Should Scott Roeder Face the Death Penalty?
Last week I reported that Scott Roeder, the man accused of killing Dr. George Tiller, could possibly use a “justifiable homicide” defense when he goes to trial later this month. Roeder has been charged with first-degree murder and aggravated assault in state court. Under Kansas law, murder is not a capital case unless the murder is committed in the process of committing another crime, or if the victim is a law enforcement office. Roeder is not going to face the death penalty when he goes to trial, which has angered some pro-choice activists. However, the question of whether or not he should be eligible for capital punishment is worth considering anyway.
Paul Hill, an anti-abortion wing nut who murdered Dr. Bayard Britton, an abortion provider in Florida, was executed by lethal injection in 1994. His execution, and the precedent that it sets for Scott Roeder, brings up a very important question for pro-choice advocates. Should people who are convicted of killing abortion providers face the death penalty?
I am personally opposed to the death penalty. I don’t think the state should be in the business of killing people, whether its in the form of military violence, police brutality, or executions. From a purely ethical standpoint, how can you punish someone for killing another person by killing them? It’s a moral contradiction. From a monetary standpoint, it costs lest to incarcerate a person for life than it does to kill them. So if you want to break it down to pure dollars and cents, go for the lifetime sentence.
Opposition to the death penalty provides an opportunity for coalition building for the pro-choice movement. For one thing, it gives us common ground with Catholics, many of whom are also opposed to the death penalty. It also allows us to reach out to people who are opposed to the prison industrial complex. We can oppose the State’s control over human life in both the areas of the death penalty and in the area of reproductive freedom. And let’s face it, no one’s so rich as to throw away a friend. We need to constantly work on strengthening our ties with progressive organizations so that we always have the support we need when the poop really hits the fan.
I’d love to hear your take on the subject, though. Do you think that Scott Roeder should face the death penalty? Or is another punishment more appropriate?
For more info about capital punishment in the United States, check out this article from Wikipedia. I also recommend The Innocent Man, by John Grisham. It’s his only nonfiction book, and it presents a very clear case against the death penalty because of the risk of executing innocent people.
1Mrs. Mastro
wrote on 9 September 2009 at 15:51
Hmm…this is a tough one. For me, opposition to the death penalty isn’t based on the belief that life is sacred, nor is it based on any other sort of sentimental attachment to humanity. It is based on three practical issues. One, it isn’t a deterrent. Two, it is way more expensive to execute someone than to house them in a prison for 40 years. Three (and most important, for me) is the fact that the U.S. justice system is terribly flawed and there is a good chance that the person up for execution isn’t guilty, or did not receive a fair trial, typically because they are brown and/or poor.
Though this case doesn’t really involve a question of guilt, the expenses are still the same. The deterrent question is an interesting one–on the one hand, I am all for coming down hard on extremist fools who feel they are entitled to this sort of behavior, but on the other hand, I think we have to be careful not to make him into a martyr–that might only encourage more nutcases to do things like he did.
I would say that there is a chance that those crazy right-to-life folks might question their support for the death penalty over it (a good outcome), but that would credit them with a set of critical thinking/reasoning skills and inclinations that I am just not sure they have.
So how about we send him to Gtmo. and let him rot for ever and ever, like we do anyone else considered a terrorist threat?
2Andrea
wrote on 9 September 2009 at 15:55
I agree, the death penalty is a moral contridiction and shouldn’t even be implemented in cases such as this one which disgusts me.
3freewomyn
wrote on 9 September 2009 at 15:57
Yes, let’s do send him to Gitmo, with all the other “terrorists.” Good answer!
4RoederWatch
wrote on 9 September 2009 at 16:53
“Under Kansas law, murder is not a capital case unless the murder is committed in the process of committing another crime, or if the victim is a law enforcement officer.”
That is partially correct. In Kansas a person is only eligible for the death penalty if it is an intentional premeditated killing (1) during a kidnapping for ransom, (2) Contract or agreement to kill someone, (3) By an inmate in a correctional facility, (4) during the course of certain sex crimes such as rape, (5) of a law enforcement officer, (6) of more than one person, or (7) child under 14 during a kidnapping with the intent to commit a sex offense.
murder during the process of another crime is felony murder if the other crime is a felony and is not a capital crime so is not eligible for death.
5Carolyn Marie Fugit
wrote on 10 September 2009 at 13:17
I posted this on my FB, and everyone agrees that no, he shouldn’t receive the death penalty. There were two reasons. One of them was a simple opposition in all cases (complete with a quote from Gandalf the Grey). The other was that he’d be made a martyr to the “cause”.
Of the anti-choice terrorists who took a life, only one was sentenced to death. And he’s the one we always talk about. Around here, it seems more apt. Hill came to Shannon’s trial and protested with others outside our DA’s home. I don’t think the others came here. But why don’t we talk about Kopp more? He’s tied to four other shootings. When we talk about Rudolph, we talk about the Olympic Park bombing but not the fact he killed a police officer in a clinic bombing. We talk about the victims, as well we should, but when we talk about the terrorists, we tend to come back to the one who was killed by the state, Paul Hill. Think his book would be as popular if he didn’t die?
Another advantage to keeping Roeder alive. Mail and visitors in jail are monitored.
6freewomyn
wrote on 10 September 2009 at 16:49
Great questions, Carolyn. I think that keeping Roeder alive definitely denies him the status of martyr – and the notoriety that would come with it.
Thanks for the clarification, RW.
7Audie Hopson
wrote on 29 January 2010 at 13:59
“Under Kansas law, murder is not a capital case unless the murder is committed in the process of committing another crime, or if the victim is a law enforcement office”. So if you plan and kill someone because you just don’t like them, or it’s a thrill kill, or you want get rid of you husband or wife, it’s not a capital crime. What a stupid law!