2 Votes
Justifiable Murder
|
||
|
Scott Roeder |
|
||
|
George Tiller |
Right now in Kansas, a Judge is considering whether a justifiable homicide defense will be permitted in the trial of Scott Roeder, who murdered Dr. George Tiller on May 31st.
Personally, I feel this defense is crap, but assuming it is allowed, what would you think of this defense? I am not, repeat not asking whether you support the use of abortion, but whether you feel there is any legal sense in saying murdering an abortion clinic doctor is justified to save the lives of unborn children.
Legally, I can’t see how this defense would have a leg to stand on. Like it or not, the law is that abortion is legal and a fetus is not a person. Religiously, socially, scientifically the answer may be different, but law gets to be arbitrary and definite in its statements.
Similarly tagged OmniNerd content:
- Registration of 3D Printers, by VnutZ 4 days ago
- Virginia's Three Year Old Immigration Law, by VnutZ almost 3 years ago
- Laptop Monitoring by Pennsylvania , by VnutZ about 3 years ago
- Maine "Okay" with Marijuana but not Gays, by VnutZ over 3 years ago
This article was edited after publication by the author on 22 Dec 2009.
View changes.
Print Friendly
Write an Article
UGH by Anonymous
Scott Roeder needs to fry. These religious nuts are just as bad if not worse. “It’s ok to kill that doctor because he’s bad”, gimme a break.
Um, follow your own beliefs. You’re not God and if you believe in the bible or whatever, then God will make that judgment and not you.
Same with inmates. He murdered 25 people, raped a 12 year old girl, yadda-yadda-yadda, but because he found “God”, “he should be forgiven and he should not be executed”. BS, let them fry too.
Menace to society law; they need it. If you can’t conform with society’s laws and rules, then do not pass go. Game over. Buh-bye. Thanks for playing.
A different question. by Occams
what would you think of this defense?
It is valid if the legislators of Kansas intended to provide such a defense, or if the state supreme court holds it to have been their intention, explicitly or implicitly.
I would not rule that out entirely. I suspect that Kansas’ law still reflects the state’s rough pioneer history in many ways. There may be some old statute that permits a citizen to use his gun to defend unborn children, regardless of whether the state considers that a fetus is actually a child.
What we think the law should be, or what this murderous bastard deserves, is really quite irrelevant.
I think that a plea of insanity might have a better chance of success. He has probably subjected himself for many years to the ranting of pastors and influential commentators on the evils of abortion. Who knows what effect that could have on an ignorant man’s ability to reason?
Perhaps the really important question here is: How can our society make people like this?
Analogy Attempt by gnifyus
What does the law say for the following proposed scenario?
Say I knew a person in my neighborhood who had murdered someone and who would probably murder again. So I go out, in cold blood, and hunt him down and kill him. Isn’t that still murder? Does the law allow for vigilantism, where we take justice (our version) into our own hands and mete it out however we want? So even if it was considered murder to abort fetuses, it still would be wrong for an everyday citizen to kill the perpetrator by shooting him through the eye as he sat at church. The fact that abortion is not illegal makes this a no-brainer for the judge, I would think. But he will need time to phrase his words correctly for the press. If he allows this defense, it will throw a huge grey blanket over what “justifiable” means for any crime at all.
Here is the Dilemma by ldsudduth
I was listening to a local talk radio persona, and he had a local attorney on the air (mind you—politically this attorney is at the extreme Left, and the host is somewhere to the right of Far Right) In a general view, he said the real issue here is the dichotomy in the law. Kansas allows abortions; but they will also charge a person with murder if you kill a woman who is pregnant. If the defendant truly believed he was defending the unborn; then he has a right to that defense because of the laws protecting the unborn fetus. He also said only a psychologist would be qualified to make that determination, however. In his viewpoint, the defense would be permissable, based on that dichotomy in the Law.
However, the attorney also stated that in the ideal judicial syatem any defendant should be allowed to muster any defense they can for their case. It is up to the JURY to decide the relevance (if any) of that defense to the case at hand. The type of defense should never be limited by the judge presiding; only the jury should be able to decide whether the defense was plausible.
To sum it up: Yes, I believe he should be allowed to use this defense, but he still took a life, and deserves to have the appropriate punishment meted out to him if found guilty.