Don’t anybody get hung up on the reporting source I used for this. In fact, it’s kind of interesting (and sad) that I couldn’t find a current, ‘regular’ news source that mentions this guy’s case. Guess it’s not news to execute one more poor, black guy no matter the reason.
Facing execution for driving a car
THE STATE of Texas plans to execute Kenneth Foster Jr. August 30 for the 1996 murder of Michael LaHood Jr.
What makes Foster’s case unique is that he killed no one–and the state of Texas is first to admit this.
How is this possible? Texas’ Law of Parties, adopted in 1974, allows prosecutors to hold all those present legally responsible for a crime. Because Foster was driving the car carrying Mauriceo Brown the night Brown shot LaHood, prosecutors were able to try Kenneth as if he was the shooter.
Brown, who was executed in July 2006, admitted to shooting LaHood, but claimed it was in self-defense. He also insisted that Foster, who remained in a car 80 feet away from the shooting with the radio on and windows rolled up, didn’t know he had left the car with the gun.
There’s a website devoted to Foster.
Yes, bobbo. The more leeway a law provides for in its application, the more certain that the law will be deliberately misapplied, particularly in places like Texas, where the letter of the law is routinely used to incarcerate people who never meant to – or did – violate the spirit of the law… Since it is so open to misapplication, it should not carry the irrevocable sentence of death as an option.
#1
It’s not up to George Bush. It’s up to Rick Perry the *current* govenor of Texas.Why aren’t you whining about him no giving this guy a pardon?
#17
> Life without parole. Death for the triggerman.
Frankly, they’re equivalent. You are just substituting one permanent punishment for another and thus providing no benefit to being an accessory as opposed directly responsible.
It would make more sense to say
“20 years for accessories. Death for the triggerman.”
34—So all cases are the same? No difference for any differences? How does the goal of proportionality apply then?
In the example of #31 above, certainly the one who pulls the trigger is “most” responsible, then the guy who helped hold the victim down is not as responsible but still qualified for first degree murder. Now, do you think the guy in the car is just as morally responsible? – – – Really? Why not murder 2 instead of murder 1? Why not life in jail instead of death?
Finally, what about the guy that lent the car? Please tell us what the appropriate analysis of his responsibility should be and if so, why it is different from the other three so as to distinguish the punishment?
Assuming no liability on the part of the car lender, even though his involvment was necessary for the commission of the crime, we have a continuum from 100% liable to 0% liable. How you draw the curve also draws the penalty that should apply.
Good luck sparky.
#33, most liberals who are bashing Bush don’t have a clear grasp of the Constitution. They actually think George Bush can pardon anyone. Why this was even the plot of an episode of Commander in Chief.
>>#33, most liberals who are bashing Bush don’t have a clear
>>grasp of the Constitution.
Uh. I’m a “liberal who [is] bashing Bush”, and I have quite a clear grasp of the Constitution. Unlike the current sub-President.
22 – MikeN – The Bush immigration push exhibited compassion? As usual with BushCo, follow the money and you’ll no doubt find a more logical motive (at least, more logical for this pol who excuses Scooter’s multiple felonies but never commuted a Texas death sentence no matter how flaky the evidence). Don’t try to tell me it’s not fair to dismiss any possibility that this Texas pol and failed businessman may be sincere. There is NOTHING about him suggesting common decency, far less honor in anything. Both would be required to make his faking of sincerity the least bit credible.
As for that “democracy everywhere” slogan, you’re right. He does cheap sloganeering extremely well. No doubt you believe that’s why he sent so many genuinely honorable soldiers and Marines over there to die.
#30,
…I, the Great Exalted Kommander or whatever of the local KKK …
Yes, that caught me by surprise. I thought you were just another one of the cheering section. A leader. Wow. Sounds impressive. Does it get you more wimin action?
If you are referring to my comments in #9, read them again. I wrote :I don’t agree with Capitol Punishment, but if you are going to have it, this man qualifies.
And I repeat – he didn’t pull the trigger. Black, white, rich, poor, gangsta or choirboy, I don’t give a shit. He didn’t kill the guy, he doesn’t deserve to die.
And you, Mr. Anti-DP, saying that “if you are going to have it,” someone who DIDN’T commit the crime should die for it – priceless.
In your spare time, study the meaning and implications of this word.
Most of you people will not make the jury. One of the ?s you are asked is if you beleave in the death penelty. if you do not you don’t get on the jury.
#40, Fishbrain,
And you, Mr. Anti-DP, saying that “if you are going to have it,” someone who DIDN’T commit the crime should die for it – priceless.
Your editing process leaves the impression I said something I didn’t. Clever. Well, clever for you. In fact, it is disingenuous. But typical of the way you operate.
According to the law HE QUALIFIES FOR THE DEATH PENALTY !!! He was not some innocent choirboy just driving while his homey was looking to buy a Mars or Snickers candy bar. They were out driving around robbing people. He knew there was a loaded gun in the car. He and the trigger guy admitted they were involved in a criminal enterprise.
Is society a better place with both of them executed? Of coarse not, the death penalty is a metric of American’s value of their fellow man. Do I hope his sentence is commuted to life? Yes, that would be the right thing to do. Will I get excited and scream to save this scumbag’s life? No, I’ll save my rage for someone more deserving.
Jury selection is still subject to manipulation in most Southern states, particularly, so the fact Foster was convicted is not really all that persuasive. I would like to know more about jury composition and who was struck during voir dire. Another issue is whether the jury was given the option of conviction on a lesser charge.
I am opposed to the death penalty most of the time. But, occasionally, I can accept someone being put to death by the government. I didn’t even pause for a moment of silence for Timothy McVeigh’s demise. I doubt I will for pedophile and serial killer Joseph Duncan.
I think life without parole is the way to go, usually. It is cheaper for society, too.
I am not impressed with Lauren the Bigot’s attempt at seeming reasonable. It is not really a rejection of racism. A Death Row inmate has already been practically eliminated from society. So, Foster is already in the utterly marginalized position LTB wants black people to be in. Bigots are sometimes what they consider to be kind to people of color of limited ability or who do menial labor for the same reason. What really gets their goat is when non-whites are of equal ability to them, or, Lord forbid, more capable than them in some way.
More ad hominem and straw men.
Your story has grown tiresome.
Nah! More description of how your diseased mind works.
#44, Lauren,
Do you know how to keep a fool in suspense?
*
I’ll tell you next week.