News & Politics - Bush approves execution of Army private

**sunnykerr** · 07-29-2008, 06:01 AM

Bush approves execution of Army private - CNN.com

WASHINGTON -- President Bush has approved the Army's request to execute a soldier convicted of rape and murder, the White House announced Monday evening.

Pvt. Ronald Gray has been on the military's death row at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, since 1988. His execution would be the first for the U.S. military since 1961, but the White House said it expects further appeals before the sentence is carried out.

"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 spokeswoman Dana Perino said.

Gray was convicted of raping and killing a female Army private and a civilian near his post at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. He was also convicted of the rape and attempted murder of another fellow soldier in her barracks at Fort Bragg.

"The president's thoughts and prayers are with the victims of these heinous crimes and their families and all others affected," Perino said.

Both military and civilian courts found Gray responsible for the crimes committed between April 1986 and January 1987. Gray pleaded guilty to two murders and five rapes in a civilian court and was sentenced to three consecutive and five concurrent life terms.

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

Members of the U.S. military have been executed throughout history, but just 10 have been executed with presidential approval since 1951 under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the military's modern-day legal system.

Military courts have not yet set an execution date for Gray, who can still appeal through civilian federal courts. The Army also has sought Bush's authorization to execute another condemned soldier, Pvt. Dwight Loving, who was convicted of killing and robbing two cab drivers in 1988.

The last U.S. military execution was in 1961, when Army private John Bennett was hanged for raping and attempting to kill an 11-year-old Austrian girl. Bennett was sentenced in 1955. The U.S. military hasn't actively pursued an execution for a military prisoner since President John F. Kennedy commuted a death sentence in 1962.

Six men are currently on military death row.

Bush allowed 152 executions as governor of Texas and has signed off on three executions of federal inmates since he became president -- including that of Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh, who was put to death in 2001.

I don't think soldiers should be exempt from the law (obviously), but when I read this story, all I could think about is that this guy really has no qualms whatsoever about sending his troops to death.

What do you all think?

aerisVII · 07-29-2008, 07:25 AM

I think that bush lived in Texas so long that he has gotten used to the death sentance and really doesnt think twice about approving it anymore. The men who committed these crimes need to be punished, and just because you served in the U.S. military does not put you above the law.

***Jerry D*** · 07-29-2008, 09:50 AM

It sounds to me like this soldier us getting what he deserves, and I don't think anyone should be above the law because they're in the military.

**sunnykerr** · 07-29-2008, 06:09 PM

Well... I remain against the death penalty. But, that fact notwithstanding, there is no doubt that this man is guilty and he should face the full extent of the law, just like any other man in his "position."

I believe that what sparked my interest with this article is the whole relationship between Bush and the death penalty. His time as governor of Texas was one when the most inmates were executed. And then there's the case of Tim McVeigh... who no doubt deserved the full extent of the law and even petitioned the court for his own expedited execution.

But I've always wondered about the purpose of putting someone to death. That it is the maximum penalty for certain crimes in certain States notwithstanding... what does it accomplish?

Not to mention that, in McVeigh's case anyway, it shortcircuited any attempts at perhaps getting answers out of the man. In terms of accomplices anyway.

welshgirlyUK · 08-03-2008, 05:49 AM

I agree with you sunnykerr, whilst i believe this man needs to be punished and must not be exempt from whatever the usual punishment for this crime is, i cant quite get my head around the presidents willing and seemingly easy attitude towards sending a man to his death. Corporal punishment is cleary not a deterrant because hideous crimes continue to be committed and in large scale. I admit that when the media concentrates a significant portion of its broadcasting to hideous child abuse crimes the anger in me partly wants it, however, then my brain over runs my heart and i cant help but think of the ever lasting effects of this punishment and the amount of people who are found innocent afterwards. The punishment cant be rectified. But i guess this is a debate for another thread.

***Wildfire Girl*** · 08-03-2008, 07:56 AM

Quote:

But I've always wondered about the purpose of putting someone to death. That it is the maximum penalty for certain crimes in certain States notwithstanding... what does it accomplish?

to Sunny.

As a supporter of the death penalty, and living in/around states that use the death penalty I can say that it accomplishes a lot. I'm certainly not trivializing choosing to put someone to death, but in all honesty the worst case scenarios are people who cannot be rehabiliated, who have broken the most horrible laws, etc. And if we just sentenced them to life in prison, they still have LIFE ... they still life with full stomachs every day and excersize and sun and can communicate with other people and the outside world ... and they take up taxpayer monies and space in jail and have LIFE ... therefore I think it's okay to use the death penalty because it accomplishes the main purpose: justice for those families who were wronged.

**sunnykerr** · 08-03-2008, 01:28 PM

Well, first of all,

Kar is here.

Second of all, I totally get what you're saying... and I can see how someone could and would support the death penalty. I, too, believe there are cases where rehabilitation is just not gonna happen. And, in purely fiscal terms, it does prevent the burdening of taxpayer funds...

But I just can't reconcile myself to it. I'm not saying I'm right about this either. I just... I can't put my brain around it. Like welshgirlyUK said, it's no deterrent.

As for those who are beyond rehabilitation... Well, yeah, it's more expedient to get rid of them. And I'm sure it's abhorent to the families of their victims that they continue to live while their victims, presumably, do not.

Blame it on my belief in karma, but there's just too much symetry in putting a murderer to death for me to be able to stomach it, that's all.