Thirty-seven minutes seems like about thirty six and a half minutes more than needed to convict one "pro-life" assassin of the premeditated murder he'd admitted to in court, but maybe the jury had some procedural work to do before getting to the vote. I can't say this trial exactly restores my faith in Kansas, which is high on my list of states I plan never to live in, but at least it shows that even in a conservative area of the country gunning down a doctor in cold blood is outside normal bounds of civil life.
I am sorry to say that I was not confident of this.
I was appalled that a lawyer could seriously present a case for a conviction of voluntary manslaughter on the grounds of (Kansas law) “an unreasonable but honest belief that circumstances existed
that justified deadly force." Fortunately the judge wasn't having any of that, but just think for a minute about the logical consequences of the idea of allowing "unreasonable beliefs" as an excuse for murder:
What if I'm an evangelical Christian who genuinely believes that Catholic teaching is evil and damns the souls of Catholics to eternal hell (a much worse fate than an earthly death)? Would that justify murdering the Pope?
What if I am really convinced that "pro-life" nutcases are liable to shoot doctors who work in women's health clinics? (I can't think why I might have that impression.) Could I just go around shooting anti-abortion protesters in the head to prevent such occurrences?
What if I truly think that traumatized Iraq war veterans are liable to become violent and kill their wives? Could I slaughter them in cold blood in the psych ward of a VA hospital?
What if I honestly expect that Sarah Palin would lead us into war with Iran if elected, costing thousands of lives over many years? Not fetuses, but actual adult human beings. Could I just gun her down at a campaign stop?
What if I think that meat-eaters are responsible for the deaths of millions of sentient animals? Could I just take out everyone in a McDonald's who's having a bacon cheeseburger?
Regardless of whether these beliefs are reasonable or unreasonable, there are certainly people who genuinely hold them. But the rule of law says that we don't let people go around preemptively killing others on the basis of the murderer's beliefs, honest and reasonable or otherwise. The fact that the judge had to make this clear to a lawyer who thought he could use it as a legal defense is terrifying. And the fact that I am actually not entirely certain that it wouldn't have worked if the assassin had, say, burst into a clinic room in the middle of an abortion procedure is even more terrifying.
But score one small victory for the rule of law against the bullies and murderers of the "pro-life" (pro-slavery, pro-rape) movement. I wish I could believe that this represented a turning of the tide.
Recent Comments