An "interesting" fight is developing over death penalty in South Carolina.
Last year, a white young man came to a black church and shot 9 people to death.
The man was charged with capital crimes both in the State of South Carolina and in federal court (federal counts reportedly include hate crimes and violation of religious rights).
Now the state and the federal courts are competing on who is going to try Dylann Roof first and who gets to execute him.
The feds scheduled the federal trial ahead of the state trial.
The SC prosecutor ardently asked to allow SC to try Dylann Roof first.
I somehow doubt that the feds even have jurisdiction to try Dylann Roof.
Yes, it is obviously a hate crime.
Yes, the defendant is white and all victims are black, and the crime happened in a black church.
But, the crime was not committed on federal property and does not involve "interstate commerce", and thus, feds should not have been involved in the criminal prosecution, whatever is my position on the death penalty.
I am generally against the death penalty, as my posts on this blog indicate.
Yet, in this case there appears to be no question that the defendant is the perpetrator of the shooting deaths of 9 people.
There are witnesses who observed Dylann Roof when he came to the church, was invited to join in the prayer, and spent some time before he started to shoot. Enough time for the surviving witnesses to be able to clearly identify him as the shooter.
Unless the defendant is ruled incompetent or not guilty by reason of some kind of mental illness, he, of course, must be held accountable.
In my view, it will not be unfair to demand his life for the lives of 9 people he killed.
Yet, given the law about appellate process in the case, it will cost taxpayers less to keep Dylann Roof alive and serve a life sentence, rather than to put him on the death row.
For the sake of saving taxpayers' money, I would give him a life sentence.
No comments:
Post a Comment