today denied Humberto Leal a stay of execution despite having the backing of the Obama administration. With a 5-4 ruling against the White House appeal they have disregarded the cautioned violation of international law settling with an agreement for the defendant to be delivered with a lethal injection which was completed at 5PM E.T. Humberto Leal had been tried and convicted over the rape and slaughter of a 16 year old girl in 1994. However, instead of this tragedy being central to the case, the application of law seems to be preoccupied by increasingly high levels of bureaucracy. The issue at hand currently revolves around avoiding contradiction in laws however; how often is this overlooked within the justice system? Leal's Mexican citizenship was unknown to the American authorities upon conviction and as a consequence he was unable to contact the Mexican consulate. This right is guaranteed by a binding international treaty and suggestions have been made that death row could have been avoided. The main issue now becomes which should be the dominant branch in enforcing international treaty obligations.
I will write again and cover the aftermath of the execution and the inevitable, subsequent fall out that will take place through the medias coverage of the Supreme Court and Obama administration during this time. The question that concerns me the most is whether capital punishment still has a place within liberal democracies? Furthermore, is it an outdated form of punishment altogether regardless of the country? Another central issue is a matter of rights. These negotiations, executive agreements and treaties are becoming the antithesis of what human rights should consist of.
