NationStates Jolt Archive

From The Guardian:


Despite the fact that the death penalty is supposedly reserved for only the most heinous crimes, Wood is sentenced to death for a murder that prosecutors have never accused him of committing - one that took place when he wasn't even in the same building. Rather, he was outside in a gas station parking lot, waiting in a pick-up truck for his buddy, Daniel Reneau, to come out of a road-side store with drinks and snacks. Wood contends that he didn't know Reneau was planning to rob the store - a frequent hang-out spot for the two of them - and that he also had no idea Reneau was going to murder the store clerk, Kris Keeran, a friend of both men.

But after hearing a shot ring out on the morning of January 2, 1996, Wood ran inside and saw Keeran laying dead from a single .22-calibre bullet that entered between his eye and his nose. Reneau was holding the gun, which he then turned on Wood, ordering him to grab the store's surveillance video. Wood - who suffers from learning disabilities and mental problems as a result of severe physical abuse during his childhood - complied. Reneau took the store's safe, and the two of them fled to Wood's brother house.

Wood and Reneau had talked with the manager of the store about robbing the place on New Year's Day, when the register would be full of money from the night before. But after Wood backed out, he assumed, since he heard no more about it, that the robbery plan was kaput. Instead, Reneau decided to go through with it on his own. Wood contends he had no idea Reneau was even packing a gun at the time of the robbery.

Reneau was executed for the murder in 2002. But thanks to the Texas "Law of Parties", anyone who conspires with another person or a group to commit one crime (like robbery) and happens to commit another crime in the process (like murder) can be found guilty of the secondary crime - even if the individual in question wasn't directly involved in planning it or carrying it out. And when the secondary crime is murder, that person can also be put to death for it. That's the state's justification for why Wood is on death row - except, of course, that Wood claims he wasn't involved in planning the robbery and that he would never have helped Reneau try to get away with it if Reneau hadn't trained a gun on him. As such, there's been a huge public outcry in support of Wood; the second of two rallies this month to draw attention to his plight will take place on Saturday, August 16.

Wood's situation is similar to another recent case in Texas, that of Kenneth Foster - the one that drew the attention of the European Union. Like Wood, Foster did not participate in the actual murder he was sentenced to die for. Like Wood, Foster did not hold a gun at any point while the crime he was linked to was committed. Like Wood, Foster has maintained – convincingly - that he had no foreknowledge the murder was going to happen. Like Wood, Foster was forced to drive the "get-away" car.

Following demands from around the world that Texas review the Foster case, the Texas board of pardons and paroles recommended that his sentence be commuted - a rare occurrence. Even more unusually, Governor Perry actually took the board's advice and, three hours before Foster's execution was set to happen, stopped it: the first time in nearly seven years in office that he had done so (excluding cases in which Supreme Court rulings had barred the execution of juveniles and the mentally disabled).

Will Perry commute the sentence this time, for Wood, like he did for Foster? The cases are so similar that there seems to be hope that he will. Then again, when announcing his decision in the Foster case, Perry didn't mention how problematic the Law of Parties is; instead, he cited a procedural flaw. (Foster was tried simultaneously with the guy convicted of the actual murder; that's what Perry referred to after commuting his sentence.) So who knows.


(link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/14/usa.internationalcrime))

This is mind-blowing. Leaving aside the issue of executing a person who did not commit a heinous crime, aren't you supposed to ascertain that a person is guilty "beyond all reasonable doubt"? In this case, he was found "guilty", it seems, on the basis of virtually no evidence at all.

a jury of his peers when reviewing evidence found him guilty of being involved in the planning of the robbery. sounds like your attempting to conduct a trial in the court of popular opinion with only the defenses side of the story.

The Guardian? They're trying to outdo The Onion.

The Guardian? They're trying to outdo The Onion.

:rolleyes:

It's not only The Guardian. Go and read up on it elsewhere by yourself.

In any case, there is plenty of evidence that he was, in fact, a party to the crime.

"Did you commit the crime?"

"No, I wasn't even near there when it happened!"

"Here's a security camera video that shows that you were there at the exact time of the crime."

"Uh, well, I didn't do it, and I didn't know the guy who pulled the trigger."

"Here's evidence of you conspiring to commit a crime with him."

"Uh, well, he's mean and he made me do it!"
ad nauseum

At some point, I'm sure the jury got tired of hearing his coprolalia and just convicted him on the general principle that he was worth a lot less than the time it was taking to listen to him.

The jury rightly followed the letter of the law in convicting this person (sure, he claims he was innocent - but so does every other person on Death Row). The Judge rightly followed the letter of the law in sentencing death for the crime. If you want to argue the validity of the law, go talk to the Texas State Legislature - neither the jury nor the Judge has any input to that.

Now, however, is where oversight should come in. The Governor should commute his sentence, as is his power, and there fore his responsibility.

Regardless of what's happening here, that "Law of Parties" law is total and complete bullshit, especially if it can lead to problems like this.

This has been discussed before, by the way. I remember a rather large thread on it. I suspect we'll see many of the arguments from there repeated here.

At some point, I'm sure the jury got tired of hearing his coprolalia and just convicted him on the general principle that he was worth a lot less than the time it was taking to listen to him.

In that case, the jury should be tried for murder.

Leaving aside the sickening aspect of the Law of Parties, there is no evidence that he knew a murder was going to be committed. I repeat, the death penalty is only supposed to apply when a person can be deemed guilty "beyond all reasonable doubt". That was not the case here.

The jury rightly followed the letter of the law in convicting this person (sure, he claims he was innocent - but so does every other person on Death Row).

It is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove his guilt, not to assume it!

Barbaric, especially for what is supposed to be a developed first world nation, but that's the USA criminal "justice" "system" for you. Are we supposed to expect better from them? I don't any more. The death penalty is wrong, banned in civilised countries, be the subject to be killed guilty or innocent of a crime. The rest of the details are irrelevant to me, it's just more evidence as to what a crappy place the USA is.

This isn't the first time someone has been sentenced to death with the law of parties, and it most likely won't be the last. We've had this exact same discussion on NSG several times, and in the end, all it will end up being is a circle jerk bashing Texas/those barbaric Americans....

Leaving aside the sickening aspect of the Law of Parties, there is no evidence that he knew a murder was going to be committed. I repeat, the death penalty is only supposed to apply when a person can be deemed guilty "beyond all reasonable doubt". That was not the case here.

It is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove his guilt, not to assume it!

They used the testimony of the girlfriend of Reneau and other witnesses as evidence that they had both planned the robbery beforehand and that both had previously taken part in burglaries while armed. Apparently the jury found that this makes it unlikely that Wood was unaware that they were going to a robbery or that Reneau was armed.

Regardless of what's happening here, that "Law of Parties" law is total and complete bullshit, especially if it can lead to problems like this.


Doesn't the "Law of Parties" pretty much circumvent Mens Rea?

I have to say, even if I can understand some of the reasoning behind the Law of Parties, you should not be able to exectue people based on this.

I don't believe in the Death Penalty at the best of times (too many imbalances in the criminal justice system, too many errors), but if you are going to apply it, it should only be as a last resort, for first degree murders where there are no mitigating factors (including being a juvenile or mentally disabled). This does not qualify

Doesn't the "Law of Parties" pretty much circumvent Mens Rea?

I have to say, even if I can understand some of the reasoning behind the Law of Parties, you should not be able to exectue people based on this.

I don't believe in the Death Penalty at the best of times (too many imbalances in the criminal justice system, too many errors), but if you are going to apply it, it should only be as a last resort, for first degree murders where there are no mitigating factors (including being a juvenile or mentally disabled). This does not qualify
The person meant to commit a crime (in this case, armed robbery). As a direct consequence of the crime, a man was killed. Even though the person did not commit the killing himself, it was in furtherance of the crime, and therefore part of it. I.E. legally, he's just as guilty of murder as his accomplice. The debate is about the punishment, and that will never be resolved.

The person meant to commit a crime (in this case, armed robbery). As a direct consequence of the crime, a man was killed. Even though the person did not commit the killing himself, it was in furtherance of the crime, and therefore part of it. I.E. legally, he's just as guilty of murder as his accomplice. The debate is about the punishment, and that will never be resolved.
You stole my avatar! :o For a second there I thought I had posted here and forgotten all about it.

Either way, the law this is based on needs changing, and quick. When I first came across a case like this it was on a procedural crime show on TV and I made fun of the episode because the script so clearly wasn't based in reality that it was ludicrous to even try to sell us this bullshit. Then I found out that law actually exists...

The person meant to commit a crime (in this case, armed robbery). As a direct consequence of the crime, a man was killed. Even though the person did not commit the killing himself, it was in furtherance of the crime, and therefore part of it. I.E. legally, he's just as guilty of murder as his accomplice. The debate is about the punishment, and that will never be resolved.

I understand that legally under the Law of Parties he is as guilty of it as the one who actually did it. I was saying that to me that seems wrong (Conspiracy/Accessory to Murder certainly but not necessarily Murder itself). But this may be a separate debate. And certainly I don't believe use of the death penalty through Law of Parties is particularly useful as a deterrent. Historical evidence has shown us time and time again that over-use of the death penalty tends to increase crime and more importantly the severity of crime as the offenders then feel they have nothing to lose. Personally I feel if you are going to have a Law of Parties, the Death Penalty should be off the table unless you can prove clear intent or knowledge of the other parties intent to commit murder.

I would be interested in this case to consider what level of mental difficulties he has. It has often been found that those with certain mental disabilities (in particular high levels of mental retardation but others as well) are more easily led/manipulated and much less able to resist pressure and intimidation. Although, these certainly should not be taken as a defence against being convicted for the crime, I personally believe issues such as this should mitigate sentencing, certainly in issues of Law of Parties. Although without knowing exactly the levels of these difficulties, I can't properly comment.

They used the testimony of the girlfriend of Reneau and other witnesses as evidence that they had both planned the robbery beforehand and that both had previously taken part in burglaries while armed. Apparently the jury found that this makes it unlikely that Wood was unaware that they were going to a robbery or that Reneau was armed.

Leaving aside the fact that the death penalty is barbaric, and the law of parties even more so, "unlikely" is not enough to sentence a person. He has to be proven guilty "beyond all reasonable doubt". This was not done in this case. Not to mention the fact that the man is mentally disabled. There are so many things wrong with this case that it's inconceivable for anyone to support the outcome.

Leaving aside the fact that the death penalty is barbaric, and the law of parties even more so, "unlikely" is not enough to sentence a person. He has to be proven guilty "beyond all reasonable doubt". This was not done in this case. Not to mention the fact that the man is mentally disabled. There are so many things wrong with this case that it's inconceivable for anyone to support the outcome.

Let me rephrase then. Apparently the jury believed beyond all reasonable doubt that that Wood was aware that they were going to a robbery and that Reneau was armed.

Being mentally disabled is not enough to prevent conviction. We don't know how compos mentis he actually is but if he is capable of understanding that he was taking part in an armed robbery and that such activities are illegal then the fact that he has a mental disability is not enough to absolve him of responsiblity.

It is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove his guilt, not to assume it!

Yes. and clearly, in the minds of the jurors, no reasonable doubt existed.

the fact that the man is mentally disabled

Unproven. And given the state of the psychological sciences, unproveable.

If the jury of his peers (which heard both sides of the story) considered his claims of not knowing the crime was to be committed a lie (criminals lie you know. Id lie too if I committed a crime and was going to jail for life or to death row) then they found him guilty of robbing the store.
Leaving aside the fact that the death penalty is barbaric, and the law of parties even more so, "unlikely" is not enough to sentence a person. He has to be proven guilty "beyond all reasonable doubt". This was not done in this case. Not to mention the fact that the man is mentally disabled. There are so many things wrong with this case that it's inconceivable for anyone to support the outcome.

Someone who commits a violent crime such as armed robbery with others runs the risk of killing somebody else. One member of the group was found guilty of killing thus he was too under law.

That is worthy of the death sentence under American law. The fact that he may be slow doesn’t mean he hasn’t figured out to lie or deny the truth.
"Did you commit the crime?"

"No, I wasn't even near there when it happened!"

"Here's a security camera video that shows that you were there at the exact time of the crime."

"Uh, well, I didn't do it, and I didn't know the guy who pulled the trigger."

"Here's evidence of you conspiring to commit a crime with him."

"Uh, well, he's mean and he made me do it!"
If I was in the jury and heard that spoken under oath i would assume everything that he said was a lie unless proven true. He lied under oath which is in itself a crime. Altho there is no need to convict him of that now :D

In that case, the jury should be tried for murder.

Leaving aside the sickening aspect of the Law of Parties, there is no evidence that he knew a murder was going to be committed. I repeat, the death penalty is only supposed to apply when a person can be deemed guilty "beyond all reasonable doubt". That was not the case here.

If he committed a crime which ran the risk of killing someone (he was found guilty of that) he is responsible for all acts during that crime. One of the acts was murder. A jury found that he knew what he was doing when robbing the store and thus during the time murder was committed.
Instead what we have in this post is an anti death sentence group that has recreated the scenario of that he wasnt involved in the robbery (thus responsible for murder)

12 people heard all the evidence and decided. Unless theres something new that was not mentioned in court you are just recreating reality in order to suit your beliefs. His lawyer was not mentally disabled. He had a fair trial and lost it.

No matter if he guilty or not, it is shameful that the death sentence still exists in a civilized country. But of course we're talking about Texas here...

You stole my avatar! :o For a second there I thought I had posted here and forgotten all about it.

Either way, the law this is based on needs changing, and quick. When I first came across a case like this it was on a procedural crime show on TV and I made fun of the episode because the script so clearly wasn't based in reality that it was ludicrous to even try to sell us this bullshit. Then I found out that law actually exists...
I apologize for stealing the avatar. I just came back from a long hiatus of not visiting NSG and was surprised that they were available when I got back. I use this avatar on a different forum, so it was an easy choice. BAH! Now I have to decide upon a new avatar....

And the law itself isn't THAT ludicrous. If you and me decide to kidnap someone, and in the process of kidnapping you shoot the person's bodyguard, I'd say I would be partially responsible for the act...

P.S. Did you nab it from http://itsnotlup.us as well?

Barbaric, especially for what is supposed to be a developed first world nation, but that's the USA criminal "justice" "system" for you. Are we supposed to expect better from them? I don't any more. The death penalty is wrong, banned in civilised countries, be the subject to be killed guilty or innocent of a crime. The rest of the details are irrelevant to me, it's just more evidence as to what a crappy place the USA is.

Ah, Fass. Never one to miss an opportunity to do a little America bashing, are you?

On the topic of discussion though... Isn't it unlawful to put the mentally ill to death, and the article claims that this man has developmental disabilities. Wouldn't that make him exempt from execution regardless of the idiotic law of parties?

I apologize for stealing the avatar. I just came back from a long hiatus of not visiting NSG and was surprised that they were available when I got back. I use this avatar on a different forum, so it was an easy choice. BAH! Now I have to decide upon a new avatar....
I'm sorry. But, well, it is a good avatar. :tongue:

And the law itself isn't THAT ludicrous. If you and me decide to kidnap someone, and in the process of kidnapping you shoot the person's bodyguard, I'd say I would be partially responsible for the act...
Nope, still ludicrous. If we kidnap someone and I go and shoot their bodyguard, then unless we drew up a plan that said "whoever has better aim shoots the body guard" I'm guilty of shooting the bodyguard and you're guilty of kidnapping.

And in most of the cases I've heard about where the death penalty was given in circumstances like these, it's usually that they committed a robbery together, the one dude was waiting outside in the getaway car, while inside the store things went awry and the other dude lost his nerves and shot the shopkeeper.

How that means the dude outside in the getaway car needs to be tried, let alone executed, for murder or even manslaughter is beyond me.

P.S. Did you nab it from http://itsnotlup.us as well?
Nope, just google image search. But that's the best domain name ever. :tongue:

Nope, still ludicrous. If we kidnap someone and I go and shoot their bodyguard, then unless we drew up a plan that said "whoever has better aim shoots the body guard" I'm guilty of shooting the bodyguard and you're guilty of kidnapping.

And in most of the cases I've heard about where the death penalty was given in circumstances like these, it's usually that they committed a robbery together, the one dude was waiting outside in the getaway car, while inside the store things went awry and the other dude lost his nerves and shot the shopkeeper.

How that means the dude outside in the getaway car needs to be tried, let alone executed, for murder or even manslaughter is beyond me.

Agreed, I also find this situation to be too much of a stretch to support this particular Law of Parties although other similar laws do have merit. However, the judge and jury in this case do not have the right to decide on the merits of the law and I'm not convinced that Jeff Wood had no knowledge that he was there to rob the place.

I'm sorry. But, well, it is a good avatar. :tongue:

Nope, still ludicrous. If we kidnap someone and I go and shoot their bodyguard, then unless we drew up a plan that said "whoever has better aim shoots the body guard" I'm guilty of shooting the bodyguard and you're guilty of kidnapping.

And in most of the cases I've heard about where the death penalty was given in circumstances like these, it's usually that they committed a robbery together, the one dude was waiting outside in the getaway car, while inside the store things went awry and the other dude lost his nerves and shot the shopkeeper.

How that means the dude outside in the getaway car needs to be tried, let alone executed, for murder or even manslaughter is beyond me.


Nope, just google image search. But that's the best domain name ever. :tongue:
^^ thats mostly because of selective reporting IMO. No newspaper (much less international press) is going to make a huge deal out of someone whos obviously guilty of murder being executed, mostly because its a "dog bites man" type of story. Now a case that people can argue about? Thats more newsworthy.

And yes, its a wonderful domain name. :)

P.S. Did you nab it from http://itsnotlup.us as well?

WYTYG's has wrinkles whereas yours does not. They are obviously different.



As far as the OP, we in Oklahoma have a felony murder law that is similar. I have a friend on death row who was in a car with his buddies and he didn't know they were going to do a beer run, the clerk got shot and was left for dead. They drove off, my friend didn't know that anything had happened, until later, when he was on trial for murder. Not that a beer run is a felony, his friend having a gun was a felony and since someone died during the felony (not of the beer run, but of the idiot carting around a firearm without a permit) everyone in the car was put up on murder charges. :rolleyes:

12 people heard all the evidence and decided. Unless theres something new that was not mentioned in court you are just recreating reality in order to suit your beliefs. His lawyer was not mentally disabled. He had a fair trial and lost it.

People use this line all the time as though 12 people in a jury who have heard stories, havnt been wrong hundreds of thousands of times in the history of American Jurisprudence.

The mistake seems to be in regarding Texas as a part of the civilised world/21st century.

I don't know what shocks me more; this case, or the fact that people are shocked by it.

Come on people, this is texas we're talking about. >.>

People use this line all the time as though 12 people in a jury who have heard stories, havnt been wrong hundreds of thousands of times in the history of American Jurisprudence.

Especially 12 people from a state where people get off on the idea of shooting other people for trespassing. If the death penalty is a possible sentence, of course they're going to be more likely to convict, that way they get to watch some person die! This post is actually about half serious.

Barbaric, especially for what is supposed to be a developed first world nation, but that's the Texan criminal "justice" "system" for you. Are we supposed to expect better from them? I don't any more. The death penalty is wrong, banned in civilised countries, be the subject to be killed guilty or innocent of a crime. The rest of the details are irrelevant to me, it's just more evidence as to what a crappy place Texas is.

Fixed. I'll remind you that my state banned the death penalty long before Sweden did, so not all of the US is as barbaric in this regard as Texas.

edit: Ok, 12 years between complete abolition (1964 for Michigan, 1976 for Sweden) which isn't all that long but the point stands.

What a crappy law.

If he suffered from serious mental handicaps, as the article claims, how'd the jury convict him? Obviously they weren't TOO serious.

If he suffered from serious mental handicaps, as the article claims, how'd the jury convict him? Obviously they weren't TOO serious.

Your not too familiar with Texas are you? The US Supreme Court had to stay Texas from executing a mentally retarded person that even the State of Texas own experts conceded was retarded. They frankly just dont care and want them dead anyway.

Texas is US Americas unwashed asshole. I feel sorry for the good folks that live there.

Good old Texas, where knowing a murderer is a capital offence.

Remember, Texas is the State where you can shoot an unarmed burgaler in the back while hes running away from breaking into your NEIGHBORS house and its perfectly legal.

The fact is, that as a general rule, when one engages in a criminal conspiracy with another, that person is responsible for all criminal acts, committed by a co-conspirator, in furtherance of the conspiracy.

I do not agree with this man's punishment, as I don't believe in the death penalty, but the fact is, he willingly entered into a criminal conspiracy to commit armed robbery. And when you commit armed robbery, it is reasonably forseeable that, in furtherance of that armed robbery, someone is going to get shot.

He wasn't some innocent bystander who was in wrong place at wrong time. He was a willful participant in a criminal conspiracy. Now we can debate back and forth whether the death was forseeable, or whether this robbery was beyond the scope of the conspiracy, but this is a question that can be debated, and, at the end of the day, that was the jury's decision to make, and they made it.

I'm not up to date with texas law, but I'll assume it's like most other places where a crime has a range of sentences (like 6 month to 6 years for robbery).

Assuming that's true, how the fuck an accomplice in a crime, tried based upon a law of parties (where it states that you're not the one who ultimately did the deed) gets the maximum penalty for murder? This is a clear case of the minimum years of imprisonment, life in prison at the most.

The judge who sentenced that poor soul has clearly lacked in judgment. And THAT's the real shame here.

WYTYG's has wrinkles whereas yours does not. They are obviously different.

As far as the OP, we in Oklahoma have a felony murder law that is similar. I have a friend on death row who was in a car with his buddies and he didn't know they were going to do a beer run, the clerk got shot and was left for dead. They drove off, my friend didn't know that anything had happened, until later, when he was on trial for murder. Not that a beer run is a felony, his friend having a gun was a felony and since someone died during the felony (not of the beer run, but of the idiot carting around a firearm without a permit) everyone in the car was put up on murder charges. :rolleyes:

I don't think you'll find many Americans who will defend the Law of Parties or this ridiculous thing you've apparently got in Oklahoma. I firmly believe that if Texas wants to keep up this idiocy, it should go back to being its own separate nation and leave us out of it. (That wouldn't also make George W. Bush a non-natural born citizen; he was born in Connecticut.) I'm sick of my country being dragged through the international mud because Texas lets homeowners summarily execute burglars.

I'm not up to date with Southern slang, but you said a beer run isn't a felony; I'll assume it refers to shoplifting beer. It seems to me your FOAF (friend of a friend) carrying a gun without a permit (not that I think that should be a felony - registration is the first step to confiscation) didn't kill someone in the process of committing the felony of possession of a gun, he killed someone in an act of murder. Had he been carrying a knife, and the overall result (the clerk getting their throat cut) been not that different, I wonder how the state would have twisted the facts to get everyone killed.

On the other hand, if your friend didn't know about the gun, then he can hardly be called an accomplice to even the carrying around a gun without a permit, let alone a party to murder. I'd have to question the shooter's wisdom in carrying around a gun where they were only planning minor offences, though...

a jury of his peers when reviewing evidence found him guilty of being involved in the planning of the robbery. sounds like your attempting to conduct a trial in the court of popular opinion with only the defenses side of the story.

this. obviously, there was enough evidence presented in court.

Yeah, this is an extreme case and the penalty seems harsh, and life in prison is probably more apt. However, Texas as a state seems to know what it is willing to do in terms of crime fighting, and it does not seem to be working too poorly for most of the state. Effective punishment (rather than attempted rehabilitation) and citizens capable of defending themselves from those who could cause them harm will always be an overall well-regarded means of law enforcement in the US, whether or not the rest of the world wants to face that.

this. obviously, there was enough evidence presented in court.

I wonder why they bother with appeals then? I mean, the jury convicted him. Obviously that's the end of the matter and we should all just trust in those 12 infallible people. It's not like anyone has ever been wrongfully convicted by a jury of their peers.

I wonder why they bother with appeals then? I mean, the jury convicted him. Obviously that's the end of the matter and we should all just trust in those 12 infallible people. It's not like anyone has ever been wrongfully convicted by a jury of their peers.Especially when those "peers" are picked randomly out of a pool whose average IQ is 92.

I'm from Texas and this law of parties is the stupidest thing I've ever heard of.

People use this line all the time as though 12 people in a jury who have heard stories, havnt been wrong hundreds of thousands of times in the history of American Jurisprudence.

Yeah they have been wrong a percent of the time. This is proven when new evidence comes to light. So far there is no new evidence

But im sure that the media and special interest groups get the story wrong far more often. After all they hear only one side and do not check the claims.

In this case they have a store video tape of him committing the robbery. The jury watched it and decided if he was guilty of robbery. As evidence goes for a legal case I dont think the jury could ask for much more

Can Texas just go back to being its own country already. Texas isn't worth being a part of the great USA.

If Texas voted to secede, I would not only support it, but ask everyone I know to join a rally for independent Texas.

Who wants me to build a fence on the banks of the red river? We can try to keep them from infecting the country that way.

Who wants me to build a fence on the banks of the red river? We can try to keep them from infecting the country that way.

An interesting bit of history regarding that river and its bridges.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_River_Bridge_War

Can Texas just go back to being its own country already. Texas isn't worth being a part of the great USA.

I say we give them Alabama and large swaths of Florida as well.

I say we give them Alabama and large swaths of Florida as well.

And Mississippi. But not Louisiana.

I want to ask, why does America have to use these contrived methods of execution like the Chair & Injection? Will not a simple bullet to the head suffice? Blue Ring Octopus poison slipped into his food?

I want to ask, why does America have to use these contrived methods of execution like the Chair & Injection? Will not a simple bullet to the head suffice? Blue Ring Octopus poison slipped into his food?
For the same reason US is the only country to openly use torture, for the same reason US considers "100 eyes for an eye" fair, for the same reason US is the only non-hellhole country to still use death penalty, for the same reason US gives out the longest sentences in the world for non-capital crimes.

Obsession with revenge. "Revenge uber alles", to hell with human rights and dignity.

I want to ask, why does America have to use these contrived methods of execution like the Chair & Injection? Will not a simple bullet to the head suffice? Blue Ring Octopus poison slipped into his food?
I think it's to do with keeping the body whole and intact for the relatives. For some religions and cultures it's important to have an open-casket funeral with all the bits still there.
Of course the irony of respecting the wishes of other cultures and religions while killing people is another matter entirely.

I want to ask, why does America have to use these contrived methods of execution like the Chair & Injection? Will not a simple bullet to the head suffice? Blue Ring Octopus poison slipped into his food?

No one, or rather very few people, would like to do the dirty work. Thats why the US has all their fancy equipment to do so. Just flip the switch or press the button is all it takes. Personally, I see the gas chamber as the most efficient way, but has been obscured and "inhumaned" by the Nazi's use of it. It puts you to sleep, almost like coma, then suffocates you. Pain Free.

No one, or rather very few people, would like to do the dirty work. Thats why the US has all their fancy equipment to do so. Just flip the switch or press the button is all it takes. Personally, I see the gas chamber as the most efficient way, but has been obscured and "inhumaned" by the Nazi's use of it. It puts you to sleep, almost like coma, then suffocates you. Pain Free.

Some states use it, and most inmates end up holding their breath and trying to escape.

Also, this is ridiculous. Killing someone for something they blatantly didn't do. I think their should be no death penalty unless there is 100% irrefutable proof.

For the same reason US is the only country to openly use torture, for the same reason US considers "100 eyes for an eye" fair, for the same reason US is the only non-hellhole country to still use death penalty, for the same reason US gives out the longest sentences in the world for non-capital crimes.

Obsession with revenge. "Revenge uber alles", to hell with human rights and dignity.

Wait, what?