The judge has been consistent throughout that he does not want this trial to turn into a referendum on abortion, and in the article I posted above, he does say that a murder charge is the only option now and that he will not allow the jury to consider voluntary manslaughter.
No. It isn’t.
Judge Wilbert has ruled, rightly so, that the murderer’s “aggravated manslaughter”, even his “second degree murder”, defenses were, to use a legal term, bullshit. The jury, again rightfully so, won’t be considering lesser charges.
I have extrapolated two ideas from this post:
-
That it would be totally okay if Roeder had shot Dr. Tiller in the street, or perhaps in his home, but shooting him in a church was wrong; and
-
That murdering somebody who attends a church is somehow worse than murdering somebody who doesn’t.
Are these beliefs you hold?
IANAlawyer, but it may be that defining a fetus as a human being, and having a court accept that, wouldn’t be strictly necessary. Perhaps the concept of “unreasonable but honest belief” could be stretched to include what the killer believed about the potential victims. He believes they are human beings, whether or not they actually are.
The trial is running live now. Click the link of my first post.
Thanks. Like I said, I wasn’t following the case too closely so missed that.
Even if the question of personhood doesn’t come up, it’s still a fascinating case in how carefully the judge has to act to avoid it, especially as the judge has to be sure there isn’t a question of law subject to appeal.
Why not?
Because he (silverstreak wonder) is an idiot.
It’s a moot point now, but if this had been allowed to fly, it would open the door for animal rights activists being able to kill scientists, farmers, etc. if they really think dogs and cows have “human rights.”
I agree with you, but if you allow that “unreasonable but honest beliefs” constitute mitigating circumstances – more or less – it seems there would be almost no limits. When I was writing that post, the example that came to mind is if the killer thought trees are human, and killed someone about to cut down a tree. Where does one draw the line between unreasonable and bonkers?
And thinks for that link Katriona. I hadn’t seen that voluntary manslaughter had been ruled out, and I’m glad it was.
RE the question of allowing this to go forward would open doors to PETA, ELF, etc.:
Here is the textof the actual statute:
Note that the “unreasonable belief” refers to the circumstances, not whether or not it was a human being.
Well, obviously there’s a threshold factual determination to be made by the judge. Typically if there is even a scintilla of evidence that would support the giving of a lesser-included instruction, the judge is obligated to give it. By refusing to give such an instruction, the judge needs to be on ultra-solid ground with respect to that lack of even a scintilla of evidence. I assume there was no evidence of the imminent threat.
It doesn’t sound like justice is being denied here, in any event. But I guarantee you the lack of that jury instruction will be an assignment of error on appeal.
Yes, but what if those circumstances include the belief that human being was about to be killed, as opposed to a tree or a dog?
[Naked Gun]
Lt. Drebbin: I’m sorry, your honor, but when I see five weirdos dressed in sheets stabbing a guy in broad daylight in full view of a hundred people, I shoot the bastards. That’s my policy.
Commissioner: That was a “Shakespeare in the Park” production of Julius Ceasar you moron. You killed five actors. Good ones!
[/Naked Gun]
Sorry for the hijack, but that’s one of my favorite lines from that movie, and I’ve been waiting to fit it into a conversation for 20 years.
Ah HA ! Curtis Lemay, I sussed you out ! I thought you was banned, man.
I agree with everything you say, except the “obviously” part. A great deal of readers without a legal background may have been confused when you said it was “that’s a question of fact for the jurors to resolve.” It’s not.
Of course it will be, as will pretty much everything in the trial. That’s what appellate cases are, claims of assignment. But I’d be willing to bet dollars to donuts that the lack of instructions on the lesser included offenses will be upheld on appeal.
Me, too, although I’d be even more confident in that assessment (dollars to doughnut holes?) if I knew now exactly what the defense’s proffer was, instead of simply knowing what’s filtered into news reports.
My local papers have been FILLED with coverage - I’m in Kansas City!
Legality isn’t morality, I can think of many situations in which it would be the moral thing to do something illegal.
Homicide is one of those things it is virtually impossible to justify morally, however if anything can justify homicide it would be in order to stop a mass murderer. Under many people’s moral code, Dr. Tiller was a mass murderer.
I think Dr. Tiller was extremely immoral, and I think abortion is immoral as are the wretches that have it performed on themselves–however I don’t think it is actually murder, so I can’t agree with Scott Roeder’s line of thought.
Murder has legal definitions that there is no point to argue about, but it also has a definition in the popular consciousness of man. Long before any legislator took pen to paper, humans knew what murder was, and they knew it was wrong. It has never been universal, though. In some societies it was murder to kill your wife, in some societies men had absolute power of life and death over their immediate family and it would not be considered murder to kill one’s wife.
From a moral perspective, I don’t view Scott Roeder as a murderer, because I do not believe he had mens rea. He had a genuine moral belief that what he was doing was correct. I disagree with his conclusions, and I think his act was definitely immoral (immoral because he took it upon himself to decide who lives and dies–something that in his own words should be reserved for God.)
To make society work we have to hold people to the law of the land; but that doesn’t mean there is any inviolable sanctity in those laws. Mostly law is a form of societal control and something that promotes societal stability. While much law has its original basis in popular morality, I think it very unfortunate that most people seem to think doing something illegal is instantly the same thing as doing something immoral.
Killing an innocent is pretty immoral, IMHO.