Justices Delayed and Justice Denied

I have been following the case of Jose Medellin (Medellin vs. Texas) with some measured interest. Jose Medellin was one of six males, three juveniles and three aged eighteen or older, who gang raped and murdered two teenage girls in Houston in 1993.

He was arrested five days after killing them, and later tried and sentenced. He pled guilty to the crimes. There was absolutely no doubt as to his guilt.

Many are now arguing that since he was a Mexican citizen not given consular access “without delay” he case should be reviewed. It may be more correct to say that his case should be reviewed “again.” He is also an illegal alien but that fact is often absent in reports of him.

I do not know about the fifty other instances of Mexican citizens on death row in the United States. The official records of Medellin’s arrest and the subsequent sentencing of him hold that at no time did he claim to be a citizen of Mexico. While I have been unable to determine the particular law in Houston, it is against police regulations and often even illegal for police to even ask if someone is not a citizen. In the subsequent hearings and five appeals for him, this was considered.

Amnesty International states that Medellin’s upbringing and having lived in “abject poverty” made for circumstantial evidence that would have swayed the outcome of the sentencing.

Has anyone from Amnesty International ever even been to Texas?

There are plenty of poverty stricken places in the world. People there still know that it is wrong to rape and murder someone. They even know it is wrong in places like Somalia and the Congo but they continue to do it anyway.

To borrow a phrase, "In Texas, if you kill someone, we kill you right back."

Jose Medellin once stated that “life means nothing to him.” He was referring to others’ lives of course. His own life means quite a bit to him.

Opponents of capital punishment of the Amnesty International ilk are quick to say that all life is precious. I disagree and would argue that people as far gone as Medellin are tantamount to cancer. They are alive but if left living, they will kill healthy tissue. Comparing the lives of murderers and rapists to their victims is very nearly equivocation and not conducive to a long happy life.

Opponents of capital punishment but otherwise in favor of harsh punishment for murderers would see Medellin busting rocks in the Texas desert for the rest of his life. Since that is as likely to happen as Medellin bringing back Elizabeth Pena and Jennifer Ertman from the dead, we will just have to content ourselves with the knowledge that, once executed, Medellin will never kill anyone again.

The purpose of any justice system should be threefold:

• Rehabilitation
• Incapacitation
• Punishment

The account of the rapes and murders of Medellin’s victims is readily available. It can be found here though. (There are many cases on the page. To find the terrible story of Elizabeth and Jennifer, search for “Efrain Perez”, one of Medellin’s accomplices.)

Medellin states he is now sorry for what he has done. If you like, you can even contact him directly and he will tell you so. I guess that takes care of the rehabilitation.

He has not raped or killed anyone – at least outside of prison – since he was arrested. That takes care in part of the incapacitation portion. The prison system still needs to guarantee that he does not rape or kill for the rest of his life. Since jail breaks do occur, that is a bit harder for the prison system to guarantee.

Finally, while there are several punishments that would be better than executing Medellin, they would definitely be classified as “cruel and unusual” even in my reasoning. They might also be vengeful and they may well be just too. If you have not read the accounts of Elizabeth and Jennifer, and if you still think that there is any other lawful punishment that is suitable, please read their story.

Death is the only just penalty for Jose Medellin.

The International Court of Justice has called for a review of all fifty-one Mexican nationals on death row in the United States. This is little more than a delay tactic.

Many if not all of these cases have been reviewed and appealed and reconsidered numerous times. Not all cases are as “concrete” as Medellin’s but there are some.

Since the Article cited by Amnesty International (Article 36 of the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations) was not automatic, it required Congress to create laws around it. If the treaty was not ratified, then not only is it not automatic, it is non-binding. I have not been able to determine if it was ratified or if it even required ratification.

In banana republics, it would be easy for the International Court of Justice’s fiat to be implemented. A government without separation of powers would be able to quickly respond to such matters.

The United States does have a separation of powers and the states are not compelled to adopt laws that do not exist. That was the determination of the SCOTUS in this matter too.

The President and others are now urging Rick Perry to grant a stay of execution – or, from Amnesty International, a commutation – in order to give more time for the lawyers and courts involved to review his case yet again.

One argument in favor of granting this stay is that other countries will reciprocate in similar circumstances. That is laughable at best. If any American had raped and murder two girls in Mexico, would he even live to trial? How many Americans have been “arrested” in Mexico only be extorted and sent back to the border. Mexico’s hypocrisy is disgusting.

Jose Medellin has a date with the executioner and there is no need to delay it.

Ummm… That One

This evening I was following the horse race, i.e. the United States presidential race, and saw that Obama lost some ground in a few states following his Iraq / European junket.

This is really no surprise; he did not have the American flag flying at his speech in Berlin. I do not know about any other speech locations but would not be surprised if they were not flown in those places either. He did not visit wounded service men. His campaign said it would not be “proper” since it was a campaign trip and he did not want to be seen as “using them for photo ops.” He said he was visiting as a “citizen of the world” and apologizing for the United States being the United States.

One thing I distinctly remember though was a speculation before his trip that he would “pull away” in the polls. I believe this is called a “bounce.” I cannot remember if this prediction was from his campaign or from a news caster. If it was from his campaign, then we have a bit of historical reinterpretation here.

His campaign is claiming that they did not expect a bounce from the trip. I have trouble believing that. Why make the trip at all?

With all of that in mind, I went to talk to my wife. When I entered the room, she was sitting there with my oldest daughter.

I never give my daughter any credit for her political acumen. There are more important things in her world such as algebra and Not Talking About Boys.

But when I opened the conversation with “straight from the double-talk express,” she asked, “Which one?”

I was stumped.

She knows that I am no fan of John McCain. She also knows that I am totally against Barack Obama. How did she know I was even talking politics except that she knows that “double-talk” is synonymous with politicians?

Instead of “a horse race” I think I will start referring to the Presidential race as a “horse’s ass race.”

Shiftless Flopping and Tasty Crow

When Obama said that the SCOTUS ruling on Heller merely confirmed his own view, he was being completely honest.

He believes that the right to bear arms is an individual right. He also believed that the D.C. gun ban was un-Constitutional before he believed it was Constitutional before he believed it was un-Constitutional.

The problem is that while he believes ownership of weapons to be an individual right, he has no problem violating rights. Violating rights is Constitutional and un-Constitutional and double plus good or ungood to him.

I understand he wants a civil force to combat terrorism of the same size and scope of our military.

Should this come to pass, I can see a time that we would have to quarter government agents because the sheer number of government employees would not be able to subsist on taxes only, but only by the labor of man. Sorry, I was starting to get a bit Biblical there.

And these gross violations of our rights would be Constitutional because they would be civilians, not soldiers, and therefore, not violating the Third Amendment.

Wow. I am either getting terribly cynical or a bit loony.

I am now in a similar position that I had wished for Democrats. A while ago, I had hoped that Hillary Clinton would be in a tight primary race with Al Gore and Democrats would have to choose between the Anti-Christ and the False Prophet.

I wrote a few years ago after the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Bill had been passed into law. In that post I encouraged anyone who could vote against McCain to do so (even though he was not running for election in 2006).

Now I have to eat those words if I want my country to have any chance for sustained freedom. (The diminishing of our freedom through taxes and regulation is the “change” espoused by Obama.) And, "no", Barr is not going to win and I would rather a working solution that an ideological one. I do not share the same ideologies with Barr for that matter.

Here goes...

Gulp.

Vote against Obama. Vote for McCain.

Suppress gag reflex.

Not a Presbyterian!

We recently returned from a nice long vacation. While on vacation, we visited one of my wife’s aunts and her husband. They are Extremely Presbyterian.

I would have like to have gone to the Presbyterian services. However, my second child, who I oft refer to as my “middlest child,” was not feeling well. She was slightly sick that Sunday morning while getting ready to go their church – a church, by the way, that my wife’s uncle helped to found.

At the church parking lot, she started feeling ill again. My wife carried her to the front door of the church. Right before entering, my daughter vomited over the door, the entry way, my wife, my wife’s bag, the camera in my wife’s bag, and herself.

We spent the next twenty minutes or so cleaning the entry and then took her and the baby back to house.

Now I do not profess to be a Baptist – something worthy of disownment had my grandfather, rest his soul, ever heard. Or not heard. Whatever. He had “Baptist” stamped on his birth certificate right beside the “Democrat” endorsement. Mike Huckabee would have made him proud in every aspect save the “R” behind his name.

I do not recall my grandfather ever having a sense of humor either but suspected he was pulling my leg when he told me not to go to the Presbyterian Church. “They sacrifice goats there.”

Unless the projectile vomiting was Divine Providence*, the goats will have to wait until next time.

*not to be confused with Providence, RI, the location of the church.

My Response

This was my response to this commentary by a so called journalist.

(At least the Houston Chronical had the decency to label it a "commentary.")

Hi Lisa,

I just read your commentary at http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/falkenberg/5865045.html.

I have to say that I'm disappointed with your comments in general and in specifics.

"I'm halfway expecting Gov. Rick Perry to issue an executive order this afternoon granting the long-held wish of open-carry petitioners to grant their right to sport handguns in hip holsters.
But seriously, folks, nothing about the Harris County grand jury's refusal yesterday to indict Horn was surprising."

First, there many who consider open carry a serious issue. You dismiss them with a wave of the hand / pen / keyboard. The people who would like open carry in the state span every demographic Texas has: rich, poor, white, black, brown, conservatives, liberals, etc.

"Horn seemed to mistakenly evoke the recently passed "Castle Doctrine" in a 911 recording"

He didn't evoke it. Nothing in the transcript alludes to it. If he had, then it would have been mistaken and you would be correct. Here's a link to the audio (with an exerpt of the transcript): http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/posted/archive/2007/12/05/texas-shooting-joe-horn-s-911-call.aspx.

"But even if Horn hadn't created a situation where he needed to defend himself, a section of the Penal Code dealing with protection of a neighbor's property basically grants Horn the right to shoot if he thought the bad guys were getting away with it."

He didn't create a situation where he needed to defend himself. Ortiz and de Jesus created a situation which required him to defend his neighbors' property. It turned into a situation where he had to defend himself - exacerbated by Ortiz and de Jesus. To his credit, he was able to do both. You also failed to note that Horn gave Ortiz and de Jesus the opportunity to surrender.

You correctly state that he is covered by our laws but it should be noted that this is not part of the Castle Doctrine.

"Now, Texas law isn't known for its progressive trend-setting."

There is much that is wrong with that statement that it is hard to start. The abridged version is this: Laws do not set trends. People do. Texas law is a set by the Texas people. If the people of Texas do not want "progressive" laws, Texas will not have them. It also begs the question here, "What is 'progressive'?" Disarmament? Lawfully mandated indifference?

"Will some see it as a declaration of open season on all suspicious people who appear to be lurking around a neighbor's house?"

Perhaps. People should look after each other and their property. That is what builds strong communities. Some may. I doubt that you'll see any dead postmen or meter readers as a result of this. You can call me on it in the future if I happen to be mistaken.

"Are Texas gun owners suddenly deputized to take the law into their own hands?"

As I said earlier, this is OUR law. It is already in our hands. It always has been. It is the law set by the people of Texas. You even stated that he is granted the right to shoot. Had the law stated that he was to run to a closet and obey the 911 dispatcher, then he would have been taking the law into his own hands.

"If Joe Horn got away with it, can you? And should you even try?"

He didn't "get away" with anything. If he had done something illegal and not been prosecuted, they he would be "getting away" with something.

I've been in a very similar situation - although I had a pistol, not a shotgun. Since they did not immediately appear to be robbing my neighbors house, I didn't brandish the pistol. The lurking strangers happened to be friends of the neighbor's kid. Once the neighbor's kid verified it, I left. No one was shot. I doubt any of them even realized that I was armed.

Had this case not been as public as it is, I doubt it would have even been referred to a grand jury. I agree with the DA though that each case will stand or fall on its own merits.

"That message shouldn't get lost in all the celebrating from gun-rights advocates and armchair vigilantes who continue to proclaim Horn a hero and invite him to move next door."

I actually agree with you here. Ending another man's life is a very difficult thing for a kind man to do. I will continue to proclaim him a hero though.

"The little old man from Pasadena gunned down two men like dogs. For a bag of loot.
He escaped indictment, but he'll carry that burden for the rest of his life."

No. Dogs do not break into peoples houses and steal their televisions. He did not "gun them down" either; that act implies an execution without opportunity of surrender, or execution after they have surrendered. You sound unreasonable now.

He will carry it though. I will pray for him and his family. I will also pray for the families of Ortiz and de Jesus. The hope isn't that he won't do again but instead, that he'll never have to do it again.

Sincerely,
Shawn McManus