Comments on: Should Scott Roeder Face the Death Penalty?

By: Audie Hopson

Audie Hopson — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 18:59:28 +0000

“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!

By: freewomyn

freewomyn — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 20:49:34 +0000

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.

By: Carolyn Marie Fugit

Carolyn Marie Fugit — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 17:17:04 +0000

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.

By: RoederWatch

RoederWatch — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 20:53:55 +0000

“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.

By: freewomyn

freewomyn — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 19:57:34 +0000

Yes, let’s do send him to Gitmo, with all the other “terrorists.” Good answer!

By: Andrea

Andrea — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 19:55:33 +0000

I agree, the death penalty is a moral contridiction and shouldn’t even be implemented in cases such as this one which disgusts me.

By: Mrs. Mastro

Mrs. Mastro — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 19:51:15 +0000

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?