Supreme Court Attorney Adresses Hot Button Issue
Mark Stancil, a graduate of University of Virginia Law School addressed the Audience in a speech at the University of Vermont. Stancil is a distinguished lawyer who recently argued on behalf of Martin Bustillo in front of the Supreme Court in a controversial matter. Initially speaking to the question of the death penalty in the United States to lead into his further discussion of American law compared to foreign law. He cited Atkins vs. Virginia case about the death penalty and cruel and unusual punishment.
He mentioned how the 8th amendment was deemed by the supreme court to be evolving, which led to an overturning of a 1989 Supreme Court decision in the 2003 Atkins case, making it unconstitutional to execute mentally retarded criminals. He later noted execution of juveniles and it’s overturning in the 2005 Wilbur vs. Simmons case by a 5-4 decision. This was significant in that Stancil begins addressing the influence of looking towards other countries in Supreme Court decisions dealing with domestic policy.
Something I found really intriguing was when he pointed out that the U.S. was one of only 7 countries to still execute juveniles. On a list that sports Saudi Arabia, China, Iran, Congo and others, hardly models for a democratic state. This was where Stancil began to demonstrate the need for the United States to take into consideration foreign views and policy in formulating their own domestic policy. Stancil begins speaking more in depth about American law and Foreign law in America’s conduct in handling adhering to the Vienna Convention of Consulate, which states that all foreign nationals, alleged of wrongdoing in the U.S. must be informed of their rights and must have the right to contact and appeal to its consulate. Stancil notes that the Supremacy clause puts treaties along with Federal law over State laws, to exhibit that the Framers were actually very concerned with the views of other nations in gaining legitimacy. The U.S. put a Paraguayan named Breyard to death in 98 and two German brothers to death three years later despite calls from the countries to halt such actions. After losing a case in the international court fed up with U.S. treatment of foreign nationals, Stancil cites the U.S. continued arrogance.
After talking about a case involving Mexican nationals, he referred to his own case involving a Honduran national in order to allude to level at which the U.S. avoids foreign treaties and the need for the U.S. to adhere to such standards. His client, Bustillo was wrongfully accused and convicted of a murder in which it was later found out that another Honduran was to blame. Bustillo was given no chance to contact his consulate and VA courts dismissed important unexamined evidence on the grounds that it wasn’t presented in trial. Stancil points out the magnitude of the injustice, that even if a mans liberty is at stake the U.S. supreme court refuses to acknowledge to need to cooperated and respect world treaties.
Stancil says that to reject international rulings, opionons or treaties you are essentially undermining yourself. He says that it’s all about how the courts are interpreted, as a vessel for change or just reflecting status quo. Noting the Brown case Stancil cites how important the supreme court can be in matters of domestic policy change, and the need for the supreme court to consider, rather than sweep under the rug, the viewpoints and agreements with international communities.
