Webb, Warner and Kaine on the Kevin Green Execution

By: Lowell
Published On: 5/28/2008 6:13:55 AM

Last night, Virginia executed Kevin Green for capital murder. Gov. Kaine's statement, in which he found "no compelling reason to set aside the sentence" (setting aside Green's attorneys' argument that he was mentally retarded, with an IQ under 70) is below, after the "flip." Honestly, I've always been a bit puzzled by Tim Kaine's position on this issue -- he believes that executions are deeply, morally wrong per the teachings of the Roman Catholic church, but he'll carry out executions as governor regardless. Hmmm.

Meanwhile, the Examiner reports on Jim Webb, who has spoken out strongly against racial and other inequities in our criminal justice system:

Virginia's first execution in almost two years highlights an awkward political stance for Sen. Jim Webb, whose near-total opposition to the death penalty runs counter not only to majority opinion in the state, but also to his image as a leading Southern moderate.

Webb, a Democrat, opposes capital punishment except in some "significantly severe cases," said spokeswoman Jessica Smith, who refused to elaborate on whether Tuesday's execution of convicted murderer Kevin Green fell within those exceptions.

Of course, Kevin Green's crime was "significantly severe" -- shooting to death a convenience store owner (Patricia L. Vaughan), and seriously wounding her husband (Lawrence T. Vaughan), during a robbery in 1998. What I wonder is whether the crime was "significantly severe" enough, in Webb's opinion, to warrant the death penalty, particularly given the retardation defense.

Meanwhile, the main spokesman for former Gov. Warner's US Senate campaign says that Warner "supports Virginia's existing death penalty statutes and in fact enforced them when he served as governor."

What do you think?  Do you believe that Kevin Green should have been executed by the Commonwealth of Virginia?  What do you think about capital punishment in general?

STATEMENT OF GOVERNOR KAINE

~ On the scheduled execution of Kevin Green ~

RICHMOND - Governor Timothy M. Kaine issued the following statement today on the scheduled execution of Kevin Green by the Commonwealth of Virginia.

"In June 2000, Kevin Green was found guilty by a jury and sentenced to death for the capital murder of Patricia L. Vaughan and the malicious wounding of Lawrence T. Vaughan in the commission of a robbery.  The Vaughans owned and operated a small grocery store in Brunswick County.  The Supreme Court of Virginia found error in the jury selection process and remanded the case for a new trial on the capital murder charge.  On November 1, 2001, Mr. Green was again convicted of capital murder.

"In a sentencing proceeding, the jury sentenced Green to death for the capital murder.  The trial court imposed the sentence on January 24, 2002.  The trial, verdict, and sentence have been reviewed in detail by various state and federal courts, including the Supreme Court of Virginia, a United States Magistrate, a United States District Court Judge, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The Supreme Court of the United States also has denied Green's petition for review.

"Having carefully reviewed the Petition for Clemency and judicial opinions regarding this case, I find no compelling reason to set aside the sentence that was recommended by the jury, and then imposed and affirmed by the courts.

"Accordingly, I decline to intervene."


Comments



Bob McDonnell on the execution (Lowell - 5/28/2008 6:17:18 AM)
Kevin Green was executed tonight by the Commonwealth of Virginia for the 1998 murder of Patricia Vaughan. Ms. Vaughan was shot and killed by Green in his armed robbery of the small convenience store she owned with her husband, Lawrence, in the Brunswick County community of Dolphin. During that robbery Green also shot Mr. Vaughan two times. He survived the shooting, but Mr. Vaughan will always live with the tragic memory of watching his wife die. The finding of guilt and sentence of death in this case have been reviewed and upheld by the Supreme Court of Virginia, a United States District Court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and the Supreme Court of the United States. Tonight, justice has been served. Our thoughts and prayers remain with Mr. Vaughan, their daughters, and all the family and friends of Patricia Vaughan.


was the claim of retardation ever (teacherken - 5/28/2008 6:53:28 AM)
1) offered during the trial as a defense
2) proven by independent examination

or was it something simply raised AFTER the Supreme Court ruled that someone mentally retarded beyond a certain point could not be executed?

Here's where I'd like to offer a point of reference.  Clarence Earl Gideon at his trial for buglarizing the pool room asked for a free lawyer on the grounds of indigency. Under the operable SCOTUS decision, Betts v Brady, since he was not facing capital charges, he was not entitled to one.  In fact, Florida had written its statute to be in conformity with Betts.   When SCOTUS ruled that his rights had been violated, they retroactively applied the standard to all state cases since Gideon had raised his claim.   This was an unanimous opinion, the only one of that term.

But when SCOTUS issued its opinion about mental retardation, as far as I know there was nothing retroactive about it.  

IANAL -  and FWIW I am opposed to the death penalty.

I have to quibble a bit with Lowell on his remarks about Kaine.  Kaine made clear during the campaign that despite his personal (religiously-based) opposition to capital punishment he would uphold Virginia's laws on executions.  Given that SCOTUS did not see fit to intervene in this case, I'm not sure he had a choice.



Well, it's confusing to me. (Lowell - 5/28/2008 7:18:32 AM)
If you believe something is deeply, morally wrong, shouldn't you be doing everything possible in your power to change it (while upholding the law until/unless you succeed).


Gov. Kaine (spotter - 5/28/2008 8:04:30 AM)
could have commuted the sentence.


Correct. (Lowell - 5/28/2008 8:13:48 AM)
That is totally within the law and his powers as governor, if he had chosen to do so.  


but it would violate promise he made to the voters (teacherken - 5/28/2008 5:02:34 PM)
that despite his personal opposition to the death penalty he would uphold and enforce the laws of Virginia, including duly reached capital sentences


Lowell (kestrel9000 - 5/28/2008 7:03:44 AM)
I am opposed, strongly and deeply, to capital punishment in all circumstances. Not owing to the teachings of any church or religion, but simply because I believe it to be wrong.
I realize that you, like many of us, are deeply angry with Kaine owing to his endorsement of Gerry Connolly over Leslie Byrne. I'm not happy with it, either.
But this:

Honestly, I've always been a bit puzzled by Tim Kaine's position on this issue -- he believes that executions are deeply, morally wrong per the teachings of the Roman Catholic church, but he'll carry out executions as governor regardless. Hmmm.

is disingenuous, and wrongheaded. Regardless of his personal values, it is Kaine's duty as Governor to carry out the laws of the Commonwealth.



Or work to change them... (Lowell - 5/28/2008 7:16:47 AM)
if he feels so strongly.


I think they are 2 different things (Pain - 5/28/2008 8:24:59 AM)
He made a promise to uphold the laws of the commonwealth and carry out capital punishment.  If he then tries to overturn the law while in office then, IMO, he's broken his promise to the voters.  Not the first time a politician would do that, I know, but still.

I'm not opposed to captital punishment, but I'm more and more convinced that it shouldn't be carried out on old cases without dna evidence, and I think any one on death row now should be given a life sentence if dna evidence wasn't used in their conviction.  



I fail to see how (Lowell - 5/28/2008 8:27:48 AM)
carrying out the existing law while attempting to change through the legislative process is breaking a promise to uphold the existing law (which the governor would be doing unless he succeeded in getting the law changed).  There's also the power to commute sentences, per the governor's determination. That's also not breaking any promise since it's well within the powers of the governor under Virginia law.


Should he do the same thing with abortion? (Silence Dogood - 5/28/2008 10:57:19 AM)


Interesting question. (Lowell - 5/28/2008 5:04:17 PM)
There's a part of me feels like the governor should push for what he thinks is morally right.  There's another part of me that believes the governor should not push his beliefs on everyone else.  Regardless, he should uphold the laws of the state and the country as interpreted by the courts, even as he tries to change public opinion, pass legislation or whatever.


Tru dat. (kestrel9000 - 5/28/2008 11:37:10 AM)


Good for him (Alter of Freedom - 5/29/2008 1:28:04 AM)
He at least proves that ones religion should not supercede the will of the people or the duties of the Office. His personal beliefs should not usurp the laws or the Courts in the matter.

Yet another reason why Kaine continues ti impress.



can't believe It (tvhost - 5/28/2008 8:22:26 AM)
I can't believe Kaine Let him be executed.. 1st one in over 2 years.

Everyone pleads they were mentally ill. Until you have been with someone who is mentally ill you don't know.

When he walked into that store and killed that woman and shot her husband he knew what he was doing.

I don't like death but he deserved to be punished.

Picture this. A man kills a cop. Leaves the scene. Goes home like nothing ever happened. Tells his family he has been out riding around. Takes a shower. Has Dinner with his family. Tries to hide the clothes he had on but can't. 3 hours later the police show up to arrest him for murder. He acts like nothing has  happened. That is low. Family finds the clothes, cops find the gun. and he says he didn't do it... Yeah right... Even at his trial he claimed he didn't do it, he was not in the officers car. but we all know that, because he was about to be written up. But he is sentenced to death but judge overturns verdict to life in prison. This guy is one of the lucky ones...Still alive by the skin of his teeth



I wouldn't have given him the death sentence (Jack Landers - 5/28/2008 10:11:12 AM)
I happen to believe that the death sentence should only be pronounced in the most extreme cases of sadism or profound disregard for human life in the course of a premeditated murder. I do not think that shooting a clerk during a botched robbery rises to that standard.

It is not difficult to imagine a stupid, irresponsible person making the decision to rob a store using the threat of a firearm, yet not having a real desire or intent to kill the clerk. And then something goes wrong, the clerk fights back and the idiot robber finds himself pulling the trigger.

Not that I am defending such a person. That is murder and a murderer belongs in prison. But I draw a major distinction between that and, say, the people who held a family in Richmond at gunpoint in their own basement a few years ago, torturing them for hours before executing them. The culprits in that case should be executed and I can't say that I much care how much pain and suffering is involved in their deaths.

Life in prison is a reasonably harsh sentence for your run of the mill murderer. The death penalty should not be handed out as lightly as it typically is.



I support the death penalty (jiacinto - 5/28/2008 10:23:29 AM)
but I think that it should be reserved for the worst of the worst. That is, I would be inclined to use the death penalty for:

*Killers who murder police officers, firemen, first responders, prosecutors, or government employees;

*Killers who murder more than one person, serial killers, people like Jefferey Dahmer;

*Killers who murder children.

I wouldn't be inclined to use the death penalty in a case where two people get into a fight and one kills the other person or where premeditation doesn't exist.  



Premeditation (SullyEsq - 5/28/2008 11:17:00 AM)
jiacinto:

"I wouldn't be inclined to use the death penalty in a case where two people get into a fight and one kills the other person or where premeditation doesn't exist."

In Virginia, in the case you described, there is no premeditation, so it is not first degree murder, so it is not capital murder, so the death penalty is not at issue.

The situations above (except murder of children) fall under the definition of capital murder in Virginia.  In addition, murder committed in commission of a rape, a robbery, a terrorist act, and a few others.  I think there are 12 altogether.  Once you get to capital murder, you still have to establish that either the defendant is the worst of the worst or that the crime was the worst of the worst to actually get a death sentence.

It's a difficult area of the law.  I once prosecuted (as 2nd seat) a capital murder case (murder in commission of a robbery), but we only got a conviction for first degree murder.  I'm opposed to the death penalty, but I took the case anyway.  



I used to adhere to that kind of criteria (Will Write For Food - 5/28/2008 1:56:44 PM)
I used to support capital punishment for terrorists and serial killers but couldn't separate a terrorist from other killers (anyone who kills with premeditation is terrorizing society) and with serial killers I thought well, is someone who kills a minister less or more worse than some mob or gang hit man who kills five rivals?

Now I don't support capital punishment at all. I believe it's unnecessary, barbaric, unequal, irreversible and fosters a culture of violence. I hate the "well it costs more to house an inmate for life" argument because not only does it not because of a lengthy appeals process, but it's vindictive and amoral to say "let's just kill him because it's cheaper."  



Call me a radical (Alter of Freedom - 5/29/2008 1:31:44 AM)
But I think if someone is convicted of rape gets out and rapes again he should get the death penalty.

If someone molests a child, gets out and does it again, they to should be put to death.

Exactly why is it we should feel overly compelled to have our tax dollars go to housing these horrible two time offenders for life sentances?



FWIW (Silence Dogood - 5/28/2008 10:35:48 AM)
Since you asked,

1. I'm opposed to the death penalty in the vast majority of cases.  I start getting into a gray area with it when the homicide is committed to destroy evidence or prevent testimony about another crime--for instance, if someone kills a woman after raping her so she can't identify him.  My heart goes out to Mr. Green's victims, but I agree with Jackson that a botched snatch and grab isn't a serious crime.

2. Gov. Kaine's Roman Catholic teachings tell him that abortion is a serious sin but he isn't out pushing all sorts of laws to criminalize it because Roe v. Wade made that the law of the land.  Unlike some legislators such as Ken Cuccinelli, who is more than comfortable legislating his religious beliefs onto other people.  I mention it because I think we should remember that there are pros and cons behind Gov. Kaine deciding not to use his elected office to enforce his personal religious values.  I would also like to suggest that we should all be wary of entertaining the opinion that theocratic governance is bad except when we happen to agree with what it's preaching.



Good points. (Lowell - 5/28/2008 5:04:47 PM)
n/t


I used to support capital punishment, (thegools - 5/28/2008 3:08:47 PM)
but don't anymore.  Killing of human life runs counter to humanity and the sanctity of life.  

I guess something in the "thou shalt not kill," and something in the guaruntee of "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" don't seem to jibe well with execution.

I don't spank my kids, because I don't want them to learn that hitting is an acceptable action.  Thus, killing people to teach others that killing is wrong seems somehow deeply flawed.  Killing is wrong. Stop.  



If I am a defense attorney on a death penalty case (relawson - 5/29/2008 11:50:42 AM)
The first thing I would do is give my client a coloring book and crayons and tell him not to come up with any brilliant ideas.  Retardation is frequently a defense and I frankly don't take it seriously UNLESS there was a diagnosis prior to the crime or a convincing pattern of behavior.

That issue aside, I don't think that this case should qualify for the death penalty.  It has nothing to do with the retardation argument, rather the severity of the crime.

What he did was classic murder with a classic motive.

I think the guy who dumped his young children over the bridge to their deaths should qualify for the death penalty.  Save it for the worst of the worst.

Another factor to consider is evidence.  I believe the burden of proof should be even higher on a death penalty case because there is no reversing it.