Kenneth Foster To Die For Waiting In A Car

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
Kenneth Foster was spared by the governor.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good to hear that. The next may not be so lucky though.

[adios]

Accomplice wins eleventh-hour reprieve from Texas death row

Apparently Perry and the Parale Board both wanted to spare Foster. Perry cited the fact that Foster didn't have a separate trial for his main reason and stated it was not about the "law of partys" that Texas has on the books.

[bi11 frist]

[ QUOTE ]
two guys decide to go out shoplifting.

[/ QUOTE ]

are you joking? you're comparing shoplifting to armed robbery. Foster wasnt sticking some cd's in his jacket. he wasnt sitting in the car minding his own business. he was participating in a crime spree that involved coercing people to give up their money by threatening their lives with a loaded gun.
most of the arguments that are going on in this thread are completely irrelevant to the case at hand.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
two guys decide to go out shoplifting.

[/ QUOTE ]

are you joking? you're comparing shoplifting to armed robbery. Foster wasnt sticking some cd's in his jacket. he wasnt sitting in the car minding his own business. he was participating in a crime spree that involved coercing people to give up their money by threatening their lives with a loaded gun.
most of the arguments that are going on in this thread are completely irrelevant to the case at hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not trying to comparing the two cases; I'm saying that the "law of parties" might equally apply in both cases, and if so, then that law is fundamentally flawed and in my opinion unjust.

Again, I'm not focusing on the Foster case but rather on the broader "law of parties" and on that law's implications. What are you thoughts on that? Do you think there is something wrong with the "law of parties" if it could produce the same sort of legal jeopardy (capital offense) for the shoplifter as for the armed robber?

[bi11 frist]

im not sure of all the technicalities of the law, but i think in general when its applied its fair. using our examples, its very statistically unlikely for a death to occur as a result of shoplifting. i think its fairly likely that many armed robberies end in either violence or murder. thats the key to this law. Foster was participating in a crime that put many peoples lives at risk (every person that his friend points a gun at or is in the area of the robberies). when someone actually was murdered, even though Foster didnt pull the trigger, he was participating in the crime that caused the murder. he is guilty.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
im not sure of all the technicalities of the law, but i think in general when its applied its fair. using our examples, its very statistically unlikely for a death to occur as a result of shoplifting. i think its fairly likely that many armed robberies end in either violence or murder. thats the key to this law. Foster was participating in a crime that put many peoples lives at risk (every person that his friend points a gun at or is in the area of the robberies). when someone actually was murdered, even though Foster didnt pull the trigger, he was participating in the crime that caused the murder. he is guilty.

[/ QUOTE ]

I won't argue those points, but what if the shoplifting example occurred and the law fit that example as well? Would the other shoplifter be equally guilty of the same? Again, I'm not trying to argue about the Foster case, but rather speculating as to whether the "parties law" is fundamentally flawed or not. In my view, if a law can technically be applied unjustly in even a minority of cases then I believe that law is fundamentally flawed.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
im not sure of all the technicalities of the law, but i think in general when its applied its fair. using our examples, its very statistically unlikely for a death to occur as a result of shoplifting. i think its fairly likely that many armed robberies end in either violence or murder. thats the key to this law. Foster was participating in a crime that put many peoples lives at risk (every person that his friend points a gun at or is in the area of the robberies). when someone actually was murdered, even though Foster didnt pull the trigger, he was participating in the crime that caused the murder. he is guilty.

[/ QUOTE ]

I won't argue those points, but what if the shoplifting example occurred and the law fit that example as well? Would the other shoplifter be equally guilty of the same? Again, I'm not trying to argue about the Foster case, but rather speculating as to whether the "parties law" is fundamentally flawed or not. In my view, if a law can technically be applied unjustly in even a minority of cases then I believe that law is fundamentally flawed.

[/ QUOTE ]
<font color="red">
"Chapter 7.02 of the TX Penal Code says a person can be criminally responsible for another’s actions if that person acts with "the intent to promote or assist the commission of the offense" and "solicits, encourages, directs, aids, or attempts to aid the other person to commit the offense, 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". Furthermore, "If, in the 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." </font>

The law says the party must anticipate that another life could be taken. This contradicts your shoplifting (versus robbery) example. Sure, I guess it *could* be abused, but that's true of any law and why people are appointed lawyers and tried in public. I don't see much in that quote above to justify concerns regarding shoplifters being fried. And if this were to happen, you know the outrage would be there (it's there in this case, and this guy was far from a harmless shoplifter). All laws may be abused, but that doesn't mean all laws are "bad" because of this fact.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
im not sure of all the technicalities of the law, but i think in general when its applied its fair. using our examples, its very statistically unlikely for a death to occur as a result of shoplifting. i think its fairly likely that many armed robberies end in either violence or murder. thats the key to this law. Foster was participating in a crime that put many peoples lives at risk (every person that his friend points a gun at or is in the area of the robberies). when someone actually was murdered, even though Foster didnt pull the trigger, he was participating in the crime that caused the murder. he is guilty.

[/ QUOTE ]

I won't argue those points, but what if the shoplifting example occurred and the law fit that example as well? Would the other shoplifter be equally guilty of the same? Again, I'm not trying to argue about the Foster case, but rather speculating as to whether the "parties law" is fundamentally flawed or not. In my view, if a law can technically be applied unjustly in even a minority of cases then I believe that law is fundamentally flawed.

[/ QUOTE ]
<font color="red">
"Chapter 7.02 of the TX Penal Code says a person can be criminally responsible for another’s actions if that person acts with "the intent to promote or assist the commission of the offense" and "solicits, encourages, directs, aids, or attempts to aid the other person to commit the offense, 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". Furthermore, "If, in the 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." </font>

The law says the party must anticipate that another life could be taken. This contradicts your shoplifting (versus robbery) example. Sure, I guess it *could* be abused, but that's true of any law and why people are appointed lawyers and tried in public. I don't see much in that quote above to justify concerns regarding shoplifters being fried. And if this were to happen, you know the outrage would be there (it's there in this case, and this guy was far from a harmless shoplifter). All laws may be abused, but that doesn't mean all laws are "bad" because of this fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the excellent clarification, Kaj, and that does relieve my mind a good deal on the capital offense question. I'm still a bit leery of the part stating that all parties are guilty of any felony offense carried out by one member though. If two guys go out shoplifting and one guy decides to commit another unrelated felony while out, the other guy is guilty? That disturbs me still though not to the extent that the capital offense part would. I'm also curious about the similar federal law but too lazxy to look it up;-)

Regarding laws being abused, I think all laws should be written in a manner such that they cannot be technically interpreted to support any abusive application. If a law cannot be so written it probably already has strayed from the realm of necessary law. Of couerse that doesn't mean that some entity won't wilfully or mistakenly apply a law unjustly; I'm just saying that I think the law should be simple enough and written clearly enough that that won't happen under a careful scrutiny of the wording.

Thanks again for a fine clarification.

[betgo]

I don't think he got the death penalty because he was black. However, crimes by white by blacks have traditionally been treated very seriously in the south. The victem was the son of a prominent attorney, which is probably more relevant to the severe punishment.

Under common law, you can be convicted of murder if you are involved in a felony and someone is killed. This was not originally that important, as felonies were a punishable by death, whereas murder was almost always punished by death. I believe in most states now, you cannot get the death penalty if you did not actually kill the person.

In this situation, the murder case against Foster seems relatively weak, since he was sitting in the car, not pointing a gun at someone. The prosecution probably asked for the death penalty to pressure Foster to plead guilty. Foster's court appointed attorney probably advised him that he had some chance to beat the murder charge and it was unlikely he would be executed, so it was reasonable to go to trial.

The govenor granted clemency, because it would look bad to execute Foster given the facts of the case.

[samsonite2100]

Lol at this thread. It must feel good to know you're even more old-testament and blood-thirsty than the Texas judicial system.