« "Vermont's Prison Chief Says It's Time to Decriminalize Drug Possession" | Main | Split Eleventh Circuit panel discusses reasonableness review at great length »
June 19, 2015
Should it be the state or feds (or both!?!) that capitally prosecute racist mass murderer Dylann Storm Roof?
The question in the title of this post is a question I have raised with some folks over at Crime and Consequences, and this new New York Times article reports that it is one that the Governor of South Carolina might now be thinking a lot about. The NYTimes article is headlined "Governor Calls for Charleston Shooting Suspect to Face Death Penalty," and here are excerpts:
South Carolina’s governor on Friday called for the 21 yearold man who is suspected of killing nine people in one of the South’s most historic black churches to face the death penalty.
“This is a state that is hurt by the fact that nine people innocently were killed,” Gov. Nikki R. Haley said, adding that the state “absolutely will want him to have the death penalty.” The governor, who spoke on NBC’s “Today” show, described Wednesday’s shooting rampage as “an absolute hate crime.”
“This is the worst hate that I’ve seen — and that the country has seen — in a long time,” she said. “We will fight this, and we will fight this as hard as we can.”
Her comments came hours before the suspect, Dylann Storm Roof, a white man who returned to Charleston under heavy guard on Thursday night after his arrest in North Carolina, was expected to go before a judge on Friday afternoon for a bond hearing, where he will hear the charges against him. Mr. Roof, who friends said had a recent history of expressing racist opinions, is widely expected to be prosecuted for murder, an offense that can carry the death penalty in this state. Greg Mullen, the chief of police in Charleston, has called the shooting a hate crime, and Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch said the Justice Department was investigating that possibility....
On Thursday, President Obama spoke of the shooting and lamented what he called the easy access to guns, an issue he has tried and failed to address with legislation. “At some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries,” Mr. Obama said. He added: “It is in our power to do something about it. I say that recognizing the politics in this town foreclose a lot of the avenues right now. But it would be wrong for us not to acknowledge it. And at some point it’s going to be important for the American people to come to grips with it.”
In the interview on Friday, Ms. Haley, a strong proponent of gun rights, deflected a question about whether the shooting would change her position on the issue. “Anytime there is traumatic situation, people want something to blame. They always want something to go after,” she said. “There is one person to blame here. We are going to focus on that one person,” she added, referring to Mr. Roof....
In downtown Charleston, there was already talk of the longterm anxiety the shooting might stir. “The question that I have is, is it going to happen again?” said Jeremy Dye, a 35-year-old taxi driver and security guard from North Charleston who said he knew three people who were killed. “It’s always going to be fear. People in Charleston are going to have that fear now forever. It’s not going to wash away. They’re going to be worried about, ‘O.K., when’s the next church going to get hit?’ ”
Because I share Gov Haley's view that this is the worst hate crime that the country has seen in a long time, and because I am especially eager to figure out how best to recognize and respect the real fear that this incident produces "forever" for so many folks, I think I would answer the question in the title of this post with the answer BOTH.
For many reasons, I think it would send an especially potent and powerful message of condemnation for both South Carolina and the Federal Government to bring capital charges against Dylann Storm Roof. Though I am not sure at this early stage of the investigation if I would want both SC and the feds moving forward with a capital prosecution all the way through a trial at the same time, I am sure that this is a kind of crime comparable in various ways to the Oklahoma bombing that prompted various dual state and federal prosecutions of the perpetrators. For me, the symbolic value and statement of having capital charges brought against Roof in both state and federal courts is worth seriously considering.
June 19, 2015 at 11:14 AM | Permalink
Comments
The Oklahoma City bombing targeted a federal building and killed 168 people. The less horrible shootings involving Gabrielle Giffords still involved directly federal officials. The Boston marathon bombing significantly affected interstate commerce. Still, we are a step beyond. Here, we have a horrible set of murders that is local in nature, but since it is a hate crime as well, falls within federal hate crime contours. I assume.
Still, unless it is shown -- for which I see no real reason to assume -- South Carolina cannot properly prosecute a murderer of its citizens, I don't see the need or really value in having a federal prosecution as well. I realize it is not seen that way legally, it also rubs me the wrong way as a case of double jeopardy. And, where is the line there. If he killed three people, would it be federal? Four? What if some were 'only' hurt?
I don't want to belittle the cruelty and horrible fears this crime brings to pass. But, each time a racially motivated crime occurs that fear arises. And, given South Carolina's history, I think if they are entrusted with the punishment and successfully bring it to pass, it would send a fine message as well.
Posted by: Joe | Jun 19, 2015 11:36:27 AM
I don't know of any evidence indicating that the State of South Carolina has proved itself ineffective in prosecuting and executing those who deserve it. I see no need for federal intervention.
Posted by: Michael J.Z. Mannheimer | Jun 19, 2015 11:52:21 AM
Fine and fair points, Joe and Michael, but a phrase in Joe's last line heightens for me the reason I think I would like to see the feds move forward: "given South Carolina's history."
More broadly, as death penalty opponents are often very quick to stress, both the past and modern history in southern states in the application of the death penalty has involved disconcerting disaffinity for the value of black lives because black killers of whites generally get sentenced to death at much higher rates that white killers of blacks. Circa 2015, I sure hope we do not have too much latent racial bias in the application of the death penalty, but reports of confederate flags "trending" in the wake of the crime make me (justifiably?) concerned that South Carolina cannot "properly prosecute" this case.
In addition, I have seen a report now that Roof had a confederate flag license plate and is unreprenant in his racial justification for his actions. These realities reinforce my sense --- perhaps my fear --- that a state prosecution in this case could end up uniquely racially freighted. A federal prosecution, of course, could face similar problems, and thus my (justified?) call for a belt-and-suspenders, two-bites-at-the-capital-apple approach to this case.
Posted by: Doug B. | Jun 19, 2015 1:01:04 PM
There appears to be an implication that South Carolina still cannot be really trusted in this case, but without more information, I find this dubious. It might actually be more of a problem in a single murder than at this level of horrible. Also, the person has reportedly confessed.
Finally, I'm anti-death penalty, but this does not seem to be the sort of case where McClesky concerns are most likely to arise. Again, it very well might arise in other cases more, especially the murder of one or two people. I doubt actually SC is less likely than the feds to obtain the death penalty, if that is what one wants. Not that I do.
I don't think the Confederate license plate thing will change any of this. The feds have an interest to keep an eye on the matter, sure, but a separate federal prosecution does not seem necessary (or appropriate). And, as noted, a federal prosecution would not be free from problems (e.g., similar jury pools).
Posted by: Joe | Jun 19, 2015 1:12:12 PM
I went looking and could not locate a general federal "domestic terrorism" law that covers a case like this one. McVeigh and Nichols were prosecuted for murder on federal property; Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was prosecuted for use of a weapon of mass destruction. There are no doubt federal crimes implicated by Roof's shootings, but they'd be (I think) small potatoes compared to a state-law capital murder charge.
Posted by: Paul Mollica | Jun 19, 2015 1:43:36 PM
President Obama, a Harvard Law indoctrination victim and Lawyer Dumbass in Chief, made a completely irresponsible and idiotic statement about this tragedy. He attacked the availability of guns. He is an idiot, completely divorced from logic.
The opposite of what he said was true.
Had those parishioners and reverend carried a gun, there would be fewer innocent people dead, and one less shooter alive.
I have often advocated that all law abiding citizens get weapons training in high school, and be required to carry a weapon. Then there should be a statutory duty to kill. If you fail to try to shoot down a violent criminal on the spot, a citation for $100 should be issued to you. All violent criminals should be killed at the scene.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Jun 19, 2015 3:27:32 PM
With 20 milion Index felonies, and 2 million prosecutions, the criminal justice system is in utter failure.
About 10% of murder victims are killed by paranoid schizophrenics around the world, whether in low or high mruder nations. The Supreme Court took over psychiatry, lawlessly, stupidly, not knowing anything about it. Now the shooter qualifies for involuntary treatment.
It is in the nature of paranoia, that one thinks one's beliefs of persecution are true, so all treatment must be involuntary. It is true that tens of thousands of white women are raped by blacks each year, and no black woman has been raped by a white man. Many more times white people are killed by vicious, heartless fatherless black thugs, privileged, protected by the vile feminist lawyer traitor to our nation, than the reverse. I pray, the shooter did not read this blog, and see those points made here. I am addressing rent seeking, yet non-criminal lawyers. I am not addressing the general public, here.
Nevertheless the people in the church had nothing to do with any of that. Their one mistake was not being armed.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Jun 19, 2015 7:38:50 PM
If Roof escapes the death penalty, it will be unbearable to me.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Jun 19, 2015 7:59:30 PM
I can't think of a federal death eligible crime he could be charged with. But could he not be charged with multiple counts of 18 USC 924(c), which could end up requiring a number of years of imprisonment that would preclude his release? I'd like to see this as a failsafe in the event a capital sentence is not obtained by the state.
Posted by: USPO | Jun 19, 2015 8:11:09 PM
A clever ambitious prosecutor could try 18 USC 247' but it's probably a reach. I'm opposed to the death penalty in any event so I think 9 life sentences under 18 USC 249 would be fine.
Posted by: FuzzyOne | Jun 20, 2015 1:07:49 AM
The discussion of what statutes are at play here make me even less gung ho about a federal prosecution. With everything involved, including a confession, I simply don't think the resulting punishment will not be enough.
And, push comes to shove, some more time in prison should not be our ultimate concern. The overall ethos of our society should be as well as other things involving guns etc. The proper sentence here is necessary but this goes far beyond one person. The governor however says there is "only one person to blame" here. Until the next "one" person.
A prosecution by the state of South Carolina is a public matter so private opinion is not determinative but since many do argue that failing to apply the death penalty is failing victims, I think it notable to cite multiple victims already stating they forgive the guy. I'm inclined to think this doesn't imply supporting executing him.
One more death is not the best way to deal with this hate crime.
Posted by: Joe | Jun 20, 2015 9:16:52 AM
Yawn.
Any new ideas around here?
Posted by: anon | Jun 20, 2015 3:34:31 PM
Anon. Everyone law abiding citizen carries. There is a statutory duty to kill, or face a $100 fine. Not even in Israel or Switzerland and is there such statute. Ends all crime by ending all criminals.
There are rich and poor countries, religious and secular ones with low crime rates. They share one sole feature. No, not low lead blood levels. No, not mandatory sentencing guidelines. Yes, public self help. Within our borders, criminals fear the neighbors not the police in low crime areas.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Jun 20, 2015 4:47:41 PM
How does South Carolina kill the convicted person? Death by firing squad would seem appropriate. A needle in the arm and some drugs? Seems a bit weenylike. If you are gonna be a bear, be a grizzly.
Posted by: Liberty1st | Jun 20, 2015 5:31:01 PM
To detour into the LWOP vs. DP issue... clearly the strongest anti-DP arguments are not about the people who commit crimes but about the people who mete out the punishment. Yet some people like to talk about giving a person a chance to repent and understand the enormity of his crimes, even if he will never be released. I can see the potential value in that, although I think it is extremely rare, and in any case the potential for repentance should not be the measure of how we punish.
Still in this case, I was struck by Roof's alleged comment that he almost didn't carry through with the crime "because everyone was being so nice to me." That's an astonishing thing to say, let alone on the day after he appears to have carried out a mass murder. Maybe it just speaks to the depth of his psychopathy or narcissism or whatever, but it also suggests that even people who perpetrate the most horrific acts have some tiny spark of humanity in them. That spark might never catch and light a fire of self-awareness and repentance, but it would say a lot about our values as a country if we choose to at least provide the necessary oxygen for that to occur, rather than simply to add another death to the pile.
I'm not holding my breath for Roof, or Anders Breivik or James Holmes or any of these guys, to have some magical revelation. And yet I think by showing them this little mercy, by sparing them and acknowledging that they're human even as we punish them for the rest of their lives, we model the right behavior. I think that has at least some potential, however indirect, to ward off future Dylann Roofs in a way that the death penalty never could.
Posted by: Jesse | Jun 20, 2015 5:31:59 PM
Supremacy Clause, it is nice to see that this tragedy has brought out your softer, gentler, and more tolerant side.
Also, thanks for infusing the debate here with such ironclad logic and soul-searching talking points.
Posted by: Hola | Jun 21, 2015 12:49:41 PM
"given South Carolina's history"???
Is anyone in here aware that SC has executed 7 W/B murderers since 1976??
Ignorance, yet again, on display.
Posted by: federalist | Jun 21, 2015 10:32:18 PM
First Roof could be charged under 18 USC § 249 (crime of violence) and then 18 USC §§ 924(c) and (j), which is death eligible. Second, his defense team might want a federal prosecution as to strike a global LWOP resolution where D serves his time federally instead of in the state prison system. A lot will depend on the mental health evidence like in the Jared Loughner case.
Posted by: AUSA12 | Jun 22, 2015 12:02:59 PM
First Roof could be charged under 18 USC § 249 (crime of violence) and then 18 USC §§ 924(c) and (j), which is death eligible. Second, his defense team might want a federal prosecution as to strike a global LWOP resolution where D serves his time federally instead of in the state prison system. A lot will depend on the mental health evidence like in the Jared Loughner case.
Posted by: AUSA12 | Jun 22, 2015 12:03:13 PM
First Roof could be charged under 18 USC § 249 (crime of violence) and then 18 USC §§ 924(c) and (j), which is death eligible. Second, his defense team might want a federal prosecution as to strike a global LWOP resolution where D serves his time federally instead of in the state prison system. A lot will depend on the mental health evidence like in the Jared Loughner case.
Posted by: AUSA12 | Jun 22, 2015 12:03:14 PM
First Roof could be charged under 18 USC § 249 (crime of violence) and then 18 USC §§ 924(c) and (j), which is death eligible. Second, his defense team might want a federal prosecution as to strike a global LWOP resolution where D serves his time federally instead of in the state prison system. A lot will depend on the mental health evidence like in the Jared Loughner case.
Posted by: AUSA12 | Jun 22, 2015 12:03:23 PM
First Roof could be charged under 18 USC § 249 (crime of violence) and then 18 USC §§ 924(c) and (j), which is death eligible. Second, his defense team might want a federal prosecution as to strike a global LWOP resolution where D serves his time federally instead of in the state prison system. A lot will depend on the mental health evidence like in the Jared Loughner case.
Posted by: AUSA12 | Jun 22, 2015 12:03:23 PM
