I wrote yesterday about Kenneth Foster who seemed likely to be executed unjustly, and now it seems (via Dana Goldstein) that he's going to get his sentence commuted to life in prison.
« Chart of the Day | Main | No Way Out »
Foster Commuted
31 Aug 2007 08:43 am
Comments (25)
Thank god. Even if you support the death penalty, I don't understand how you can advocate killing people who haven't killed anyone, didn't intend to kill anyone, didn't conspire to kill anyone, and who never planned to take part in a criminal activity that included killing somone.
Now if we can only free Mumia...
Freddie,
I don't support the death penalty, tend to think that our penalties are much too high in general, and think that life in prison is almost certainly too high of a penalty in this case (let alone the death penalty.) But, what is often called "depraved heart" murder, a killing done with reckless indifference to the chance of the taking of human life, is a completely standard form of murder charge. It seems plausible to me that taking part in a series of armed robberies is a pretty good case of showing reckless indifference to the chance of the taking of a human life since a killing during an armed robbery is a pretty predictable sort of thing. My understanding is that the guy involved here was pretty clearly deeply involved in this series of armed robberies and as such is, to my mind, likely as morally culpable as anyone convicted of a depraved heart murder. As I said above, I think that the penalty is too harsh here, even as it stands now, and that most all of our penalties are too high. But this is hardly the case of someone with low moral culpability.
It is basically rank sadism. I think the governor waits as long as possible hoping someone else will take him off the hook and not let the guy be executed. He didn't want to commute the sentence because down here in Texas we value toughness above everything and commuting a death penalty to life is the work of a sissy. It would have been far better for the governor politically if he could have posed as if he was going to have Foster executed and have some judge take him off the hook because down here we know all judges are sissies anyway.
Something will happen in the next couple of weeks so that Perry can reaffirm his manhood for us all. Consider y'allselves warned.
Thank god. Even if you support the death penalty, I don't understand how you can advocate killing people who haven't killed anyone, didn't intend to kill anyone, didn't conspire to kill anyone, and who never planned to take part in a criminal activity that included killing somone.
I don't support the death penalty in this case (or any case, for that matter). But if you'd bothered to read the trial record of the Foster case, the propositions you make above are highly dubious.
The propositions I made were conceded by the prosecution.
And I didn't say he shouldn't go to jail, or that he's not culpable. I'm saying that a guy who didn't kill anyone, plan on killing anyone or assist in killing anyone certainly shouldn't be put to death.
Matt (not the famous one),
You are incorrect; the killing in this case did not occur during a robbery. It took place entirely afterward, during a separate, non-crime-rooted altercation. It's easy to assume the circumstances of a killing on the night of a robbery were nefarious, but it's important not to operate on the basis of assumptions when more information is available.
Thank god. Even if you support the death penalty, I don't understand how you can advocate killing people who haven't killed anyone, didn't intend to kill anyone, didn't conspire to kill anyone, and who never planned to take part in a criminal activity that included killing somone.
Posted by Freddie
Congratulations!
You just described the 15 Saudi hijackers on 9/11. (Bin Laden explained on video he changed out KSM's Indonesian & Malaysian to Saudis at the last minute but with held telling them it was to be a martyrdom operation because AQ believed it took 2 weeks to fully prepare a Jihadi warrior on a suicide mission. Osama explained he instructed KSM to tell them it was to get and land the planes for a Saudi and Palestinian prisoner exchange, with violence only needed for those who "don't obey your Team Leaders orders". "Inadvertent martyrs" Binnie said.)
And we know that the "triggermen" where the 4 Team Leader pilots who knew everything and were the combat element flying the weapon to the target.
And if one listens to the sob stories all the "innocent thugs" who were part of a mass slaughter? Like of 5 of the 6 men who in a home invasion rape and slaughter of a family of 6, profess none had any involvement in any plans for rape or slaughter - they just harmlessly subdued the family and tied them up....It was "Bad Jose" that did all the "bad stuff". They only raped because Jose did. Spur of the moment. They only draped the victims heads with a towel so brain spatter wouldn't blow back all over Jose because Jose asked them to...The five were basically innocent, doncha know!
Fortunately the law recognizes that thugs are for the most part low-IQ, impulsive, do evil deeds they may not have planned on, do not stop the "triggerman" though they could, do not report the crime. But like Nazi Death camp guards who only prevented escape while they never actually killed&gassed a single person - they are part of a Team without which the car jacking slaughter, 9/11, kidnapping "tragedy", armed robbery "gone bad" would not have happened.
And that "collective complicity" is not just in American law - it is ubiquitous..
You know, Chris, if you are incapable of basic literacy, you probably shouldn't respond to written comments. Again, I didn't say he was innocent! I said he shouldn't be put to death. Read, and read carefully, or be quiet.
Also, using the Nazis and September 11th to try and leverage your weak opinion... now that takes class.
Again, I didn't say he was innocent!
You didn't, but Matt did in his original post title.
Anyway, this result might be the only good reason it's preferable that Bush isn't governor of Texas, rather than in his current position.
In one post, Matt shows the sort of knowledge about politics that just can't be taught. I don't mean that sarcastically at all. Most people will never see both sides of an equation like this. Most people who actually work in politics will never see how this cuts both ways.
As for the rest, if you just want to see people die than whatever. There is no reasoning with you because you're insane, and evil. I'm sorry, but that's just how it is and I'm not nearly as shy about passing judgment as so many lolLiberals are. You don't look for any excuse to kill someone because you don't like them, even if you have incredibly good reasons not to like them. You kill people when they were instrumental to the death of others, because that means they're the kind of people who just don't care about human life. It's people like you who give the rest of us death penalty supporters a bad name. You just want blood, because you're the same sort of people that murderers are. You're (thankfully) just too cowardly to murder someone yourselves.
Freddie,
The propositions I made were conceded by the prosecution.
The propositions you made could NOT have been conceded by the prosecution, or else Foster would not have been convicted of the crime. Indeed, the District Court Judge overseeing Foster's appeal said exactly that:
Foster could not have helped but anticipate the possibility that a human life would be taken in the course of one or more of his co-conspirators' armed robberies. By transporting a pair of pot-smoking armed robbers to and from one robbery after another, Foster clearly displayed the type of "reckless disregard for human life" the Supreme Court had in mind when it employed that term in Tison. Foster knowingly engaged in criminal activities known to carry a grave risk of death.Again, let me state that I'm glad the death sentence was commuted, because I oppose the death penalty. However, the idea that Foster somehow isn't culpable for the murder in question is both morally and legally wrong.
However, the idea that Foster somehow isn't culpable for the murder in question is both morally and legally wrong.
Jesus, you guys really can't read, can you? How many times do I have to say this? The guy deserves to go to jail. He does not deserve to die.
Good god.
Freddie,
I can read just fine, thanks. I agree that Foster doesn't deserve to die, as I am a staunch opponent of the death penalty. That said, what I object to is your characterization of Foster, to wit:
Even if you support the death penalty, I don't understand how you can advocate killing people who haven't killed anyone, didn't intend to kill anyone, didn't conspire to kill anyone, and who never planned to take part in a criminal activity that included killing somone.My point is that the trial record and subsequent appellate record clearly indicates that Foster "knowingly engaged in criminal activities known to carry a grave risk of death"--in other words, he is very much legally culpable of murder, not just being a getaway driver. You have claimed that Foster is not culpable of murder, and that is the point that I'm taking issue with. I thought that was pretty clear, and I really don't see where name-calling needs to come into it.
Why did Perry wait until the last few hours? There are mundane reasons as to why the systen is so cumbersome. Beyond these, we should not forget that the whole death penalty system is designed to shield actual human beings from the responsibility for killing. Executioners are anonymous. The Pardons and Paroles Board in Texas is a political body whose main purpose is to shield the Governor from the appearance of being directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of executed inmates. When executions take place, as they do 99% of the time, it looks like none of the decision makers are fully responsible even if all of them are vaguely responsible. But when the rare case of clemency arises, the effect is awesome -- and now all the focus is on one man, the Governor. Clemency is a real act of sovereign power, and meant to be seen as such. Decisions to execute are also real acts of sovereign power, but nobody wants to step up and take personal responsibility for executions. Welcome to the political theatre of capital punishment.
My point is that the trial record and subsequent appellate record clearly indicates that Foster "knowingly engaged in criminal activities known to carry a grave risk of death"--in other words, he is very much legally culpable of murder
In Texas, you are right. That was the whole point. It's not murder anywhere else. It could be a species of homocide or manslaughter but not murder.
In Texas, you can also shoot the repo man when he comes to get your car and that's self-defense.
In Texas, you are right. That was the whole point. It's not murder anywhere else. It could be a species of homocide or manslaughter but not murder.
This isn't the case, either. This type of murder statute is quite common throughout the U.S. Indeed, this particular case really isn't that unusual at all, from a legal perspective.
You have claimed that Foster is not culpable of murder
Where?
Freddie -
You appear to be psychologically incapable of recognizing that many crimes or enemy attacks are a collective function that cannot be disaggregated from the sum of the damage done into individual parts.
When you try breaking a terrible crime or attack down to specific roles, it only serves to minimize individual culpability that no rational person trying to effect society's need for justice and security would agree to.
"I just kidnapped the girl. I had no idea my partner would kill and rape her! And my wife who came up with the idea of the kidnapping and wrote the ransom notes never even saw the girl! And my partners wife just watched the rape and murder! Look, if you look at what each of us actually did, only my partner should be on trial for life or the death penalty."
"I vuz assigned to Solibar Camp ass und fence Guard. I vuz just following orders. I neffer killed anyone."
And, no doubt that when you break 9/11 into specific individual actions, Freddie, you would call the 15 Saudis "innocent" of mass slaughter by illegal combatants because they 1. Didn't know it was a suicide mission; 2. Didn't crash the plane into anything. That was all the "individual act" of the pilot who "did all the actual killing".
Luckily the law is smarter and more rational than you.
The only real controversy now is of prosecutors trying to use dubious causal chains on the "fluttering of the butterfly causes 1,000 actions in consequence that finally result in the lethal hurricane" model. Judges and juries are pushing back on that sometimes, sometimes not - because there is no way to blame someone for an event they could not anticipate happening from their law-breaking actions...
Stuff like Bill and Edna had a bitter fight about her spending his check on booze. A neighbor reports a fight. Cops are dispatched. A cop in an adjacent zone then get a call of a robbery attempt in the 1st cops coverage area and is asked to haul over to investigate. He drives too fast and T-bones a family of 4 at an intersection, killing 2. A prosecutor tried to nail "Bill and Edna" for "murdering" 2 people in consequence of their domestic dispute and as a way to remove all government liability for the cop. A judge dismissed it as "prosecutorial overreach and lack of professional judgment".
Indeed, this particular case really isn't that unusual at all, from a legal perspective.
Indeed, yeah it is. You don't know what you are talking about.
What I am incapable of is letting it go when people lie repeatedly about what I've said. I defy you to find in this comments log a time when I said this man is innocent. All I've said is that, first, he didn't take part in the murder, nor did he plan a murder, nor did he begin the escapade with knowledge or intent to commit a murder; and second, that there is insufficient cause to put him to death. The question of to what degree or not he is culpable for the actions of the people he was with is a complicated one, but again-- AGAIN-- I have never said he is innocent. And yet I keep reading "Freddie says he's innocent!" I refuse to let my views be wildly misconstrued multiple times.
Ed,
If you'd like to present the stats on felony murders leading to capital sentences (or, even more specifically, commuted capital sentences), you can allege this is an unusual case. However, felony murder laws are on the books just about everywhere, and capital punishment for felony murder's been upheld by the Supreme Court (see Tison v. Arizona). Those laws (again, just about everywhere) hold participants in a crime of violence committed with reckless disregard for human life are all criminally liable if someone is killed.
Robbery is a crime of violence under the law. A spree of armed robberies is certainly a crime of violence under any common-sensical approach.
Given all that, just what do you think makes the case unusual?
And what do you think makes him innocent of murder?
Your state probably has the same law on the books. If this is a grave injustice, get off your computer, stop taking potshots at Texas because on a liberal blog it's an easy target (I know it's tempting, I do it too sometimes) and go try and change your state's felony murder law.
Indeed, yeah it is. You don't know what you are talking about.
The capital murder sentence is unusual. The conviction itself is not, and this is hardly the first time that the law of parties has been invoked for a capital sentence.
Freddie,
I read your comments to be that Foster deserves to be in jail for his role as getaway driver, but not for the murder of the victim. If I misunderstood you, please advise. I don't mean to be talking past you.
Comments closed September 14, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
I love the American tradition of waiting until the very last hours or minutes to commute unjust death sentences, just to max out the psychic agony as much as possible. Is there some legal or procedural justification for this, or is it the rank sadism it contually appears to be?
Posted by slippery pete | August 31, 2007 8:50 AM