Texas executes Mexican national after court stay rejected

This is the only part that gives me pause:

"The execution of Mr. Leal violates the United States’ treaty commitments, threatens the nation’s foreign policy interests, and undermines the safety of all Americans abroad."

Does it actually violate an international treaty for a state to execute a foreign national? If so, then this execution absolutely should not have happened.

They probably should have just given him life in prison. It would have been cheaper than the death penalty and would not have violated any international laws while still removing a violent criminal from our society.

I'm thinking when it came time to sentencing someone had a hard on for making sure this guy was punished and that is why he got the death penalty. A pity that there are always some in our justice system who are there for the wrong reasons and make decisions that only cause problems.

IMO, there wasn't an alternative .

Giving him life in prison wasn't an alternative? Come on, think a little.

This is a nonsensical statement. Life imprisonment is an alternative to death in all cases where life imprisonment is viable.

I haven't found anything that says the UN has any say in how a state runs it's state government or makes it's state laws. This guy is not the first illegal Mexican national to be convicted an executed by Texas .







Texas is one of the few states that still have the death penalty .
No one had a 'hard on' for making sure this particular guy punished
any more then any one else found guilty of the type of crime this guy was convicted for.


Okay, I thought about and IMO there was no alternative.



Just because you and I disagree on this topic does not make either of us more right or wrong then the other.

Did you quote the wrong person? I was talking about US treaties, not the UN.



I didn't say you were wrong (though you were). I said your statement was nonsensical.

To claim that there is "no alternative" to the death penalty is not a matter of opinion. It's simply an incorrect, meaningless, nonsensical statement.

You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts, there was an alternative and you are just being obtuse pretending there wasn't.

Let me ask you, since you claim the only alternative was the state killing this man, are you better off now that he is dead?

Let's assume for one minute that executing this man was indeed a violation of a treaty the US has with Mexico.

Since you claim there was "no alternative," does it bother you that the US just violated a treaty with Mexico in order to execute a man?

Now here's the real question. How would you react if Mexico violated a treaty with the US to execute a man accused of, say, political dissent?

1. Mexican citizen does NOT equate to illegal immigrant. Just because they came here when he was two and he was still a Mexican citizen does not mean he was illegal. I would need more evidence to jump on that bandwagon.

2. The execution was not the thing that supposedly broke the treaty. It was the fact that he was denied assistance from his government and was not informed at arrest that he had that right.

Now don't get me wrong. I agree his lawyer should have taken care of making sure he knew that, but denying him after he asked is what is really in question, and we would not want US citizens denied access to our government in the incident that he/she was imprisoned in a country without the same rights that the US affords.

Okay, maybe you know more about this than I do, but if he was an American citizen (and therefore not an illegal alien) and had been since he was two years old, why would he have been eligible for assistance from the Mexican consulate?

That's where my confusion stems from. Did he have dual citizenship? And if so, doesn't that mean that he is indeed a citizen of the US and therefore subject to our laws (and also execution)?

No, I am not being obtuse, I am agreeing with the state of Texas .

No you aren't. By stating that there was no alternative you are pretending that one did not exist in order to justify a decision that in retrospect was kind of petty and foolish.

I never claimed anything.
I said IMO

I only statement I made is that I agree with Texas .What you are trying to be all wa wa about is what I said I IMO about.
I'll say the same to you as I said to the other poster, just because we don't agree on this topic does not make either of us more or wrong.