Should we kill people for not killing people?

[unico]

Texas government seems to think so.

Kenneth Foster Jr. is scheduled to be executed in Texas later this month for the 1997 murder of Michael LaHood, though everybody — even prosecutors — concede that Foster was at the scene of the crime, but did not pull the trigger.

Mauriceo Brown, who admitted to fatally shooting LaHood, was executed last year, but barring an unlikely 11th-hour commutation from Gov. Rick Perry and the Texas Board of Pardons and Parole, Foster will meet the same fate Aug. 30.
Related Stories

On the night of Aug. 14, 1997, Foster, Brown, DeWayne Dillard and Julius Steen were drinking and smoking marijuana. That night, they used Dillard's gun to commit two armed robberies, with Foster serving as driver, and ended up behind a car carrying LaHood and his girlfriend, Mary Patrick, according to testimony in the case.

According to Patrick, the men then began to tail her car so she got out of the car and approached the vehicle to see who they were. The men in the car denied that they had been following her and said that she had flagged down their car. Foster, still behind the wheel, then pulled over beside Patrick.

The men conversed with Patrick, and then Brown got out of the car carrying the gun. Dillard and Steen both testified that there was no discussion that he would rob or kill LaHood and that Brown was acting independently.

Brown and LaHood got into an altercation and Brown shot and killed him. Foster, 19 at the time, became very anxious and started to drive away from the scene, but Dillard and Steen made him wait for Brown to get back in the car. They drove off, but were arrested shortly after, Foster's attorney, Keith Hampton, told ABC News.

Rather than being given a separate trial, Foster was tried alongside Brown. Foster was charged under the Texas "law of parties" statute that eliminates the distinction between the perpetrator of a crime and an accomplice, allowing Foster to be put to death, even though he did not pull the trigger.

Texas is the only state in the country where a person may be executed if a murder he or she did not anticipate or plan occurs during the course of another crime they committed, Foster's lawyer said.

Dillard and Steen both cooperated with the government and were given plea deals, Hampton said. Brown had testified that he acted in self-defense, but the jury didn't buy agree. Both he and Foster were found guilty of murder in the course of a robbery and they were given the death penalty.

Susan Reed, the district attorney of Bexar County, which prosecuted the case, dismissed the possibility that Foster did not know Brown was going to attempt to rob and possibly shoot LaHood. She said Foster was an accomplice in the case, and even though he did not actually pull the trigger is considered guilty of murder under Texas law.

"He was guilty. He was driving that car, he helped set that up, he was reaping the rewards. It was all of them working together on it," Reed said.

Giving Foster the death penalty is technically legally sound, but nonetheless represents a very strict reading of the law, several law professors said. They said the death penalty for Foster represents "extraordinarily severe punitive consequences," with legal precedent normally dictating more lenient consequences.

"These are extraordinarily severe consequences about what was at best, a guess about what was in [Foster's] mind when these things happened," Robert C. Owen, a law professor at the University of Texas-Austin law school said.

"This is a type of case that rarely, if ever, ends up with a death sentence imposed," said John H. Blume, a law professor, and director of Cornell University's Death Penalty Project. "I am willing to bet you there are hundreds of people in prison doing life or substantially less time, who, what they did is as bad if not worse than what Foster did."

Full article here

Texas has executed their 400th prisoner since they started up again in 1982. Next week 3 more are scheduled, including Kenneth Foster.

I will never ever ever move to Texas. It is a damn shame all that can be done for this INNOCENT man is the stay that was granted to him last month.

[CTU2fan]

No we shouldn't. I'm not a DP supporter at all, but certainly not in this case.

Oh and his lawyer absolutely sucks. The other 2 guys copped out, easier for his lawyer to roll the dice when it's Foster who will die when he blows the trial.

Also I'm betting he wouldn't be on death row if he was white.

[BVS]

Texas government just likes killing people, it's no secret...

[Snowlock]

Originally posted by CTU2fan


Also I'm betting he wouldn't be on death row if he was white.

Death penalty sentences are basically handed down by the jury. So before making that white assumption, it be interesting to to uncover the racial mix of the jury.

On top of that, look at what isn't mentioned here. Who drives around town with an armed buddy? Think he didn't know the other guy had a gun? Why pull over a strangers car? Did Foster, who had "nothing to do with this" call 911 on behalf of the shooting victim? Did he turn his buddy in to the police?

From further on the article:

"These are extraordinarily severe consequences about what was at best, a guess about what was in [Foster's] mind when these things happened," Robert C. Owen, a law professor at the University of Texas-Austin law school said."

You know what else was severe? Getting frickin' shot for no apparent reason when you're on a night out with your girl friend .

Nothing more than another burden on society. Only bad part is they're going to waste taxpayers money on the lethal injection dosage. Just throw him off a cliff.

[BVS]

^ None of that justifies the DP in this case.

[Snowlock]

Acording to the law, apparently it does. It's kind of nice when the law works the way it's supposed to for a change, even if it's by accident.

[BVS]

Originally posted by Snowlock
It's kind of nice when the law works the way it's supposed to for a change, even if it's by accident.

Wow, just wow...

I hope you're never in the wrong place at the wrong time.

[martha]

Originally posted by Snowlock
Death penalty sentences are basically handed down by the jury.

But the DA's office decides which cases merit the death penalty as a choice for the jury.

Originally posted by Snowlock

So before making that white assumption, it be interesting to to uncover the racial mix of the jury.

Yes, wouldn't it.

[JCOSTER]

WOW, thats some lesson to be learned.

[Vincent Vega]

Originally posted by Snowlock
Acording to the law, apparently it does. It's kind of nice when the law works the way it's supposed to for a change, even if it's by accident.

That's sick, really.

[BrownEyedBoy]

Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Wow, just wow...

I hope you're never in the wrong place at the wrong time.

For once, I agree with you.

[Snowlock]

Originally posted by Vincent Vega


That's sick, really.

No, what's sick is worrying about this piece of garbage and forgetting all about LaHood and Patrick.

[Snowlock]

Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Wow, just wow...

I hope you're never in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Wrong place at the wrong time?

HE WAS DRIVING!!!! How could he be in the wrong place when the place was of his choosing?

LOL. That's just rediculous!

And what's even more bizarre, you don't even realize or at least mention the two who really were at the wrong place at the wrong time; LaHood & Patrick. Beyond irony.

[Vincent Vega]

Originally posted by Snowlock


No, what's sick is worrying about this piece of garbage and forgetting all about LaHood and Patrick.

Oh yes, of course, we totaly forgot, yes even don't care about them. Right!

Statistically, there is a weapon in every third car in the US. So chances are that you even might be unknowingly in a car with someone who has a gun with him. And when he shoots someone, this stupid law can get you killed.

This case is a bit different. Yes, they were on a robbery tour, which is a crime. Yes, they were no angels.
No, law is not about f kill everyone who has committed a crime or has been accomplice in a crime. No, Foster was apparently not out there going with someone who would kill another perfectly innocent person.

A legal system has to differentiate between who has murdered someone and who not. And Foster didn't kill that person.
A legal system is about repentence and remission, not revenge. Some of the good Christian values that have translated into legal speech in most of the western world.

[Snowlock]

Originally posted by Vincent Vega


Oh yes, of course, we totaly forgot, yes even don't care about them. Right!

Statistically, there is a weapon in every third car in the US. So chances are that you even might be unknowingly in a car with someone who has a gun with him. And when he shoots someone, this stupid law can get you killed.

Please tell me you're kidding me. "Unknowningly"!? Do you think he was on his way to church that night? Do you think he was following that couple because he saw an amusing bumper sticker? No, you don't.

This case is a bit different. Yes, they were on a robbery tour, which is a crime. Yes, they were no angels.
No, law is not about f kill everyone who has committed a crime or has been accomplice in a crime. No, Foster was apparently not out there going with someone who would kill another perfectly innocent person.

They were on a robbery tour with a handgun. Are you really so innocent of a person as to think that having a handgun during a robbery tour wasn't part of the plan? And if you have a handgun and are out on this robbery tour thing, or as it's also known, CRIME SPREE, yeah, you're gonna kill someone.

A legal system has to differentiate between who has murdered someone and who not. And Foster didn't kill that person.
A legal system is about repentence and remission, not revenge. Some of the good Christian values that have translated into legal speech in most of the western world.

Oh, I'm sure he's repented many times. And I'm unsure what you are referring to by remission, but if it's that the crime can never happen again, then at least by this person, mission accomplished. As to revenge, you or I can call it that, but to the families of the victims, it's called justice or closure. And it's really easy to sit there in your dorm room and judge them on that I'm sure.

Oh, and btw, those handguns in 1 & 3 cars? That's not even remotely accurate but still I'd bet most of those guns were to protect from people exactly like our poor "victim" here.

[phanan]

Why in the hell did I go into this thread?

I'm gonna puke.

[LarryMullen's POPAngel]

Originally posted by Snowlock
Acording to the law, apparently it does. It's kind of nice when the law works the way it's supposed to for a change, even if it's by accident.

Unbelievable.

I'm not even going to quote your other posts in this thread.

[anitram]

I wonder why some people get such satisfaction from the deaths of others. Even if they are guilty and even if they are human scum, I wonder what part of you as a human being is missing in order to feel so triumphant about it. It's kind of sad to me.

[Diemen]

Originally posted by Snowlock
And if you have a handgun and are out on this robbery tour thing, or as it's also known, CRIME SPREE, yeah, you're gonna kill someone.

Sorry, but that's utter bullshit. Are you honestly telling me that if someone is committing a crime and has a gun, their intention is to kill someone? Or that if a group of guys are out on a crime spree and one of them has a gun, everyone has the understanding that someone will get shot? Please.

[Vincent Vega]

Originally posted by Snowlock


Please tell me you're kidding me. "Unknowningly"!? Do you think he was on his way to church that night? Do you think he was following that couple because he saw an amusing bumper sticker? No, you don't.

Reading comprehension?

The next sentence reads: "This case is a bit different." OK, the qualifier "a bit" is misplaced, you could leave that out. Still, it indicates that I wasn't describing that very situation in the paragraph above.

They were on a robbery tour with a handgun. Are you really so innocent of a person as to think that having a handgun during a robbery tour wasn't part of the plan? And if you have a handgun and are out on this robbery tour thing, or as it's also known, CRIME SPREE, yeah, you're gonna kill someone.

Maybe where you live, but here, in fact, guns are rarely used.
You have to differentiate between who pulled the trigger, and who was accomplice. That's how it works normally. But apparently not in Texas, which is sad.

Oh, I'm sure he's repented many times. And I'm unsure what you are referring to by remission, but if it's that the crime can never happen again, then at least by this person, mission accomplished. As to revenge, you or I can call it that, but to the families of the victims, it's called justice or closure. And it's really easy to sit there in your dorm room and judge them on that I'm sure.

We had this debate recently here in Germany regarding the RAF terrorists and whether it's right to release them from jail.

Most people agreed that the legal system has to be independent from the wishes of the victims, as of course they will hardly forgive the murderer that easily. But even between the wifes, sons and daughters of those killed reactions were different whether the top-level terrorists should get released, yet all agreed that you can't let them decide, but the legal system.
We abolished the death penalty.
But maybe that's another philosophy, and the death penalty debate is like the abortion debate, it will never end.

I don't ask the victims for remission, but the legal system, basically for lack of a better term in English.

Furthermore it's easy for you to judge every criminal and wish him the death penalty, as long as it's no relative or friend to yourself.

Oh, and btw, those handguns in 1 & 3 cars? That's not even remotely accurate but still I'd bet most of those guns were to protect from people exactly like our poor "victim" here.

That's the figure I've read some while ago, maybe you have another one.