@jonnythan Said
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.
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 .
@drman321 Said
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.
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.
@drman321 Said
Giving him life in prison wasn't an alternative? Come on, think a little.
Okay, I thought about and IMO there was no alternative.
@jonnythan Said
This is a nonsensical statement. Life imprisonment is an alternative to death in all cases where life imprisonment is viable.
Just because you and I disagree on this topic does not make either of us more right or wrong then the other.