Juvenile Offenders and International law

The Practice of executing those who were under the age of 18 at the time of their crime is directly prohibited by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (I.C.C.P.R.), by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the American Convention on Human Rights. These are broadly accepted as the normality of International law.

The I.C.C.P.R. is probably the most important treaty in existence. The U.S. State Department praised it as the most complete and authoritative articulation of international human rights law...
The treaty was forged from the founding principle of the United Nations Universal declaration of Human Rights, which states "everyone has the right to life, liberty and the security of the person."

The I.C.C.P.R. was adopted 18 years later after the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and specifically addresses the death penalty and juvenile offenders in Article 6, which states  -A sentence of death shall not be imposed for crimes committed by persons below 18 years of age and shall not carried out on pregnant women.
The United States ratified the Covenant in 1992, but with reservations for exceptions and that exception allow the United States to execute juvenile offenders. Their arrogant position is that the exception allows them to willingly impose capital punishment on any person (other than a pregnant woman) duly convicted under the current state and Federal laws of the United States. That specifically applies to the imposition of capital punishment to anyone who commits a crime that is under the age of 18 years old.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that it is not cruel and unusual punishment to apply the death penalty to those who were 16 or 17 years old at the time of their crime. With this statement, the court abandoned international norms as a measure of " evolving standards of decency and embraced Various State Standards.  In one case - TROP-vs-Dulles, the Court looked "to" the international standards, but when it comes to a death penalty case, the Court rejected the nations that world wide perceptions of decency were relevant to the Courts consideration. TROP-vs-Dulles was not a death penalty case, but still yet, if the court recognizes international standards on one hand, it should recognize in all instances. These conflicting positions of arrogance are a direct slap in the face of the European Community. These executions of juveniles in the U.S. must stop. Most notorious...is Texas. Just recently on August 8th, 2002, T.J. Jones, a juvenile at the time of his crime was executed here in Texas. On May 28th, Napoleon Beazlay, another juvenile was executed. On August 28th Toronto Patterson, another juvenile faces execution.

Archbishop Desmond Tutu has constantly pleaded for some of the above-mentioned young men's lives, but his plea's fell upon deaf ears. The pope has made similar pleas to the U.S., but they ignored him too, but if a U.S. juvenile citizen faces punishment such as the Kid in Singapore who was punished for vandalism by public canoeing, the U.S. government goes into their outrage mode decrying..."he's only a child." Like wise, those men were mere Kids, but the U.S. ignored the very same treaties that praised so highly.

Peace
Farley Matchett

International Aspects and Treaties

The world is fully aware that the ultimate punishment is deeply entrenched is some countries more than in others and any thoughts of abolishing the death penalty in country's is highly unlikely to happen any time soon.

Anti-death-penalty organisations are not taking that as a finality in the fight, but as an objective to conquer and eventually if one continues to chip away at the wall, one will attain what one wants. That leads to the new fight against the U.S. that the Anti death penalty organizations have effectively used. It's media attention towards the U.S. depicting them as the worst violator of Human Rights in modern times. The other aspect is through lobbyist who work for Anti-death-penalty groups, pushing the law makers for fairness for all defendants. There is also a Watch groups that monitors every death penalty State in the U.S. for any human rights violations committed. They follow the guidelines set forth in "The Vienna Convention".

Fourteen foreign National s from eleven different countries have been executed and another 82 remain on death rows acnes America. In all instances, the U.S. has continually failed to inform foreign Nationals of their rights under the Vienna Convention. This violation alone has resulted in numerous adverse reactions from. The International-Court of Justice, in repeated criticism from our closet allies and by apologies from our secretary of State, even as the lethal injections take place. This is causing a tremendous strain on relationships with the U.S. still continues to violate International Law.

With a growing consensus on International Law and the death penalty, International stature of the U.S. has greatly declined. Still yet, a deaf ear is turned to the entreaties of it's friends.

The Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs wrote to the Governor G.W.Bush and told him that the Canadian Government is most disturbed by Texas' breach of the Vienna Convention in the case of Canadian citizen Stanley Fandler in 1999. Even Secretary of State Madeleline Albright appealed in the case because she was deeply troubled by the failure of consular notification in the case.

The case of the LeGrand brothers, both. German Nationals, executed by the State of Arizona despite factual evidence showing that the two German brothers had not been informed of their rights to confer with their German Consulate under the Vienna Convention.
The U.S. twice in one year contravened a unanimous order from The International Court of Justice to delay the executions of Foreign nationals.

In 1998, Paraguay successfully raised a similar claim in the International Court concerning it's Citizen Angel Beard in Virginia. The U.S. Supreme Court responded by citing "procedural technicalities" in justifying it's rejection of the Internationalities" in justifying it's rejection of the International Courts Injunction.

The U.S. has citizens scattered about the world. The U.S. demands strict protections of it's citizens through the very same Treaty that they violate. The safety and freedom of U.S. citizens is greatly endangered if State officials continue with their failure to honor the Vienna Convention Treaty. If other countries begin to violate the Treaty as the U.S., then all foreign travellers are endangered.

Article 36 of the U.S. who place foreign nationals under arrest to inform them of their rights to confer with the consulate officials. This provision is binding on "all" states under the U.S. Constitution. A person in the California s Attorney Generals office said that Californian's elect their legislators and their Governor to write the laws...and they should not have to "abdicate that authority" to foreign treaties approved by someone in Washington. Even when they are aware of the Treaty, law enforcement officials may believe it is "inapplicable". One Texas Code of Criminal procedure doesn't say one word about the Geneva Convention.

No one on death row has been granted any relief under the Vienna Convention, despite the fact that consular assistance at the sentencing phase might have changed the outcome. Some 50 plus foreign nationals are facing execution in the U.S. and with the U.S. arrogant position of continual defiance of the treaties they sign that number is destined to steady growth.

Farley C. Matchett #999060
Polunsky Unit D.R.
3872 FM 350 South
Livingston, Texas
77351 USA

September 2002

Judicial Misconduct, biased and prejudices

Misconduct in capital cases is not limited to just the prosecutors who handle these case. Numerous state elected district court judges, whom many are former prosecutors themselves, have likewise engaged in ethical and conscience shocking behavior. Furthermore, the State appellate courts and the Federal appellate courts have displayed open hostility toward the rights of capital defendants. State appellate courts have denied, dismissed and even procedurally barred defendant's legal claims so that they have virtually nothing to use legal wise when they get to the federal courts.

State district judges (trial judges) have allowed prosecutors to virtually have their way during capital trials. One such judge who is notoriously known far such biased acts, is William Harmon. He has displayed open hostility towards defendants in his courtroom, denied defense motions with constancy and even followed two defense lawyers to their motel rooms and verbally treatened them both physical violence if they didn't stop trying to win the current capital trial they were involved in, in his court room. He was reprimanded for his conduct, but nothing really changed and he continued to be biased and prejudicial towards the defendants.

The Court of Criminal Appeals is another group that has no mercy what so ever. These individuals who are former prosecutors and State District Trial judges are all on a "pro-prosecutional" standpoint. Regardless of what the law says, the C.C.A. does as it choose. They have a 97,5% percent denial rate and no capital defendants have had the rare opportunity to obtain any systematic fairness from this court. Most famous for her controversial opinions is Presiding Judge of the C.C.A. - Sharon Keller. She votes 99,5% percent of the time against capital defendants. In one case she ruled against the defendant 3 times. When DNA testing proved that this man was not the person who raped and killed this woman, Justice Keller concluded that possibly the defendant was wearing a condom. The logic of this stupid statement is far beyond me, because here you have a corpse with semen inside the vaginal cavity. This is solid "evidence", so how in the world can even begin to conceive such a notion that the defendant was wearinga condom? If what she says was true, then there would not have been any semen inside the vaginal cavity. This is the case Criner-vs-State that persuaded Texas officials to press a DNA law so as defendants wouldn't have to go through what inmate Criner did. Today he is free, but not by the hands of the C.C.A.

Many federal judges in Texas, who handle habeas corpus appeals of capital defendants, also have demonstrated extreme bias in capital cases coming before them. The Fifth Circuit of Appeals in New Orleans Louisiana has jurisprudence in Texas capital cases. Since the middle 1980's, when Republican judges began to dominate the bench, the 5th Circuit has granted less than 5% percent "for relief" on Texas defendants writ of habeas corpus. The Judge who best represents the current attitude of the court is Edith Jones who is a 5th Circuit Justice. She has not only led the charge from the bench for curtailing federal habeas review, but she has also offered detailed proposals for "expediting state court appellate review in Texas. She has voted only "only" to grant relief to a Texas capital defendant...but she was compelled to do so because of the United States Supreme Court's decision on the matter forced her into it. She has repeatedly dissented from decisions granting temporary relief to death row inmates. Her ideology has taken over the courts way of thinking and her opinions are far from being restrained. Once again we have another level of biased a prejudicial judges.

Judges are "supposed" to follow the law to the exact letter how the lawmakers write them. They swear upon a Bible to uphold the law and swear to a code of Ethic's that they will follow the law regardless of their personal feelings, any biased opinions or any prejudices that would prevent them from administering justice fairly and systematically. Unfortunately many of them lie through their teeth when it comes to ethics and there is no fairness in Texas with these judges.

I have only mentioned just one on each level, but be absolutely sure there are hundreds more like each of the three I've mentioned. It is going to take lawmakers to start reprimanding these people before we inmates see a change. Unfortunately when that does happen... it might be to late for some of us

*Peace*