TX to execute man they know wasn't the killer

[Richards 0]

  Quote

  Quote

  Quote

***

  Quote

a civilised country should not have the death penalty. specically when it claims to be so god-damn christian. murder, in any case, is inhumane..

That is a fair opinion, and if you are against the death penalty not only for the driver but also the shooter then fine. Whatever punishment we do give to the shooter however, should also go to the driver.

Murdering someone while committing a robbery should carry an automatic life sentence without the possibility for parole. This should apply to the driver as well.

I'm against the death penalty in all situations, and the time I've spent working for the prosecution and defense in criminal cases has only strengthened my position, for the following reasons.

1. Its irreversible. What if there's new evidence or technology that can exonerate?
2. Prosecutorial misconduct. Look at the Duke rape case...
3. Incompetent defense attorneys. They've slept through death penalty trials.
4. Eyewitness unreliability. What you think you saw isn't always what you really saw.
5. Juries aren't always right... look at how many cases are overturned on appeal.

I support killing if it's necessary for removal of the threat in self-defense situations. Not in cases of state-sanctioned homicide. Lock him up and if there is new evidence, we can always let him out.

I think you misunderstood me, so I probably did not articulate my point well. I was not arguing for the death penalty. My argument was that whatever the penalty is for the shooter, it should apply to the driver as well. I agree that there is the risk of executing an innocent man, so the argument against the death penalty is valid. I simply feel that sentences for crimes like this should be longer and that in cases like this even the accomplices should be held equally accountable. If a man kills someone while robbing them he should get life without parole. His drivers, lookouts and any other accomplices should get the same.

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

[rehmwa 2]

Keeping the thread off of a typical and worn out pro/con death penalty route is futile. the blinders are too big and dark.

Even when the thread topic about accomplices being tried to the same level as the direct offender is a great topic.

good luck

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[78RATS 0]

WARNING: Actual Texas law follows:

In Texas, there are two part trials. the first part is to determine guilt/innocoece, the second part is to determine punishment if the person has been found guilty.


There are different legal standards for determining guilt v. determining life or death.



The standard for guilt as a party:

A person is criminally responsible for the conduct of another if acting with intent to promote or assist the commission of the offense he solicits, encourages, directs aids, or attempts to aid the other person to commit the offense. Penal Code 7.02 (a) (2).

and

If, in an attempt to carry out a conspiracy to commit one felony, another felony is committed by one of the conspirators, all conspirators are guilty of the felony actually committed, though having no intent to commit it, if the offense was committed in furtherance of the unlawful purpose and was one that SHOULD HAVE BEEN ANTICIPATED as a result of carrying out the conspiracy. Penal Code 7.02 (b).



If the person is convicted of capital murder, the only options at punishment in Texas is life in prison or the death penalty. But the jury does not choose life or death. Instead they answer special questions based on the evidence produced in court.


Question One: Future Dangerousness.

Whether there is a probability that the defendant would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society?

Question Two: (when guilty under law of parties above)

Whether the defendant actually caused the death of the deceased or did not actually cause the death of the deceased but intended to kill the deceased or another or ANTICIPATED THAT A HUMAN LIFE WOULD BE TAKEN.


Question Three: Mitigation.

Whether, taking into consideration all of the evidence, including the circumstances of the offense, the defendant's character and background, and the personal moral culpability of the defendant, there is a sufficent mitigating circumstance or circumstances to warrant a sentence of life imprisonment rather than a death sentence be imposed.



BOTTOM LINE: A jury had to find, at a minimum, beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant actually "anticipated that a human life be taken" before he could get the death penalty in Texas. (plus they had to find he would be a future danger and that there was not sufficent mitigating evidence to warrant life in prison rather than the death penalty).


just so ya know

Rat for Life - Fly till I die
When them stupid ass bitches ask why

[Richards 0]

  Quote

  Quote

Keeping the thread off of a typical and worn out pro/con death penalty route is futile. the blinders are too big and dark.

Even when the thread topic about accomplices being tried to the same level as the direct offender is a great topic.

good luck

True, and that is a shame. I think in her case it was an honest misunderstanding though, possibly due to poor choice of wording on my part.

What is your take on the idea of equal consequence for all parties involved?

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

[Nightingale 0]

  Quote

  Quote

  Quote

Keeping the thread off of a typical and worn out pro/con death penalty route is futile. the blinders are too big and dark.

Even when the thread topic about accomplices being tried to the same level as the direct offender is a great topic.

good luck

True, and that is a shame. I think in her case it was an honest misunderstanding though, possibly due to poor choice of wording on my part.

What is your take on the idea of equal consequence for all parties involved?

Yes, I misunderstood what you were asking.

I think that under most circumstances, someone should be held liable for their part and any part of the conspiracy that they have agreed to. If someone's job is to drive a getaway car, and they've been told "nobody is going to get hurt. We're not carrying weapons, we don't want to go down for armed robbery. Just a threatening note, grab the cash, and leave." and someone does carry, without the knowledge of the driver, and shoots someone, then the driver, who had no knowledge that a shooting was even a possibility, shouldn't go down for felony murder or armed robbery, but should go down for robbery and conspiracy.

Just my take on it.

[Thanatos340 1]

  Quote

I think that under most circumstances, someone should be held liable for their part and any part of the conspiracy that they have agreed to. If someone's job is to drive a getaway car, and they've been told "nobody is going to get hurt. We're not carrying weapons, we don't want to go down for armed robbery. Just a threatening note, grab the cash, and leave." and someone does carry, without the knowledge of the driver, and shoots someone, then the driver, who had no knowledge that a shooting was even a possibility, shouldn't go down for felony murder or armed robbery, but should go down for robbery and conspiracy.

But that was not the case here.
The Driver knew full well they were using a Gun to Rob Random people with.
The driver was knowingly driving these people around to Rob people at Gun point.

Should he face the same penalty as the gunman?

[Nightingale 0]

I know that wasn't the case here. He should be punished to the extent he agreed. If he'd agreed that killing was a possibility, then yes, he should face the same punishment.

[Zipp0 1]

  Quote

Question One: Future Dangerousness.

Whether there is a probability that the defendant would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society?

Since thelegal system can predict the future, can one of you lawyers tell me where to invest to become an overnight millionaire?

If not, I'd say using future behavior as a measure is pretty damn lame.

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[Richards 0]

  Quote

  Quote

I know that wasn't the case here. He should be punished to the extent he agreed. If he'd agreed that killing was a possibility, then yes, he should face the same punishment.

This is where we disagree. If we hold all parties responsible we can save lives by placing the burden on the accomplices to either not go along in the first place, or take a greater role in controlling all parties involved. It is not perfectly predictable but perhaps but it will save innocent lives (see the two examples I gave in my post to Jakee on page six).

As for arguments that he never anticipated it going that far, well most drunk drivers do not plan on killing people either, but we still get them with manslaughter. Besides, nobody offers guaantee's of risk limitation to the average joe walking down the street. There is no rule that says, if you walk down 6th ave you run the risk of being robbed but are guaranteed that no harm will come to you, but if you go down 7th ave the robbery can proceed to assault but are guaranteed it will not result in death or rape. If you go down 8th ave you can be raped but are guaranteed that it will not result in being murdered...etc. Why give criminals such guarantees?

It is not about vengeance. It is simply about throwing some variability into the risk they assume and passing the burden of risk from the innocent onto the guilty (even the accomplice) which may save innocent lives. If you know that by partaking in a crime with me you can be held fully accountable for what I do you might not back me up. Without backup I might nt have the guts to do it on my own. Conversely if you come with me on a crime and I start going too far, you will have a vested interest in stopping me. If a few acomplices get nailed for a crime above what they agreed to partake in, it is worth it if it saves lives.

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

[billvon 3,089]

>can one of you lawyers tell me where to invest to become an overnight millionaire?

Nope. No one can.

But can an investment guru tell you that one stock will make a lot of money and another one won't? Yep. Might they tell you that you will make more money by putting your money in a mutual fund, and that that's more reliable than giving your credit card number to the finance minister of Nigeria so you can receive your $7,800,000 (that's SEVEN POINT EIGHT MILLION DOLLARS)? Yep.

Are they always right? No. But they are right quite often.

Likewise, say a guy with a family, a steady job, no history of alcoholism and a good record gets drunk one night at his son's wedding and kills someone while driving home. Is he likely to do it again? Probably not.

Let's say another guy with a long history of drug and alcohol problems, four previous DUI's, no visible means of support, and several refusals to enter treatment programs gets drunk and kills someone with his car. Is he likely to do it again? He's a lot more likely than the first guy.

[Nightingale 0]

I've never met a defendant in court who changed the nature of his crime because he thought he'd get caught and have to face the penalty. Nobody commits a crime if they think they'll face consequences for it.

[kallend 2,117]

  Quote

>

Are they always right? No. But they are right quite often.

.

Is "right quite often" good enough when the penalty is death?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rehmwa 2]

  Quote

If not, I'd say using future behavior as a measure is pretty damn lame.

It's 99% of basis for a justice/punishment system.

You lock someone up because they might 'do it again'.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Richards 0]

  Quote

  Quote

I've never met a defendant in court who changed the nature of his crime because he thought he'd get caught and have to face the penalty. Nobody commits a crime if they think they'll face consequences for it.

I've heard that argument before but I have always felt it was fundamentally flawed for the following reason; Society is broken down into 2 categories, group A (the ones who committed the crime) and group B (the ones who didn't commit the crime). Presuming all of group A get caught and are interviewed and say they were not detered by some tough new law, does the fact that 100% of those who committed the crime were not deterred mean that no-one was deterred? Since people in group B were not arrested and therefore not interviewed how do you know for sure that none of them might have committed the crime had it not been for a new tough law? Barring crimes of passion, nobody who commits a crime does so under the expectation that they will be caught. This does not mean that the ones who did not offend wouldn't have anyway.

I realise there are studies that "prove" both sides of the deterrent argument, and short of an in depth analysis of how these studies were conducted it is hard to tell how accurate any of them are. I tend to side with the "deterence works" side even though many will never be detered, somewhat because of my own experiences. In my life I have seen a cause and effect relationship between potential consequences and peoples willingness to cross certain lines.

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

[billvon 3,089]

>Is "right quite often" good enough when the penalty is death?

Nope. But when it comes to "future dangerousness," life in prison without parole and the death penalty have the same effect - he can never commit another crime out in public.

[joedirt 0]

Murders per 10,000 people started to rise between the 1950's and 1980's in the U.S. when there was a drop in the annual number of legally sanctioned executions. When the number of executions rose during the 1990's and early 2000's the U.S. murder rate declined. According to Roger Leroy,who writes economics textbooks, every additional legally sanctioned execution is associated with about 5 or 6 fewer homicides. Each judicial reduction of a death penalty sentence is associated with one or two additional murders. You can speculate as to why, but these are the actual numbers.

[Richards 0]

  Quote

  Quote

Murders per 10,000 people started to rise between the 1950's and 1980's in the U.S. when there was a drop in the annual number of legally sanctioned executions. When the number of executions rose during the 1990's and early 2000's the U.S. murder rate declined. According to Roger Leroy,who writes economics textbooks, every additional legally sanctioned execution is associated with about 5 or 6 fewer homicides. Each judicial reduction of a death penalty sentence is associated with one or two additional murders. You can speculate as to why, but these are the actual numbers.

The trade-off then is the risk of executing an innocent person vs the deterrent effect. I am still undecided on that. I would feel no pity for a cold blooded killer who was executed, but I can at least see why opponents have their reservations given the flaws in the justice system. It may be that if a life sentence actually meant life in prison, and accomplices got the same you could find a comparable deterent effect. Even if there was not much deterent, you would also get more accomplices of the street too.

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

[jakee 1,571]

  Quote

Murders per 10,000 people started to rise between the 1950's and 1980's in the U.S. when there was a drop in the annual number of legally sanctioned executions. When the number of executions rose during the 1990's and early 2000's the U.S. murder rate declined.

Such a simplistic comparison is basically worthless since it completely ignores all other variables.

The US has a murder rate of around 60/M, the UK, which has not had CP for 40 years has a murder rate of around 16/M.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[joedirt 0]

Relax pal, they're just numbers. You can still do all the speculation you want.

[NCclimber 0]

  Quote

Such a simplistic comparison is basically worthless since it completely ignores all other variables.

The US has a murder rate of around 60/M, the UK, which has not had CP for 40 years has a murder rate of around 16/M.

Excellent post. You rag on him for making a "simplistic comparison", charging that "it completely ignores all other variables."

Then you do the exact same thing.

Excellent post, indeed.

[Nightingale 0]

  Quote

  Quote

Such a simplistic comparison is basically worthless since it completely ignores all other variables.

The US has a murder rate of around 60/M, the UK, which has not had CP for 40 years has a murder rate of around 16/M.

Excellent post. You rag on him for making a "simplistic comparison", charging that "it completely ignores all other variables."

Then you do the exact same thing.

Excellent post, indeed.

Seems like he was trying to contribute an additional variable to the discussion, rather than exclude all other variables.

[jakee 1,571]

  Quote

  Quote

Such a simplistic comparison is basically worthless since it completely ignores all other variables.

The US has a murder rate of around 60/M, the UK, which has not had CP for 40 years has a murder rate of around 16/M.

Excellent post. You rag on him for making a "simplistic comparison", charging that "it completely ignores all other variables."

Then you do the exact same thing.

Excellent post, indeed.

How's that intentional misunderstanding thing going kiddo?

My second paragraph was to illustrate the point that CP is not the only factor in homicide rates, and therefore his comparison is worthless.

I mean for fuck's sake, how can anyone with a brain that works not realise that?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[NCclimber 0]

  Quote

  Quote

  Quote

Such a simplistic comparison is basically worthless since it completely ignores all other variables.

The US has a murder rate of around 60/M, the UK, which has not had CP for 40 years has a murder rate of around 16/M.

Excellent post. You rag on him for making a "simplistic comparison", charging that "it completely ignores all other variables."

Then you do the exact same thing.

Excellent post, indeed.

Seems like he was trying to contribute an additional variable to the discussion, rather than exclude all other variables.

How is the murder rate in the UK a relevant variable to the murder rate in the US?

[Nightingale 0]

  Quote

  Quote

  Quote

  Quote

Such a simplistic comparison is basically worthless since it completely ignores all other variables.

The US has a murder rate of around 60/M, the UK, which has not had CP for 40 years has a murder rate of around 16/M.

Excellent post. You rag on him for making a "simplistic comparison", charging that "it completely ignores all other variables."

Then you do the exact same thing.

Excellent post, indeed.

Seems like he was trying to contribute an additional variable to the discussion, rather than exclude all other variables.

How is the murder rate in the UK a relevant variable to the murder rate in the US?

Because it might be worth it to take a look at countries with low homicide rates, see what factors contribute to them, and whether or not it's practical to implement their systems here. Just because they're a foreign country doesn't mean they have nothing to teach us.

[NCclimber 0]

  Quote

  Quote

  Quote

Such a simplistic comparison is basically worthless since it completely ignores all other variables.

The US has a murder rate of around 60/M, the UK, which has not had CP for 40 years has a murder rate of around 16/M.

Excellent post. You rag on him for making a "simplistic comparison", charging that "it completely ignores all other variables."

Then you do the exact same thing.

Excellent post, indeed.

How's that intentional misunderstanding thing going kiddo?

My second paragraph was to illustrate the point that CP is not the only factor in homicide rates, and therefore his comparison is worthless.

I mean for fuck's sake, how can anyone with a brain that works not realise that?

Way out there on the irony scale.

And yes, I got your point. I just thought it was funny that you (try to) completely invalidate his point and then offer up an an equally (ir)relevant one of your own.

Translation:
Your flawed points - BAD
My flawed points - GOOD