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.

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.

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.

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.  

Yet another reason why Kaine continues ti impress.

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

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.

*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.  

"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.  

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."  

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?

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.

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.  

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.