McNally statement on execution of Lee Hall

Senate Speaker Randy McNally’s comment on the execution of Lee Hall on Thursday evening:

After nearly three decades, the moment of justice has finally arrived for the family of Traci Crozier. She was set on fire and left for dead by an individual who proclaimed to love her. After 36 hours of unfathomable pain and suffering, she died. Today a sentence of death was carried out against the individual responsible. In the state of Tennessee, we reserve the ultimate and irrevocable penalty of death for crimes such as these. While there is little pleasure in it, there is no doubt justice was served tonight. I can only hope the family of the victim can now have some measure of peace.

Here’s what Gov. Bill Lee has to say in declining to intervene in the case.

The justice system has extensively reviewed Lee Hall’s case over the course of almost 30 years, including additional review and rulings by the Tennessee Supreme Court yesterday and today. The judgment and sentence stand based on these rulings, and I will not intervene in this case.

23 Responses to McNally statement on execution of Lee Hall

  • Stuart I. Anderson says:

    Justice delayed is justice denied. Twenty-eight years to execute a brutal murderer. American justice is an absurdly expensive, sclerotic joke that is a giant make work project for our overgrown law schools and the overabundance of lawyers they produce. Unfortunately the joke is on us!

    • MARLE says:

      WWJD? Swift death and probably by burning (eye for an eye/ equal in severity), right? Or was that the Other religion?

      • Stuart I. Anderson says:

        Justice MARLE, not retribution. Reasonable deliberation, rather than speed is what we are after. Execution is simply a corporate decision by society that after you commit act(s) of sufficient cruelty and/or harm you simply forfeit your right to exist among us. We want you gone, that’s all.

        • MARLE says:

          And that is found where in the New Testament?

          • Stuart I. Anderson says:

            This is not a theocracy so that is irrelevant. Despite that fact, since you have gone there, while I can’t answer your question, as a matter of history since the New Testament was written generations of Christians have executed individuals for crimes without dominant Christian churches feeling that this ran afoul of the New Testament. Over the years, however, we have narrowed the acts and circumstances that make one eligible for execution and we have made the executions more humane.

            Of course, MARLEE, if you are a biblical scholar who feels biblically driven and/or you just want to show how au courant you are you can join those who want to support some 25 -30 year old bloke who feels that he wants to settle a domestic disagreement with his ex-honey/wife by throwing a highly flammable liquid on her and lighting a match for the next 60 or so years. I’ll stick with the more traditional interpretation of the bible and I don’t want to brag, but I am the least au courant guy in any crowd in which I might find myself.

          • MARLE says:

            to the contrary I am Not one of those who wears religion on my sleeve. Not at all.

            I do know how often Biblical teachings are used in public policy issues Right Here in TN. So I was wondering what New Testament passage might be appropriate here …..For those who profess to lead lives informed by the Bible.

          • MARLE says:

            And just FYI, I would have no problem flipping the switch. I just wanted those who want to have the Bible passage be the benchmark for public policy offer an explanation. You do not qualify and neither do I as defenders of using the Bible as the final arbiter of policy. We are NOT a theocracy.

    • Phil Lassiter says:

      Stuart-whats this crap about Marsha sponsoring a bill to bring in an unlimited number of middle eastern refugees?

      http://dailyrollcall.com/

      • Stuart I. Anderson says:

        I haven’t looked into it but off the top of my head I would say that this has something to do with the fact that Tennessee already has one of the largest concentrations of Kurds in this state so she is particularly sensitive to their political agenda in this country. Unfortunately, as part of Trump’s commendable desire to get us out of the endless wars that the globalists from both parties have gotten us into, there is collateral damage in the form of our abandoning what were hitherto our allies to their fate which in this particular case means the Turks moving in against the Kurds. Of course, since there is already a portion of Iraq controlled by the Kurds that is highly autonomous the Kurds do have a place to go to get away from the Turks right next door so I vote “No” pending more information from Marsha as to why we have to bring them here.

        • James White says:

          There is NO Justification that can be made to bring either ISIS or the Kurd terrorists to the United Sates. One World’er Blackburn needs to back off.

          • Perry Aubric says:

            I totally agree. No terrorists, James. Your assumption that every single refugee is a terrorist is hateful nonsense. You are such a mean-spirited, hateful man.

          • Stuart I. Anderson says:

            Why do you like to conflate unrelated things? Marsha’s goal is to bring those who fought with the U. S. into this country. Not ISIS, not members of the small leftist Kurdish terrorist organization that commits acts of terrorism in Turkey. The latter want an expanded independent leftist Kurdistan, not immigration into the USA. Again, put me down as a “No” but it’s not because of my fear that is will lead to world government.

          • James White says:

            You might not want to trust Marsha when it comes to foreign policy, after all she us a member of the Transatlantic Partnership.
            And you may want to broaden you reading about what the EU and UN want all countries (especially United States) to do with Repatriation for ISIS and the Kurds. Google, Anthony Dworkin ECFR, and Kirsten Carlson in The Conversion, and The Intercept ‘alternet’ news site, and Reason magazine Shikha Dalmia.
            If they went to Syria to fight, then they weren’t fighting for the United States. Let them stay there.

          • Stuart I. Anderson says:

            James, are you now saying that because Marsha is a member of the Transatlantic Partnership, whatever that is, she has somehow signed onto the agenda of the EU and/or the UN regarding refugees? I am a member of the fast disintegrating Methodist Church that takes numerous far left mainline Protestant type stands on various social/political issues so do you think the positions of the Church necessarily reflects the beliefs of its members?

            Sorry James, I can’t say that I have spoken to Marsha about her legislation which I say again I don’t support, but I have never seen or heard Marsha say anything that would lead me to believe that she has the slightest interest in what the U.N. or the E.U. says about anything on this earth most especially as it affects U. S. immigration policy. I believe she wants to allow ALLIES of the U. S. to resettle in this country for their own safety, NOT those fighting against the U. S. Of course, if you are a citizen of the U. S. you may have a right to return to this country and face prosecution if you violated U. S. law by your activity abroad, that I don’t know.

          • James White says:

            We she does support Amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants. Will she support amnest for illegal Kurds if they come? They may be coming NOW !

  • Phil Lassiter says:

    Should have burned him 28 years ago

  • Beatrice Shaw says:

    This is terrible. I’m conflicted with the punishment. He did something truly horrible. I don’t believe in the government killing either. I just don’t know

    • Stuart I. Anderson says:

      Yes Beatrice you have a particularly intractable problem there. On the one hand you are a bleeding heart instinctively driven to side with the least desirable specimen in our society like felons of all kinds, probably including murderers, on the other hand you are a woman who understandably hates men who brutalize women. What to do? What to do? Sounds like a problem to be placed in the hands of a biblical scholar. Do you know MARLE?

    • Perry Aubric says:

      Stuart, that is a particularly mean spirited reply, compete with baseless assumptions (drawn to felons–come on, that’s over the top), to someone who has an understandable intellectual conflict about the death penalty. Some issues, despite the linear black-or-white thinking of right-wingers like yourself, are not so easily placed in a pro or con camp.

      I also an conflicted about the death penalty. There is no denying that this particular guy got what he deserved. I have no patience with people who sing sings and lock hands outside a prison on behalf of a brutal convicted murderer who is going to die.

      On the other hand, while I have no objection per se to the death penalty, there is also no denying that it is erratically applied, that folks with plenty of money will rarely if ever be executed, and there are enough examples of innocent people being exonerated (sometimes decades later) to justify hesitation about an irreversible penalty like execution.

      I don’t like the taxpayer expense of feeding and housing a convicted murderer. I also don’t like the taxpayer expense of these legal appeals, which I have seen reports of being even more expensive. So this is not an absolute black or white, right or wrong issue. There is room for people like Beatrice to say “I just don’t know.” And they should be harshly answered for it.

  • Donna Locke says:

    This was the right decision, Gov. Lee. Never doubt it. Some have forfeited their right to live in this world.

  • Phil Lassiter says:

    Why do we care what McNally says? I want to hear what Christian Bill Lee says

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *