The real history of the death penalty has been a brutal and scary one. Ranging from the crucifixion and stoning of the BC era to the modern methods of lethal injection and the electric chair ( Bohm,2016) Most governments around the globe have over the years, sentenced people to death in one way or another. Although in the recent past most countries have abolished the capital punishment and replacing it with life imprisonment most of the states in the USA are still using this form of punishment to administer justice. In the year 1972, the Supreme Court suspended the imposition of the death penalty for it was said that the move was unconstitutional and to significantly targeted the poor and minorities in the society. The celebration was short-lived for the people of USA because the government-sponsored deaths and killings resumed in the year 1976 for the court categorically approved the new statutes. The most common methods of execution of death penalties are the lethal injection in most states in the US that still practice the same, but some countries still use methods such as hanging, gas chambers and electrocution.
The Controversial Case of Jeffery Woods
Jeffrey Wood, 43, was slapped with a death by a court in Texas under the Law of Parties. In January 1996, Wood then 22 years and Daniel Reneau went and parked their car outside a filling station in Kerrville (Texaco petrol station) in central Texas which was his hometown ( Perlin, 2015 ). While wood waited outside his friend, Daniel went and shot dead one of the attendants and managed to get away with an estimated amount of $11,350 from the cash register and the safe. Daniel Reneau's case was quite, and he was executed in the year 2002.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The penal code of the State of Texas categorizes a person as "criminally responsible for an offence committed by the conduct of another," if that particular individual acts "with intent to promote or assist the commission of the offense, he solicits, encourages, directs, aids, or attempts to aid the other person to commit the offense."
The claims of the said person suffering from emotional impairment and intellectual disability due to his high IQ of 80 were raised by the family, defenders, and relatives in the notion of defending him against a direct connection to the crime committed by Daniel. The court of appeal in Texas questions the validity of Dr. James Grigson (forensic psychiatrist) who testified that Wood was most likely to get violent in future despite not running proper examination on Wood. Dr. Grigson later died in the year 2004 although he was expelled from the Texas Society of Psychiatric Physicians and the American Psychiatric Association for he provided misleading testimonies specifically against the people he had never conducted an official examination on them.
The story of the execution of Jeffrey Wood takes gets a twist in the sense that the judge had already decided on the case by the support of the Texas state of Law of Parties. After a while after the court of appeal had suspended his execution the judge who was in charge of his case is now calling for the lifting of the death sentence ( Otero, 2014 ). The complexity of the issue is that most lawmakers are asking and reviewing the state Law of Parties. Enough evidence was availed in court, and it was determined that indeed Daniel Reneau was the actual murder of the attendant of the petrol station and the mastermind of the theft that occurred at the station during the ordeal. It was confirmed that when Daniel was carrying his mission, Jeffrey was waiting for him outside may be aware of what Daniel was doing or maybe not aware of what was going on.
After analyzing the matter in question, my personal opinion is that Jeffrey did not deserve a death sentence whatsoever regardless of the state Law of Parties that bound him to a death sentence. The panel of judges and the ruling judge should have gone deep into other factors such as the reasons that prompted Daniel to kill and establish whether Jeffrey was aware of what was taking place. In the notion of the intent of helping, promoting or assisting in commissioning an offense in what significant and evidential way did Jeffrey participate in apart from just sharing a ride with Daniel to the crime scene? Detailed research should be conducted to determine how well the two knew each other and on what basis did they use to interact or built their friendship on in the long run. One, can only say that Jeffrey was aware of the intentions of Daniel and went ahead in helping him conducts all the crimes in whichever way possible only if the basis of their friendship and interactions is established and confirmed.
Some of the information that should be discarded is that indeed Jeffrey intentionally helped Daniel to carry out the murder. Until it is proven on the grounds of evidence that he did help him, then the information is not significant. Jeffrey Woods could have just been innocent, not aware of the real intentions of his friend or what exactly he was planning to do at the police station. In the normal life, we find that just maybe he was just a victim of circumstance. The assumptions revolve around the notion of assuming that because the two were friends, it automatically places Jeffrey in a position of intentionally commissioning the murder and theft carried out by Daniel. The assumption is sometimes it does not happen that way in other cases people fall victims of circumstances in some different situations. The validity of the assumption can range from various reason bearing in mind that a lot of different vehicles to use the roads including the cabs, passenger service vehicles (Steiker & Steiker, 2015) It narrows down to the point of it being a set up on Jeffrey or they had just made friends shortly before the murder was committed. Also, it should be ascertained who in particular was driving the vehicle, was it Jeffrey or it was Daniel? If Daniel happens to be the driver who drove to the petrol station, then there are high chances that Jeffrey was not aware of the real intentions of Daniel. If it happens the vice versa, Jeffery was the driver then there is a possibility Jeffrey was aware of the plan and the motives of Daniel.
My conclusion is that there is a 70% chance that Jeffrey was not aware of the damage Daniel was about to do then before the crime was committed and as such, the death penalty was unjustly imposed on Jeffrey. My conclusion makes sense in regards to the uncertainty of the relationship of the two people, and no circumstantial evidence points out in what forms Jeffrey helped Daniel in carrying out the murder and theft at the petrol station ( Hood & Hoyle, 2015) . As long as a clear relationship between Daniel and Jeffrey is not established, it is wrong to paint him as an accomplice that aided, helped and cooperated in some positive way to facilitate the crime. People would go for various other conclusions in accordance to their understanding. For instance, it can be concluded that Jeffery was aware of the plan to rob and murder the petrol station attendant because the psychiatrist attempted to falsify his examination to cover up the truth. His presumed irrational behavior also incriminates him.
References
Bohm, R. M. (2016). Deathquest: An introduction to the theory and practice of capital punishment in the United States . Routledge.
Hood, R., & Hoyle, C. (2015). The death penalty: A worldwide perspective . OUP Oxford.
Otero, A. M. (2014). The Death of Fairness: Texas's Future Dangerousness Revisited. U. Denv. Crim. L. Rev. , 4 , 1.
Perlin, M. L. (2015). Your Corrupt Ways Had Finally Made You Blind: Prosecutorial Misconduct and the Use of Ethnic Adjustments in Death Penalty Cases of Defendants with Intellectual Disabilities. Am. UL Rev. , 65 , 1437.
Steiker, C. S., & Steiker, J. M. (2015). The American death penalty and the (in) visibility of race. The University of Chicago Law Review, 243-294.
