Change way accomplices are punished


March 20, 2009

This is part of an occasional series addressing bills filed in the 
Legislature that would reform the state's system of administering the 
death penalty.

Conventional wisdom suggests that the death penalty is reserved for 
the worst of the worst criminals – those who commit the most heinous 
murders.

But in Texas, we sometimes execute accomplices, people who never 
pulled the trigger and who might have been only peripherally involved 
in a crime. The law of parties permits the court to hold someone 
criminally responsible for the acts of another.

Incredibly, an accomplice can be put to death for the triggerman's 
crime. That accomplice might not even get his own trial, as Texas 
allows joint trials in capital cases.

But proposed legislation would change that.

Several lawmakers are pushing for needed reforms that would guarantee 
a defendant's right to his own trial in a death penalty case. Other 
bills would rule out sentencing an accomplice to death using the law 
of parties.

This common-sense legislation, which got a hearing Thursday in a 
House subcommittee, would ensure that defendants in capital cases 
have their own day in court and are not punished for another's 
actions. Even death penalty proponents should welcome these safeguards.

Gov. Rick Perry, who has shown little hesitancy about the death 
penalty, expressed concerns about simultaneous trials in 2007 when he 
blocked Kenneth Foster's execution and reduced his sentence to life 
in prison. The governor urged the Legislature to look at the issue.

New Mexico won't tolerate flawed system
What compels a longtime supporter of the death penalty to sign 
legislation banning its use? New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson said his 
decision last week was driven by the reality that the system is flawed.

"Regardless of my personal opinion about the death penalty," he said, 
"I do not have confidence in the criminal justice system as it 
currently operates to be the final arbiter when it comes to who lives 
and who dies for their crime."

We certainly understand how difficult making the right decision must 
have been for the governor. After all, a lack of confidence in the 
system is the reason this newspaper reversed its longtime support for 
capital punishment and now believes Texas should abolish the death 
penalty.

Foster, who drove the getaway car during a robbery spree that turned 
deadly, faced a legal double whammy. He was tried with the shooter 
and was sentenced to die under the law of parties. Even though Foster 
was sitting yards away in his grandfather's rental car when his 
partner in crime fired the gun, the jury determined that Foster 
intended to kill or "should have anticipated" a murder.

Adopting this legislation would send the message that Texas no longer 
plans to impose the ultimate punishment for crimes that someone else 
committed. These bills, as well as one filed by Rep. Harold Dutton, 
would take aim at let's-make-a-deal gamesmanship that pits defendants 
in capital cases against one another.

Dutton's HB 298 would exclude testimony from accomplices and 
informants who have cut a deal for a reduced sentence. While this 
common practice certainly makes a prosecutor's job easier, relying on 
testimony from a witness determined to spare himself is a dangerous 
proposition in life-and-death decisions. The legislation also would 
require that statements from prison snitches be corroborated by a 
recording.

Prosecutors and police no doubt will argue that these witnesses are 
an important part of building a case. But unimpeachable evidence 
should be required to take someone's life.

Texas lawmakers have shown little inclination to make sweeping 
changes to the state's approach to capital punishment. But these 
bills would build needed protections into the justice system that may 
prevent Texas from making an irreversible mistake.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/editorials/
stories/DN-accomplices_22edi.State.Edition1.1f50128.html