Should Jose Medellin Be Executed?

Author：佚名 Source：none Hits：105 UpdateTime：2008-10-19 1:32:52


Jose Medellin is a convicted rapist. Jose Medellin is a convicted murderer. Fourteen years ago he was sentenced to death for participating in the gang rape and murder of Elizabeth Pena, 16 and Jennifer Ertman who was 14. The girls had tragically wandered upon a gang initiation. This would seem to be just one more routine execution of which Texas leads the nation. It would also seem that if anyone deserved to be executed, Mr. Medellin should certainly have that place in death penalty lore. There is one minor twist. Mr. Medellin is a Mexican citizen. He was allegedly denied access to the Mexican consulate after his arrest which is a violation of the Vienna Convention. Mr. Medellin was allegedly never told he had the right to see a Mexican consular officer as required by the Convention. The Vienna Convention is an international treaty governing in part the treatment of citizens of different nations outside of their home countries. The United States is a signatory to this treaty.

In a ironic diplomatic and political twist, the normally pro-capital punishment Bush administration is fighting tooth and nail to save the life of Mr. Medellin. The administration claims there's a bigger picture at stake. The picture frame encompasses the rights of United States citizens who may find themselves in similar situations in Mexico and other foreign nations. It is the position of the United States that this matter is governed by the Vienna Convention and that an international court should review Mr. Medellin's situation before any further action is taken. President Bush tried to resolve the issue three years ago by ordering all states to review the cases of 51 Mexican nationals on death row, including Mr. Medellin, as directed by the International Court pursuant to the Vienna Convention. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled earlier this year that Mr. Bush overstepped his authority and that individual states are not bound by international law on this issue. They held that this particular treaty is not "self-executing". It also found that in the alternative Congress had not enacted any legislation enacting it. The state of Texas is therefore free to proceed with the execution.

The state of Texas could care less about what the International Court has to say about Mr. Medellin's rights. Texas has taken the position that Mr. Medellin received fair trial in accordance with state law and any international issues are not its concern. Should the state of Texas care about the bigger picture of international politics, diplomacy and the fair treatment of American's abroad? There is nothing in the United States Constitution requiring the states of Texas to stand down to the Vienna Convention or practice international diplomacy. This is a states rights issue. Mr. Medellin received the full spectrum of Constitutional rights he was entitled to under state law and Supreme Court rulings extending federal law to his situation. Even assuming he had some state right to consular access, how would this have affected his trial? There was no prejudice.