"law of parties"

A big death penalty debate has raged here in Texas over the death sentence of Kenneth Foster. He received this sentence based upon the state’s “law of parties”, which authorizes capital punishment for accomplices who either intended to kill or “should have anticipated” a murder.

As I understand his case, four friends “were up” for getting high and robbing some people. The last person that was robbed that night was killed. Mr. Foster was the driver and was sitting in the car, with 2 others, 90 feet away when the robbery/murder occurred.

As most of my friends know, I am VERY pro-death penalty. But I am torn with this particular case. One the one-hand, I can see where Mr. Foster can argue that he had no idea that a murder would happen. It hadn’t been talked about, it hadn’t happened during the 2 previous robberies that evening. He probably had no reason to think that it would happen with the third. He was the driver with all three – he had no gun, he didn’t rob anyone, he didn’t shoot anyone.

On the other hand, however – with a gun involved, one could argue that meant there was a possibility of someone getting shot, whether or not that was the intent. And Mr. Foster knew the shooter had the gun. And he knew he had the gun when he left the car.

I guess the key word here is “anticipated”. I haven’t seen or heard about any discussions prior to the robbery spree about shooting anyone who might fight or resist. If that had been the case, then I would say a person could have or should have “anticipated” the shooting, therefore I would be OK with the sentence. But since it seems no such conversations took place, then I think there is a degree of doubt as to what could have been “anticipated”.

Yesterday, Governor Perry commuted Mr. Foster’s sentence to life, following an overwhelming recommendation to do so by the Texas Parole Board. All in all, probably the right thing to do.