http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/08/05/scotus.execution/index.html
This is a pretty lengthy story on CNN, so I decided not to re post it here. I just found it interesting on many levels, and I guess I'm just not understanding the judicial system in this country.
First of all, the article mentions that Medellin was denied the right to confer with counsel from his home country. That can only mean that he was using counsel from the United States, most likely a team of public defenders. Who paid for this? My guess is that American tax paying citizens paid for his defense, and flurry of last minute appeals that were filed on his behalf. If he had counsel in Mexico, paid for by Mexican money, ready and willing to aid him in his defense, why was that not allowed?
Unless my math is wrong, Medellin has been a part of the American judicial system for 15 years, since he committed the heinous act in 1993. He has been sitting in an American prison, eating food made here in America, staying cool in the summer and warm in the winter with utilities paid for with American dollars, and as mentioned above, having the advantage of a team of American lawyers, paid for by American tax payers. Why? He was a national of another country, not an American citizen, so why was he afforded the same rights that American citizens have. The same rights that countless men and women have laid down their lives to protect, and in fact are still dying for as we speak?
I completely understand the families need for closure, and that his execution probably gave that to them. I am in no way trying to diminish the pain and anguish they are inevitably still feeling to this day. I just do not understand why we are throwing away millions of dollars every single year to house criminals who are are not supposed to be here in the first place. That is money we can put to good use in our school systems, hospitals, police departments, and the ever increasing budget deficit.
"The Mexican government filed an appeal with the international court against the United States in January 2003, alleging violations of international law. Medellin filed his own federal and state appeals based on similar complaints, as well as a claim of ineffective counsel. Medellin has the support of the European Union and several international human rights groups."
Again, I have to ask why? Do the European Union and the various international rights groups have nothing better to do than lobby for the "rights" of a man who gang raped and murdered a 14 and 16 year old girl? There are people starving, being tortured, or abused all over the world, so I wouldn't think it would be too difficult to find a better cause. I also do not understand why he was afforded the right to appeal to our state and federal governments on his behalf. I'm sure there was some sort of ridiculous piece of legislation that was signed into law allowing all of this, but it makes absolutely no sense.
"The world court again last month ordered the United States to do everything within its authority to stop Medellin's execution until his case could be further reviewed." Was more review really necessary? He raped and murdered 2 teenage girls, and was tried and convicted. Review over.
I believe that if you commit a crime in this country, and are not a citizen of this country, then you should be sent back to your country to face whatever punishment might be waiting for you there. I know that in most cases there wouldn't be a punishment, but think of the resources that would be made available for other things when the money wasn't being spent to house, try, defend, and execute illegal immigrants. It was reported by Lou Dobbs that 33% of the United States jail population was comprised of illegal immigrants. Imagine what we could do with a 33% national revenue increase.
Living conditions in other countries may be so bad that leaving to pursue a better life here in America is necessary. I have no problem with that, as long as you have every intention of becoming a citizen, and making a better life for yourself. I just don't think we should be spending our tax money on legal fees for non-citizens.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
A lawyer has to be able to practice law in a specific judicial arena. Mexican lawyers can't just cross the border and practice in the US unless they are licensed to practice here. In the US lawyers are licensed by states (so a Kansas lawyer based in Wichita would have to pass the Oklahoma Bar Test to represent a defendant in a case committed in Enid OK). Lawyers also have to pass special tests to practice in Federal Courts.
When Dog the Bounty Hunter got busted by Mexican officials he had to get a special team of Mexican lawyers to deal with the case there. He has special lawyers in the US dealing with the extradition (which while tied to the Mexican case was a separate case).
The US has laws that any person (citizen or not) committing crimes within the US is subject to US laws including the right to trial and the right to counsel (and the right that counsel will be appointed if the defendant can't afford it).
Was the judicial system just to say "bad boy - you can't do these things over here" and send him back to Mexico? What would stop him from sneaking back over?
I don't have the answers and don't pretend to. I can argue both sides of the case. I don't want these foreign troublemakers over here with my tax dollars taking care of them. But if we just ship them back to their motherlands (wherever that may be) what's to keep them out of here if they decide to sneak back?
There's nothing to keep them from sneaking back over here because our government refuses to take the steps necessary to prevent it from happening. If they would, then maybe we wouldn't have the problem.
I'm sorry, but I don't care about who is able to practice law where. If the illegal immigrant defendent wants to leave his life in the hands of a team of lawyers from his homeland, then so be it. I mean if we were able to make the treaties that allow him to settle into a nice cozy spot in our American juducial system, and use up our resources to defend him, while completely ignoring the wishes of the officials of his country, then why can't we just as easily make up a new treaty that states that any illegal immigrant who commits a crime in a foreign country is automatically deported to their own country to await trial? We have a world court obviously, so why can't they handle it? Make every country who is a part of the world court foot the bill to house the criminals in a completely separate prison and judicial system. Have the attorneys who choose to represent the criminals pay their own way to the location to defend them. With all participating countries contributing to the costs, it would lessen the burden on our overstrained justice system.
My point is, why do we have to house them year after year, at our expense, and allow them every freedom and right that we have as citizens, when they don't deserve it? They aren't citizens. They weren't born here. They didn't come here and make an effort to become a citizen. So why are they afforded the right to tie up the justice system with appeals, use our public defenders, live off of the American people year after year, and then be put to death all at our expense? Does being an American citizen mean nothing anymore?
This story just struck a nerve. When you live paycheck to paycheck, and have months when you aren't sure how you are going to feed your own children, it ticks you off to read a story about how much effort and time was put into the defense of a murderer, who was a national of another country, knowing that millions of dollars had to have been spent over the 15 years he was a guest in our country. Something else has to be done.
A lawyer who isn't familiar with the laws of a country or state cannot properly defend an accused person.
If he had his Mexican counsel than he could have gotten the case completely overturned because he used foreign counsel who was not licensed to practice in that jurisdiction.
I understand your point of view. I really do but the laws must be obeyed.
I think we should bill the illegal foreigners for their incarceration expenses. Or better yet send them to Maricopa County in AZ and have Sheriff Joe take care of them!
"Over the last five days, Mr. Medellín’s lawyers tried to stop the execution by arguing to the Supreme Court that it should be put off until Congress had a chance to pass pending legislation that would require a review of similar cases. They argued that Mr. Medellín would be deprived of life without due process if he died before Congress acted.
But the court, in a 5-to-4 decision, said the possibility of Congressional action was too remote to justify a stay. Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote in dissent that to permit the execution would place the United States “irremediably in violation of international law and breaks our treaty promises.”"
This is my point. Which laws must be obeyed? His attorneys were arguing to the US Supreme Court on his behalf, citing international legislation as the premise of their argument. Why are they allowed to use the US court system to argue for the use of international laws to save their illegal immigrant defendent, at the expense of the US taxpayers? None of this makes any sense to me.
I don't think international legislation should have any bearing on cases of this nature.
He was in a foreign (to him) country and committed a crime that had the death penalty as possible punishment.
I think the only time international laws should be applicable is for war crimes/genocide/and severe human rights violations. All other crimes should be handled by the countries of jurisdiction according to their laws.
It needs to be all one way or all the other, this picking and choosing crap makes no sense at all. Although I don't agree at all with American citizens enduring the financial burden of housing these criminals, I do agree with the laws and punishments that this country has instituted. My concern is that foreign nationals are being allowed to use the US justice system against itself. He was allowed to have adequate representation, and issue as many appeals as the US law allows, to lobby for his international rights as a foreign national. All while sitting in an American prison, being sustained by American dollars, and having his defense paid for by the US.
If he is to be held accountable by American laws, then any appeal filed on behalf of his rights as an international citizen should have been thrown out on merit alone. If he wanted to file appeals based on American laws and loopholes, then that's one thing. But that wasn't the case.
Post a Comment