I don't think you understand two legal concepts: accomplice liability and the felony murder rule. Accomplice liability means that when you are an accomplice to a crime, you are considered equally culpable with the principal. The same applies to a co-conspirator. The felony murder rule says that when you are engaged in the commission of a felony and someone is killed as a result, you can be charged as though you intended to kill the person. This is true even if the death was caused by the police, an accomplice, the victim, etc. If we assume that the trial provided an accurate result, the punishment is not out of line with established legal doctrine. It may be that the trial outcome was wrong, but that doesn't seem to be the issue being talked about here.
I understand the concept but as I said before that to me is divorcing law from justice. Leaving aside arguments whether Wood was tried and convicted without any questions of his actual guilt we are still talking about the ultimate penalty for somoene who had no intent to murder, no knowledge that a murder was taking place and wasn't even in the same room as the murder.
Good catch, Wood didn't grab the safe, he went in to get the surveillance video and took the murder weapon so he could dispose of both afterwards. Reneau grabbed the safe. It makes no difference though, the point is that he was involved in the robbery as a co conspirator and that makes him liable for the murder. No, I'm not missing any of that, I think what you are missing here is that I quoted directly from the law that would apply in this instance Wood's criminal conspiracy directly led to the murder of an innocent man who was just doing his job. Sure, his intention may have been only to be a part of a robbery, but that's not relevant to the statute. As part of a criminal conspiracy that led to felony murder, he's guilty of felony murder. Now could they have given him life instead of death? Possibly, but that was up to SEVERAL juries to decide and none of them thought there was a need to do so. As it stands Wood got to live for 14 more years than Reneau, the trigger man, which allowed him to see his daughter grow up. That's more than the guy at the gas station he conspired to rob got.
When he did this act, he was undeterred by Texas' death penalty. Do you see? Texas already had the death penalty when he did this act. It didn't teach him.
The death penalty is useless and extraordinarily out of place in this context. Obama should pardon him just to piss off the blood thirsty rednecks.
I don't recall seeing that in the original article. If you have some other evidence please post that. I don't disagree with you that is what the law says. As I've stated before that is divorcing the law from justice when a person who wasn't directly culpable with no intent still is subject to the ultimate penalty. Let me throw out an example. Let's say you decide to scalp some tickets at more than face value, a crime in some municipalities, you give the tickets to someone else to complete the transaction because you can't leave work. IN the course of the transaction the person you gave the ticket to kills the person who was going to buy them. Does that then make you also culpable for that murder? Under the strict reading of the law you are even though you weren't there and had no intention to murder anybody. Yes the person who actually committed the murder was punished. Wood has also been punished and is serving time in prison but also faces the ultimate penalty. There is no proportionality here as this isn't even eye for an eye justice but eye for an eye and a liver.
It wasn't, the article wanted to make the man seem innocent so they omitted a lot that was in the case. Look up articles from back when the case was new and you'll get a different impression. Hell, just look up the guy's wikipedia article and you'll get more than was in this article. Well scalping tickets isn't a felony in most cases so it wouldn't apply. I do get your general point though and my stance on it is that I don't have a lot of sympathy for those who are entering into criminal conspiracies to commit felonies. People like that are preying on society and if a result of that innocent people lose their life, I blame EVERYONE involved equally. As such, I don't think it's a problem with proportionality given that I consider them equally responsible for the death of the innocent.[/QUOTE]
Because he's a liberal who defends criminals when in doubt. Always give the criminal the benefit of the doubt. Let the criminal shoot and kill the cop first, to prove he really was threat. You see the liberal party is made up of criminals, welfare, and yeah the worthless who can't contribute to this county? Kill babies and keep murderers alive. Sad but true. That's their party.
im totally for the death penalty and agree this case seems fishy and suspect but also be careful with what you read. This article is obviously written from a pro-Wood's standpoint. All the evidence and points made are obviously for why Wood's should not be executed. We do not have the same information and facts from the other side that the Jury used to deem him guilty. Anyways not saying that Woods should get the death penalty in this case but be aware you only have one side of the story here.
Don't know the details of the case but of course YOU WONT SEE IT in the original article since the original article is 100% pro-Wood and anti death penalty. It's silly for us to try to judge someone's innocence or guilt from a one page article that is very BIASED.
Again so silly for us to say whether a man is guilty or innocent from a paragraph. I can form my own opinion and trust that our legal system works even though it's not perfect. I do agree with the very limited information available to the public, the death penalty seems extreme. But hey you Texan's are an interesting bunch
Obama is not granted the power to pardon him as he didn't violate a federal law that I am aware. Supreme Court would be needed to say State Death Penalty is unconstitutional.
I believe in the death penalty, but not in this case. Jail time for sure because of his involvement. Triggerman was definitely death penalty worthy.
are you about to pull the "I'm a liberal atheist now going to question the republican Christian on his Christianity" crap? Everything I said perviously is factual.
