Bush Approves Execution Of Army Private

[rachael]

[url="http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/07/28/military.execution/index.html"]http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/07/28/milita...tion/index.html[/url]


[quote]WASHINGTON (CNN) -- 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.[/quote]

[Galloglasses]

Considering the crimes this man committed, the office, station and authority he is in, and the power he held as a soldier, what would be Bush's level of authority in matters such as this execution?

I at first thought Bush had lost it, but if this soldier did indeed commit Rape and Murder, well, this complicates matters.

[IcePrincessKRS]

I [i]think[/i] in this case, since its a military death row, as commander in chief Bush is the only one who can repeal or approve the sentence. I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure thats how it works. Military stuff usually works within the chain of command, and Bush is at the top. Frankly I think the guy is getting his just punishment.

[KnightofChrist]

Here's a story from the Politico which gives more information on this case and the power of the office of the Presidency for the death penalty of military service men.

[quote][b][url="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/12129.html"]Bush approves soldier's execution[/url][/b]
By MIKE ALLEN

[img]http://images.politico.com/global/080729_gray_allen.jpg[/img]

This April 1988 picture shows Ronald A. Gray in handcuffs and chains, escorted by military police leaving a Fort Bragg, N.C. courtroom. President Bush on Monday, July 28, 2008 approved the execution of the 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. (AP Photo/The Fayetteville Observer, Marcus Castro)
Photo: AP

Citing "brutal crimes," President Bush on Monday authorized the execution of an Army private convicted of a spree of rapes and murders in North Carolina in the 1980s.

It was the first time a commander in chief has affirmed a military death sentence since 1957, half a century ago.

The solider, Ronald A. Gray, committed the crimes in the Fayetteville area while stationed at Fort Bragg.
Gray has been on the military's death row at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., for 20 years.

White House Press Secretary Dana Perino said in a statement on Monday evening:

"President Bush this morning accepted the recommendation of the Secretary of the Army to approve a sentence of death for Army Private Ronald A. Gray, affirming the sentence that resulted from a general court martial for multiple charges of murder and rape committed while serving as a member of the Armed Services. 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. 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. Because additional legal challenges are expected in this case, we will decline to comment further. The President’s thoughts and prayers are with the victims of these heinous crimes and their families and all others affected."
See Also

[indent] * McCain takes aim at Obama's character
* Kaine 'very, very high on VP shortlist
* How to roll out a running mate
[/indent]

Here's a White House backgrounder on the issue:

[b]The military death penalty[/b]

[indent]• In the military justice system, a member of the Armed Forces cannot be executed until the President “approves” the death sentence. Thus, unlike the civilian context, where the President may be asked to exercise his clemency authority to stop an execution, in the military system, the President effectively orders the execution. This is an important distinction.

• This is very rare. The last President to act on a military death sentence was John F. Kennedy in 1962, when he commuted a death sentence to confinement for life. President Dwight D. Eisenhower approved the last military execution in 1957; it was carried out in 1961.

• In accordance with the UCMJ, the Secretary of the Army submitted a formal recommendation to the President recommending he approve the sentence.[/indent]

[b]Facts of this case[/b]

[indent]Army Private Ronald A. Gray engaged in a spree of four murders and eight rapes in the Fayetteville, North Carolina, area between April 1986 and January 1987.

• Gray pleaded guilty to two murders and five rapes (in addition to other offenses) in North Carolina State court; he was sentenced to three consecutive, and five concurrent, life terms.

• Gray was then tried by general court-martial at Fort Bragg (82d Airborne Division) for separate offenses involving three women, two of whom served in the U.S. Army, one of whom was a civilian. ...

• In April 1988, the court-martial convicted Gray of premeditated murder (two specifications) and unanimously sentenced him to death. Since then, his sentence has been approved by his command, the Army Court of Military Review, and the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. The Supreme Court has denied certiorari.

• In accordance with the UCMJ, the Secretary of the Army recommended the President approve the sentence.

• Although not required by statute, the President asked the Attorney General to confirm that the President had full legal authority to approve, commute, or remit the death sentence.[/quote][/indent]

Edited July 29, 2008 by KnightofChrist

[StColette]

[quote name='IcePrincessKRS' post='1611729' date='Jul 29 2008, 03:34 PM']I [i]think[/i] in this case, since its a military death row, as commander in chief Bush is the only one who can repeal or approve the sentence. I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure thats how it works. Military stuff usually works within the chain of command, and Bush is at the top.[/quote]

You're correct in this Icey. When it comes to the sentencing of a military official on this level it is handed over to the commander in chief.

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='IcePrincessKRS' post='1611729' date='Jul 29 2008, 03:34 PM']I [i]think[/i] in this case, since its a military death row, as commander in chief Bush is the only one who can repeal or approve the sentence. I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure thats how it works. Military stuff usually works within the chain of command, and Bush is at the top. Frankly I think the guy is getting his just punishment.[/quote]

CCC

2266

Preserving the common good of a society requires rendering the aggressor unable to inflict harm. For this reason the traditional teaching of the Church has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime, not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty. For analogous reasons those holding authority have the right to repel by armed force aggressors against the community in their charge.

The primary effect of punishment is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. When his punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation. Moreover, punishment has the effect of preserving public order and the safety of persons. Finally punishment has a medicinal value; as far as possible it should contribute to the CORRECTION (emphasis mine) of the offender.

2267 If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.



Given the bit about correction, and paragraph 2267, capital punishment in the USA is generally a grave injustice, and in this case is certainly such. I would consider the position that this is a moral act untenable. It's not like he has a network of gang members pledging loyalty to him, he doesn't hold a whole lot of power outside of the prison. Whether he deserves death or not is not our decision. It is the president's job to protect members of the armed services, and the decision to allow this execution in no way protects the common good. They could lock him up forever with no chance of parole, if they wanted, but really I think it'd be better to offer him parole for good behavior. The justice system should focus more on rehabilitation and repentance than on strict punishment.

[IcePrincessKRS]

The CCC says "should limit" not "must limit". The Church has always allowed for use of the death penalty. It might not be the preferred option in all cases, but it is allowed. The punishment IS just. Mercy may be "better", but you cannot argue that this is unjust. Biblically when you take a life you forfeit your own. This man forfeited his own life at least 3 times.

[dominicansoul]

This man hasn't murdered since 1988. It would be different had he been given parole multiple times and killed and killed again. He's been locked up where he should be and should stay there. Execution in this regard is unnecessary. Just keep him locked up. Bush can certainly make that choice, can't he? Lock him up and never let him out again. I believe this can be worse than death itself...

[CatherineM]

Another topic to go around and around with. The CCC allows for capital punishment in certain situations. Reasonable people can disagree as to whether this case, or any case of capital punishment in the US, meets the CCC guidelines. I would hope that eventhough the CCC allows for capital punishment, that we could all recognize that being opposed to the death penalty is also allowed for Catholics since John Paul II was opposed to capital punishment.

Bottom line is that the authority and responsibility of this final decision lay in the President's hands, and he has exercised that authority as his conscience has allowed. All we can do is pray for this condemned man's soul, and for his victims, their families, and for his family as well.

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='IcePrincessKRS' post='1611808' date='Jul 29 2008, 04:36 PM']The CCC says "should limit" not "must limit". The Church has always allowed for use of the death penalty. It might not be the preferred option in all cases, but it is allowed. The punishment IS just. Mercy may be "better", but you cannot argue that this is unjust. Biblically when you take a life you forfeit your own. This man forfeited his own life at least 3 times.[/quote]

So just because it says "should" it's ok to do what we "should not"? It is not allowed when bloodless means are available. The united states prisons are usually enough to keep even psychopathic murderers contained, but the article says nothing of him being psychopathic, so the justice system should have no problem keeping him behind bars.

I don't understand why you would kill him when there is obviously another choice available. I am very very sorry to say (no sarcasm, I really am sorry), but that is not a pro-life position. Capital punishment IS a life issue. It should be a last resort for the protection of life. Killing this guy cannot bring his victims back.

Yes, the Church allows for use of the death penalty when [i]necessary[/i]. In this case it is not necessary, it is just to make the victims and their families feel like some kind of revenge has been taken. Capital punishment should not be for vengence (because that's what it is in most cases, including this one).

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='dominicansoul' post='1611822' date='Jul 29 2008, 03:43 PM']This man hasn't murdered since 1988. It would be different had he been given parole multiple times and killed and killed again. He's been locked up where he should be and should stay there. Execution in this regard is unnecessary. Just keep him locked up. Bush can certainly make that choice, can't he? Lock him up and never let him out again. I believe this can be worse than death itself...[/quote]
Agreed on all accounts.

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='dominicansoul' post='1611822' date='Jul 29 2008, 04:43 PM']This man hasn't murdered since 1988. It would be different had he been given parole multiple times and killed and killed again. He's been locked up where he should be and should stay there. Execution in this regard is unnecessary. Just keep him locked up. Bush can certainly make that choice, can't he? Lock him up and never let him out again. I believe this can be worse than death itself...[/quote]

Iawtp.

[IcePrincessKRS]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1611826' date='Jul 29 2008, 05:45 PM']Another topic to go around and around with. The CCC allows for capital punishment in certain situations. Reasonable people can disagree as to whether this case, or any case of capital punishment in the US, meets the CCC guidelines. I would hope that eventhough the CCC allows for capital punishment, that we could all recognize that being opposed to the death penalty is also allowed for Catholics since John Paul II was opposed to capital punishment.

Bottom line is that the authority and responsibility of this final decision lay in the President's hands, and he has exercised that authority as his conscience has allowed. All we can do is pray for this condemned man's soul, and for his victims, their families, and for his family as well.[/quote]

I agree with that.

[IcePrincessKRS]

[quote name='aalpha1989' post='1611840' date='Jul 29 2008, 05:52 PM']So just because it says "should" it's ok to do what we "should not"? It is not allowed when bloodless means are available. The united states prisons are usually enough to keep even psychopathic murderers contained, but the article says nothing of him being psychopathic, so the justice system should have no problem keeping him behind bars.

I don't understand why you would kill him when there is obviously another choice available. I am very very sorry to say (no sarcasm, I really am sorry), but that is not a pro-life position. Capital punishment IS a life issue. It should be a last resort for the protection of life. Killing this guy cannot bring his victims back.

Yes, the Church allows for use of the death penalty when [i]necessary[/i]. In this case it is not necessary, it is just to make the victims and their families feel like some kind of revenge has been taken. Capital punishment should not be for vengence (because that's what it is in most cases, including this one).[/quote]

Well we're just going to have to agree to disagree, because you aren't convincing me.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1611826' date='Jul 29 2008, 02:45 PM']I would hope that eventhough the CCC allows for capital punishment, that we could all recognize that being opposed to the death penalty is also allowed for Catholics since John Paul II was opposed to capital punishment.[/quote]
I would nuance this by saying that a Catholic can oppose the application of the death penalty in particular cases, but that it is not possible for a Catholic to oppose the death penalty [i]per se[/i], because the use of the death penalty by the proper civil authorities in capital cases is part of the natural moral law and divine revelation.

Edited July 29, 2008 by Apotheoun