and release flammable gases. Flashover occurs when the majority of surfaces in a space are heated to the autoignition temperature of the flammable gases (see also flash point). Flashover normally occurs at 500 °C (930 °F) or 1,100 °F for ordinary combustibles, and an incident heat flux at floor level of 1.8 Btu/ft²*s (20 kW/m²).(Source Wikipedia)
There are several types of flashovers:
A lean flashover (sometimes called rollover) is the ignition of the gas layer under the ceiling, leading to total involvement of the compartment. The fuel/air ratio is at the bottom region of the flammability range.
A rich flashover occurs when the flammable gases are ignited while at the upper region of the flammability range. This can happen in rooms where the fire subsided because of lack of oxygen. The ignition source can be a smoldering object, or the stirring up of embers by the air track. Such an event is known as 'backdraft'.
A delayed flashover occurs when the colder gray smoke cloud ignites after congregating outside of its room of origin. This results in a volatile situation, and if the ignition occurs at the ideal mixture, the result can be a violent smoke gas explosion. This is referred to as smoke explosion or fire gas ignition depending on the severity of the combustion process.
A hot rich flashover occurs when the hot smoke with flammable gas ratio above the upper limit of flammability range and temperature higher than the ignition temperature leaves the compartment. Upon dilution with air it can spontaneously ignite, and the resultant flame can propagate back into the compartment, resulting in an event similar to a rich flashover. The common definition of this process is known as auto-ignition which is another form of fire gas ignition.
The following are some of the signs that firefighters are looking for when they attempt to determine whether a flashover is likely to occur
• The fire is in a ventilated compartment, so there is no shortage of oxygen in the room.
• The neutral plane is moving down towards the floor. In this situation, a flashover is plausible.
• All exposed combustible materials are showing signs of pyrolysis.
• "Rollover" or tongues of fire appear (known as "Angel Fingers" to firefighters).
• There is a rapid buildup of heat. This is generally the best indication of a flashover.
Why do we look for the signs? Because A firefighter has about 2 seconds to evacuate or take attack action in a flashover environment, even if wearing proper NFPA approved gear.
Having said that and before I go on, there is no reports indicating a flashover had occurred during this fire. It was only offered by Gerald Hurst, an Austin scientist-inventor, a Ph.D. in chemistry, who examined the arson evidence compiled by Manuel Vasquez, the state deputy fire marshal. Hurst said that Vasquez was incorrect. It should be pointed out the he has no firefighting experience nor does he have a degree in fire science. Actually, he is an advocate against the death penalty. That is fine for we all have our opinion on that, but he used that as reason to twist and create findings not consistent with what truly occurs in a fire environment.
So based on what these explanations, I hope you understand what a flashover is and how it occurs. I only show this as it will lead to why I believe he was guilty besides his confession. According to court records found on the internet and the accounts in Wikipedia as well as numerous articles on the subject it is clear that everyone agrees there were pools of hot spots on the floor. Those are clear and indisputable signs of an accelerant have been used. We teach every probation firefighter to look for those signs for 2 very important reason. One is the most obvious to a civilian, that is to show cause that the fire was arson. The second and not known is that where a firefighter sees a burn pool on the floor, the floor can be weaker there than the rest of the floor so not to step there for you may fall through to the floor below. Now these marks on the floor, we call pooling, burn hotter based on the flammability of accelerant used. So they will burn the floor in the area they are poured on and when ignited, crawl to the nearest wall and begins to burn upward. They leave distinct marks and trails so it becomes clear as to the source and the expansion that the fire took. Gerald Hurst is correct on one thing, had the floor become hot enough to flash, it would have destroyed any evidence of pooling. That is because flashover on the floor burns way hotter than the actual accelerant used. But Gerald Hurst cites the pooling patterns on the floor several times in his reports. Those would not be there if a floor flashover had occurred as Hurst claims. In addition A report prepared by Craig Beyler, of Baltimore Maryland, for the Texas Forensic Science Commission said that investigators ignored the scientific method for analyzing fires described in NFPA 921, Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations and relied on "folklore" and "myths". Beyler wrote in his report, "in the end, the only (basis) for the determination of arson ... is the burn patterns on the floor of the children's bedroom, the hallway and the porch interpreted as accelerant spill. None of these determinations have any basis in modern fire science." He shows in his report that the floor has the pooling effect and that makes 2 different reports besides the original investigator that the pooling marks are on the floor and those are the people who are trying to say the original report was wrong by saying a flashover occurred
Obviously, the floor flashover never happened. However, the City of Corsicana was extremely critical of Beyler's report, and produced a 21-page response pointing out that his report lacked objectivity, stating "Given some of Dr. Beyler’s distortions of the trial record, as described below, it may be that he has assumed the role of an advocate." One more reason that we can determine there was no flashover. It too comes from Hurst’s report dated 4-15-2005
“The bedroom contained two baby cribs, a bed and a heater. The room had one widow in the south wall and two on the east wall. During the fire extensive flaming had occurred out through the windows and there was variable fire damage to the floor as well as low burn on the walls”. Low burn on the walls means that from where the wall touches the floor to an area of 6 to 12 inches off the floor, the walls did NOT burn. So why is this important? Because if the floor extensively burned as Hurst claims, the walls would not be low burned, they would be completely burned.
Next, the original report also cites charring under the front door and in the entrance area. Setting a fire at the front door is used very often by arsonists. They believe by setting fire to the entrance of a dwelling, it slows the firefighter down allowing for more damage to occur. They are wrong. The investigators took samples and they tested positive for such an accelerant in the area of the front door. Hurst believes the accelerant got there because of the firefighters. Charcoal starter fluid and an outdoor grill were kept on the front porch of Willingham's house as evidenced by a melted container found there. Hurst believes some of this fluid may have entered the front doorway of the house carried along by fire hose water. If his theory of the fluid entering with the fire hoses, there would not be charring under the threshold. Plus the samples would have tested as trace, not as proof of an accelerant.
The other “pooling” marks also tested for accelerants. However, on returning to the house after the fire in the company of fireman Ron Franks, Willingham freely admitted to pouring flammable British Sterling cologne in the hallway from the bathroom to the bedroom in which the twins died, and commented "If you get any more samples from the floor, it will have the cologne in them”. An interesting comment. Lab testing cannot be that accurate. The test result would have come back as Alcohol based, it could not tell it was British Sterling from plain alcohol. This comment shows guilt by admitting he poured cologne and in a strategic place to trap people inside the fire, in this case namely the hallway to block exiting the bedrooms.
There are many more contradictions within the report that shows me the original arson report is more accurate than Hurst’s or Beyler’s reports. The original report talks of burn patterns that were very accurate but the other 2 reports want you to ignore those facts by calling sound fire science as “myths and “folklore”. There are no folklores in firefighting.
1. His admission to a firefighter about him pouring an accelerant, points to guilt.
2. While laboratory tests verified that an accelerant, mineral spirits, was used on the front porch, it was alleged that this fluid was deliberately poured near the front porch. Tests show a different alcohol based accelerant was used in the children's bedroom and a hallway to start the fire and that Willingham included the entranceway by the front porch so as to impede rescue attempts. Willingham volunteered the information that squirrels had been getting into his roof in the weeks prior to the fire, and suggested to neighbors immediately afterwards that the fire was of electrical origin. He maintained this explanation, with qualifications as to his lack of expertise, in his police statement.
3. On returning to the scene of the fire with fireman Ron Franks, in an effort to recover personal property (which was described as a very usual request at trial), Willingham was visibly dismayed to be unable to find a dart set. At a local bar, where a fundraiser was held for the Willingham family, he placed an order for a replacement set, stating that "money was not a problem now"
4. The prosecution claimed that Willingham may have been motivated by a desire to rid himself of his unwanted children. The prosecutor claimed that the fire which killed the children was the third attempt by Willingham to do so after attempting to abort each of two pregnancies by kicking his wife in order to cause miscarriages
5. Eyewitnesses also described his appearance as having "singed hair on his chest, eyelids, and head and had a two inch burn injury on his right shoulder, but the prosecution highlighted the ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE OF SMOKE INHALATION. His wrists and hands were blackened with smoke. He was eventually transported to the hospital for treatment, still resisting and still in handcuffs Now the only way to get burned or singed without getting smoke inhalation, it to set and run.
6. According to their sworn statements, both Brandice Barbe and Diane Barbe urged Willingham to return into the house to rescue his children, as according to Brandice Barbe, "all I could see was smoke". According to Brandice, he refused, and went to move his car away from the fire before returning to sit on a nearby lawn "not once attempting to go inside to rescue his children". ALL SHE COULD SEE WAS SMOKE. An important statement for it shows there was no flashover.
7. Prosecutor Jackson also contradicted Willingham's account by claiming blood-gas analysis at Navarro Regional Hospital shortly after the fire revealed that Willingham had not inhaled any smoke. Willingham's statement had detailed rescue attempts
8. Witness statements established that Willingham was overheard whispering to his deceased older daughter at the funeral home, "You're not the one who was supposed to die." Jackson stated that Willingham's comments was an indicator of guilt
9. According to the affidavits, Willingham's ex-wife had told Ronnie that Willingham had confessed to her that he had set the fire. Stacy herself told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram on 25 October 2009 that during a final prison meeting just weeks before he was put to death Willingham admitted setting the fire, as a response to Stacy's alleged threats of divorce the night before. In 2010, she declared, "Todd murdered Amber, Karmon and Kameron. He burnt them. He admitted he burnt them to me, and he was convicted for his crime. That is the closest to justice that my daughters will ever get."
10.Then there is his final statement. I will edit out the cuss words:
“Yeah. The only statement I want to make is that I am an innocent man-convicted of a crime I did not commit. I have been persecuted for 12 years for something I did not do. From God's dust I came and to dust I will return-so the earth shall become my throne. I gotta go, road dog. I love you Gabby. I hope you rot in hell, bitch; I hope you f****** rot in hell, bitch. You bitch; I hope you f****** rot, c***. That is it”.
So it is plain to see the defense arguments hold no scientific fact. The reports they use are extremely flawed. They were just ploys , and seen as such, by those who understood the evidence presented. Now I am not saying what the defense did was wrong, they have a serious job to do in a capital murder case. They will listen to anything if it clears its clients. The only ones that jumped on the “he is innocent” bandwagon are those who are against the death penalty. Whether you are for or against the death penalty should not be an issue. The issue was did he do it. It is clear, he did.
If an American performs the same kind of crime in Mexico, I for one would not lose any sleep over their execution.
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.
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.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?
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.
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?
Wasn't it pointed out above that there was no treaty ratified by Congress?
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.
I acknowledged that and said that Texas was within their rights based on that. No argument there.
Bruce, I'm sorry I thought by saying "As far as we know Mexico attempted to be involved and were refused access by Texas." you meant that Mexico had been denied access to Leal. That's what I was saying was not factual.
Sometimes prudence means not pressing your rights to the limit. The governor and law enforcement people in Texas obviously were trying to make a political point pandering to the redneck, teatard vote.
Is that what it was? Or did the murdering bastard that bashed that girls head in with a large chunk of asphalt, and then shove a wooden stick with a screw at the end up her vagina, just deserve to die?
Well the governor gave the finger to two presidents who asked him to back off and comply with the treaty in the interest of the country. Nobody asked him to pardon the Mexican or give him a lighter sentence. They merely asked him to comply with an agreement designed to assure a fair trial and which is routinely invoked by Americans in other countries without a problem.
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 speechesI 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?"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!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.
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!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.
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.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!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.Once again, get your facts straight before commenting. You sound ignorant and misinformed.
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.
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 ?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.
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 !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
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.
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.
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.
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.You live in Mexico? Maybe your comment is in the wrong spot, but I don't see what you're agreeing with. Just wondering...
um. . . .what? I don't understand. I live in TEXAS and here we execute even innocent people.
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.
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.
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.
Cameron Todd Willingham was innocent - how could that NOT be murder?
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!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.We are not God and the murderer was not god either. Again do not get me wrong in cases where there is the slightest doubt, nobody should be put to death. But in some cases where it is totally clear and the crime was outrageous like this Mexican national, I say he got what he deserved!
Many have a decent life in prison so I can not buy it is worse for everyone. If they were actually put in solitary confinement that would be OK, But you know they play cards watch TV workout, Write to crazy women pen pals, Get married etc...That would piss me off if I was a family member of one of the victims.Re read John Holden's remarks concerning life inprisonment in the United Kingdom. It's a greater punishment to give a suspect life behind maximum security - but that's only valid to persons of your ideology if actual punishment for the crime is the issue.
Just for clarity.
In Texas over the last several years the following commited suicide-Ronnie Neal, Christopher Britton, Jesus Flores, Deon Trumblinm, Michael Johnson, William Robinson. There are currently 18 on death row that want to skip the appeals process and want to be executed, their hearings are pending. This is just one state. So it appears suicide on death row is not limited to the UK.
Texas takes a strong amount of criticism for being a state that strictly executes , does not give convicts a chance, ignores evidence that might change the outcome of their sentence. Simply not true. Texas has a very extensive appeals process as evident by the time frame from conviction to execution. All evidence is examined and weighed. Does that mean the system is perfect? No, we all know that an innocent person can be wrongfully executed.
While Perry has been Governor, 128 cases have been changed from a sentence of Death to a life sentence. During the same time, there have been 232 executions.
For those who like to play the race card, since1984, 46% of all executed were white, the most of any race.
All you want to know about Texas death row:
http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/deathrow.htm
Indeed, several high profile killers in the UK have chosen to end their own lives rather than suffer life imprisonment.
One who did not have the opportunity to end his own life has been petitioning the government for years for the right to die, he is at present being force fed.Exactly. My blood thirsty American fools. . . .are just bloodthirsty fools, I guess.
So surely you must be outraged at the American led assassinations worldwide?
Dropping tomahawks on countries that have shown no hostilities to the United States?
The complete hypocrisy of the past administration (Bush) and the current administration (Obama) concerning life and death?
You cannot be outraged over one violent and psychopathic slime bag because of his country of birth?
PS: I am not referring to Obama!You bet I am. I couldn't be any MORE outraged at MY tax dollars going towards rape and murder overseas on behalf of United States Corporations.
Then we are in agreement. I despise any form of state sanctioned murder. I am befuddled why anyone would want to make a case with this Mexican dirtbag in Texas though.
Besides the fact that a state shouldn't have the power to put a citizen to death - the reciprocity could become an issue should another nation wish to put one of our citizens to death - it's political.
Here's one for you: More Colombians die each year from American Tobacco than do Americans from Colombian cocaine.
Shouldn't Colombia be allowed to fly up here and gas our tobacco fields with chemicals?
The state does not have the power to execute, they only carry out the sentence. The jury of the people judge, convict, and deliberate whether or not a person should get the death penalty
But we aren't talking about UK prisons, we're talking about US prisons. Prisoners in the US are protected by the 8th Amendment and numerous other rules and regulations regarding their treatment.
See: http://public.findlaw.com/civil-rights/ … ights.html
Maybe prisons in Britain need some reforms, but our inmates have a lot of comforts of home and protections.Are you implying that US prisons are somehow easier than UK prisons?
<Roars with laughter>You are the one who said the inmates were killing themselves rather than serve time, so maybe you know more than the rest of us. Personally I have never served time in the UK, but I do know a bit about the laws protecting prisoners here and the prisoners know them also. When they think they have a claim believe me, they make it known and often get some concession from the prison just to keep them quiet. It's a better life than some have living on the street with nothing to eat and no shelter.
Not roaring with laughter but that assertion seemed odd to me too.
Well it wasn't meant as an assertion, I was just responding to his comment about UK prisoners killing themselves. I don't know anything about their prisons and I'm sure they are probably much nicer than ours. My point was that we're talking about spending life in a US prison, not one in the UK.
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.
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.
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.
Where did you get your story? The story I read on this didn't have all the details you have posted.
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.
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.
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.But does the state have the right to keep animals like this alive at taxpayer expense ?
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.
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.
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.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 ?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...
Waaaaaaaayyyyyyyy cheaper as opposed to what???
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.
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.
I know, but this is an interesting answer I found, although not scientific. It does make sense though.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index … 151AArbHQ7What 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.
Yeah I made the same argument earlier on page 3 & 4. But you are right, it does take food off hardworking peoples' table.
Texas did the right thing. It is puzzling and alarming to see liberals try to defend the rights of murderous lunatics.
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.
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.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?
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.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.
It's not as though I would fare much better in Mexico had I been supected of such a crime.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
well his deathbed confession should be enough to convince you
If the government can prevent me from killing people, why can't I prevent them from killing people?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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=opinionRalph 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.
Why not look at the actual numbers from a reliable source? Here you go:
http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/deathrow.htmRalph,
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.htmThe 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!
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 disagreeOf 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.
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.
Good riddance... may God have mercy on his soul.
He served his time and took his punishment... the rest is up to God.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!!!!!!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.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.I'm not sorry, I don't give a fuck if you are offended or not.
Such an eloquent reply, I should have expected as much.
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.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.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.
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
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?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.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.Well who's trying to get the hispanic vote next year? Obviously our governor cares more about justice than pandering for votes like Obama. It is purely political and nothing else. You should read the articles on BBC Latin America about this story, they think we broke international law. Well international law just doesn't apply to states, so tough. (besides the often repeated fact that the treaty wasn't ratified by Congress so is not in effect)
Do not lump all us Texans with that person
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_AITMcI 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.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!You forfiet that sanctity when you do something as atrocious as he did.
Unlike the innocent children.Wrong!
Go back and read the book that you preach!
YOU are not God. YOU do not decide.Even God commited and endorsed several murders.
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
I told mason to go read his book. You said:
"Even God commited and endorsed several murders."
You seem to be imp-lying that since god endorsed murders, you can also. Hence the question, are you god now too?.
(btw; imp-lying was a typo...but dam, what a good one!!!)I never implied anything. You just assumed. I was mearly pointing out what God did since you were using God as a reason to not murder. You were implying God does not murder so people should not murder.
People should not murder, but if they do, then they need to be punished accordingly. I have no problem if the jury sentences the defendent to death.
And it was not a typo. Why you thought U was lying about a simple statement making a point to you is beyond me, buy thats your way. Attack when you are wrong.HUH?
Imp-Lying was a typo!
Are you now telling me what I mean, as well as what to do with my body??
And should God also be punished for committing murder? Since you justify murder by God--justify the punishment too!You wrote
(btw; imp-lying was a typo...but dam, what a good one!!!)
LMC, before I go futher, I have no problem with your sacastic remarks, some are quite funny. I may not agree with you, but funny is funny. So do not insult my intellegence when you make one than try to say its something else.
You put this in the same post as where you claim you had a typo. So that means you saw it and if it was a typo, you could have corrected it, but you did not. You also put a hyphen in it, so you cannot claim it was mis-spelled So therefore it was not a typo.
So now that you were caught, you try as usual to make false accusations. So I challenge you to show me the exact quote where I told you what to do with your body.
As I stated earlier and you continue to twist, I do not believe in God, so God arguments mean nothing to me. So therefore I do not use God to justify anything. I only pointed out to you your mistake about what YOU claimed.
So let me make this clear. People are responsible for what they do. You must face the punishment for what you do. It is no secret that Texas has the death penalty, and if you live here as long as this dude did, you really know it. So when you commit murder with a felony(murder alone does not qualify for the death penalty in Texas) you know it is possible to get a death sentence for your crimes.
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.
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??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.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
Do you feel the same about abortion? Just looking to see if you are consistent.
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.Anyone? Please explain the difference? How many people were shouting about treaties when Osama was killed?
I wasn't aware that we had any International treaties with him. Do tell?
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"?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.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.
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?
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.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.
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?
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.
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.
Yes and that's the liberal/pro-abortion argument every time. The numbers don't lie, nor do the facts. You give an organization money and then they divvy up the dollars, gee I wonder if any slips into the abortion pile. If the abortion services were performed by a totally separate entity then I would believ it, but they arent. It's all one pile and everyone knows it.
Those are the "facts" you want to present?
Very convincing. You simply believe what you want to to make your case, but you have no evidence, whereas Planned Parenthood can provide the books that show that federal money does not go to subsidize abortion.
What is sad is you think you actually are making a case, without providing any evidence whatsoever. You believe what you are saying, and don't need anything to back it up to believe it.
Very sad.And where is your evidence? Do you work there? Do you have the bank records and the books you speak of, or are you taking their word for it? You have absolutely no way of knowing that what you say is true. I guess we're both sad.
Dollars are fungible so as one adds to the pile of money one adds to the whole pile of money. If Planned Parenthood has $100 dollars of private donations to cover all expenses and services, including abortions, then $100 goes toward everything.
If the Federal government gives Planned Parenthood $100 for non-abortion services then the $100 of purely private donations is available for abortions. The result of Federal spending is the availability of more money for abortions. De facto if not de jure funding of abortion.
It is the purely fungible nature of money that makes this possible. There is a court battle brewing in Indiana over funding for Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood needs only to stop doing abortions or split their women's wellness functions off to continue receiving funding. Their dedication to abortion precludes this.
The argument Planned Parenthood has used, in Indiana, has been that women's health will suffer. Planned Parenthood provides a very small portion of women's health services in Indiana. If women's health, separate from abortion, was the raison d'etre than spinning abortion services off to a separate entity would not be so problematic. But when would the Catholic church spin the Eucharist off to a separate entity?Thank you, you're clearly better at explaining what I was trying to say.
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.Please read above by uncorrectedvision, and maybe some news too since it's all over right now. States are fighting to stop the federal funding, so obviously it's happening.
No it's not. Like Ralph said that money coming in from the feds is accountable. Do none of you realize how Medicad works? How it has to be handled at the clinic level and in a clinics books. Apparently not. You know our political representation often use different attack methods to get what they want. It doesn't mean it is right. So no... federal dollars are not to be used for killing. Besides it doesn't work that way... A medical claim is always submitted first. It would be denied from the get go. It's clear to me that you do not understand how hospitals and clinics get paid by the government. Everything has to be approved or they won't pay. So no it's not happening. It's quite clear.
And abortion supporters will lie and cheat in order to keep performing them, don't even think they won't. Those who love abortion will go to any length to make them available, including fraud.
Oh my, you can't cheat on a medical claim to the gov. If you do you will be caught and sent away for 25+ years. Now that's not saying that some people could have tried. But that's an entirely different issue. And, completely off topic and completely different issue than the issue at hand. If you want to discuss how Medicare and medical claims are made and medical codes that have to be used in order to even file a claim, email me or start a new thread. But whatever the case it has nothing to do with my issues with my tax dollars being spent to kill a convicted person.
I've never met anyone who "loved abortion." Most supporters of women's right to choose an abortion also support measures to reduce the number of abortions. The same is not always true of right to lifers who tend to be advocates of "abstinence only" rather than comprehensive sex education.
This highlights why it is a waste of time and effort trying to deal with simple logical construction with liberals or those who feel before thinking. It is precisely the fungible nature of money that means Federal dollars make more abortions by Planned Parenthood possible.
You have $20 and want to buy groceries, beer and cigarettes. You cannot buy the groceries you need and buy all the beer and cigarettes you want. You ask me for $20 and promise not to spend my $20 on beer and cigarettes. You provide me with a receipt that says that you spent $20 on groceries and a separate receipt that says you spent $20 on beer and cigs.
You can prove in writing that you did not spend my $20 on beer and cigs. And you didn't but you did spend $20 on them. That was the original $20. If you had not been given $20 you would have had to buy fewer groceries to afford the beer and smokes or do without the beer and smokes.
Once I gave you the additional $20 you could buy all the groceries without cutting into your beer and smokes budget. By giving you $20 I made the purchase of beer and cigs possible.
This is what Federal tax dollars do. Though those dollars may not be directly used to pay for abortions they do indeed make more abortions possible.By buying cigarettes? Mercy me...
Again, I will state the obvious, you apparently don't understand how a clinic gets it's money from the gov. Furthermore, it is nothing like the analogy you put forth. It is nothing like state run welfare systems. So again this is wrong.
Oh and another thing whose the liberal you are talking about? What makes you think that my views are politically motivatived? As I stated in an earlier post killing is killing. For me personally it goes far deeper than that of a political party affiliation. Which seems a little shallow to me. I mean having deep rooted values and morals shouldn't be motivated by ones fledgling political party's views. Seriously, how sleezy can that be?
However I guess it is far easier to assume or stereotype people because you think you've got all the right answers, or just too lazy to take the time to take a person for the individual that they are. That would mean you would have to make an effort. Besides people begin to develop their value system about the age of puberty. So what does politics have to do with it?Congress Called to Action on Planned Parenthood
Mary Frances Boyle
July 9, 2011 at 12:45 pm
Planned Parenthood Federation of America has gotten itself into a bunch of trouble this year. It all started with the a series of Live Action videos revealing the willingness of several Planned Parenthood affiliates to clandestinely assist sex-traffickers exploiting minor girls. Now documented misuse of federal health care and family planning funds and other concerns have led multiple states to de-fund the organization entirely.
Americans United for Life (AUL), a pro-life public interest law and policy group, recently published a scathing report, “The Case for Investigating Planned Parenthood,” which documents Planned Parenthood’s
misuse of federal health care and family planning funds,
failure to report criminal child sexual abuse,
failure to comply with parental involvement laws,
assisting those engaged in prostitution and/or sex trafficking,
dangerous misuse of the abortion drug RU-486,
misinformation about “emergency contraception,”
willingness to provide women with inaccurate and misleading information, and
willingness to refer women to substandard clinics.
In the report, AUL calls for a full-scale congressional investigation of the organization, which receives $363 million in tax dollars a year. They argue that American taxpayers have a right to know what they are paying for.
Planned Parenthood presents itself as an organization that promotes health for women and their families, but as AUL reports, abortion is central to the group’s mission. Abortion made up 97 percent of Planned Parenthood’s work with pregnant women in 2009, an increasingly significant part of the organization’s “clinic income.” Congressional intent is clear that federal funding through Medicaid and Title X of the Public Health Service Act is in no way to be used to support Planned Parenthood’s abortion business. That business shows no sign of becoming rare anytime soon.
Moreover, the report shows that government funding and the number of abortions Planned Parenthood performs each year have increased at nearly parallel rates.
AUL also recounts Planned Parenthood’s misuse of federal funding. For example, in 2004 the California Department of Health Services audited the organization for improper billing practices that resulted in a $5.2 million overpayment from the government in just one fiscal year.
The report concludes that Planned Parenthood “has proven that it is not the defender of women’s rights and health that it holds itself out to be. Rather, substantial evidence suggests Planned Parenthood defends and partners with those who abuse and exploit women.”
As America falls deeper in debt, government spending must be limited. The Heritage Foundation’s Jennifer Marshall and Katherine Bradley listed subsidies for Planned Parenthood as one of the Dirty Dozen policies that show “a serious disregard for parental rights, human dignity, freedom of conscience, and civil society in American life.” The AUL report is the most comprehensive account yet of how deep that disregard really is.
Mary Frances Boyle currently is a member of the Young Leaders Program at the Heritage Foundation. For more information on interning at Heritage, please visit: http://www.heritage.org/about/internshi … ip-programAs you your self just pointed out... Congress is taking action. Why? Because they don't pay for abortions. Thanks for making my point for me. Like I stated earlier in a post, the federal gov. does not pay planned parenthood any money for killing purposes. Like Kk thought they did.
Wow you sure know how to twist!
This clearly states that Federal money shouldn't be used but evidence is showing differently and hence the investigation!
misuse of federal health care and family planning funds,
failure to report criminal child sexual abuse,
failure to comply with parental involvement laws,
assisting those engaged in prostitution and/or sex trafficking,
dangerous misuse of the abortion drug RU-486,
misinformation about “emergency contraception,”
willingness to provide women with inaccurate and misleading information, and
willingness to refer women to substandard clinics.
here is a old director for planned parenthood!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKlEAwRf5g8&NR=1
I guess she is lying.Excuse me? Twist what? I have stated all along that federal taxpayers money is not used for killings at planned parenthood. The gov. does not pay them for abortions like Kk stated they did in an earlier post to me. So I am not sure what your referring too. Maybe your mixed up. Try going back and reading all the posts starting on page three. That might help. But your statement has completely baffled me.
here is another which clearly shows in their own words, they are mostly a surgical facility.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aq0kBkUZbvQDanny if funds are being supplied for abortions you better believe that that clinic will be shut down or something. So.... what's your point to me? I think you have my posts confused with someone else's. I am not going to respond to your posts again until you've actually have read the earlier posts. Because you keep replying to me in a rebuttal format. But we are clearly on the sane page. I agree. Congress will take actions. Like I stated earlier that they would.
Are you supplying me these links to prove a special point or are you supplying them to support my positioning that fedreal taxpayers money is not paying for killings at planned parenthood? Legally I guess is the operative word here. Now if funds are being used illegally well that's beyond the boundaries of our controll. Just like it is when someone is released early and goes out and kills someone. Again, as I stated in an earlier post.Sorry if I got it wrong, But from your posts it looks like you are defending PP and saying they are not using FED money for abortions? You clearly stated that fed money is not being used. I think if 97% of PP business is abortions and they are receiving 350M USD. someway some how they are using tax payer money. They claim to the media if they lose their funding they would not be able to do Mammograms which they do not even do and a few people who work at these places clearly state they do not, can give a referral and that they are mostly a Surgical office! To any commonsense individual that clearly shows a different scenario then they are portraying.
Sorry if I misunderstood, But your posts seemed pro PP, Unless you were being facetious?
Can you show proof that the money is not going to abortions? Also would you not agree that if they would not get 350M tax dollars they would not do as many abortions.
Planned Parenthood presents itself as an organization that promotes health for women and their families, but as AUL reports, abortion is central to the group’s mission. Abortion made up 97 percent of Planned Parenthood’s work with pregnant women in 2009, an increasingly significant part of the organization’s “clinic income.” Congressional intent is clear that federal funding through Medicaid and Title X of the Public Health Service Act is in no way to be used to support Planned Parenthood’s abortion business. That business shows no sign of becoming rare anytime soon.
Moreover, the report shows that government funding and the number of abortions Planned Parenthood performs each year have increased at nearly parallel rates.
AUL also recounts Planned Parenthood’s misuse of federal funding. For example, in 2004 the California Department of Health Services audited the organization for improper billing practices that resulted in a $5.2 million overpayment from the government in just one fiscal year.
So Planned Parenthood receives Federal money? Does Planned Parenthood provide abortions? Do the same staff and facilities provide Medicare and abortion services? Does the money go into Planned Parenthood's bank account separately? When staff are paid are their pay checks divided between pay received for performing abortions separately from Medicare funded pay? Money is like water. If you pour more water into the bucket you cannot separate one water's source from the others.
The analogy is apt.Um no it is not. You clearly don't understand the billing system of Medicare and Medicaid. If one dollar is used to pay for something that is not approved, you will be in BIG TROUBLE. BIG TROUBLE. It is a major deal to falsify Medicare or Medicaid documents. Its jail time for the doctors, its audit time for the accounting staff, its a major fine for the clinic and it is a loss of benefits from ever being able to collect Medicare or Medicaid funds again. Again it is not anything like the analogy you used. That welfare analogy is nothing like the real world of being paid by Medicaid funds or by Medicare. Nothing like it. Question do you work in a medical office that gets paid by the feds?
You still don't quite get it but that is ok. Money is a hard thing to comprehend.
But ultimately we agree that federal funds do not pay for abortion services at Planned Parenthood.
Only 3% of their services are abortion related, and they are regularly audited to make sure that the money does not get appropriated for abortion.Yet again, money is fungible. What money doesn't pay for health care is made more available by money that does and vice versa. Therefore federal funds make abortions by Planned Parenthood more possible and plentiful. The particulars of bureaucratic niceties do not alter the economic and monetary realities of what money is and how it is used.
But it does alter the legality of the argument. They are not using federal money toward abortion, and you don't disagree with this.
Not the point I am arguing. I am arguing that taxpayer dollars help pay for abortions. It is immaterial if federal dollars directly fund abortions. By the mere presence of this funding source more abortions are facilitated.
Regarding legalities, it appears that Planned Parenthood is not too concerned with those either.It may be that the services provided by Planned Parenthood actually reduce the number of abortions.
So Planned Parenthood is working directly against its own interests?
What interests would those be?? Abortion?
Abortion is 3% of what they do. Mostly they provide birth control and cancer screening, mammograms, etc. For people who can't afford insurance....
You know--the same people the tighty-righty's always get twisted about.
You see--since they can afford cancer screenings and mammograms and birth control for their daughters....who is anyone else to be poor?
How dare you be poor!!!
Off with all your heads, and let you eat cake.
(made in a foreign country, of course, and shipped over here....lower labor costs and no regs you know. Plus a HUGE mark-up!!) Ahhhhhh, how NICE to have the world by the gonads!
Now--you poor girls and women....just suffer and do without. We have better things to spend tax money on---like an iron dome or an iron wall or white phosphorous to spray people with, or bombs and grenades or private contractors at all our military installations.
Oh, and farm subsidies and medical subsidies for the Bachmanns.
After all...what's $417,000.00 for one family?
errr/ahhhhh I wonder how much of PP's budget that is???"Michele Bachmann's family received foster care & Medicaid money, farm subisides. She's used every program in Matthew Lesko's books"
Hello!!! I'm waiting for some righty to be outraged by this!!
Come on...be consistant for once!
Hey, but there is something very weird going on with Bachmann....everybody is always apologizing to her!
The fox-snooze reporter had to, for asking if she was wacky... and someone else had to for saying she had sex appeal....
What is she, A Mother Goddess in the Cult?She helped to raise 23 children who are Americans and would have other-wise been thrown away.
Whats your excuse?
I have seen many sit drunk all day and partying all night off the welfare system and scammiing.
She at least did something of value for Society.
You would condemn that?...
Wow, that speaks volumes."I have seen many sit drunk all day and partying all night off the welfare system and scammiing."
Oh? Where and when were you hanging out with these people?
Just curious.Lynn Mass. most of my young life, all the way up to mid 30s.
I grew up in the belly of the Liberal beast, right smack in one of the Socialist Democrat welfare ghetto cities.So--how many jobs were available in these ghetto's?
Might there have been a reason for collecting welfare...such as money to survive?
Since jobs are usually scarse, and usually don't go to ghetto-kids.You know it was rather interesting that the poverty gap was very wide in the city. The poor had about nothing except what they got for hand-outs... while the well to do Unionists and Democrat city employees and Politicians, had more than enough by ten times over. And since that was never enough they always wanted more, so they would cut the programs or increase the costs oh so much to drain what they could.
Yes... caring, sincerely lovable folk those Leftist Socialist Democrats are.So, the only jobs available were city jobs? Come on...I'm talking retail, fast-food, chains, etc.
How much of a chance does a ghetto kid have against suburban teens?Uh, a good chance because suburban teens don't want to work fast food or most retail unless it's out in the suburbs in a mall. Ghetto kids, as you call them, work most of those jobs, and their ghetto parents work for the city or county. Ever lived in a mid-sized city run by an all black government? Go to the courthouse.
The $6.00 and hours jobs were plentiful... and they dis-qualify you from help, for earning too much, then you cannot afford the $1200.00 a month for rent, and then there is food, elect, phone, you name it.
Meanwhile the unions and Govt. keep getting bigger.
Yup... nice trap the Democrats and Progressives have set up.What are you talking about? The unions have been in decline for the last thirty years.
No actually...SHE condemns others for accepting tax dollars, while doing so herself.
What value to society was her farm subsidy???
Seems to me that was a value for herself and her family only!!
Same as her husband's payments from the gvt in his christian counseling center.
See, it's a problem when she denounces others for doing what she herself does....
And plenty of people get foster kids....some to help,as well as supplementing their incomes while staying home.
If a single mom who can't afford a baby decides not to abort, and keep the baby---why then don't you praise her too???
Her, you bash for having to take tax money.
Bachmann you praise for taking tax money.
I don't get it.
So if abortions represent only 3% of Planned Parenthood activities and women's health services are so precious to Planned Parenthood than why not spin abortion services off to a separate entity and continues the oh, so vital women's health services and continue collecting Medicaid and Medicare money?
The reason is that Planned Parenthood is a population control philosophy intended at keeping undesired minorities in check. That mission remains the same. There are more aborted minority children in NYC than live births. Margaret Sanger must be so happy in hell.Why should they have to!!!
Abortion is a legal medical procedure that is being stymied because people like YOU don't like it!
Don't like it? Don't have one!
Meanwhile, mind your own gd business.It's comments like yours that make us pro-lifers despise your position even more. Don't you see how disgusting it is to defend baby killing? I guess not. It's ok to defend people on death row but not innocent unborn babies. Unbelievable.
Isn't it?
And they hate Israel also... puts the Jews in fine company, I would say.
The two most persecuted peoples in the world, the innocent and the Jews.
And it seems as though it is always a Leant Leftist persecuting and Killing them in the last century or so.Oh give me a break!
YOU love Israel more than you do your own country!
And so does the rest of Congress.
Give it a rest with your poor martyr syndrome.
That was long ago. YOU are now the persecutors!!!
I am just waiting for the Michelle Bachmann/Sarah Palin mud wrestling contest. Maybe they can wrestle in something even more disgusting to you - money. How hot!?!
LIES!!! they do not do mammograms and the percentage of abortions is much higher than you state.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aq0kBkUZbvQDo not do mammograms???
And I'm supposed to believe anything else you say?
Ehhhhhhh. fail.
btw--I never believe anything you say.
Ever.In their own words and you don't want to believe it! very sad for you! You just show your true colors with every post. You have got to be the most angry person ever on Hub Pages.
You hear it in their own words and you deny this? What can I say. Stay angry and bitter, I would hate to be you.Yeah--you WOULD hate to be me...cause I'm female, and we have to put up with the likes of YOU telling us what we can and can't do with our bodies....after we get knocked up by one of your gender.
Who can't keep it in their pants.
And I choose to believe the 2 women here on HP who SAID that they got their mammograms and pap smears at PP.
And they also provide birth control....which should make you very happy.
Since your gender can't control themselves, and then think they have the right to order my gender around after the fact.
like Princess Diana said, "If men were the ones who had babies, abortion would be safe, cheap and abundant." (paraphrase)
and watch the personal attacks...I may have to report you, and then have you still be here, cause there is such a liberal bias by the mods. snarkYou make it sound like only men are pro-life. There are just as many women out there who think slaughtering unborn babies for your own convenience is disgusting and wrong.
If you find one who does it for convenience...let me know. The word I use is necessity.
You know, cause it's hard to pay rent, food, heat, electricity and daycare at $7.15 an hour.And they are perfectly free not to have abortions.
Of course we are, but I'm not the one who keeps saying that "women" support the right to abort their unborn children. I would not say that because many do not. Just like many men support the right for their child to be aborted.
As I recall, a fairly big majority of women support their right to choose. Many do not. They can be seen outside of Father Coughlin's Shrine of the Little Flower in Royal Oak, Michigan, once a month or so with signs saying "Stop Murdering Children" and "Stop Killing Babies." I assume they do that with the blessing of the parish priest. But I don't think they get many converts with their approach which certainly doesn't inspire rational discussion.
[KK looks like we may have something in common. Was your father, by chance, in the oil business? I was born in Aruba in the Exxon refinery there, moved to Baton Rouge and then to Bogota, Colombia. You must be either an Army brat or an oil brat. My dad once declined an offer in Saudi Arabia.]
I do believe women have a choice to say no. Unless raped, then should let the authorities know about it. Also I never attacked you.
If you call yourself you will see they DO NOT DO MAMMOGRAMS!Women have the right to have sex....sorry to tell you. If an accident happens, they have the right to correct it before it's too late, and multiple lives are ruined.
And--at the very very core.....what another person does in their life is none of your business.
You can mind your wife, your daughter, your mother...you have no business minding me and mine.
Freedom is more than just a rah rah word you know---and it means there are things you have to put up with that you don't like.That would be true if you did not want everyone's money to pay for your mistakes! You can not have it both ways sweetie!
If you want people to mind their business then pay for all of your own $hit! very simple.From what I've read the Federal government doesn't pay for abortions, certainly not directly at least. An abortion might be an income tax deductible medical expense. And in the case of an employer-provided private health plan that covers abortions, the premiums would be deductible as a business expense. I assume so at least. So, like the oil company subsidy the portion of the employer's premium that is attributable to abortions would be a government subsidy. These employer paid premiums should be treated the same way premiums not paid by employers are treated, i.e., they should be considered taxable income to the employees.
Well you may believe that the federal government doesn't pay for abortions, but how exactly would you separate the money they receive from the fed. govt. from the money they use to perform abortions? Is there a separate account that they keep the abortion money in? I will not believe that they don't fund abortions any more than some will ever believe that oil subsidies keep fuel prices lower than they would be without them. It's just a difference in how we see the facts.
Abortion is a legal medical service...why shouldn't the gvt pay for it? They pay for everything else...including viagara.
Including That old fart Hyde, who's wife had brain surgery on the tax-payers dime....must have cost a fortune that one. But she is deserving and men who can't get it up are deserving....why?
Because you don't find the service offensive? Well I do! Geuss what...tuff.
We are all equal. Your ideas of right and wrong don't get preferential treatment.I certainly think that the government paying for viagra is stupid.
I wish people would just pay for their own health care altogether, but that's not realistic is it? But viagra has little to do with performing abortions, as most who need it probably aren't reproducing anymore... just kidding, maybe they are, who knows? Gross.You don't get what they're doing....they are trying to make it so that even IF you pay with your own money, abortions are not allowed.
Very much unequal treatment under the Constitution.
And under the law.
It's no different than the Taliban.
I will agree that Viagra should not be free! that is a pleasure not a necessity.
Planned Parenthood also does not always pay for abortions, if for instance you have a job you have to pay off the full cost, if you are on severely low income it will be subsidised, only if you are unemployed is it free.
This means that abortions are carried out for free in the section of humanity where the child is most likely to turn to crime, see freakonomics for a more lighthearted look at how Abortion drastically reduces crime rates.
The shutting down of Planned Parenthood is an attrocious thing, especially since it was where many lower income women had to go for their 'annual checkup', and other medical checkups of a more feminine nature.
As to everyone paying for their own healthcare, so far all that has given you is a spiral of health insurance companies raising excess fees and doctors and medical companies being able to charge many times the value of the treatment.
The fact of the matter is that an NHS works, it works in every single country that has implemented it. It is a tax burden, but one that would be more around $30 a month than $400 a month (Which seems to be the minimum for anywhere near decent healthcare here in Texas).
The NHS Should provide healthcare to all, but that doesn't mean you cannot still get private healthcare insurance, stay at private hospitals, and get a better service if you have the money and have the ability to pay.If national health care works so well then why do so many people come from countries that have it come to America for better care? We have the best health care in the world because we pay so much for it. It's called research and development, scientific research into what works and the best new methods for healing people. That's where a lot of the money goes. A lot more of it goes to malpractice insurance because our system allows people to sue their doctors for almost any reason related to the care they received.
Americans have choices when it comes to their health care, and we don't want the government telling us what doctors we can see and how much those doctors can spend on treating us.Yeah, we'd rather have insurance companies deciding whose worth the risk to save or not.....and OF COURSE, Money talks. The mo money, the mo your life is worth.
Money can't buy me love, but it can decide if I live or die....how moral...NOT.
***
And much of that R and D is PAID for by US........WE pay--THEY make a profit!Erm, who goes to America for healthcare? I think you may be being fed a line there. I know people who have travelled to Costa Rica for implants, but not America for healthcare. I also have never seen any statistics supporting America as having the best healthcare in the world. Infact the WHO ranks America as 37th in the World, thats a long way from number 1. and you pay way more as a percentage of the GDP than any NHS country. I am all about research in to medicine, however looking at the profit margins of Pharmacutical companies and insurance companies, I think it is safe to say that they are getting away with gross overcharging.
Why would people go to a country which overcharges for healthcare when there are dozens of cheaper and better countries you could go to for healthcare?
A NHS does not mean the government tells you which doctors you have to see and where you have to go, you are generally free to find the practice that suits your needs. The last time I went in to hospital for an operation I was given a list of hospitals, wait times, and links to reports on their standards and quality of care so I could make an informed decision.Is Forbes a good enough source for you?
http://www.forbes.com/2008/05/25/health … rcing.htmlYes it is, which is why I read that 32% of that number go for better care, and as it mentions, the majority of that number of from developing countries. You will also find that many of the people travelling to the United States for healthcare are from countries that do not have a NHS.
The few from European countries are often seeking specialists in the profession, something that could be said of any profession, and does not necessarily relate to the opinion of the healthcare in the country.
You need to get your facts correct my friend. The USA has the best treatments of any country! when people have major diseases or transplants, many rich from all over the world come to the USA.
Your numbers are wrong, Yes we have expensive healthcare but the reason many come here for treatment is it is the best period.If need to get my facts straight? I just gave you the figure from the World Health Organization, my friend. America is ranked 37th in the world for Healthcare, that is where America is ranked against every other country, and there were 36 better countries.
America has some great points, but Healthcare is not one of them, and it is why when it comes to the time to raising a family, my wife and I will be moving back to somewhere in Europe.Americans know that people come here from all over the world, whether you want to accept it or not.
WHO based their results partly on how much the patient had to contribute to their care. Well of course in a country with private health care the patients contribute more than in countries where they don't pay! It's just common sense. Their numbers are skewed towards countries that provide health care to citizens, so they find ways to make those systems look better.The medical care has to be paid for one way or another, by taxes or by payment to a company, are you agreeing that a national health care service with optional private healthcare is a more cost effective solution to healthcare in a country?
Americans know, as opposed to what the rest of the world knows?
I just told you what the statistics you provided as evidence actually showed. American healthcare really is not well regarded overseas, in any country that I have visited. If I was looking for better healthcare I may go to Spain or Germany, maybe even Costa Rica if I had the cash.
America though? it is regarded by the rest of the world as sub-par and expensive. If a subsection of Americans want to claim it is the best despite all evidence, that is up to them. But I know that right now I am living in a country where many of the citizens, even those with insurance, avoid going to the hospital because of the cost, a country with the highest rates of prescription drug use in the world (and doctors who are given commision on 'drug sales').
As I said earlier, America has a lot of good points, there are plenty of reasons I love living here in Austin, but the lack of NHS is the reason I will eventually be going home.Those stats are based exactly on what? Everyone knows when you need special medical care the USA is the place to have that surgery. Yes we have over inflated prices because of lawsuits and other ridiculous BS, but if you or a loved one was ill would you want to go to a government healthcare facility in another country or the best doctors in the USA?
The other countries do not have money to do large experiments into new medicine as the USA, we are a Capitalist country and that produces all the best products for profit.
If we would stop sending troops to other countries and wasting trillions on fools that we will never change and put that money into our healthcare we would be #1 in every category.Do you really think America is the only capitalist country?
Do you think American Pharmacuticals are the only ones doing research?
The stats are based on the standard of healthcare, which is what this entire discussion is about, you can keep talking about your IF's but american healthcare has always been expensive.
And as to America being the best place for surgery, I am not exactly sure where you are getting those figures from. I give you the World Health Organization, you give me...your opinion?
Want to know what those stats are based on?
http://www.who.int/whr/en/
Read and enjoy.
Or look at some of the raw data,
http://www.photius.com/rankings/world_h … stems.html
Capitalism does indeed create the best products for profit, unfortunately sometimes people need the best products for people.
One thing we do agree on is that America should be spending less money in wars overseas, and more money at home.
Bush put a huge increase in to war spending, I cant remember the source of the graph but the spike was insane, and Obama is just as bad for continuing this outrageous spending. When America is cutting back on education and healthcare, they would be better off withdrawing troops and investing money back in to the country.
"he shutting down of Planned Parenthood is an attrocious thing, especially since it was where many lower income women had to go for their 'annual checkup', and other medical checkups of a more feminine nature."
I agree completely.
Nor can you have it both ways!
If you are going to force women to have babies agaisnt their will--you dam sure better pay for it!
?? How so? There are ways of planning parenthood other than abortion.
Yes, but those ways involve tedious little things like RESPONSIBILITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Responsibility is very unpopular. I's so old school, and out of style in today's consumer world.Personal, individual responsibility isn't that a White Racist Bigoted Christian Capitalist Supremacist idea? We as a society left responsibility in the trash right next to an aborted baby, decades ago.
Sir, I am aware of THAT. However, when my willie is involved with a woman. I KNOW that responsibility is MINE, and I exercise it on a PERSONAL level.
Now, that white racist nonsense that you speak of - were you referring to me????? If so, then I can give you and address that you can meet me at, or I can assume that you are a fool, as you do not know me. If that was NOT directed towards me personally, then Sir, I hope you have a great day.Rhetorical - most liberals consider talk of personal responsibility to be racial code words.
Yes, because most liberals would rather control people's behavior than let them take responsibility for it themselves.
"OMG we can't let people eat whatever they want! But they'll get fat and then that causes a drain on our health care system! Let's put some more regulations in place so that people have to report their daily intake of trans fats, unless of course they live in New York where we've already banned it!" Typical liberal BS.Listen, aren't you anti-abortion? Nuff said! YOU have NO moral ground to stand on when you talk about controlling people's behavior.
YOU want to FORCE girls to give birth against their will!!Perhaps keeping their pants on would help? Common sense, the bain of the liberal's existence.
Whose pants,the girl's or the boys?
And what should we do to force the boy after the fact?
Should he be forced to marry the girl?
Forced to have a vasectomy?
And, most of all......what business is it of yours?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuT87shg … ure=relmfu
would you want your child to do this????YOU take care of YOUR child....
Leave the rest of us alone!
Keep YOUR ideas about morality to yourself....and since they include spraying people with white phosphorous, and using depleted uranium, I would say YOUR values are hardly moral!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSeKQjzs … re=related
another that is not fox just incase!Shall we show pictures of a village after being hit with a missile?
Don't you support Bush's wars?
Haven't you SEEN what has been done to the children of the world in the name of war?
But--they are already born, so they don't rate, huh?Obama is boming away around the mid-East, and you have no complaint about that.
Plenty of Democrats and quite a few Republicans do wonder what we're doing in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Yeah but I haven't heard from the anti-war far left... oh sorry, those are who are fueling the "Arab Spring"... "Islamic revolution".
They were in the streets in a froth about Bush, Ralph.
When it come to this, they are in a boat floating over there to stir it up more.
And you have no complaint when bombing goes on in Gaza, even though little babies get killed.
Your point?
Wow---I've never met anyone before who knew most liberals!!
How'd you manage that?Sir, we still have the issue of you calling me names. Do I call you names? Are you just angry at the world, and don't know what to do about it? I can help you out.
The posting was rhetorical - the opinion you expressed is often characterized as I put it in that string of names ( tongue in cheek) rhetorically to illustrate the hatred liberals have for the idea of individual freedom. I wasn't calling you names but if you want I can.
So you admit to bigotry, and assuming things that you do not know.
Let me venture upon a name for you, dumba** - you're a f***** moron.WOW, you completely missed the point. The names were hardly aimed at you but at the liberal who thinks those things of the position you are adopting. But glad you could play, just goes to show....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_device
Well?...
Considering half to five fourths of those aborted babies are most likely girls... (more in Europe and South-East Asia appearently.)... then yes, that many fewer women will be born to grow up and have an abortion...
So yeah Ralph, I guess they are helping to reduce abortion in the future.
In their own lil demented Leftist Progressive Eugenics inspired way.
Can't argue that logic.Hello Tom. Hope your doing well. Have I missed anything good?
I disagree, it's just plain logic. But if it makes you feel better to believe that someone is separating the money somewhere in a big room then go ahead. I'm just not that naive.
IE,
Actually they are being spent on abortions. The issue became a hot button fight after PP relaesed their financials to the government as required to recieve funding. I will beak it down, PP brought in though donations and from revenues $ 100. The government gave them $100 in grants for a total operating budget of $200. In the expenditures it showed they spent $130 on abortions, $70 on all else. THerefore PP clearly used Fed money for abotions. PP does do good work for woman, no one can deny that. I want to see PP continue. Just spinoff a new company to handle the abotrtions and that will end the problem and they can recieve funding.American, you will not convince them. We, informed people, know the truth which is that planned parenthood will do anything to promote their abortion services and will skirt the law in order to do it. And in many cases they have gotten away with it because some of those in Congress think it's fine. We can only hope that someday the truth becomes so obvious that they can no longer deny what they've been doing for years. Without planned parenthood the number of abortions would drop because they use every tool they have to convince girls it's the right choice for them.
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.Exactly, Bruce.
I knew eventually we would agree on something.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.
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?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.
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.
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.And, you're one to talk with a post like you just made.
What do you mean? Do you think he has made a good, logical, supported argument? What's your point?
Bruce I did answer your question. I just did not give the pacifist answer you wanted.
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?
"Good people do not find themselves in those circumstances."
That's a quite ignorant statement. I hope it never happens to you.Ralph anybody who considers the NY Times credible is just a source of amusement to me.
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...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."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.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.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.
it is a shame that Tx still implements this capital punishment. Perry is so arrogant, he think he is above international law and moratorium.
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.
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.
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.
Oh yeah killing Osama probably did not have any effect on Americans abroad?
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.So there are no Al Qaeda in Mexico. You sure?
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.
"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.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.
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.
I guess I'm barbaric then because I'm going to stand and cheer every single time a child killer gets put down.
Deleted
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.
Exactly. I thank you, Sir, for providing some sanity to this bit of forum.
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.
Tell that to the parents of the young girl that animal killed BRUTALLY.
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.
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.
By your statement, the world would have been a better place without Hitler....he should have been aborted.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.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.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.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???
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.
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.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.
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.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.I would probably want that too. I wish the state would not give in to my basest instincts and ask of me to not perpetuate the killing motive. As a country, I would like us to make the same statement that most of the civilized world has made. Killing another human being is an abomination.
You are correct, Even though I think It would make me feel better knowing the murderer was dead. It really is not the human thing to do. WOW I have to agree twice in one day with Bruce. Things maybe changing. I knew we could not disagree on everything, Especially since I'm a Democrat.
From my observations this world does not look to civilized to me.
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?
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.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.
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?
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.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.
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.
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.
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!!!!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?
Or maybe you'll just take the babies from them once they're here....brood mares for the state kind of thing.
sweetie.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.Very nicely put! bravo! I think I'm in love!
The IDF shot an American kid point blank in the head. How do you feel about that?
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 mistakesI'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.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
Capital punishment exists in Texas. Good for them to execute an ignorant, savage Mexican. This comment is coming from a Mexican.
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.
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.
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.
"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!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!!
And how do you know all this? WHO told you???
The media and the prosecution, right?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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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"So this must have simply added to your outrage at the U.S. assassinating individuals without a trial.
With that I agree.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
I'm beginning to understand why our founders thought we were too dumb to cast our own votes.
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.
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.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.
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.
I would scream about neither situation. Anyone who does either of those things deserves whatever they get.
They do - but then it also applies to any US citizen that the 'foreign' country considers is a murderer.
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.
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.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.Yes I am - and if the US thinks that being the biggest international terrorist is the way to improve anything then it is stupid as it seems to be.
When the situation is reversed and plastic drones start dropping randomly on schools and meeting houses in America you will have nobody to blame but yourselves and screaming terrorism will not be a legitimate response.
Compassion for the murdered girl is a given, most normal people would realise this.You have just described my nightmare.
The American people are not terrorists, it is our out of control Federal Government who are terrorists. Claiming all the while they are doing it to keep us safer.
I do not know if we can ever recover from the leadership of these bloodthirsty, politicians. More Americans need to wake up to see the atrocities done in their name.
I do not remember the last time I saw an American war protest. We used to be good at those.Yes you did - where are they now I wonder. The last US pop group who were putting out anti-war stuff in regard to the Iraqi war got hounded out of existence I believe ???
In my day we protested vigorously about the Vietnam war and at the same time I was in the UK military
Maybe my only 'world class' moment came when being interviewed by a senior officer about the UK supporting the US in Vietnam - and I told him directloy that I would not go and would be happy to be jailed for refusing to obey an order.
Next week I am going on a 4 week tour of Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos, it will be interesting to see the places we were campaigning for.Great people, beautiful scenery, I envy you.
Have fun.If you are looking for someone to hang out with in vietnam a friend of mine will be there with his girlfriend for a week or two while they wait for his mongolian Visa to be renewed I think.
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."
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.So you think the murdering rapist is the victim? Wow, that says a lot.
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.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."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.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.
Ahh sorry, you are right, a bad use of language on my part, I do not view the murdering rapist as a victim.
I didn't think so, just wanted you to clear it up so everyone realized what you were saying.
"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.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.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.
AMENI agree... in this case there was a confession so either he really commit the crime or he had a major death wish.
Sharia is alive and well in Texas. Did they stone him first?
if the UN is defending this man, in any way, then they are the criminals and should be disbanded as such.
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.
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.
Related Discussions
- 21
Is the death penalty an effective deterrent to crime?
by Seckin Esen 10 years ago
Is the death penalty an effective deterrent to crime?
- 30
Should Jodi Arias get the death penalty or life without parole?
by RealityTalk 10 years ago
Should Jodi Arias get the death penalty or life without parole?Jodi Arias has been found guilty of first degree murder and guilty of cruelty in the aggravation phase of her trial for the murder of her ex-boyfriend, Travis Alexander. The jurors who found her guilty of the first two phases of...
- 7
About three in ten murderers were later found not guilty and executed. shoud we
by mike king 12 years ago
About three in ten murderers were later found not guilty and executed. shoud we stop executions overThe law says innocence is no bar to a finding of guilty in a capital case. 30% error seems acceptable. Other crimes which are pled before trial and forced through intimidation probably have a...
- 35
Mexico is asking to enter the suit againt Arizona, with the US Gov
by dutchman1951 13 years ago
Should the Courts allow this? Why would a Foreign government be allowed to sue any US State? Have we already lost State rights? What the H... are we doing, even entertaining a idea like this for?
- 25
'The Lisbon Treaty -Ireland October 2nd- Yes or No
by ScarletRyan1970 14 years ago
NO.
- 88
Is the death penalty legitimate?
by weholdthesetruths 13 years ago
In another thread, someone accused me of being inconsistent, with my commentary about rights being inherent to the individual, not provided by, enumerated by, or dependent upon government or legislation. When I said that a person CAN be deprived of life by a jury, I was accused of being...