Saturday, September 12, 2009

Why No Death Penalty?

Serena at Feminists For Choice asked Wednesday, "Should Scott Roeder Face the Death Penalty?" As she noted, under Kansas law the death penalty is not an option in Roeder's case. Why not? He committed a terrorist act, isn't that enough? Simply put, none of the criteria are met.

In Kansas to be charged with capital murder a person must commit an intentional and premeditated murder that also meet one of seven qualifying factors:

(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.

Since none of the factors are applicable, Roeder was charged with first degree as opposed to capital murder. What do you think? If it were possible, should Roeder receive a death sentence? Post a comment and let us know what you think.

1 comment:

  1. I'm firmly against the death penalty, even in this case, because I don't think death is a punishment.

    BUT, I will say it's pretty fucked up that killing a law enforcement officer can lead you to death penalty, but not killing a doctor. OR that killing a child is only grounds for the death penalty if there was intent to commit a sex crime. For all those pro-lifers out there who think that all life is equally valuable and should be equally protected, I can now point to this to prove that's legally-speaking not actually the case...