Sunday, December 22, 2013

How irresponsible is California?


The California Debacle & Death Penalty Reform
Dudley Sharp

Thank goodness (justice) that some folks are trying to create a responsible death penalty protocol in California (1).

How irresponsible is California?

Since 1977, California has executed 1.4% of their death row murderers, after an average of 18 years on death row.The last 5 murderers executed have averaged  22 years on death row (2). It will only get longer, based upon the horrendous irresponsibility of Ca judges, a continuing disaster.

Virginia has executed 70% (110) of their death row murderers, within 7.1 years, Texas 45% (510) within 10.5 years (3). Since 1976, Texas has executed about 0.8% of all her murderers, Virginia 0.7%, California 0.014% (4).

California judges do all they can to drag out these cases, taking a reported 5 years to assign appellate attorneys, after sentencing (5)!

That willful mismanagement has caused a terrible backlog, is a huge insult to murder victim survivors, as to justice, and has created huge burden on taxpayers, all because of this nest of boondoggles, aka judges.

For the last 6 years, these judges have prevented executions based upon California's lethal injection protocol (7), which mimics the successful use of intravenous medical procedures in countless millions of cases, worldwide, over decades. The lethal overdose of the drugs used in California's protocol have well known, never changing pharmacological properties.

Shocking that these judges haven't stopped all medical intravenous procedures in California, based upon them being cruel and unusual.

The cruel and unusual, here, is the judges.

Are California judges incompetent? No. They are just holding the law and the will of the people in contempt - they are dictators in robes.

Such judges can be removed, but . . .  ,

What does a responsible death penalty protocol look like?

Since 1977, Virginia has executed 70% (110) of their death row murderers after 7.1 years on death row, on average,  with a 9% overturning rate.

What if California had been responsible?

Lets say that California needed 50% longer to execute than does Virginia, or 10.5 years, and had executed only 40% and had a 30% overturning rate.

This is what California would have today, with some responsible management.

40% executed  would be 388 executed murderers, leaving 582, from which California has had 81 die (not executed) while on death row, a 30% overturning rate would be 291 cases, with 15 cases commuted, which would leave 195 remaining on death row, . . . easily manageable, as opposed to the 700 currently on death row.

Texas currently has about 300 on death row. Texas has sent about 1100 to death row, California 1000. Texas takes, on average, 10.5 years to execute and has executed 45% of their death row murderers and has a 15% overturning rate on death row.

The problem has not been available qualified attorneys,  it has been that Ca has bad case managers, aka judges.

The complaint about limited qualified defense attorneys only makes sense if you avoid the grossly irresponsible system that California judges have perpetrated, which has created this huge bottleneck.

Judges are the case managers in California, just as they are in Virginia and Texas .

Thank goodness that someone is attempting to create a responsible system, not just wining about how it can't be done, you know, like in Virginia and Texas.


Dudley Sharp, updated  1/2017

Countless media reports have stated that the death penalty is dying because of less public support, innocents at risk, the high costs, etc., etc., with the "facts" provided by the deceptive anti death penalty folks, then, parroted by the media.

Facts reveal a different reality.


Death penalties/executions plummeted from 1991-2014 because 1) capital murders plummeted; 2) court decisions/activism, further limited or delayed death penalty application or executions, inclusive of appeal time increasing by 128%; 3) Lethal injection challenges and drug restrictions limited executions; 4) DA's may have been more reluctant to seek death because of judicial obstructionism.


What's the most obvious reason for the drop in death sentences? Answer: Fewer capital murders.

The US has had double digit executions, annually, from 1984 - 2014. Murders are, now, at a 46 year low (1). Murder rates are, now, at a 57 year low (1).

It follows that death sentences are at a 42 year low.

In the US, from 1991-2014, there was 43% drop in murders (a 54% drop in murder rates) and a 53% drop in robberies (a 63% drop in rate) (1).

Murder/robbery is, by far, the most common death penalty crime.

The leading execution state, Texas, had a 55% drop in murders (71% drop in rate),  37% drop in robberies (60% drop in rate), during the same period (1).

As robbery/murders are the most common death penalty eligible crimes, those, likely, dropped from 70-80%.

Based upon new case law and state death penalty repeals, such may account for an additional 10% reduction in death sentences (2).

Those two account for the vast majority of death penalty reduction.

Other, very minor additional factors are LWOP, up front costs, as others, some contributing to prosecutorial frustration/discretion, as a rule caused or affected by . . . .

Judicial Roadblocks

Judges, some with responsibility, others with complete abandon. are the case managers, in control of both time and costs (3).

Because of judicial roadblocks and delays (3), some prosecutors may just get fed up, choosing to avoid the death penalty, seek a LWOP trial instead, or, better, a plea to LWOP, avoiding the huge costs and countless delays imposed by many judges in death penalty cases, at pretrial, in trial and within appeals.

In states like California, Kansas and Pennsylvania, judges are, very openly, killing the death penalty, as they did in New Jersey and Connecticut.

For example, in the modern era, post Gregg v Georgia (1976):

Virginia executed her first 111 murderers within 7 years of full appeals, on average (4), has executed 73% of those sent to death row and has an 11% overturning rate in appeals (5). Virginia's latest execution, 10/1/2015, occurred after 5 years of full appeals (4).

Contrast that to:

Pennsylvania has executed only 3 of the 417 sentenced to death, or 0.7%, and has a 45% overturning rate in appeals (5), likely to become 90%, if the judges will allow appeals to end.


Pa judges will only allow executions when the murderer "volunteers" and waives appeals, whereas Virginia judges are responsible and respect the law.

Pa judges are, quite obviously, obstructionists to the law, a common and obvious problem in many jurisdictions, . . .


". . . in California, appeals attorneys are not appointed (by judges) for three to five years. (Those attorneys, then, allowed by judges) to take four years to learn the case and file their appeal. Attorneys for habeas appeal (through the federal courts) are not appointed (by the judges), on average, until eight to 10 years after the death sentence." (6).

A 7-10 year wait for the first appellate brief.

Judges have, intentionally, destroyed the California system, as could not be more obvious.

For some, the judicial problems may be too much.

The entire media, completely, missed the judicial component, which is huge. How? The media only cares what the anti death penalty folks have to say. Obvious.


Fewer death sentences will equal fewer execution and, more relevant, now . . .

Since 2006, executions have been affected by litigation related to the lethal injection method, as well as drug shortages, within that method, resulting in a "slowdown" of executions averaging 43 per year (2007-2013) (7a&b).

It is very rare to have executions over 60 per year, which has only occurred 7 times (1997-2003), or 18% of execution years (7a).

Excluding those exceptions, the average is 27 executions per year (1977-1996, 2004-2013), 82% of execution years,  and, if starting with double digit executions in 1984, the average is 36 executions per year (7a).

The "slowdown" period has averaged 43 executions/year and could get down to those 27-36 averages, if the actual execution problems are not corrected.

NOTE: Low Execution Rate in Texas (8).

128% Increase In Appeals Time

Executions are, undoubtedly, much fewer than they would otherwise have been, because the time between sentencing and executions has risen by 128%, from 6.6 years, the average time from 1984-1988, when double digit executions began, to 15 years, the average time from 2009-2013 (9).

This is the fault of the judges, again, (see JUDICIAL ROADBLOCKS) and is an intended killer of the death penalty, as virtually every hearing on the death penalty attests and it might be the greatest reducer of executions, but was, completely, missed by the media.

In 1996, the US Congress passed the Anti Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), part of which was supposed to quicken death penalty appeals.

Every year since then, the average time of appeals, until execution, has been greater than in 1996 (10.4 years), with the longest being 16.5 years in 2011 (9).

Apparently, judges didn't like the AEDPA . The judicial move against the death penalty became even more obvious.

The tremendous increase in appeals times and the lethal injection issues are, almost exclusively, responsible for the reduction in executions.

REVEALING DECEPTIONS: Botched Executions, Innocents at Risk, Racism, High Cost & Lower Support

These are some of the more common, alleged and false reasons for the drop in death sentences, provided by anti death penalty sources.

Botched Executions

Truly "botched" executions, via lethal injection, occur about 1% of the time.

For example, "Charles Warner, who was executed . . . for the killing of an 11-month-old girl in 1997, said during his last words: "It feels like acid." The comment came before any of the lethal drugs were administered and while he was only receiving a saline drip through an intravenous line." (10)

Most likely, Warner's exclamation was just invented to produce another false reason against the death penalty, as, allegedly, occurred in the Ohio execution of Dennis McGuire, below.

The highly publicized "botched" executions in Arizona and Ohio were not such thing (11) , as found by one (o-n-e) reporter, and those executions reflected, exactly, the type of slower time to death, the known, predicted outcome of using those drugs, which could not, pharmacologically, allow for consciousness or pain but, just the opposite (11), as known by those that fact check.

Oklahoma was just one disaster after another, with their last two executions, Lockett (2014, bad procedure) and Warner (2015, wrong drug). Prior to that the state had a near perfect record with many executions. That was the fault of incompetent personell, not the lethal injection protocol or the drugs used.

Innocents at Risk

The 156 "exonerated" from death row has been part of a very well known deception, for about 20 years, with a 70-83% error rate in the "exoneration" or "innocence" claims , as any fact checker knows, finding that anti death penalty folks had just redefined "exonerated", "innocent" and "wrongful conviction", as if they had redefined "lie" as "truth" (12).

There may be proof that there have been 0.4% actual innocents on death row, since 1976 -  a 99.6% accuracy rate in guilty findings, with a 100% rate in releasing those 0.4% actual innocents (12) -  very likely the most accurate of any government program, as prosecutors and pro and anti death penalty experts are aware.

As the death penalty and executions, respectively, have enhanced due process and enhanced incapacitation effects, over LWOP, we know the death penalty protects innocents to a higher degree than does LWOP (13).
Deterrence has never and can never be excluded from the death penalty/executions (or any sanction) (13) and history and reason tell us that the death penalty is an enhanced deterrent over LWOP, as life is preferred over death and death is feared more than life (13). What is preferred more deters less. What is feared more deters more.

All sanctions, all negative prospects, all potential negative outcomes and all negative incentives deter some, all well known truisms.

At least 16,000 innocents have been murdered by those known murderers that we have allowed to murder, again - recidivist murderers - just since 1973 (13).

Up to 400,000 innocents have been murdered by those known criminals that we released from incarceration and/or not incarcerated, also since 1973 (13).

The last credible claim for an innocent executed is from the 1930's.

Where is "the innocents at risk" problem?

A Nov. 2010 Angus Reid poll found 83% death penalty support, 13% opposition when,with the same respondents, 81% believed that innocents have been executed (14), showing the opposite of a turning away from executions based upon the, largely, misleading innocence claims presented by anti death penalty folks.

A 2013 Angus Reid poll found 86% death penalty support in the US (14a). No media outlet picked it up, as is their rule, which is to only use polls showing the lowest support possible (14a).

So, of course, we have this: "Richard Dieter (Death Penalty Information Center - DPIC)  states: "I think the (death penalty and execution) decline begins with the revelations about mistakes in capital cases — that innocent people could get the penalty and almost be executed has shocked the public to the point where death sentences are harder to obtain." (15) - the opposite of the truth.

The evidence is that the death penalty is a greater protector of innocents, than is LWOP (13), which would result in even more support for the death penalty.


"There is no race of the offender / victim effect at either the decision to advance a case to penalty hearing or the decision to sentence a defendant to death given a penalty hearing." (16).

"As blacks represent 47% of murderers and whites 37%, we see that whites murderers are twice as likely to be executed for committing murder as are black murderers." (16).

From 1977-2012, white death row murderers have been executed at a rate 41% higher than are black death row murderers, 19.3% vs 13.7%, respectively. (16).

Higher Cost

Fact checking the cost studies reveals that the death penalty can and should save costs over LWOP as demonstrated by Virginia and, likely, North Carolina and Texas and others (17). In addition, virtual all of the costs studies are incomplete, inaccurate or fraudulent (17) or make no attempt at a true apples to apples comparison between the death penalty and LWOP costs (18), the only relevant cost review .

Lower Support

When polling asks "Do you support the death penalty for murder?" and the responses offered are - sometimes - always - or - never - death penalty support is in the 80% range, as per Gallup, Angus Reid and Quinnipiac polling (19).

A Nov. 2010 Angus Reid poll found 83% death penalty support, 13% opposition when,with the same respondents, 81% believe that innocents have been executed (1a), showing the opposite of a turning away from executions based upon the, largely, misleading innocence claims presented by anti death penalty folks.

NOTE: The 6 states which have repealed the death penalty, since 2006, all had Democratic governors, with Democrat majority legislators, with the exception of Nebraska, which has no party affiliations within their unicameral legislature. A signature based referendum effort has, already, reinstated the death penalty, with the, likely, result that Nebraska's citizens will, also, reject the death penalty repeal in Nov. 2016.

They did.

The 5 Governors who have stopped executions in their state by executive order or obstruction are all Democrats.

In those 11 states, the majority of the citizens support the death penalty, Not very democratic to repeal or stop the death penalty/executions, eh?

The evidence is that the death penalty is a greater protector of innocents, than is LWOP (13), which would result in even more support for the death penalty.

Bottom Line: None of these offer any reason to reduce either the death penalty or executions, to the contrary.


1) United States and Texas

United States: I used national data, instead of only states with the death penalty, which should be the subject data. However, all the death penalty states did see significant drops in murderers, as well as in the secondary factors, which combined with murder, create capital, death eligible murders.

I use The Disaster Center because of their ease of use and accuracy, using FBI data

United States

2) There are judicial decisions, within each state, as well as with SCOTUS, affecting all death penalty states, as with cases since 1991, Schlup, Ring, Atkins, Tennard, Roper, Hill, House, Medellin, Baze, Kennedy, Harbison and, now, Hurst and more. 6 states have repealed the death penalty, with 5 additional suspending executions, since 2007.

3)  Judges Responsible for Grossly Uneven Executions

5)  Table 17, Prisoners sentenced to death and the outcome of the sentence, by jurisdiction, 1973–2013, Capital Punishment, 2013, US Bureau Of Justice Statistics, December 2014,

6)  Three Major Steps to Reduce Death Penalty Delay in California, Crime and Consequences blog, Bill Otis, August 8, 2015,

7)  a) Table 11, Number of inmates executed, by race and Hispanic origin, 
1977–2013, Capital Punishment, 2013, US Bureau Of Justice Statistics, December 2014,

b) The Death Penalty and Medical Ethics Revisited

8) Texas' Small Appetite for Executions

Since 1973, Texas has executed 0.73% of her murderers after 11 years of appeals, on average. 508 executions with 69, 384 murders from 1974-2013  --  by any measure, an extremely small application of a government policy.

Texas doesn't execute a lot of murderers per murder, it's just that most everywhere else, judges won't allow cases to proceed, in a responsible time frame (3).

9) Table 10, Average time between sentencing and execution,  1977–2013, Capital Punishment, 2013, US Bureau Of Justice Statistics, December 2014,

10)  'It Feels Like Acid.' Charles Warner's Final Words Stir Execution Questions', Sean Murphy, AP, in Huffpost Crime,  Updated Jan 18, 2015

11)  No "Botched" Execution - Arizona or Ohio

12)  The Innocent Frauds: Standard Anti Death Penalty Strategy

13)  The Death Penalty: Saving More Innocent Lives

14) US Death Penalty Support at 80%: World Support Remains High
95% of Murder Victim's Family Members Support Death Penalty

14a) 86% Death Penalty Support: Highest Ever - April 2013
World Support Remains High
95% of Murder Victim's Family Members Support Death Penalty

15) "Executions in US drop close to 20-year low in 2013", Boston Globe, Pete Yost, AP,  12/19/2013


18)   Death Penalty Costs vs Life Without Parole Costs: Study Protocol

19)  86% Death Penalty Support: Highest Ever - April 2013
World Support Remains High
95% of Murder Victim's Family Members Support Death Penalty

add note    

Death sentences are twice as likely to be overturned on appeal (1674, 20%) , as are those convictions (863, 10%) , again, a possible indicator of  judicial bias against the death penalty.(Table 16, Prisoners sentenced to death and the outcome of sentence, by year of sentencing, 1973-2011, Capital Punishment, 2011 - Statistical Tables, Tracy L. Snell, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Capital punishment Series, July 16, 2013    NCJ 242185)

Monday, December 16, 2013


The Death Penalty: Fair & Just
Dudley Sharp

The following addresses the most common fairness/justice issues within the death penalty debate.

The death penalty is given for the same reason all sanctions are, that is that it is deemed a just, appropriate and proportional sanction, in the context of the crime.

These topics reflect part of my moral journey from death penalty opponent to advocate, with the first two topics, by far, the most important.

Victim's Voices - These are the murder victims

"The bodies were very badly decomposed, even for four days in Houston's brutal summer heat and humidity, particularly in the head, neck and genital areas. The medical examiner later testified that this is how she could be sure as to the horrible brutality of the rapes, beatings and murders."

The Death Penalty: Do Innocents Matter?

"Well known anti death penalty scholars "(Charles) Black and (Hugo Adam ) Bedau said they would favor abolishing the death penalty even if they knew that doing so would increase the homicide rate by 1,000 percent." 

They would chose sparing the lives of 1300 guilty murderers (executed from 1973-2013) over saving an additional 6.3 million innocent lives, taken by murder.

Anti death penalty. academic leaders make that argument.  Astounding. "

The Death Penalty: Mercy, Expiation, Redemption & Salvation

Quaker biblical scholar Dr. Gervas A. Carey: “. . . a secondary measure of the love of God may be said to appear. For capital punishment provides the murderer with incentive to repentance which the ordinary man does not have, that is a definite date on which he is to meet his God. It is as if God thus providentially granted him a special inducement to repentance out of consideration of the enormity of his crime . . . the law grants to the condemned an opportunity which he did not grant to his victim, the opportunity to prepare to meet his God. Even divine justice here may be said to be tempered with mercy.” 


White murderers are twice as likely to be executed as are black murderers 
56% of those executed are white, 35% black 
For the White–Black comparisons, the Black level is 12.7 times greater than the White level for homicide, 15.6 times greater for robbery, 6.7 times greater for rape, and 4.5 times greater for aggravated assault. 
For the Hispanic- White comparison, the Hispanic level is 4.0 times greater than the White level for homicide, 3.8 times greater for robbery, 2.8 times greater for rape, and 2.3 times greater for aggravated assault. 
For the Hispanic–Black comparison, the Black level is 3.1 times greater than the Hispanic level for homicide, 4.1 times greater for robbery, 2.4 times greater for rape, and 1.9 times greater for aggravated assault. 
As robbery/murder is, by far, the most common death penalty eligible murder, the multiples will be even greater.
From 1977-2012, white death row murderers have been executed at a rate 41% higher than are black death row murderers, 19.3% vs 13.7%, respectively. ( Table 12, Executions and other dispositions of inmates sentenced to death, by race and Hispanic origin, 1977–2012, Capital Punishment 2012, Bureau of Justice Statistics, last edited 11/3/14)
"There is no race of the offender / victim effect at either the decision to advance a case to penalty hearing or the decision to sentence a defendant to death given a penalty hearing." 

Is There Class Disparity with Executions?

"99.8% of poor murderers have avoided execution.

It may be, solely, dependent upon the definitions of "wealthy" and "poor", as to whether wealthy murderers are any more or less likely to be executed, based upon the very small number and percentage of capital murders that are committed by the wealthy, as compared to the poor.


"The  53:1 ratio indicates that women may be on death row in greater numbers than we would expect or similar to what we would predict."

Both the guilty & the innocent have the greatest of protections

The facts tell us that the death penalty is the least arbitrary and capricious sanction in the US.

Protections for the guilty murderer and the actual innocent accused are unmatched by any other sanction protocol.

Nothing else comes close. 

Texas Death Penalty Procedures

100% of the 48 votes (4 voting issues for each of the 12 jurors), must be against the defendant/murderer, for a death sentence to be given. 2%, only 1 of those 48 votes, must be for the defendant/murderer, to remove the death penalty option.

Any juror can use anything they want, personally and subjectively, to spare the murderer a death sentence.

Judges Responsible for Grossly Uneven Executions

Judges are responsible for grossly uneven executions, demonstrating dictatorial like contempt for the law in those states where it is, virtually, impossible to execute confirmed murderers.

If abortions had to be individually, approved or rejected, by judicial ruling, and some states approved them at a 50-70% rate and others at a 0-10% rate, do you think the media might notice?

 No "Botched" Execution - Arizona (or Ohio)  

The Death Penalty: Not a Human Rights Violation

Those who say that the death penalty is a human rights violation have no solid moral or philosophical foundation for making such a statement.  What opponents of capital punishment really are saying is that they just don't approve of executions.

Certainly, both freedom and life are fundamental human rights.  On this, there is virtually no disagreement.  However, again, virtually all agree, that freedom may be taken away when there is a violation of the social contract. Freedom, a fundamental human right, may be taken away from those who violate society's laws.  So to is the fundamental human right of life forfeit when the violation of the social contract is most grave.

The Death Penalty: Neither Hatred nor Revenge

Far from moral superiority, those who call capital punishment an expression of hatred and revenge are often exhibiting their contempt for those who believe differently than they do.  Instead, they might reflect on why others believe it is a just and deserved sanction for the crimes committed.

The pro death penalty position is based upon those who find that punishment just and appropriate under specific circumstances. Retributive justice as opposed to revenge.

Those opposed to execution cannot prove a foundation of hatred and revenge for the death penalty any more than they can for any other punishment sought within a system such as that observed within the US - unless such opponents find all punishments a product of hatred and revenge - an unreasonable, unfounded position.

Killing Equals Killing: The Amoral Confusion of Death Penalty Opponents

For such anti death penalty folks to be consistent, they must also equate holding people against their will (illegal kidnapping) with the sanction for it, the holding people against their will (legal incarceration) or the taking money away from people (illegal robbery) with a sanction for that, taking money away from people (legal restitution).

Most folks understand the moral differences.

Some anti death penalty folks are either incapable of knowing the moral differences between crime and punishment, guilty criminals and their innocent victims, or they are knowingly using a dishonest slogan by equating  killing (murder) with killing (execution).

Murder Victims' Families Against The Death Penalty: 
More Hurt For Victims Families

Instead of being divisive and hurtful, why can't MVFADP just say, "we oppose the death penalty, but respect your right to support the death penalty in your case."? MVFADP won't support other victims in that fashion because their sole goal is to get rid of the death penalty, not helping any victims who feel differently but, in fact, working against them.

Instead, the MVFADP are, actively, seeking to deny that right to those who find the death penalty just. Thus, the MVFADP are, intentionally hurtful and divisive, when they need not be.

95% Death Penalty Support by Loved Ones of Capital Murder Victims

The Death Penalty: Pro Life

Based upon biblical and theological teachings, one can, reasonably and responsibly, find that an anti death penalty view is not pro life.

All sanctions are given because we value what is being taken away.

Whether it be fines, freedom or lives, in every case we take things away, as legal sanction, it is because we value that which is taken away.

How can it be a sanction, if we do not value that which is taken away? It can't.

Nitrogen Gas; Flawless, peaceful, unrestricted method of execution

86% Death Penalty Support: Highest Ever - April 2013
95% of Murder Victim's Family Members Support Death Penalty 

86% death penalty support (1), the highest I have ever located

22% of the 86% finding the death penalty "always appropriate", the highest I have ever located (2)
64% of the 86% finding the death penalty "sometimes appropriate"
9% finding the death penalty "never appropriate", the lowest I have ever located

Why didn't you hear of this poll? The media excluded it from coverage.

Moral Support for the Death Penalty

“If an offender has committed murder, he must die. In this case, no possible substitute can satisfy justice. For there is no parallel between death and even the most miserable life, so that there is no equality of crime and retribution unless the perpetrator is judicially put to death.”  Immanuel Kant

Friday, December 13, 2013

The Vienna Convention & The US Death Penalty

The Vienna Convention & The US Death Penalty
Dudley Sharp

Published July 4, 2011

Leal & Vienna Convention


In June 2006, the United States Supreme Court ruled that foreign nationals who were not notified of their right to consular notification and access after an arrest may not use the treaty violation to suppress evidence obtained in police interrogation or belatedly raise legal challenges after trial (Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon.).

In March 2008, the Supreme Court further ruled that the decision of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) directing the United States to give "review and reconsideration" to the cases of 51 Mexican convicts on death row WAS NOT A BINDING DOMESTIC LAW (my emphasis) and therefore could not be used to overcome state procedural default rules that barred further post-conviction challenges (MedellĂ­n v. Texas).


1. The violation of the VC is that the US did not inform arrested foreign nationals of their right to contact their own consulate, either by themselves or that the taking authorities contact their consulate.

The police/taking authorities didn't say:

"You have the right to contact your consulate, if you want to." (see footnote 2, below, Article 36. 1. b., VC)

That's it.

2. It is important to point out that:

a. all detainees could have contacted their consulates whenever they wanted to, absent that notification and b. all 51 detainees had attorneys who knew they could contact the consular offices, at any time, had they believed such contact could have been helpful. They didn't.

c. No one prevented anyone from contacting their consulate and no taking authority refused to contact the consulate for them.

The main issue of this International Court of Justice (ICJ) case (2) was not the violation of notification, which both parties had conceded to, but one of the remedy for such violation.

In the US, hearings are based upon meeting a threshold of evidence which can support the call for a hearing. If that threshold is not met, then the appellate courts will rule against a hearing.

Overwhelmingly, the VC issues have been reviewed by courts and the claims have been dismissed.

They have been barred because of time limitations on originating the appeal or not preserving it at trial, properly, or that the VC issue resulted in harmless error, meaning that neither the sentence nor the verdict would have changed, had the VC been properly administered.

Many appellate claims for US citizens are denied in US courts for the exact same reasons.

Paragraph 2, Article 36 , VC states:

"2. The rights referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article shall be exercised in conformity with the laws and regulations of the receiving State, subject to the proviso, however, that the said laws and regulations must enable full effect to be given to the purposes for which the rights accorded under this Article are intended. "

The appeals, as reviewed above, have, already, fulfilled this requirement or will fulfill it. The notification issued had been reviewed by both state and federal courts.

Reuters: "The United States accepts that the original 2004 ruling places on it a binding legal obligation, said John Bellinger, legal adviser at the U.S. Department of State, adding it was disappointing the court had held that Medellin's execution violated international law. 'Mr. Medellin has had numerous reviews of his case ... It is worth noting that his absence of consular notification was in fact specifically reviewed by a number of state and federal courts,' Bellinger said. U.S. execution breached international law: World Court, BY NICLAS MIKA, Reuters, THE HAGUE Mon Jan 19, 2009 12:17pm EST

In the overwhelming majority of the 51 Mexican detainee cases, there is little doubt that the detainees received super due process and other protections within their cases.

Looking specifically at the dates of when these 51 detainees were originally arrested, and the history of Mexico's interest in Mexican nationals arrested in the US at such times, there is very little or no supportive evidence that Mexico would have provided any additional assistance, at all, or any additional assistance which would have impacted the end result in these cases, had their consulates been notified at that time.


1. The ICJ decision violates the specific, unequivocal directive of the VC that the Convention states:

"Realizing that the purpose of such privileges and immunities IS NOT TO BENEFIT INDIVIDUALS (my emphasis) but to ensure the efficient performance of functions by consular posts on behalf of their respective States" (Introduction, paragraph 6, VC)

2. This directive is given specific, additional support, within the subject Article 36 of the VC: within the opening and dominant directive of Paragraph 1, VC:
"With a view to facilitating the exercise of consular functions relating to nationals of the sending State"

3. The ICJ completely dismisses this unequivocal directive of the VC. Put bluntly, the ICJ has no respect for the spirit and specific directives of the VC, in this regard. Had the ICJ honored the specific directives of the VC, this case would have been dismissed.

From the ICJ decision, Press Release (1)

The ICJ: " - finds by fourteen votes to one that the appropriate reparation in this case consists in the obligation of the United States of America to provide, BY MEANS OF ITS OWN CHOOSING (my emphasis) , review and reconsideration of the convictions and sentences of the Mexican nationals referred to . . .; and

"- unanimously finds that, should Mexican nationals nonetheless be sentenced to severe penalties, without their rights under Article 36, paragraph 1 (b), of the Convention having been respected, the United States of America shall provide, BY MEANS OF ITS OWN CHOOSING (my emphasis), review and reconsideration of the conviction and sentence, so as to allow full weight to be given to the violation of the rights set forth in the Convention, taking account of paragraphs 138 to 141 of this Judgment."

And the US chose to provide super due process and no more, to these horrid murderers.


1) The International Court of Justice's (ICJ) decision. Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America), Press Release 2004/16, March 31, 2004,

2) The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 1963 (VC),