Bush Approves Execution

Good. 

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.

[...]

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.

This thug needs to see the inside of a coffin.  It’s a shame it’s taken so long.  Let’s hope that it doesn’t take much longer. 

1. This thug needs to see the inside of a coffin.

   Why?  This is an honest question from someone who is not morally opposed to the death penalty, but opposed on practical grounds.  Since there is no cost savings, how is society better served by him being executed than life in prison?

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2008 at 2238 hrs




2. Society’s got nothing to do with it at this point.  This thug deserves to be punished.

   Posted by Jed on July 29, 2008 at 0105 hrs




3. If society has nothing to do with it, in whose name is he being punished?

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 29, 2008 at 0720 hrs




4. The death penalty was meant to protect society from the most evil criminals at a time when prisons were inadequate for long-term confinement.  Now that we (as a society) can safely lock up people for decades, there is no good reason for the death penalty. 

   This person should be removed from society: locked up forever, not killed.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 29, 2008 at 0800 hrs




5. Bush Approves Execution

   In other news: Water Is Wet, Sky Is Blue

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 29, 2008 at 0802 hrs




6. This is about detering future behavior - as well as punishment. I think the death penalty should be applied sparingly - but this is a textbook case for it.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 29, 2008 at 0845 hrs




7. The women he raped and killed were “permanently removed from society”—fuck ‘em, let’s feed and coddle their murderer so we can all feel self-righteous about how much we care.

   Posted by HeatherRadish on July 29, 2008 at 0851 hrs




8. in whose name is he being punished?

   Oh, I don’t know… how about:

   Pvt. Laura Lee Vickery-Clay
   Kimberly Ann Ruggles
   Pvt. Mary Ann Lang Nameth

   Posted by Jed on July 29, 2008 at 0918 hrs




9. The women he raped and killed were “permanently removed from society”—fuck ‘em, let’s feed and coddle their murderer so we can all feel self-righteous about how much we care.

   Well put!

   Posted by Fuzz on July 29, 2008 at 0920 hrs




10. Well, if we are going to allow vigilantism Jed, then I have a few scores I’d like to settle.  Otherwise, it’s being done in society’s name and comment 1 remains unanswered.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 29, 2008 at 0924 hrs




11. Since there is no cost savings

    ,  Since he will be dead, hopefully sooner than later, then there will be no more costs associated with this thug.
    The death penalty is for punishment and deterrent.  We can argue whether it is a deterrant, but there is no doubt it is an approriate punishment for this piece of human debris.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 29, 2008 at 0928 hrs




12. Public hangings would be a cost-efficient form of both punishment and deterrence. Unfortunately, that would hurt the murderer’s feelings too much. Can’t do that.

    Posted by Fuzz on July 29, 2008 at 0945 hrs




13. there will be no more costs associated with this thug.

    Keeping a prisoner in a hole for the rest of their life is usually cheaper than going through the process of execution.

    http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108

    I used to feel that executions were appropriate in situations like the one above, but now I feel expending any more energy than necessary on people like this thuggity thugger is more about exacting revenge than it is about deterrance or punishment.

    Huge sums of money could be saved by state governments each year if they got out of the execution business.  That money would be better spent focused on crime prevention rather than punishment.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 29, 2008 at 0957 hrs




14. 3rd Way summed up my position on the issue.  Removing from the debate the potential mistakes in convictions, let’s just look at this as rationally as we can.

    If someone harms a family member or even a friend in the way this a-hole did, and I’ve got the opportunity in the heat of the moment I won’t deny I would probably exact punishment or revenge and exact my own death penalty.  But I don’t think punishment or revenge is what the criminal justice system should be about.

    To me the first job is to remove dangerous persons from society.  The second job is to rehabilitate those who will be returned to society to avoid repeat offending as much as possible.

    The first job should be done as cost effectively as possible, while maintaining the greatest protection for society.  Study after study shows it costs more to kill someone than incarcerate them.  So while I won’t lose any sleep over the rapist, molester or murderer being executed, I’m not keen on letting them drain the public coffers in the process.

    Now the second job would certaining be best done by executing these types of people.  However, given our current abilities to incarcerate people these days, the difference between death penalty and life in prison is not that great.

    So I don’t really see the strong public policy argument for the death penalty, especially when one considers the potential for errors.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 29, 2008 at 1024 hrs




15. Bullet: $0.26
    Gun Rental: $8
    Burial:—charge back to prisoner’s family

    vs.

    Food
    Heat
    Electricity
    Guards
    Water
    Shelter
    etc.

    Posted by Fuzz on July 29, 2008 at 1024 hrs




16. If only those pesky constitutional rights could be eliminated it would be that simple right Fuzz?

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 29, 2008 at 1034 hrs




17. If there is DNA evidence that convicts the criminal of a capital crime and survives appeal, he should be punished as cheaply and visibly as possible. Keeping him in a cell on taxpayers dollars and allowing him to take up space in an already crowded system is a waste of food, heat, electricity, guards, water, shetler, etc. Sticking a needle in his arm in a back room somewhere doesn’t do a damn thing to deter crime, though.

    Posted by Fuzz on July 29, 2008 at 1053 hrs




18. I would far rather be put to death than spend the rest of my life confined to a cell.  Death is going too easy on this chump.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 29, 2008 at 1131 hrs




19. Hey Owen, do ya think the same justice will be meted out to the Blackwater employees who shot up those dozen or so Iraqis?

    The thing about my government purveying executions is that it makes us as mean as the person committing the murder. Smart societies recognize that.

    Funny how anger victimizes both parties.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 29, 2008 at 1133 hrs




20. Fuzz:

    Do you mean the same constitutional rights those women had?

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 29, 2008 at 1339 hrs




21. Fuzz:

    Do you mean the same constitutional rights those women had?

    I believe your statement was supposed to be directed at Lefty:

    If only those pesky constitutional rights could be eliminated it would be that simple right Fuzz?

    Posted by Fuzz on July 29, 2008 at 1355 hrs




22. Yep. Brain fart.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 29, 2008 at 1419 hrs




23. Huge sums of money could be saved by state governments each year if they got out of the execution business.  That money would be better spent focused on crime prevention rather than punishment.

    Crime Prevention?

    Like what?

    Midnight Basketball?

    Bookmobiles?

    or perhaps gems like these:

      * When leaving home, make sure that all doors and windows are locked - including the garage door.
      * Watch for loiterers and do not carry large sums of money.
      * If possible, travel with another person. This is especially true after dark.
      * When carrying a purse, women should have only 3 or 4 one dollar bills placed inside. Credit cards, currency, driver’s license, keys and jewelry should be carried in a coat or sweater pocket or concealed on your person to reduce the opportunity of large losses. If you do carry a purse, don’t wrap the strap around your shoulder, neck or wrist. If your purse is grabbed, a strong strap will not yield easily and you may be injured. Some purse snatch victims have been thrown off balance & received concussions, broken hips, arms or legs.
      * Don’t carry anything more valuable than you can afford to lose.
      * Always leave all unnecessary credit cards at home.
      * When you shop and carry a purse, put it in your shopping bag.
      * At night, travel only well-lighted and well-traveled streets.
      * Never hitchhike or accept rides from strangers.
      * Walk on the side of the street nearest to oncoming traffic. If accosted by someone in a car, run in the direction opposite the way the car is headed.
      * Beware of people who approach asking directions; keep a polite but safe distance.
      * A good suggestions for men is to carry a second wallet containing a few $1.00 bills and old expired credit cards, which are normally destroyed or discarded. If confronted at knife or gunpoint, give the suspect the second wallet and concentrate on a good physical description to help the police in making the arrest.
      * Upon returning home, particularly after dark, do not linger at the entrance of your residence. Make a quick check for mail or newspapers, and enter immediately. If you feel something is strange, don’t enter but go elsewhere and call for police assistance.
      * If you feel someone is following you, go to the nearest occupied residence or building, and ask for assistance.
      * If you are confronted with a dangerous situation, cry out for assistance. Yelling “FIRE! FIRE!” instead of “Help!” will generally bring faster attention.

    These are all common sense type things that I have known since I was what 8?

    I say screw prevention, some people I believe are just predestined to end up in prison—I thankfully am not one of those people—And for the most serious crimes, Kiddie rape, and murder. the death penalty needs to be on the table.

    In my view the Death Penalty is (gasp!) Punishment. Thats it. Plain and Simple. Anyone who sees it as a deterrent is nieve.

    Posted by Michael J. Cheaney on July 29, 2008 at 1422 hrs




24. Do you mean the same constitutional rights those women had?

    What does that even mean?  We should abandon the enforcement of our laws, rules of governance and individual rights as a society as a whole everytime and individual violates them?

    Do you really dislike due process?

    The consequences of a free society with laws is that even the worst among us are guaranteed their protection.  Those laws and liberties is what protects us all, and they can’t be cast aside arbitrarily.

    Like it or not it is a greater drain on taxpayer resources to execute someone than it is to sentence them to life in prison.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 29, 2008 at 1436 hrs




25. I would qualify things like more police officers on foot patrol or stiffer sentencing for career criminals as crime prevention not suggestions for men to carry a second wallet containing a few $1.00 bills and old expired credit cards, which are normally destroyed or discarded. If confronted at knife or gunpoint, give the suspect the second wallet and concentrate on a good physical description to help the police in making the arrest.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 29, 2008 at 1443 hrs




26. I was being rhetorical 3rd way!

    But you do have to admit some of the suggestions are comical!

    However the one thing that I don’t see Anyone (Republican or Democrat) advocating is building MORE prisons.

    Whats up with that?

    Posted by Michael J. Cheaney on July 29, 2008 at 1447 hrs




27. Like it or not it is a greater drain on taxpayer resources to execute someone than it is to sentence them to life in prison.

    While true, it doesn’t have to be this way.  The primary expense of executing someone is the legal process, which drags on for years.  I would support policies that would put death penalty cases at the top of the list and accelerate the appeals case.  In most cases, there is no reason at all that the entire trial appeals process couldn’t be done within three years.  This would dramatically bring down the cost of executions by not having to pay legal fees for both sides for 20 years.

    Posted by Owen on July 29, 2008 at 1448 hrs




28. While true, it doesn’t have to be this way.  The primary expense of executing someone is the legal process, which drags on for years.  I would support policies that would put death penalty cases at the top of the list and accelerate the appeals case.  In most cases, there is no reason at all that the entire trial appeals process couldn’t be done within three years.  This would dramatically bring down the cost of executions by not having to pay legal fees for both sides for 20 years.

    So you would artificially limit due process for the sake of convienience and expense?  Don’t get me wrong, I know how far fetched these filings and appeals get, and I understand it is an abuse of the system.  But you are advocating changes to the system that would limit the ability of an innocent person or person guilty of a lesser crime to seek a remedy to expedite the majority of the cases that are more clear cut.

    On a practical sense you may have an argument.  You lose me on the public policy and morality side of the discussion.

    Basically once punishment and/or revenge are removed, you are down to two issues.  Cost and effectiveness as a deterent.  There isn’t a ton of evidence supporting the latter.  And you can only win on the former by making far reaching policy changes that pose a significant threat to the liberty of the innocent.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 29, 2008 at 1502 hrs




29. Lefty-

    All arguements aside, why are you standing-up for these scumbags?

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 29, 2008 at 1526 hrs




30. I won’t answer for Lefty, but I oppose his execution on moral grounds.    The state should not have the right to deprive one of life when other means of preventing that person from taking the rights of others exist.  Executing him will not bring back the dead, and I don’t think we want the state to be in the revenge business.    One can certainly argue the death penalty is a deterrent.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 29, 2008 at 1535 hrs




31. “However the one thing that I don’t see Anyone (Republican or Democrat) advocating is building MORE prisons.”

    I’m definitely for building more prisons. Especially in those areas that are letting people go for serving 1% of their sentence because of “overcrowding.” (Orange County California leaps to mind)

    You can’t commit very many crimes when you are locked up.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 29, 2008 at 1543 hrs




32. Shouldn’t he be killed since his quality of life in prison would be unsatisfactory, similar to unborn children with down syndrome or people in Oregon with cancer? :p

    Posted by Matt on July 30, 2008 at 1037 hrs




33. We have been building more prisons, and it has been sucking money out of our state budget big time.

    What we need to be looking at is other ways to deal with crime than prison.

    Minnesota and other parts of the country are doing it. For a crowd that bellows over government spending money on anything, you gleefully throw it out the window here.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 30, 2008 at 1230 hrs