As covered in a story in the issues web page (read story), a Kentucky DA has recused himself because he has religious conflicts over seeking the death penalty.

Do you think he should recuse himself or resign? Or, perhaps you think he could just refuse to seek the death penalty? What is your opinion?

And for bonus points, do you think seeking the death penalty presents a religious confict (let's leave out all the liberal discussion of the morality of the death penalty).

Resign.

Assuming it (seeking the death penalty) poses a conflict, all the more reason for resignation. He was elected to enforce the laws. Can't do the job. Then quit.

He's not recusing himself because he doesn't think he can make an informed decision in this one case. He's said he's recusing himself because he's unable to choose one way or the other on any capital murder case.

Were he recusing himself based on the one case and particular facts, I may feel differently, but because he claims he's unable to make a decision required by the nature of his office, he should resign from that office.

If he can't follow the law without picking and choosing what he will or will not do, he has no business representing the state.

His position is that his religious beliefs prohibit him from following his oath. He should resign. I understand his position: that he likes to be DA in everything except capital cases. Too bad, that job is called assistant DA and doesn't pay as well.

What about when the DA runs for election on a platform that includes NOT seeking the death penalty?

That is apparently the case in San Francisco, where the local DA has refused to seek the death penalty against a cop-killer due to her policy of not ever seeking the death penalty for any reason (or what passes for the death penalty in California).

I don't think a candidate's political platform can trump the State's laws, but it _is_ California after all.