Executing the Innocent in Texas

See Kenneth Foster's Fate.

In less than three weeks Kenneth Foster, an African American man sentenced to death in 1997 for the murder of Michael LaHood, is scheduled to be executed in Texas. LaHood's actual killer, Mauriceo Brown, was executed in 2006. Foster, who was in a car about 100 yards from the crime when it was committed, was convicted under the controversial Texas state "law of parties", under which the distinction between principal actor and accomplice in a crime is abolished. The law can impose the death penalty on anybody involved in a crime where a murder occurred. In Foster's case he was driving a car with three passengers, one of whom, Brown, left the car, got into an altercation and shot LaHood dead. Texas is the only state that applies this statute in capital cases, making it the only place in the United States where a person can be factually innocent of murder and still face the death penalty.

Why do Texans and other Americans like to execute people? They know that the death penalty is not a deterrent. And, it's not necessary to protect the public. Why do Americans still have the death penalty when so many more civilized countries have shown that it is not a necessary form of punishment?

In Texas they even execute innocent people.

Regards
S.

[Gods_Mercenary]

I'm an american and no fan of the death penalty, not all americans support it. Hell, I live in MA, almost nobody supports it.

[Autolykos]

I also do not support the death penalty.

Try not to use such a broad brush next time, Stephen.

- Rob

[tivodan1116]

Phew, rampant generalizations abound!

Quote by: sdbest See Kenneth Foster's Fate. Why do Texans and other Americans like to execute people?

I don't know, why do Canadians like to think that they are somehow better than Americans?

They know that the death penalty is not a deterrent.

Well, when you say "they" I hope you mean "criminal justice professionals," not "voters". The average voter is a complete idiot and knows nothing of the sort, especially in Texas.

And, it's not necessary to protect the public.

Again, people with educations in criminal justice, yes. Voters, not so much.

Why do Americans still have the death penalty when so many more civilized countries have shown that it is not a necessary form of punishment?

Hi. You're Canadian. You still have a HEREDITARY Head of State, as do many so-called civilized countries. End of Discussion.

In Texas they even execute innocent people.

Based upon the above example, incorrect.

The person being executed might be innocent by your standard, but according to the article, by the standard of the law in Texas, he is guilty. That you disagree with the standard does not make him "innocent". There is no such thing as "factual" innocence of murder. Murder is a legal standard and so if Texas decides that being present at a murder is murder, it is.

I disagree with drug laws, but legally speaking people convicted of those crimes are still legally guilty.

[Praxius]

I support capital punishment, so long as it is under strict regulation.....

This example isn't justified in my opinion..... as the law seems flawed in executing this person, in this situation.

I am for capital punishment towards those who are repeated offenders of a serious crime......

I'm for capital punishment, but not in it's current state.

[Praxius]

Quote by: tivodan1116 I don't know, why do Canadians like to think that they are somehow better than Americans?

Why do you continually think we're trying to make ourselves better looking then you?

Can't help it if you feel that way... perhaps it's true.... until you figure it out for yourself, how about you stick to the dam topic, instead of generalizing like some ignorant person?

Is he attacking the US? No..... he's attacking a polocy in one State...... get a clue.

Well, when you say "they" I hope you mean "criminal justice professionals," not "voters". The average voter is a complete idiot and knows nothing of the sort, especially in Texas.

Well that's reassuring. :rolleyes:

Again, people with educations in criminal justice, yes. Voters, not so much.

Voter ignorance isn't our fault.... perhaps you guys should educate your public on these matters, so those in power don't get away with as much as they do.... just an idea.

Hi. You're Canadian. You still have a HEREDITARY Head of State, as do many so-called civilized countries. End of Discussion.

Although I can't say I agree with his reponse you responded to.... what does this have to do with capital punishment and how does it make End of Discussion?

The person being executed might be innocent by your standard, but according to the article, by the standard of the law in Texas, he is guilty. That you disagree with the standard does not make him "innocent". There is no such thing as "factual" innocence of murder. Murder is a legal standard and so if Texas decides that being present at a murder is murder, it is.

Sounds like a foolish law if you ask me..... if someone is shot in a bar during a saturday night..... does everybody become guilty of the muder, or just those who knew the murderer and went to the bar with them? :rolleyes:

Perhaps I'm not getting the full picture of this law..... by all means, educate me.

I disagree with drug laws, but legally speaking people convicted of those crimes are still legally guilty.

I suppose they are..... but this topic is not whether or not this is a law..... rather should it remain as a law, as my understanding goes.

As mentioned before, I support capital punnishment..... but this just doesn't seem logical.

[Gods_Mercenary]

I'm only for capital punishment if it is necessary for the safety of the public, such as in a place where the prisons are too shoddy to succesfully keep a murderer from escaping, or maybe a person who has committed a heinous crime and is too well connected and powerful to actually be kept in prison.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary I'm only for capital punishment if it is necessary for the safety of the public, such as in a place where the prisons are too shoddy to succesfully keep a murderer from escaping, or maybe a person who has committed a heinous crime and is too well connected and powerful to actually be kept in prison.

Capital punishment is not safe or unsafe to the public. It is public-funded murder of people in prison. It's enforcement of our cultural value that killing solves our problems and makes us safe. Some of the biggest murderers in the land are in Washington or in tall, respectable office buildings.

Grandpa h.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Umm, I'm not talking about the U.S. specifically, and I'm actually excluding the U.S., since our prison system can handle murderers. I do not support the death penalty here.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Umm, I'm not talking about the U.S. specifically, and I'm actually excluding the U.S., since our prison system can handle murderers. I do not support the death penalty here.

But my main point was that when murderers are murdered it still doesn't make people much safer.

Grandpa h.

[Gods_Mercenary]

It does if they would otherwise be out on the streets, murdering more people.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary It does if they would otherwise be out on the streets, murdering more people.

It still doesn't make people much safer. But that's the right-wing solution to so many things: Kill it, ignore it or throw it in jail.

What we really need are more community programs to combat child abuse, poverty, family violence, etc. to reduce some things that make people predators in the first place.

Grandpa h.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Agreed, but none of those things is possible to enact in a third world village with no prison, there the only way to stop someone killing is to make sure they are no longer physically capable of doing it, which is best exemplified y taking their lives. And, of course, sommunity programs aren't much comfort to the family killed in the night by a murderer already in existance, though I'm sure they'll be just chipper that their neighborhood is being cleaned up.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Agreed, but none of those things is possible to enact in a third world village with no prison, there the only way to stop someone killing is to make sure they are no longer physically capable of doing it, which is best exemplified y taking their lives. And, of course, sommunity programs aren't much comfort to the family killed in the night by a murderer already in existance, though I'm sure they'll be just chipper that their neighborhood is being cleaned up.

I don't personally think prisons are much of a solution, either.

Much crime comes from evils of private property such as poverty, homelessness, unemployment, and alienation. Other than that, such people can be restrained, put in mental hospitals, or maybe on deserted islands.

You seem to assume that third world areas cannot at all cope with crime, but some simple principles could be applied quite generally.

Grandpa h.

[5010]

Oh that poor innocent driver, taking home armed robbers after a hard day's work holding up people with deadly weapons. How could he have predicted that they would actually kill someone?

We should let him go, send apologies and give him a nice big car so he can go back to his decent honest form of living.

[Praxius]

Quote by: grandpa Capital punishment is not safe or unsafe to the public. It is public-funded murder of people in prison. It's enforcement of our cultural value that killing solves our problems and makes us safe.

Apparently this is the same mentality these muderers use.... killing solved their problems.... use their example on them as an example, I say.

If you can't find a method to stop murderers from murdering, then murder them to eleminate the issue.

Live by the sword, die by it.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Praxius If you can't find a method to stop murderers from murdering, then murder them to eleminate the issue.

But considering murder has an almost zero percent recidivism rate, and the vast majority of murderers are first-time murderers, how will this stop murderers from murdering?

Once they are caught, they are extremely unlikely to ever do it again even without capital punishment, and first timers haven't been captured yet.

You need to distinguish specific vs. general deterrence. If you need help, I actually did significant research on the topic not too long ago.

[5010]

So tivo, if you knew someone who chopped a man to death for flipping him off, and you're hanging out, having shrimp on the barbie, and he's got the meat cleaver in his hand...

How confident are you in your statistics? Would you flip him off?

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: grandpa I don't personally think prisons are much of a solution, either. Much crime comes from evils of private property such as poverty, homelessness, unemployment, and alienation. Other than that, such people can be restrained, put in mental hospitals, or maybe on deserted islands. You seem to assume that third world areas cannot at all cope with crime, but some simple principles could be applied quite generally. Grandpa h.

A prision is a restraint, and a deserted Island is a prison, but you'd have to make sure that they couldn't escape. And, a 3rd world area isn't going to be able to deal with its own poverty or homelessness, is it?

Quote by: 5010 Oh that poor innocent driver, taking home armed robbers after a hard day's work holding up people with deadly weapons. How could he have predicted that they would actually kill someone? We should let him go, send apologies and give him a nice big car so he can go back to his decent honest form of living.

Did someone suggest that he should be given a nice big car? It was suggested he shouldn't be executed.

Do you take pleasure in people's deaths? Do you enjoy executions?

Regards
S.