A bill that would expand eligibility for the death penalty to people involved in a capital murder who do not actually commit the killing was narrowly defeated Wednesday by a Senate committee.
The GOP-controlled Senate Courts of Justice committee voted 7-7 along party lines, failing to report to the full Senate a redefinition of the so-called "triggerman rule."
Sen. William M. Stanley Jr., R-Franklin, abstained from voting, saying he had a conflict as a lawyer who defends capital cases and receives payment from the state.
Senate Bill 58, sponsored by Sen. Mark D. Obenshain, R-Harrisonburg, would have extended the eligibility for a death sentence in capital murder cases to people who are accessories and principals in the second degree.
As the law now stands, participants in the second degree can be deemed death-penalty eligible in cases of murder for hire, terrorism or organized crime. The proposed legislation would have extended that eligibility in all other capital murder cases if the person who did not commit the killing is determined to have the same intent to kill as the actual killer.
Obenshain introduced a similar bill the previous two years, when the committee was under Democratic control, only to see it fail. Previously, the bill passed in the General Assembly twice but was vetoed by then-Gov. Timothy M. Kaine, a Democrat.
Debate Wednesday was dominated by testimony from anti-death penalty groups and Democratic lawmakers who opposed the death penalty and its expansion. They argued that it does not act as a deterrent or satisfy those victimized by murder.
"This is not an area that helps families," said Sen. Janet D. Howell, D-Fairfax, whose father-in-law was killed during a burglary in his apartment 10 years ago.
Others said there is no reliable way to determine the intent to commit capital murder as an accessory.
"There is no DNA for intent, no photo for intent, no fingerprint for intent — it's an element which is intangible," said David Bruck of the Virginia Capital Case Clearinghouse at Washington and Lee University.
But Obenshain said the bill was a necessary tool for law enforcement — without which they are unable to seek the ultimate penalty for what he called "the worst of the worst."
"It's a reasonable measure addressing a real need," he said.
Email
Facebook
Google
Twitter
Favorites
More
Advertisement