Jose Medellin, an illegal alien from Mexico, along with five accomplices, in 1993 raped and murdered two Texas girls, ages 14 and 16. For his crimes, Medellin was put to death by the State of Texas last night after the U.S. Supreme Court refused to grant a reprieve.
The late Mr. Medellin had hoped that the U.S. Supreme Court would force a retrial based on an International Court’s attempted intervention, or that en executive order would commute the sentence. President Bush had stepped in and requested that the State of Texas adhere to an International Court decision recommending retrial. However, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that without Congressional action, the International Court’s decision could not be enforced.
An August 4 op-ed in the Los Angeles Times vigorously defended the idea of allowing the 51 Mexicans on death row to be tried only after consulting with the consulate of the accuseds’ home country. The author, Jeffrey Davidow, argued that the International Court of Justice should be able to decide what is best for our domestic (state) courts. Its ruling – that each case should be reviewed using a judicial proceeding to ensure consulate help would not have influenced the outcome of the case – attempted to allow the International court to dictate to our state courts how they should determine their sentences.
Mr. Davidow asserted that the Mexican consulate should be allowed to review the case. His argument makes a weak point that Americans abroad may face a similar fate in a foreign nation if we were not to adhere to an International standard and give Medellin a new trial with the aid of his home consulate.
Not many people can argue that, although not perfect, our justice system is the best in the world. Americans traveling abroad must understand that they will likely not receive the same treatment in a foreign land as a foreigner would have here in the U.S. It is also not good to allow a brutal killer to circumvent our system of justice because a judge in Europe does not agree with the death penalty and seeks, through his power as a judge, to overrule our courts and juries.
The second issue in this case is the effort of the Bush Administration to pressure the Texas justice system to disregard the trial court’s verdict and reconsider the case. As with the trail of Jose Compean and Ignacio Ramos, the influence of the Mexican consulate on the Bush Administration is both inexplicable and disturbing. In both cases, American lives were either taken brutally, as in the Medellin case, or put in danger, with drug dealer Osvaldo Avila given immunity from prosecution and allowed to travel freely across the Southern border, where he continued to deliver drugs. Instead of vigorously prosecuting the drug dealer, the Justice Department was able to secure tough sentences against border patrol agents Ramos and Compean, who are currently in federal prison for attempting to capture Avila.
It is continually perplexing to anyone following these events as to why President Bush is so reticent to protect our border and so quick to defend the indefensible. The Medellin case and the Ramos/Compean prosecutions show a Justice Department that is quick to work with the Mexican government at the expense of our own citizens.
This continual failure of the Federal government to protect America’s borders has forced San Bernardino County to institute programs that aid Immigration and Customs Enforcement in identifying potential illegal aliens and deporting them upon completion of their jail sentences. We implemented that measure as a result of the increase in crimes relating to illegal alien gang activity within the County.
Now as citizens and political leaders in this state and nation we have to continue to work to create a feasible border/business enforcement plan that allows the appropriate amount of guest workers needed for our economy while at the same time punishing those who engage in illegal activity.
Luckily for all of us, the Supreme Court ruled that – at least as far as last night’s dispensation of justice was concerned – neither the President, who is 1,500 miles from Texas in Washington, nor the International Court, which is 4,500 miles from Texas, ultimately had any undue influences over how Texas protects its citizens.