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

    19
    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.
    If one goes into an armed robbery situation, then it's quite easy to conclude that one can be reasonably certain that someone will shoot someone else if something goes wrong.

    I don't think he wanted a murder to happen, no. But I believe when we went out with a bunch of drugged up idiots with guns to rob people, he should've concluded that murder could indeed occur as a natural consequence of his enterprise.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HenvY)
    But now this is just speculation - without being present at the trial, neither of us know whether or not there is any evidence to the contrary.
    Indeed it is speculation, but there is a fine line at times between what is speculation and a common sense approach to human nature.

    That said, I gave fair warning that, in absence of seeing the full facts, I would speculate to a degree.

    If that is correct, I suppose the real issues are - has anyone ever been convicted of murder in a similar circumstances in Britain?
    Well, depends how similar you mean. Plenty of people have been convicted of murder without actually performing the act, yes.

    Has their punishment been to the fullest extent of the law and equal to that of the trigger man?
    In Britain there can only be one punishment for murder - a life sentence.
    Offline

    13
    I haven't read much of this thread, but I sort of agree with Lib, if from a different angle.

    If we believe the death penalty to be wrong, every instance of the state executing somebody is just as wrong - regardless of whether the victim is innocent, guilty, or, as in this case 'sort of guilty'.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Libertin du Nord)
    If one goes into an armed robbery situation, then it's quite easy to conclude that one can be reasonably certain that someone will shoot someone else if something goes wrong.

    I don't think he wanted a murder to happen, no. But I believe when we went out with a bunch of drugged up idiots with guns to rob people, he should've concluded that murder could indeed occur as a natural consequence of his enterprise.
    And while I fully agree that armed robbery and its possible consequences are foul, deeply criminal activities, I still think there is a difference between planning to kill someone, and something going wrong, causing a death (whether it was 'accidentaly' driving someone off the road, shooting them in panic, or your partner-in-crime filling someone full of bullets). As such, while I think an armed robber who was directly involved in someone's death should be fully punished (by a very nasty life senatence in solitary confinement, preferably), I do not think that punishment should include execution unless it can be proven that they (ie, the accessory) actualy planned or knew about the murder in question. A death being "probable" is not the same as it being "planned".
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Execution is immoral and unjust at the best of times, and most of the civilised world long since recognised this. In this case, the man is, at worst, an accomplice to murder, not a murderer. Even the most fervent supporter of state sanctioned murder can surely see that this man is simply not guilty of the crime in question.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    there is very little difference between pulling the trigger, and standing to one side and letting your mate pull the trigger, in full knowledge and agreement as to what he is about to do.

    You are both sick, twisted individuals and a danger to society. In principle, I agree with capital punishment being used in both cases.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Schmokie Dragon)
    And while I fully agree that armed robbery and its possible consequences are foul, deeply criminal activities, I still think there is a difference between planning to kill someone, and something going wrong, causing a death (whether it was 'accidentaly' driving someone off the road, shooting them in panic, or your partner-in-crime filling someone full of bullets).
    It's not something 'going wrong' in the sense of driving and hitting someone on the road, it's something going wrong when you've done something you were expressly told not to do, not only because it is evil in itself but because it can lead to such consequences.

    If you ask me, joining a criminal syndicate of stoned lunatics with guns with an intent to use these guns to threaten people and defend themselves against lawful arrest demonstrates such a culpable recklessness as to make the crime of murder positively beyond doubt should it occur.

    I do not think that punishment should include execution unless it can be proven that they (ie, the accessory) actualy planned or knew about the murder in question.
    What about someone who discharges a number of shots as they depart from a bank they have just robbed in order to prevent them being pursued, one of the shots ricochets off of the ceiling and kills a man. Should he not be punished in the same way to a man who simply shot another?

    (Original post by Dionysus)
    Execution is immoral and unjust at the best of times, and most of the civilised world long since recognised this. In this case, the man is, at worst, an accomplice to murder, not a murderer. Even the most fervent supporter of state sanctioned murder can surely see that this man is simply not guilty of the crime in question.
    The man is a murderer in the definition of the law - both that of the United Kingdom and the United States. While I do not support the death penalty, I believe he is fully guilty of that crime.

    Whether we are to quibble as to a subjective non-legal definition of a 'murderer' is fairly irrelevant, but I certainly do believe he has shown a disregard short of intention, but still criminally reckless, that should have foreseen a man's illegitimate death as a likely consequence.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Lib North: What would your stance be should the bank teller produce a sawn off shotgun and blow these crooks away?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by samba)
    Lib North: What would your stance be should the bank teller produce a sawn off shotgun and blow these crooks away?
    If you kill someone whilst fearing for your life, then that's absolutely fine by me. I'd likely do the same.

    That doesn't mean I'm one of those "Tony Martin law!!" types that basically believe we should be able to effectively torture people who break into our homes. I like to think I'm fairly sensible about it all.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Libertin du Nord)
    It's not something 'going wrong' in the sense of driving and hitting someone on the road, it's something going wrong when you've done something you were expressly told not to do, not only because it is evil in itself but because it can lead to such consequences.
    I do believe it is "something going wrong" when your mate is the one who, against the wishes and knowledge of his associates, goes mad and shoots someone. As I said, I think being part of a group where you are all doing deeply dangerous, threatening, intimidating and illegal things is deserving of a bloody hefty sentance. And if someone gets killed in your joint venture, when it can be shown that your activities were of a nature that a death could have been anticipated, maybe even some kind of "murder" charge is applicable, because you should have bloody well known better and stopped playing with guns. But I don't think it is the same kind of murder as actualy planning on killing someone.

    If you ask me, joining a criminal syndicate of stoned lunatics with guns with an intent to use these guns to threaten people and defend themselves against lawful arrest demonstrates such a culpable recklessness as to make the crime of murder positively beyond doubt should it occur.
    Agreed. But there are degrees of murder. And I don't think this one justifies execution. By all means put him in a dark whole and wash your hands of him. But killing him?


    What about someone who discharges a number of shots as they depart from a bank they have just robbed in order to prevent them being pursued, one of the shots ricochets off of the ceiling and kills a man. Should he not be punished in the same way to a man who simply shot another?
    Well, I call that murder. Proper, "lets hang 'im" murder. Guns kill people, especialy when combined with criminals and bullets. You don't wanna kill someone, don't go firing off bullets. The bloody things were invented to kill people, so you can't call someone getting hit an accident. But I think these are different situations. Should the man standing next to him, holding his bag of loot also get done for the same degree of murder?

    I quite agree that the law has (probably) been correctly applied, I just don't agree with the law.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Acquited a few hours before the sentence was to be carried out!
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KwungSun)
    Acquited a few hours before the sentence was to be carried out!
    Not acquited at all. His sentence was commuted to life imprisonment:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6970441.stm
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    Not acquited at all. His sentence was commuted to life imprisonment:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6970441.stm
    Sorry, execution halted is what I meant.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Well, a happy result.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Libertin du Nord)
    We're not talking about a nice person here,
    My neighbour isn't a nice person. Doesn't mean I would like to see him hanging from the nearest tree.

    The Death Penalty laws in the US are long due for an overhaul. It's downright disgusting.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It scares me that anyone, even crazed, gun-toting American fascists can actually advocate the use of the death penalty.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dreama)
    My neighbour isn't a nice person. Doesn't mean I would like to see him hanging from the nearest tree.

    The Death Penalty laws in the US are long due for an overhaul. It's downright disgusting.
    Erm, I believe I have been fairly vocal in my opposition to the death penalty.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by punktopia)
    It scares me that anyone, even crazed, gun-toting American fascists can actually advocate the use of the death penalty.
    Yet you support Castro?

    A modicum of consistency, please.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I was actually reading of a very similar case to this (though not occurring recently) the other day. It is cited in 'Kingdom of Fear' by Hunter S. Thompson. He makes reference to the case of a certain Lisl Auman, from 1997.

    Apparently Auman had enlisted the help of a man named Matthaeus Jaehnig, whom she barely knew, to help burglarise an ex-boyfriend's flat. The police showed up and the pair fled in a car and were chased, resulting in the capture of Auman. While she was handcuffed in the back of the police car, Jaehnig stole the gun of officer Bruce VanderJagt and shot him dead. He then turned the gun on himself. As a result, Auman was convicted of murder.

    The prosecution based their argument on the similar 'felony murder' principle that Auman was guilty because she had arranged and was fleeing from a serious crime during which the murder took place.

    Needless to say, Thompson was greatly opposed to this and spent a considerable amount of time and effort fighting it. His arguments against the 'felony murder' law can be found in

    'Kingdom of Fear' (2003) pp. 56-64 Penguin: London

    These views do not necessarily reflect my own, I am merely offering them forward as a point of comparison.
 
 
 
Poll
Have you ever experienced bullying?
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.