Texas Vs Torres Case Study

Texas v. Torres

This case is different than most of our other cases involving the death penalty. Here we have two men who have been sentenced to death (Torres, who held the victim down & Dempsey, who pulled the trigger). Torres spent this tragic night with two friends, Rogelio Hernandez and Stuart Dempsey. The record shows that Torres and friends had been drinking and using methamphetamines. While driving around the city, they got into a minor traffic accident with Peter Owens. When Owens emerged from his vehicle, Dempsey pulled a weapon out and told him to hand over all of his money. Owens handed over his wallet to Dempsey while Torres and Hernandez searched his car and stole his laptop. Dempsey was still angry with Owens about the damage

Georgia (1976) instructs that capital punishment is excessive when it is grossly out of proportion to the crime or it does not fulfill the two distinct social purposes served by the death penalty: retribution and deterrence of capital crimes. The death penalty in this case falls short as a means of deterrence due to the fact that Torres had no knowledge of the intended actions of Dempsey. Many fights break out every day where the same exact thing that happened in this case happens. If a single man disrespects a group of men the actions that follow are simple. The disrespecting man is held down while members of the group “beat him up a little.” This style of fighting happens everywhere, from school yards to prison yards. What led to the death of Owens is the decision made by Dempsey between the time he ordered Torres and Hernandez to hold Owens up so he can beat him up a little; to the time he fired the fatal shots that killed Owens. Torres could not have guessed what Dempsey would go on to do outside of beat Owens a little. We don’t know the actions Torres might have took if Dempsey did what he claimed he was going to do. Would Torres have stopped Dempsey form beating Owens to death? We don’t know and that’s the problem. When Dempsey decided to shoot Owens there was nothing Torres could do to stop him. Given this the state is acting as if it was certain that Torres would not have stopped Dempsey from committing the murder with his fists. This invalidates any deterrence justification for the death penalty in this case. The goal of retribution, which reflects society’s and the victim’s interests in seeing that the offender is repaid for the hurt he caused, does not justify the harshness of the death penalty here. The most harm Torres intended to cause was maybe a broke tooth or bruised rips. Not only did Torres not kill Owens he did not intend to cause his death; therefore he should not be punished as if he