To me this strikes me as divorcing law from justice. Even if he was tried with due process (which there are questions in this case) but given that he isn't directly culpable he is still paying the ultimate penalty because that is how the law is written. I don't see how this is justice when the actual perpetrator was already executed.
Not at all, it's reserved for the most serious of crimes, those in which we don't want to allow any possibility of them doing it again. You don't put down a dog for crapping on your carpet, you do put down a dog for biting your child.
So what you are saying is that a dog's owner should also be put down when the dog bites a child. Once again, fabulous logic.
Ask ziggy... <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/dLM6UFrVPrU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Are you going into a partnership with the dog planning on robbing the child? Does the child die? If you are planning on using your dog to attack and rob children and you let the dog kill them, yeah, you should be given the death penalty because that's awful.
Except in this case Wood didn't even directly commit the crime he was sentenced for. Following your analogy if a puppy bit a child the other puppies should be put down too for being in the vicinity and not warning the owner that one of them was going to bite.
Yeah he did though, you don't have to be the trigger man to be considered guilty of murder in certain cases, this being one of those cases. It wasn't a situation where he just knew a guy that did something wrong, the guy was his partner in crime. If it was just a situation where he was just in the vicinity of the murder without it being a situation where they were planning to rob the place and the murder happened during the commission of the crime then he'd have only been charged with being an accessory after the fact due to him trying to cover it up. I think people are really missing that point here. This wasn't a case where someone was just hanging out and a mentally unstable friend did something crazy, they were there to rob the place.
The guy wasn't mentally there - he had an IQ of 80 and was being used. He was told the guy didn't have a gun. You have no sense of justice
Having an IQ of 80 means that he's dumb, but not mentally r****ded, he'd have to be sub 70 to have even minor mental r****dation. The guy was competent enough to know he was planning the robbery and he's the one that grabbed the safe and the store's surveillance video which he later destroyed to try and cover up their tracks. They managed to make off with just over $11,000 but that ended up being their last robbery. I'm not sure why you always seem to get upset over guilty people suffering due to their crimes, but it's REALLY odd.
If only liberals stood up for the millions of innocent babies who are given the death sentence in the womb by irresponsible women.
many more innocents have been hurt or worse by "bad guys" so it's hard for me to be sympathetic when bad **** happens to bad people.
It does. He was part of a criminal conspiracy that led to the death of an innocent man, it doesn't matter if he actually pulled the trigger or not. The man wouldn't have been murdered if he didn't sign on to rob the place. You may not like it but the law says "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, though having no intent to commit it, if the offense was committed in furtherance of the unlawful purpose and was one that should have been anticipated as a result of the carrying out of the conspiracy." You engage in a plot to rob a safe at 6 AM in the morning while a business is open.....I simply don't believe him when he says that he didn't know the guy was going to bring a gun. How else was he going to get access to the safe? As such, the sentence is just.
Where are you getting that Wood grabbed the safe? According to the article I posted it says [rquoter]Court records say he was involved in a scheme with Reneau and the store’s assistant manager to steal a safe that they believed contained thousands of dollars. While the others had backed out, Reneau took it upon himself to steal the safe, court records say.[/rquoter]
Yes I agree Wood is guilty of at least plotting with Renau (who actually committed the crime) and one other of robbing the store but he wasn't the murderer and from the evidence I've seen he wasn't even in the store when the murder happened. Again from the article: [rquoter]In Wood’s case, he was sitting in a pickup outside a Texaco convenience store in Kerrville, Tex., in January 1996, when Daniel Reneau went inside and shot and killed the store clerk with a .22-caliber handgun. [/rquoter] What you seem to miss is the concept of intent and proportionality. In assessing murder motive and intent is usually considered. In this situation Wood obviously had no motive or intent to murder since he wasn't even there. I don't think anyone is saying that Wood shouldn't be punished for a crime but is whether he should pay the ultimate penalty when he has no direct culpability.
