Weekly Poll
Related Stories
Letters to the editor |
 |
 |
 |
| Opinion | |||
| Written by Jewish Chronicle Readers | |||
| Friday, 19 June 2009 12:00 | |||
|
No just verdict for Roeder The abortion question is the most awesome, most intractable issue of our times, and one that, upon deep thought, can only produce the intellectually honest conclusion that both sides are absolutely right. The Tiller affair brings the entire matter into the sharpest possible focus. The most ardently pro-choice advocate must find late-term abortion morally repugnant, given the knowledge that the almost-born infant is forcibly extracted from the womb, its skull penetrated, and its brain siphoned out. The most fanatic pro-life activist must also find the premeditated murder of a doctor with a wife and family equally and utterly abhorrent. The trial of Scott Roeder has the possibility of becoming the Scopes trial of the twenty-first century. It will merit the skills of lawyers equal to Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryant. A question, of course, is whether an impartial jury can even be impaneled, given that the issue will not be whether Roeder committed the murder, but whether it was justified. What can a just verdict be? Not to find a man guilty of murder under these circumstances would be unconscionable. On the other hand, there can be no question that there are already infants now born alive because Dr. Tiller was no longer able to slay them. Perhaps a verdict of ‘not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect’, a verdict that will please no one, might be the appropriate one for this remarkable, unprecedented case. Trackback(0)Comments (1)
|
TrackBack URI for this entry
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
The trial of Scott Roeder, far from being "the Scopes Trial of the 21st Century", will be an open-and-shut case [by the way, in that famous trial the prosecution's case was argued by William Jennings Bryan, not "Bryant"].
It's an open-and-shut case because it was an assassination, and an assassin such as Roeder, motivated by politics and/or morality, cannot hope to be found Not Guilty. A man who plans and carries out the assassination of the king of the abortion industry believes his own life is worth sacrificing to make sure Dr. Tiller never snuffs out another life.
While there is certainly an element of cowardice in ambushing and gunning down, for any reason, an unarmed man, there is also an heroic element in the willingness to sacrifice one's own life to save others', and to make a statement. But to then try to "beat the rap" would nullify any heroism or nobility involved. He did the crime; let him now face the music.
Speaking of "nullifying", there is always the possibility of jury nullification, in which the jury will simply refuse to find him guilty, regardless of the prosecutorial evidence and arguments. But I think, and hope, it is far more likely that the jury will understand the bargain that Roeder was willing to make, trading his own life for Dr. Tiller's.
Any sympathy for Roeder may be considered in the penalty phase (after all, how many people does one have to kill in Kansas to qualify for the death penalty?); but as to his being found guilty, and the "justice" of such a verdict, there should be no argument.