Kenneth Foster Death Penalty Case

I haven't said anything about the Kenneth Foster case because there are serious issues I have with the general argument that many people are using in the case.

On the one hand I realize the racialized "justice" that happens here in the US. On the other hand I don't see how it has a bearing on someone who willfully engaged in a criminal enterprise. Under what rock does one live under to not understand that sometimes robberies lead to murder? It is that understanding that is at the heart of the case. Texas has a twist on the Felony murder many if not all states have on the books. Basically if in the commission of a crime, one of the parties commits another (or just a) felony, all parties are as guilty as if they had committed the felony itself. I have little doubt that this came about as a means to deal with gangs, in which by extending responsibility to all parties involved in the entire criminal action, one could nab many people.

While I do not wish death on Kenneth Foster, I'm not inclined to go to bat for him since he was a willful party to robbery. In fact I'm not very sympathetic to those who willfully commit crime in general. Mumia Abu Jamal has weighed in on the subject saying that it criminalizes presence. In the most abstract sense it does. the getaway driver is "present" at the scene of a crime because he was party to the other criminal activities. I would be more inclined to fall to Mumia's argument if such a law was used to prosecute someone who happened to be in the area and witnessed the crime, shrugged and went about his or her business. While not reporting or helping out the victim may be unethical or morally reprehensible, I'm not of the opinion that such an action (or non-action) should be prosecutable. Thus I think Mumia's argument, which I admit I have not read, is faulty. On a side note I'll re-iterate my position that I think Mumia did, in fact shoot the officer in question AND I think it was in self defense against a racist police officer and that Mumia ought to be freed with a clean record. Not a pardon, but a clean record with compensation by the state of Pennsylvania for the years he has been imprisoned.

Of course if we are to object to "criminal presence" then I believe that we should also be against criminalizing thought. I am on record as being against hate crime legislation. I am strenuously opposed to the criminalizing of thoughts that I may or may not agree with. I am only concerned with actions. So for example, the man who harrassed and attacked the Newark 6 ought to be prosecuted for his actions, which were completely out of order, but even if I do not agree with his attitude towards lesbians, there is no place in a so called "democracy" to add extra time to his sentence for such attitudes. He has the right. Similarly I don't care what a KKK member, Aryan Nation member or what have you thinks about me. If he touches me, he ought to be charged with assault or attempted murder or whatever law that is already on the books that regulates behavior.

Unfortunately I do not see the same people who are concerned about the criminalization of "presence" voicing opposition to the criminalization of thought. That, in my opinion, is hypocritical on the level of those OK with homosexual marriage but not polygamy.

Ultimately Kenneth Foster will be an example to some black people who will hopefully be more viginlant in warning our young men about the consequences of befriending the wrong people and engaging in the wrong activities. The take home message:

You may get more than you signed up for.