Replies

Thanks; (courtesy ping to editor-surveyor); I did a search on e-s's perspective on the Roeder murder trial. I see that he posted quite a bit on necessity defense, jury nullification and closely related subjects, arguing that under Kansas law Roeder was entitled to present such defenses to the jury.

I myself am a supporter in principle of jury nullification, which has had an honorable place in our history since the pre-1776 John Peter Zenger case. However, I would disagree with editor-surveyor's position, as I understand it. The pre-meditated and intentional killing of a man is something that no one, on any account, can choose to do on his own: no one has this on his personal authority, either under Natural Law or God's law, as I understand it.

(Use of force to prevent an imminent slaying, which may unintentionally result in death, is a separate question.)

As far as I could see from a fairly quick scan, editor-surveyor is exceptional, if not solitary, in taking this stand in the Free Republic forum.

The pre-meditated and intentional killing of a man is something that no one, on any account, can choose to do on his own: no one has this on his personal authority, either under Natural Law or God's law, as I understand it.

If your position is true, if such diamond clarity rings like the bell of truth around this concept, then there would be no damage whatever to the prosecuction's case if the defendent were given is right to explain his actions - and their reasons. After all, the premeditation part of the charge does, in fact, demand an explanation. And also after all, the law is so clear, so absolute under - how did you put it, "Natural Law or God's law" - that anything he would have given as an explanation would have had zero effect on his conviction.

But if that's the case, then why did the prosecutor and judge so strenuously object to him telling his reasons for the killing? Maybe they were worried that the stupid jury wasn't as sharp as you are about the absoluteness of the law? Or maybe - just maybe - the application of the law is not as utterly indifferent to nullification as you think it is? After all, even though you purport to "support in principle" jury nullification, it doesn't sound like you have much use for it. Even in this case, with an accusation of a known killer of thousands of full-term babies on one hand, and a murderer who was solely motivated by those killings on the other hand.

The application of jury nullification in such a scenario sure seems like an appropriate legal, social, moral, and cultural challenge to the validity of the law protecting the abortionist. In other words, an application of the actual REASON for the existence of the jury nullification process. In fact, jury nullification might have been so clearly applicable here that maybe - just maybe - the prosecution wasn't as absolutely confident in the proper application of murder one in this case as you are.

And, if he was allowed to speak, and the jury nullified the application of the murder charge under these conditions, then that would be lawful, wouldn't it? And the whole country would also learn about the power and purpose of jury nullification, wouldn't it?

Not that any of these consideration should impinge upon your ringing clarity of the meaning and application of "the law," of course.