Bush OKs execution of Army death row prisoner

[Peikko 1,575]

I think you appear to be mixing up different types of criminal behaviour for effect here. The really terrible criminals, the ones who are an imminent threat to society are not the most common criminals. Joe Criminal who commits burgalry should not be executed although he should be incarcerated and there are as I understand it ways to rehabilitate these types of criminal.

[DeadPoolX 9]

I think you appear to be mixing up different types of criminal behaviour for effect here. The really terrible criminals, the ones who are an imminent threat to society are not the most common criminals. Joe Criminal who commits burgalry should not be executed although he should be incarcerated and there are as I understand it ways to rehabilitate these types of criminal.

But burglary isn't an executable offense, so that scenario wouldn't come to pass... unless, Joe murdered someone during his attempt. Then it might occur, but if merely stole stuff? Nope.

[NavarreMan 10]

Not familiar with the "stand your ground" law? Things are a little different in Florida.

[NavarreMan 10]

The Florida law is a self-defense, self-protection law. It has four key components:

It establishes that law-abiding residents and visitors may legally presume the threat of bodily harm or death from anyone who breaks into a residence or occupied vehicle and may use defensive force, including deadly force, against the intruder.

In any other place where a person “has a right to be,” that person has “no duty to retreat” if attacked and may “meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”

In either case, a person using any force permitted by the law is immune from criminal prosecution or civil action and cannot be arrested unless a law enforcement agency determines there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful.

If a civil action is brought and the court finds the defendant to be immune based on the parameters of the law, the defendant will be awarded all costs of defense.

[Peikko 1,575]

I was sort of paraphrasing the previous post and made that comment. I know a burglar isn't going to be executed your proviso excepted but as these are the most common types of crime, well, the most common is of course drug related...My point was that the previous post mixed all these issues into one to make it seem as though the issue of the reasons behind crime were irrelevant and unadressable. They are only difficult in the cases of the most heinous criminals which are of course the rarest.

If that is the case, then I fear that Florida is not a place I would wish to live as that appears to me to be a barbaric response to the threat of loss of property. However, I do understand that there are huge problems with drug trafficking in the area so there are probably all kinds of complicating factors.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

So now that we know that that a majority of violent criminals have crappy childhoods what do we do? Now that we know that sexual preditors have been molested themselves, what do we do? Now that we have children committing violent crimes what do we do? Analizing the problem, while interesting, is not finding an immediate solution. When Joe Criminal breaks into my house, justice will be dealt quickly and without regard for the bad childhood he/she may have had. And, thanks to Florida law, it will be lasting justice with no worries about repeat offenses.

I think you're seeing my comments as "excusing" criminal behaviour or its consequences. That wasn't my point at all.

[zqt3344 21]

Why this puss bucket was ever allowed to live this long off the tax payer dime is beyond comprehension, we need more swift punishment like this as a deterrent, more death penalties are needed ASAP! We need to stop making prison another welfare system for common inhuman criminals!

By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - President Bush on Monday approved the execution of an Army private, the first time in over a half-century that a president has affirmed a death sentence for a member of the U.S. military.

With his signature from the Oval Office, Bush said yes to the military's request to execute Ronald A. Gray, the White House confirmed. Gray had had been convicted in connection with a spree of four murders and eight rapes in the Fayetteville, N.C., area over eight months in the late 1980s while stationed at Fort Bragg.

"While approving a sentence of death for a member of our armed services is a serious and difficult decision for a commander in chief, the president believes the facts of this case leave no doubt that the sentence is just and warranted," White House press secretary Dana Perino said.

In the military courts, "Private Gray was convicted of committing brutal crimes, including two murders, an attempted murder and three rapes. The victims included a civilian and two members of the Army. ... The president's thoughts and prayers are with the victims of these heinous crimes and their families and all others affected."

Unlike in the civilian courts, a member of the U.S. armed forces cannot be executed until the president approves the death sentence. Gray has been on death row at the U.S. Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., since April 1988.

Members of the U.S. military have been executed throughout history, but just 10 have been executed by presidential approval since 1951 when the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the military's modern-day legal system, was enacted into law.

President Kennedy was the last president to stare down this life-or-death decision. On Feb. 12, 1962, Kennedy commuted the death sentence of Jimmie Henderson, a Navy seaman, to confinement for life.

President Eisenhower was the last president to approve a military execution. In 1957, he approved the execution of John Bennett, an Army private convicted of raping and attempting to kill an 11-year-old Austrian girl. He was hanged in 1961.

The death penalty was outlawed between 1972 and 1984, when President Reagan reinstated it.

Gray was held responsible for the crimes committed between April 1986 and January 1987 in both the civilian and military justice systems.

In civilian courts in North Carolina, Gray pleaded guilty to two murders and five rapes and was sentenced to three consecutive and five concurrent life terms.

He then was tried by general court-martial at the Army's Fort Bragg. In April 1988, the court-martial convicted Gray of two murders, an attempted murder and three rapes. He was unanimously sentenced to death.

The court-martial panel convicted Gray of:

_Raping and killing Army Pvt. Laura Lee Vickery-Clay of Fayetteville on Dec. 15, 1986. She was shot four times with a .22-caliber pistol that Gray confessed to stealing. She suffered blunt force trauma over much of her body.

_Raping and killing Kimberly Ann Ruggles, a civilian cab driver in Fayetteville. She was bound, gagged, stabbed repeatedly, and had bruises and lacerations on her face. Her body was found on the base.

_Raping, robbing and attempting to kill Army Pvt. Mary Ann Lang Nameth in her barracks at Fort Bragg on Jan. 3, 1987. She testified against Gray during the court-martial and identified him as her assailant. Gray raped her and stabbed her several times in the neck and side. Nameth suffered a laceration of the trachea and a collapsed or punctured lung.

The six-member court-martial panel returned its unanimous verdict after about two hours of deliberations. The panel also reduced Gray from Spec. 4 to private, forfeited all his pay and ordered him to be dishonorably discharged from the Army.

Gray has appealed his case through the Army Court of Criminal Appeals (then known as the U.S. Army Court of Military Review) and the Court of Appeals for the Armed Services. In 2001, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case.

Bush got the secretary of the Army's recommendation to approve Gray's death sentence in late 2005. Since then, it's been under review by the Bush administration, including the White House legal counsel.

Complicating the administration's deliberation was a case under review this year by the Supreme Court.

The court ruled in April to uphold the most common method of capital punishment used across the United States. The justices said the three-drug mix of lethal-injection drugs used by Kentucky and most other states does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. The ruling in the case of Baze v. Rees cleared the way for a resumption of executions nationwide.

It was unclear where Gray would be executed. Military executions are handled by the Federal Bureau of Prisons.

Bush's decision, however, is not likely the end of Gray's legal battle. Further litigation is expected and these types of death sentence appeals often take years to resolve.

The military also has asked Bush to authorize the execution of Dwight J. Loving, who has been at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., since 1989 after being convicted of killing two taxicab drivers while he was an Army private at Fort Hood, Texas. But that request is not yet ripe for a presidential decision. The White House declined to discuss the case.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080728/ap_on_...itary_execution

[Peikko 1,575]

I think six that is what happens. People get so emotionally bogged down by particular criminals and their response to them that they see anyone who doesn't suppor the death penalty as somehow wishing to justify their actions. Nothing, nothing could be further from the truth.

[Peikko 1,575]

Will the real zqt3344 please stand up! Oops, looks like they just did

[NavarreMan 10]

Not at all. I was asking ya'll to clarify where you stop ##### footing around and draw the line as to acceptable social behavior. I draw the line, thanks to Florida law, at my front door or if I believe my life is threatened and I must protect myself. The law used be somewhere along the line that I would have to wait until I was dead before I could protect myself. I like the new law better.

[zqt3344 21]

DAH!

Will the real zqt3344 please stand up! Oops, looks like they just did

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Not at all. I was asking ya'll to clarify where you stop ##### footing around and draw the line as to acceptable social behavior. I draw the line, thanks to Florida law, at my front door or if I believe my life is threatened and I must protect myself. The law used be somewhere along the line that I would have to wait until I was dead before I could protect myself. I like the new law better.

You're drawing a line on a different field though - the arguments pertaining to self-defence are not the same of those in the court room where Death is determined to be the appropriate sentence for a crime that has already been committed.

To clarify I'm not disputing that ultimate responsibility lies on the criminal for their actions (though again there are those would dispute that on the basis that Mad people ought to be treated differently from say - gang members or those who commit murder for a material motive - and of course there is *some* merit to such claims) but that a court should (and does) treat people differently depending on the circumstances of the case and that this might open up other areas of responsibility.

Edited July 30, 2008 by Number 6

[zqt3344 21]

Sixer, you are a bleeding heart liberal, but I am glad you are, for it makes for great discussion on here!

Not at all. I was asking ya'll to clarify where you stop ##### footing around and draw the line as to acceptable social behavior. I draw the line, thanks to Florida law, at my front door or if I believe my life is threatened and I must protect myself. The law used be somewhere along the line that I would have to wait until I was dead before I could protect myself. I like the new law better.

You're drawing a line on a different field though - the arguments pertaining to self-defence are not the same of those in the court room where Death is determined to be the appropriate sentence for a crime that has already been committed.

To clarify I'm not disputing that ultimate responsibility lies on the criminal for their actions (though again there are those would dispute that on the basis that Mad people ought to be treated differently from say - gang members or those who commit murder for a material motive) but that a court should (and does) treat people differently depending on the circumstances of the case and that this might open up other areas of responsibility.

[Peikko 1,575]

Not at all. I was asking ya'll to clarify where you stop ##### footing around and draw the line as to acceptable social behavior. I draw the line, thanks to Florida law, at my front door or if I believe my life is threatened and I must protect myself. The law used be somewhere along the line that I would have to wait until I was dead before I could protect myself. I like the new law better.

I am not sure that makes sense. It is not socially acceptable for people to commit burglary and most people's code of conduct dictates that they will not do that, whatever the material benefits may or may not be.

I am also not sure how it is possible that Florida didn't allow you to protect your own life before this new law. I understood that self defence was always admissable as a defence in a life threatening situation. However, to violently defend one's property merely on the suspicion that someone is there in order to commit a crime, that seems to me a step in the 'barbaric' direction.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Sixer, you are a bleeding heart liberal, but I am glad you are, for it makes for great discussion on here!

Not at all. I was asking ya'll to clarify where you stop ##### footing around and draw the line as to acceptable social behavior. I draw the line, thanks to Florida law, at my front door or if I believe my life is threatened and I must protect myself. The law used be somewhere along the line that I would have to wait until I was dead before I could protect myself. I like the new law better.

You're drawing a line on a different field though - the arguments pertaining to self-defence are not the same of those in the court room where Death is determined to be the appropriate sentence for a crime that has already been committed.

To clarify I'm not disputing that ultimate responsibility lies on the criminal for their actions (though again there are those would dispute that on the basis that Mad people ought to be treated differently from say - gang members or those who commit murder for a material motive) but that a court should (and does) treat people differently depending on the circumstances of the case and that this might open up other areas of responsibility.

In a similar spirit to Jerry Maguire you lost me at "tedious generalisation"