A different take on Scott Roeder (murderer of Dr. Tiller) defense

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

(I do not know if the Roeder judge is a famous wing-nut or whatever. I am responding only to the specific idea of allowing a defendant to argue justifiable homicide in an abortion doctor murder.)

I have always held strongly that a criminal defendant must have tremendous latitude in his defense.

If a defendant wants to claim he wasn't at the scene because he was having lunch on Saturn then he can make that claim.

That is not a help to the defendant. (In cases where defendants want to defend themselves the judge always explains that they are making a mistake and will probably be convicted or get a stiffer sentence... but you are on trial for your freedom so do whatever loony thing you want.)

The jury isn't going to believe he was on Saturn. They will not be sympathetic to being lied to so obviously. He may have rejected a plea-bargain so he could pursue his Saturn defense and end up getting more time.

But when the state arrays its forces against an individual on trial he gets to defend himself--or should--however he sees fit. Even if it's monstrous, stupid, etc..

Ruling that Roeder can argue justifiable homicide is not an endorsement of the view. It is saying, "If YOU think that's a functioning defense, go right ahead."

There is much to be said for adjudicating despicable ideas. We get to see them defeated... rejected by ordinary people, not by fiat.

He will be tried. He will be convicted. And the justifiable homicide defense will be weaker, as a cultural concept, than it was before the trial.

[supernova]

1. My thinking also

I agree with you Kurt_and_Hunter.

Court is exactly the place to air and reject awful ideas. Most people in this country don't believe vigilantism is a good thing.

[Warpy]

2. Yes, except we're talking about Kansas

While they've made some strides in repudiating absolute nutcases like Kline at the polls, they're still capable of going either way on this one.

I sincerely hope it won't work. Even if people consider it valid, vigilantism is against the law, lynching its best known form. However, I'm prepared in case it does.

[Guilded Lilly]

3. There are no guarantees

though I can see your point very clearly and would 100% agree with it if I thought there were enough mainstream people out there who thought as you do!

However, I no longer have the faith in intelligent adults that I used to have. And this isn't just about one, premeditated, cold-blooded murder. This is about the bigger picture of abortion. The hatred generated by the whole choice/anti-choice concept is beyond any other *issue* I can remember in my lifetime. And there is no telling who gets on that jury or how they are chosen and what kind of manipulations take place to make sure _________ kind of people get ON that jury. It just sets a frightening precedent that this type of defense could be admitted and POSSIBLY work.

Yes, it is all a crapshoot...and what I would hope would be rational people who think clearly would be seated in that jury...IF it is allowed and if it slides by and this kind of twisted defense wins, the precedent will be horrifying. This isn't lunch on Saturn. This is using a potentially horrific defense to be used that could lead to hundred more outrageous murders...*justified* in courts using this potential outcome.

I hope with all my heart that you are right.
Hope can let you down now and then.

[rampart]

5. no issue since slavery

has been so divisive.

abortion is the single issue that keeps republicans in power.

[Ozymanithrax]

4. What happens when a jury of his peers agrees with his defense...

What must he do to prove Justifiable homicide?

While the state argues that he acted with malice and forethought, his defense is that malice and forethought are acceptable when killing an abortion doctor in a church.

I guess it will depend on law and precedence. Can it be justifiable homicide if no one was in imminent danger. Dr. Tiller was not performing an abortion by the church door.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

7. Juries do bad things sometimes

If history is a guide a string of jury nullifications of doctor-murders in red states would prompt civil rights trials in federal court.

That's what we did with southern jury nullification in racial cases.

There would be a move for federal laws protecting doctors.

The pugs would argue against it, but life isn't always easy.

[Ozymanithrax]

12. How many premeditated murders of people doing absolutely legal things before we stop it...

Would it take 2, 4, or a dozen dead abortion doctors? How many cases will be tried and the defendant acquitted before a woman's right to choose is technically dead in this nation? That is the danger of jury nullification, that the statute is nullified.

With our current system I am not confident that the congress would have the ability to act or a President, particularly a Republican President, would act.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

6. Curse you and your reasonableosityness!!!

You make a good point...

[struggle4progress]

8. Roeder free to pursue 'imperfect self-defense'

Posted on Wed, Jan. 13, 2010
BY RON SYLVESTER
The Wichita Eagle
A Sedgwick County district judge Tuesday said Scott Roeder could pursue a defense of voluntary manslaughter ... Kansas law defines voluntary manslaughter as the "honest but unreasonable belief" that the use of force was necessary in defense of another. It's called the imperfect self-defense ... Some may have confused his opinions with his ruling that Roeder could not use the so-called "necessity defense." That is where Roeder would claim he killed Tiller to prevent abortion, which is not allowed by law. Wilbert spent the first several minutes of the hearing clarifying that he had not ruled on voluntary manslaughter and would not until the end of evidence, when he compiled legal instructions for the jury ... http://www.kansas.com/news/story/1134123.html

The judge ruled in December that a "necessity" defense would not be allowed. A modification of Kansas law (in the mid 90s IIRC) allows defendants to plead honest even if unreasonable belief that killing was necessary to protect a third party from an immediate threat. The judge has not ruled out allowing this defense, but says no definite decision can be made until he instructs the jury after evidence is presented. This may be a very weak defense: if such a defense is sought, prosecutors will point out that Tiller, in church, could not have posed any immediate threat to anyone

[FSogol]

9. I agree. n/t

[Winterblues]

10. You do know there are judges out there like Antonin Scalia

All it takes is for some real nutjob like Scalia to say he was justified. They are out there and do exist..In a sane world you would be correct in every detail but we unfortunately do not live in a sane world.

[Canuckistanian]

11. The Roeder defence is "legal vigilantism"

It's capital punishment by mob rule.

The very basis for our laws started with the idea that an impartial judge got to hear ALL evidence before imposing punishment.

It was very the basis of our earliest laws in Western civilization.