http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/06/us/06execute.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&partner=rssyahoo&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1218028120-dAAgnDOMghFAkuiDU93E+Q

Whats the general opinion here. While i do not support his actions, i am against the fact he was denied a lawyer, and the governor ignored calls from DC.

While he was guilty he still deserves the basic rights of justice.

I don't think he was denied access to consul, from reading your article.

His crimes were quite heinous, ask the families of those two teenage girls he tortured/raped/murdered.

In Texas a legal citizen who committed those crimes would have been dealt with the same way.

What "basic rights of justice" (other than right to consul which I don't think it correct) do you think he was denied?

It clearly says in the article he had lawyers. The biggest thing I can see if Texas ignoring calls from the White house. Sorry but that's within their state powers to execute their own laws in this regard.

Hopefully this , along with the new voluntary deportation laws, will send a message to keep their criminals on their side of the boarder. Or perhaps be more helpful as we attempt to clean this situation up.

I don't think he was denied access to consul, from reading your article.

i thought that is why there was such a big stink, was during his initial arrest and early stages of the ordeal. Please i am not siding with his actions or even the criminal.

Oh, I'm not attacking you by any means. I've been following this loosely and this is the first time I've heard he was denied counsul.

If he was denied basic rights I'd like to hear more of it. That would be a miscarriage of justice and I'd hope to God that it would be a big stink.

So far I think the big stink is we executed a citizen of a foreign power when Mexico themselves doesn't allow the death penalty.

I agree Fandros, I have no reason to think, for this article, that he was denied due process. As far as Mexico goes, I don't give a rats ass what they think of it. I am wholeheartedly in favor of capital punishment in cases where the evidence is irrefutable. As far as the consul thing goes, if the law states they are required to have contact from the consul, they should have done it....but I don't think the execution was unjustified. My only question would be, and we are just lacking enough details, why did the others get their sentences commuted to life and this guy didn't?

why did the others get their sentences commuted to life and this guy didn't?

If I had to guess it was likely to give up testimony in the case.

Also, if the US Supreme Court denied a reprieve, even if only by one vote, I would say Texas was well within their rights.

While I'm not a big fan of the death penalty, this reminds me of that kid who went to (Singapore?) and was caned for whatever crime he committed. If you go to another country and break their laws, well, damn, too bad for you. You live under their law.

Mr. Medellín’s case has become the focal point of a dispute between Mexico and the United States over whether some Mexicans have been denied fair trials because they were never given an opportunity to talk to a consul. A 1963 treaty requires foreigners accused of crimes to be given that opportunity.

Apaprently after digging into this a little more and reading some texas newspapers. He was denied visitation to his lawyer. Basically he wanted to speak to his lawyer throughout hte process which he is entitled to, but was denied.

Who denied it? Are there any online sources we can see?

Insofar as his execution is concerned, maybe it'll make some Mexican criminals think twice before crossing the border into the U.S. and commiting crimes here.

I'm going off memory from last year, but calling this piss of shit a Mexican is a stretch. He was a US Citizen who's mother happened to give birth to him while he was in Mexico. He never lived there for any length of time.

Good to see the NY Times at its finest still.

Mr. Medellín’s case has become the focal point of a dispute between Mexico and the United States over whether some Mexicans have been denied fair trials because they were never given an opportunity to talk to a consul. A 1963 treaty requires foreigners accused of crimes to be given that opportunity.

Vague isn't it? It states some mexicans might have been denied fair trials, it doesn't state clearly that Mr Medellins himself was denied.

My only question would be, and we are just lacking enough details, why did the others get their sentences commuted to life and this guy didn't?

Two of the other 6 involved were under the age of 18 when the crime occurred. Texas law prevents the execution of a person if they were a minor when it was committed. As far as I have read anyhow. One of the other guys was executed a few years ago and the "ringleader" is still awaiting his execution date. I think the 6th was 14 at the time and received 40 years.

This man was not denied access to counsel.

His claim and that of his attorneys is that he was denied access to the Mexican Counselate, or Embassy, which is supposed to be a guaranteed right of any foreigner charged with a crime in a foreign country. If you are charged with a crime in any other country, they are supposed to allow access to the American Consul, but that will not necessarily have any impact on the charges or proceedings.

He had legal counsel; he did not have access to the Mexican Consul. At least, that is the allegation made by the defense.

But he was a citizen of the US someone here said? If so, why would he have the right to see the Mexican Consul anyhow?

Because he had Mexican citizenship as well. Only he didn't consider himself a Mexican citizen when he was first arrested and tried, so the thought never occurred to him to ask for their consulate's intervention.

I'm just not seeing the problem with this. I'm not a big fan of our twisted criminal justice system, but this case seems fine.

I'll have to remember to petition the judge to consider legislation that might be passed in the future next time I'm in trouble...

i could be reading this all wrong, which hey happens, but doenst the article state that in 1963 a treaty was signed to give them those rights and then they were taken away?