The Charleston shooter’s lawyers just filed a motion arguing the death penalty is unconstitutional
Lawyers for the man who gunned down nine African-American churchgoers in Charleston last year say he shouldn’t face the death penalty because capital punishment is unconstitutional.
Dylann Roof’s lawyers filed a 34-page legal motion in Federal District Court in Charleston on Monday afternoon arguing that the death penalty is unconstitutional and should not be on the table for his case. While “the facts of this case are indisputably grave,” they write, “no one can be lawfully sentenced to death or executed under it, no matter what his crimes.”
They say that Roof has offered to plead guilty and “accept multiple sentences of life imprisonment without possibility of release.” He will plead guilty if the death sentence is withdrawn by the government.
But instead of just arguing for the removal of the death penalty in Roof’s case, his attorneys say the federal death penalty as a whole is unconstitutional. They outline a solid summary of how legal opinion across the county has shifted against the death penalty in the last few years. Supreme Court Justices Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg have both said they believe the death penalty “likely constitutes a legally prohibited ‘cruel and unusual punishment,'” while the Connecticut Supreme Court outlawed the death penalty last year.