Turn on thread page Beta

Sentenced to Death for a Crime the State Admits He Didn't Commit - Yes it's in Texas watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Libertin du Nord)
    While not agreeing with the death penalty, one should at least be consistant - if you're going to charge someone with murder, he should get the same sentence as everyone else.
    That assumes every role in every murder is of the same seriousness. If we go by what you say, why isn't every murderer in Texas given the death penalty? Why isn't every murderer in the USA in states with the death penalty?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HenvY)
    That assumes every role in every murder is of the same seriousness. If we go by what you say, why isn't every murderer in Texas given the death penalty? Why isn't every murderer in the USA in states with the death penalty?
    Because quite often there are mitigating circumstances to the crime, or indeed
    the person doesn't have a prior criminal record. Here we have a man with, as far as I can see, no mitigating plea worth hearing and a history of committing serious violent offences.

    If we're going to hold him culpable for the joint enterprise, I don't think that his individual role should be taken into account in the sentence. After all, I consider the getaway driver no morally better than the bank robber. In fact, at least the bank robber actually volunteered for the difficult part of the crime.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HenvY)
    The article protests the fact that he is getting the death penalty while he was only an accomplice to the murder. How is that misleading?

    But rape doesn't carry the death penalty, so that's a very bad analogy. The sentence is not meaningless, it means Texas is the only place in America a man will get the death penalty for playing the role Foster did.
    It is misleading because it tries to give the impression that he is being given the death penalty for a crime he did not commit. The sentence I quoted aptly indicates this by making the true but irrelevant comment that Texas is the only state where you can be killed without having committed murder.

    While it is true it is irrelevant because the man isn't being killed for having committed murder. The author of the sentence designed it specifically to imply that this was a miscarriage of justice in which an innocent man is being killed for a crime he did not commit. This is untrue. Yes he is being put to death without having killed anyone but he isn't being put to death for the crime of killing someone.

    Thus my analogy to the death penalty for rape. If a convicted rapist is being put to death I could still say "This is the only time someone is being killed without having committed murder". It is a true sentence but is beside the point because the crime he is being killed for is not murder but rape. Here also, the crime the man is being killed for is nor murder but being an accessory to murder. It's quite simple really.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    Texas is the only state where you can be killed without having committed murder.
    Well, he was found guilty of the crime of murder. However admittedly common words do not always convey their legal meanings. So either interpretation is fairly misleading unless explained.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Libertin du Nord)
    Because quite often there are mitigating circumstances to the crime, or indeed
    the person doesn't have a prior criminal record. Here we have a man with, as far as I can see, no mitigating plea worth hearing and a history of committing serious violent offences.

    If we're going to hold him culpable for the joint enterprise, I don't think that his individual role should be taken into account in the sentence. After all, I consider the getaway driver no morally better than the bank robber. In fact, at least the bank robber actually volunteered for the difficult part of the crime.
    Here is a far more detailed account of what happened than any of the others, all referenced: http://www.todesstrafe-usa.de/foster.../fed_writ2.htm.

    As far as I can see there is no reason why all 3 of the other people caught would testify this, especially as playing up Foster's role would relieve them of some guilt. That is incredibly mitigating.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Libertin du Nord)
    Well, he was found guilty of the crime of murder. However admittedly common words do not always convey their legal meanings. So either interpretation is fairly misleading unless explained.
    The wording used in the article spoke of "factually committing murder" or something like that. It seemed clear that the point was to imply that this man was being killed for a crime he didn't commit when in fact he wasn't he was being killed for a different crime (even if technically it has the same name) which he did commit.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    It is misleading because it tries to give the impression that he is being given the death penalty for a crime he did not commit. The sentence I quoted aptly indicates this by making the true but irrelevant comment that Texas is the only state where you can be killed without having committed murder.

    While it is true it is irrelevant because the man isn't being killed for having committed murder. The author of the sentence designed it specifically to imply that this was a miscarriage of justice in which an innocent man is being killed for a crime he did not commit. This is untrue. Yes he is being put to death without having killed anyone but he isn't being put to death for the crime of killing someone.

    Thus my analogy to the death penalty for rape. If a convicted rapist is being put to death I could still say "This is the only time someone is being killed without having committed murder". It is a true sentence but is beside the point because the crime he is being killed for is not murder but rape. Here also, the crime the man is being killed for is nor murder but being an accessory to murder. It's quite simple really.
    As Lib_North pointed out, the word has a different meaning in a legal sense. Yes, legally, Foster is a murderer. However, in the sense the word was used, it seems fairly obvious that the article means he himself did not kill anyone(which was agreed by the court).
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HenvY)
    As Lib_North pointed out, the word has a different meaning in a legal sense. Yes, legally, Foster is a murderer. However, in the sense the word was used, it seems fairly obvious that the article means he himself did not kill anyone(which was agreed by the court).
    That's precisely my point.

    The article tries to give the impression that he is being sentenced to death for a crime he did not commit by saying (quite accurately) that he did not commit the murder (in the sense of pulling the trigger) and yet is still going to die. This is deliberately misleading because he is in fact being sentenced to death for a different crime (albeit still called murder) which he did commit.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I'm generally speaking pro DP, and I do think that accomplices to a murder should face very severe punishments, where they can be shown to be willing and in full knowledge of the consequences of their actions.

    However, some evidence seems to point towards this guy not even knowing what his passenger was about to do! Simply being associated with someone, and near them at the time they commit a crime, is not enough to prove that someone was a willing and knowledgeable accomplice. If there is any doubt over his blame, he should not be in this position. This execution is beyond *******s.

    Jesus.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Schmokie Dragon)
    I'm generally speaking pro DP
    Double penetration?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    You had to be a muppet, didn't you?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fishfinger Sandwich)
    If this is true, then why aren't the local people storming the joint and demanding his release? If I lived nearby I wouldn't be able to sleep unless I made a serious effort to fight this injustice.
    I call bullcrap on that! You're completely apathetic to this guy. The fact that you live thousands of miles away, makes no difference to if your house by the prison. You could still make a difference if you could be arsed.

    Besides, this guy isn't innocent... prior to this altercation, he had robbed 2 stores, so don't paint him up as being innocent, we might be better off without him.

    On the other hand, who's to say what's right or wrong? People say that we're as bad as the killers if we execute murderers. By that logic, if we send the guy who kidnapped Madeleine to prison, we're just as bad as he is.
    SO that's wrong!
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Schmokie Dragon)
    However, some evidence seems to point towards this guy not even knowing what his passenger was about to do!
    Really? Seems fairly likely that he would have considered the possibility his friend was going to commit a third armed robbery that evening, and with that comes the associated possibility that a gun will be discharged at some point.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    There is a difference between "I am a thug, in a group of thugs, and my mate likes threatening people with guns" and "we are all murderers".

    He is a criminal, but not a killer, from what I can see.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Schmokie Dragon)
    There is a difference between "I am a thug, in a group of thugs, and my mate likes threatening people with guns" and "we are all murderers".

    He is a criminal, but not a killer, from what I can see.
    He's an accessory to murder.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I agree with Lib North on this.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    He's an accessory to murder.
    He is only an accessory to muder if it can be proven he knew about what his friend was going to do and in some way aided him (or maybe refusing to oppose him is enough).

    You are not accessory to murder if you happen to be in the same place, at the same time as a crazy, homicidal mofo.

    There seems to be some doubt over the evidence. So they should not execute until that is cleared up.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Schmokie Dragon)
    He is only an accessory to muder if it can be proven he knew about what his friend was going to do and in some way aided him (or maybe refusing to oppose him is enough).

    You are not accessory to murder if you happen to be in the same place, at the same time as a crazy, homicidal mofo.

    There seems to be some doubt over the evidence. So they should not execute until that is cleared up.
    I haven't looked into the case in detail as the discussion quickly became a general one about the rights or wrongs of using the death sentence against an accessory to murder rather than a murderer himself.

    Didn't he wait around after the murder to then drive his friend away from the scene? Isn't that an accessory to murder?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I don't know about that.

    My point basicly is that if there is doubt over the evidence, as some claim there to be, then the execution should be stayed.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Schmokie Dragon)
    I don't know about that.

    My point basicly is that if there is doubt over the evidence, as some claim there to be, then the execution should be stayed.
    If there's doubt he should appeal.
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.