There have been some new, offensive developments in the Scott Roeder case.  As I recently wrote, Roeder wants to argue a “necessity defense,” implying that murdering Dr. Tiller was “for the greater good.” The presiding judge just heard new arguments around this issue, causing jury selection (which was to begin earlier this week) to be delayed. Now, it seems, the judge will allow Roeder and his attorneys to argue the “necessity defense,” but has not yet decided whether or not he’ll allow the jury to consider it as an option during deliberations.

I’m no legal scholar, but this seems extremely counterproductive. Even if the judge eventually decides that the jury shouldn’t have the option of considering a “necessity defense” argument and, therefore, convicting Roeder of a lesser charge, surely the information the jury members hear will influence and taint their eventual decision. More strikingly, should the judge allow this defense to be considered, it may lead to a dangerous precedent. From the link above: “Abortion-rights advocates also say giving juries the option of applying a lesser charge to the killers of abortion providers would encourage more violence against the providers.”

While some may see this is an overreaction, I don’t. What this decision really says is that individuals and groups may be justified in committing acts of violence against abortion providers. Keep in mind: Dr. Tiller was murdered for doing something completely legal. And if this defense works, the judge and jury will be implying that murdering an abortion provider is somehow less of a crime than murdering someone of any other profession. An implication, I fear, that some may take all too seriously.

Comments are closed.