Court Arrogance Must Not Invalidate Human Rights

Oct. 15, 2007

By Jerry Brewer, MexiData.info

The notion that unwanted matter, unwanted difficulties, unwanted
complexities, will disappear if they are removed from the immediate field of
vision has no position in a democracy. After all, the future of democracy
is closely associated with the future of freedom in the world.

If we are to be concerned with liberty as a primary or ultimate social
value, we must also be concerned with the ultimate fate of democracy.
Although, democracies can and have abused individual rights and liberties
throughout history.

This appears to be the take by the United States, against the State of Texas
decision to execute Jose Ernesto Medellin, a Mexican. Medellin gave a
written confession to Texas officials for a murder in Houston in June of
1993, and a Texas judge sentenced him to death in October 1994.

In 2003, Mexico sued the United States in the International Court of Justice
(the ICJ, also known as the World Court) in The Hague, on behalf of
defendant Medellin and 50 other Mexicans who were allegedly denied access to
diplomats (consular services) following arrest.

The ICJ ruled for Mexico in 2004, citing reviews of the convictions and
sentences by United States' courts were necessary. The United States wishes
to abide by the ICJ's decision, believing that ignoring it would harm US
interests abroad. The US Supreme Court will eventually hear arguments and
settle the issue.

Notwithstanding the nature of brutal crimes inflicted on innocent victims,
nor the issue of actual guilt or innocence of the defendants, their right to
due process of law is fundamental to all people tried by our courts. When
it comes to the death penalty a unilateral court's decision must require
intrinsic review.

Intellectual impetus must override hypocrisy as the volatile nature of
immigration and related crime manifests itself. One's perspective
inevitably conditions one's understanding. Even every truth is an
interpretation from some particular perspective.

Courts must also understand that they are not an extension of prosecutor's
offices, prosecuting attorneys being those who essentially decide what to
charge, and what charges should be retained or dropped.

As well, judges lose much of their sentencing discretion due to a continued
reliance on mandatory sentencing guidelines. This distorts much of the
criminal justice system.

The absence of a national immigration policy has left cities and states with
overwhelming burdens regarding these matters. Immigration enforcement is
primarily the domain of the federal government - further complicating the
ambiguities of jurisdictional domain. Immigration continues as a confusing
picture for local police as they look at enforcing federal and state laws
equally.

In the Medellin case, Texas must satisfy that mere perfunctory prosecution
and court rulings fully justify this death sentence, and the denial of
Medellin and the 50 other Mexicans of their right to consult with their
consulate offices was justified.

Were the defendants fully afforded the parameters of a fair investigation
and defense? Did counsel do all to advance the defendant's interests and
rights, or were they prejudiced by ineffectiveness?

In the case of Medellin, his written confession needed to be no less than
fully knowing, intelligent, and thus completely voluntary.

A court in Bucks County, Pennsylvania (Philadelphia area), faced a similar
issue and situation in the case of Eduardo Canepa, an Argentine citizen.
Canepa was accused and convicted of aggravated assault on his five year old
son. In October 1999, Canepa, a legal resident in the United States, was
transporting his son in the car on family errands when gas cans inside his
car ignited in a public parking lot within view of an ATM bank camera.
Canepa is seen pulling his son to safety, although the boy did sustain
serious burns.

Canepa did not speak English and was not afforded the opportunity to contact
the Argentine consulate, nor a translator. The court found Canepa guilty.
Judge David Heckler (on record) sentenced Canepa to 20 years in prison,
outside of the guidelines of five to ten years, saying Canepa "showed no
remorse." Canepa's son was on record saying that his "daddy" rescued him
from the flames.

The courts, as well as counsels' acts or omissions, ultimately lead to a
finding of guilt or innocence. Failing to track relevant procedures, methods
and systems utilized by police and the courts raises significant doubts
about the accuracy of evidence at trial, and the propriety of judgment of
sentence. When you add the confusion level of foreign national defendants
in our system, competent assistance with their case is certainly needed.

United States' citizens in foreign lands would expect nothing less.

---

Source : MexiData.info (Jerry Brewer, the Vice President of Criminal Justice
International Associates, a global risk mitigation firm headquartered in
Miami, Florida, is a guest columnist with MexiData.info. He can be reached
via e-mail at Cjiaincusa@aol.com. )

http://www.mexidata.info/id1567.html