WTF? (political)

[rgraham666]

I read this and I honestly can't understand it at all.

I look, think, ponder. And my brain keeps giving me a 'Does Not Compute'.

Comments please.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I read this and I honestly can't understand it at all.

I look, think, ponder. And my brain keeps giving me a 'Does Not Compute'.

Comments please.

So... the law states that one can be considered an accomplice in very loose ways (and in this case is being treated as a "you took someone to go kill someone else" kind of way). There's evidence not heard about the intention behind the "going to" such that the killer didn't intend or convey the intention of killing to the driver even though it happened--because its not heard, dude is considered an accomplice to murder and sentenced to death.

Makes sense.

 

[xssve]

I read this and I honestly can't understand it at all.

I look, think, ponder. And my brain keeps giving me a 'Does Not Compute'.

Comments please.

It computes, but only if you live in Texas, and probobly only if you also happen to be Black.

The Texas legal system is very protective of it's conviction record - when DNA became admissible evidence, Texas "lost" all of the evidence that had been stored from death penalty cases.

Bush, as governor, never even bothered to read a case file before signing off on an execution.

For a real hair raiser, try googling "site specific murders texas", and include the words "yogurt shop".

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

It computes, but only if you live in Texas, and probobly only if you also happen to be Black.

The Texas legal system is very protective of it's conviction record - when DNA became admissible evidence, Texas "lost" all of the evidence that had been stored from death penalty cases.

Bush, as governor, never even bothered to read a case file before signing off on an execution.

For a real hair raiser, try googling "site specific murders texas", and include the words "yogurt shop".

Or read John Grisham's "The Innocent Man"... shocking stuff.

 

[WRJames]

There is Constitutional protection at the federal level against cruel and unusual punishment -- it would seem that it would apply to a case like this? Of course, with the current makeup of the Supreme Court, maybe not.

 

[Recidiva]

It sounds like the "Felony Murder" argument.

This is the sort of thing that if you've agreed to commit a felony premeditated, and someone dies in the process, you're all equally responsible.

This way if five masked bank robbers run a raid and one of them shoots a gun, killing someone, all five robbers are convicted of the murder.

It helps get convictions where otherwise it's impossible to pin the particular crime on one person, instead blaming the entire group. It's intented as a deterrent to keep you from committing - you guessed it - felonies.

 

[Lee Chambers]

Being from Texas and also being pro-death penalty, I can tell you why this law exists. Its a way to equally punish everyone involved in a crime. "Ideally" (please note the quotation marks) the law is meant to punish people who are participating in a murder that is premeditated, such as a drive by.

One thing you have to understand about dealing with the death penalty here in Texas is that we do not see it as a means to deter others from committing murder. Any Texas prosecutor or law enforcement official who tries to tell you otherwise is just trying to be more PC. The real reason we execute so many people is because we believe that people who commit crimes should be punished and a lot of us carry around an "eye for an eye" mentality.

That being said, I think that this law needs to be pulled for the very reason illustrated in this story. This man is set to be executed for being at the wrong place at the wrong time. That's not justice. It's not even fucking revenge.

I may be pro-death penalty but I'm not pro-"let's kill all the people within a five mile radius".

 

[Lee Chambers]

Sorry...didn't mean to kill the thread. http://www.w-enter.com/forum/images/smilies/msn_messenger/emoticon_U.gif

 

[xssve]

I thought you put it quite succinctly - unfortunately, this is considered a non sequitur on the internet.

 

[angela146]

Did the guy do something after the fact in an attempt to help the killer escape justice? If so, that would make him a full-blown accomplice.

Still, you have the argument that the killing wasn't premeditated (which makes it a manslaughter instead of a murder).

Also, the governor of Texas does not have real pardon power. That is actually in the hands of the lieutenant governor and the pardon board.

Having said all of that, I also happen to agree this law sucks.

 

[Lee Chambers]

Did the guy do something after the fact in an attempt to help the killer escape justice? If so, that would make him a full-blown accomplice.

Still, you have the argument that the killing wasn't premeditated (which makes it a manslaughter instead of a murder).

Also, the governor of Texas does not have real pardon power. That is actually in the hands of the lieutenant governor and the pardon board.

Having said all of that, I also happen to agree this law sucks.

According to the story in the article, the guy who actually killed the victim did it because they got into a fight over something. It isn't premeditated but that still makes it murder.