I’m wondering…did we ratify the Vienna Convention? I thought I read that while the US is a signatory, the law was never ratified by the Senate. If that’s the case, then we’re not a party to the treaty.
This is totally incidental and apropros of nothing debate related, but I guess I’ll throw it out there as long as we’re on the topic. I recently learned that the railroad trestle and bayou where Jose Medellin and his gang committed the rapes and murders, as well as the small memorial to their two young victims, happened to be in a public park that I go run in all the time. After I found out I looked up the facts of the offenses, and seriously wished I hadn’t. Their crimes were unbelievably awful, even by death penalty rape/murder case standards.
It did act better. It gave him a fair trial. It gave him oppurtunities to appeal. And they even used a method of death that is relatively painless. (Oh, please bring back old Sparky!) Much more concern that he ever had for his victim.
Incidently, I think the OP had the legal issues covered rather nicely.
As I have pointed out - twice - I see a clear distinction between situation where a law that doesn’t exist and a situation, like this one, where a bill is currently before Congress. When the court acknowledges that a legal process is a key factor in its decision and the legal process is currently ongoing, the court should await the completion of the process and then base its decision on the outcome.
As for timeliness, Texas has had Garcia for seventeen years. Was there some compelling reason they had to execute him this week?
And we should be trying to see how far we can separate ourselves from people like Garcia. Not seeing how close we can get without becoming them.
We did ratify it and still are still a party to it. There’s an optional protocol to the treaty that we also ratified (re: ICJ Jurisdiction to settle the Vienna Convention disputes), but believe we recently dropped out of the optional protocol in 2005ish; this was right after an ICJ decision holding the proper procedures the US had to take in regards to Art 36 violations it committed.
To be clear, there are multiple “Vienna Conventions.” The one the OP is referring to is the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.
Weird. I used to live right near there.
I think you make a valid point and if this was a recent problem I would be inclined to agree with you. However, since incidents similar to the Garcia incident have been occurring for many years without Congress acting, I can see why the court went ahead and rendered a decision. And I do not think it was wrong of them to do so. So we’ll just have to amicably disagree.
There was no compelling reason to issue a stay of execution according to the state of Texas. Seventeen years is long enough, I think. Though, admittedly, my support of the death penalty is more theoretical and I would like to see it abolished.
Ok…I’m looking at the provision of the treaty:
So, it seems like it was Leal’s responsibility to request that Mexican consular officials be notified, but that it was Texas’s responsibility to notify him that he could request that Mexican consular officials be notified. So, if they didn’t do that, there’s a treaty violation there.
I find it difficult to believe that the treaty requires suspects to be given consular access before a non-custodial interview. Presumably it would be fairly difficult to establish the suspect’s citizenship without the interview.
ETA:
That suggests I’m right; a non-custodial interview does not involve detention.
I don’t think that there’s any doubt that the Texas authorities acted in violation of the treaty. Their argument, and the SC agreed, was that they were not bound by it because Congress had never passed a bill making them so and that the treaty itself was not self-executing.
Also, as has been pointed out, who do you notify of their right to consular access? Should it be added to the standard Miranda warnings? Since Leal Garcia wasn’t in custody at the time of the interview, should he have been warned?
How were the arresting officials supposed to be aware that the arrestee is a foreign national?
Should have benn carried out years ago instead of continuing to pay to keep this slug on death row.
Too bad he didn’t go by being beaten with a chunck of concrete and left with a pipe sticking out of his privates like his victim.
Thanks for your insightful contribution.
Lethal injection was far too kind for this inhumane animal
That one, too.
One, this is a separate issue than whether the US was in violation of the treaty.
Two, technically arresting officials don’t have to be aware and I would phrase the question differently. The US only has to inform foreign nationals of their right to consular access - How can they do that? Some States could inform everyone (which includes foreign nationals) booked by having them sign something informing them of their rights. Other States could incorporate informing foreign nationals into their Miranda warning; and they give it to everyone. Either way, you don’t get into the sticky situation of having to know someone’s nationality while still informing them of their rights.
But Garcia confessed before he was booked. During noncustodial questioning, the state has no obligation to inform you of your rights because you can leave whenever you like. Miranda and its progeny only apply to custodial interrogation.
I guess the Supes could have ruled that individuals must be informed of their potential rights under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations every time a law enforcement official speaks to them, but that’s patently ridiculous.
But the US would still be in compliance with the treaty. The treaty states you have to notify him “without delay” after arrest or detention. He was booked at some point. He was mirandized at some point. Informing him then would be enough to not be in breach.
Sure, but informing him after his confession wouldn’t do him much good. The confession would still be admissible.
If you’re speaking solely in the abstract sense of keeping the US within its treaty obligations, that’s different.