Triggerman Rule Eliminated?
Posted by Chap at 2/7/2008 10:36 AM and is filed under uncategorized 
This week the votes have been coming fast and furious on the Senate floor.
We passed SB 38 (redistricting reform) and SB 69 ("no excuses" absentee voting), which are two issues that I covered in earlier posts.
Not every bill passed has been a Democratic initiative.
Tuesday we passed SB 560 sponsored by Senator Obenshain (R-Harrisonburg) which eliminates Virginia's "triggerman rule". The rule states that when multiple people participate in a muder only the actual killer is eligible for the death penalty.
There are current exceptions to the rule, including the "terrorism" statute passed in 2002 (which was used to sentence John Muhammed to death). However, SB 560 essentially does away with the whole framework by permitting a principal in the second degree or accessory after the fact to go to death if they intended their actions to permit the killing.
I voted "no." The bill passed 24-14.
Let me say up front that I support giving the death penalty option to juries in extraordinary situations, e.g. crimes involving multiple murders. However, there has to be some limit on its use.
People that assist in a premeditated murder are not good people. But remember that they are already facing a murder charge and prison sentence. Making them death-eligible will increase the state's legal costs and dilute the moral significance of the "ultimate sanction."
Governor Kaine has promised before to veto this legal change. Look for that to happen again.
Chap,
If I pay someone to kill someone else and they do it, am I eligible for the death penalty? Seems like I should be, since it was by my action that the person actually came to be killed. If that is so, then certainly if I was a participant in the murder (held the victim, locked the doors so the victim couldn't escape, etc) that I should be held just as culpable as the person who committed the act. I can see one exception to that if I was coerced into doing it through extortion, threats of bodily harm or death, etc.
The argument that we have higher legal costs to execute someone is a pretty poor excuse. That just means maybe the appeals mechanisms need to be revised, or something similar - certainly the cost to maintain a prisoner for a life sentence would far outweigh any issues related to legal expenses. That is just ridiculous to even bring expense into the argument. If you believe morally that they should not be executed, just say so and stick with that conviction - don't try to add additional weight to the argument with costs.
Believe me, I am sure a lot of people would be detered from helping commit murder if they thought they were going to die as well.
Thanks Chas for the comments. Actually, "murder for hire" is already an exception to the triggerman rule, since there the instigator clearly has the same culpability as the actual killer. That's in the Code now and this bill doesn't change it.
As far as legal expenses, that's a legitimate Q in my opinion. If someone is eligible for death, then the state needs to provide a "death-qualified" attorney to defend him. That's a select group and more expensive. Again, by including accessories to murders, we are greatly expanding the law. Will all these folks be sentenced to death? I doubt it, but we will have to defend them at this higher level all the same. So the $$ is a factor.
Chap,
Upon reflection, that makes this even more ridiculous. Everyone is entitled to legal representation, and obviously the State will provide you with an attorney if you cannot afford one. So now - you are saying that an ordinary criminal defense attorney is not qualified to handle these cases - unless they hold a "death-qualified" certification...
I guess the first question would be, are there that many cases being tried in the State on a regular basis that carry the death penalty? We are only talking about adding people that participate in a murder in this instance. Is that truly going to add such a significant number to the case load that it will outweigh the costs otherwise? Again, we are talking about a pretty specific instance. Also, it seems these folks would be much less inclined to help facilitate a murder if they knew the consequences of their action could result in the death penalty.
Again, if we are having such a huge number of these cases I could see this as being an issue - but I don't believe the State murder rates are running that high. If they are, then how many of these are actually cases involving more than one suspect? Lastly, what is the alternative for these folks if they are not up for the death penalty - life in prison? It seems like the long-term incarceration costs, plus overcrowding issues, would most likely outweigh the short term cost difference we are talking about.