Virginians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty

September 28, 2001

To: Candidates for Governor, Lieutenant Governor
and Attorney General
       Candidates for the Virginia House of Delegates

The death penalty is an important issue this year for the voters of Virginia. In the last General Assembly session, there were at least 15 bills filed relating to the death penalty, including bills to reform the 21-day rule, to impose a moratorium on executions, and even to abolish the death penalty altogether. This is clearly an issue which will continue to come before the people's representatives in the General Assembly.
In an effort to inform the people of Virginia of the views of the various candidates running for office this year, Virginians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty (VADP) has prepared the attached questionnaire. It is being sent to all candidates for Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and Attorney General, as well as all candidates for seats in the House of Delegates.
Please take a few minutes and fill out the questionnaire. Please attach an additional sheet if you need more space for any of your answers.
VADP is a non-profit organization which has worked for the last 10 years to support alternatives to the use of the death penalty as a punishment for crime in Virginia. VADP will not endorse any candidate for office. It will make public the responses it receives to this questionnaire, for the information of its members and for the voters of Virginia.
Please send us your responses in the enclosed envelope by October 10, 2001.
Thank you very much for taking time to consider these questions.

Bruce R. Williamson, Jr.
President, VADP Board of Directors

VADP QUESTIONNAIRE:
THE DEATH PENALTY IN VIRGINIA
Fall, 2001

Name: _______________________________
Candidate for
Governor                 ________
Lt. Governor           ________
Attorney General    ________
House of Delegates ________, _______ District

*************************************************

1. Do you support the continued use of the death penalty in Virginia? If so, why? If not, why not?

2. There have been serious questions raised in recent years about the fairness of the application of the death penalty and about the likelihood that innocent people will be executed. The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission (JLARC) is currently studying the use of the death penalty in Virginia and is expected to address these questions, among others. Do you favor a moratorium on executions in Virginia until the JLARC study is completed? If so, why? If not, why not?

3. Virginia's "21-day" rule is one of the strictest in the nation. Under this rule, no evidence may be considered by a court if it is not produced within 21 days of the date of sentencing, even if the evidence would establish that a convicted person was actually innocent of the crime charged and even if everyone agrees that it could not have been discovered within that time limit. The fairness of this rule has been questioned by leaders of both political parties in Virginia. In the last session of the General Assembly, a bill was passed creating an exception to the 21-day rule for DNA evidence, but that exception will not go into effect unless the people of Virginia approve an amendment to the Virginia constitution in November, 2002. Until then, the 21-day rule remains in effect as it always has. Even assuming the amendment is passed, the 21-day rule will remain in effect for all other cases, even cases where the evidence demonstrates conclusively that the person is innocent.
Do you support repeal of Virginia's 21-day rule in capital cases? If so, why? If not, why not?

4. The death penalty is expensive. A single capital murder trial can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, even if the defendant does not receive the death penalty in the end. Do you think this is a better use of the people's money than using it for other public safety costs such as police salaries and equipment? If so, why? If not, why not?

5. Polls consistently show that a majority of Virginians prefer, as an alternative to the death penalty, life in prison with no possibility of parole for a minimum of 25 years combined with restitution of the victim's families. (A copy of recent poll results is enclosed.) Do you agree with your fellow Virginians? If so, why? If not, why not?

6. Do you believe it is possible that we may execute an innocent person with our current system? If so, do you believe that is an acceptable price to pay for the benefits of having a death penalty?

Do you have any other comments about the death penalty?

Responses from the following candidates appear below:
James F. Almand (House of Delegates, 47th District)
Sam Bleicher (House of Delegates, 35th District)
Vincent F. Callahan, Jr. (House of Delegates, 34th District)
David B. Collins (House of Delegates, 42nd District)
Flora D. Crittenden (House of Delegates, 95th District)
L. Karen Darner (House of Delegates, 49th District)
Henry P. “Hank” Hagenau (House of Delegates, 59th District)
Jerrauld C. Jones (House of Delegates, 89th District)
R. Steven Landes (House of Delegates, 25th District)
James Lowenstern (House of Delegates, 46th District)
Christine K. Lowrie (House of Delegates, 65th District)
John Miller (House of Delegates, 94th District)
Victor A. Motley (House of Delegates, 74th District)
Kamal Nawash (House of Delegates, 46th District)
Denise Oppenhagen (House of Delegates, 51st District)
Kathleen Orion (House of Delegates, 12th District)
Harry Parrish (House of Delegates, 50th District)
Bill Peabody (House of Delegates, 39th District)
Kenneth R. Plum (House of Delegates, 36th District)
Brad Pollack (House of Delegates, 15th District)
William Redpath (Governor)
Gayla Schoenborn (House of Delegates, 67th District)
James Simpson (House of Delegates, 51st District)
Robert Stermer (House of Delegates, 96th District)
Marian Van Landingham (House of Delegates, 45th District)
Vivian Watts (House of Delegates, 39th District)

*The following candidates sent letters acknowledging receipt of the questionnaire and
explaining why they chose not to answer it:
George Broman, M.D. (House of Delegates, 30th District)
R. Creigh Deeds (House of Delegates, 12th District)
William J. Howell (House of Delegates, 28th District)
Robert Hurt (House of Delegates, 16th District)
Harvey B. Morgan (House of Delegates, 98th District)
Mitchell Van Yahres (House of Delegates, 57th District)
Leo Waldrup (House of Delegates, 83rd District)
1. Do you support the continued use of the death penalty in Virginia? If so, why? If not, why not?
J. Almand: I support a moratorium until at least we see the JLARC study findings.
S. Bleicher: Not as presently constituted. There may be some circumstances for which it is appropriate, but the existing system is unacceptable.
V. Callahan: I have come full circle on this issue from total support to opposition – almost. As a civilized state and nation we ought to be beyond this. And then, we have terrorist attacks!
D. Collins: I have significant concerns about the fairness of the administration of the death penalty generally and, in particular, given the need to incorporate new tools that are available to the legal system (e.g. DNA evidence). I support a moratorium until the standards for DNA evidence can be reviewed.
F. Crittenden: I support a moratorium being placed on the Death Penalty in Virgnia. The constitution of the United Sates and Virginia require that the laws be imposed equally. The State of Virginia has seen an innocent individual sentenced to death. I believe we should have a thorough investigation of our use of the death sentencing statutes; we need to make certain that the sentencing of death is not disproportionately applied; and I further support any and all measures that can be imposed to assure us the innocent individuals will always have access to the courts even after being convicted.
K. Darner: No. I believe there should be a moratorium immediately – with subsequent inquiry into current cases on death row. In addition, I have never favored the death penalty.
H. Hagenau: Undecided.
J. Jones: The death penalty should not be continued until the many issues of disparity in administration and enforcement are resolved.
S. Landes: Yes, it is a deterrent to crime, and some criminal acts are so bad as to warrant such a penalty.
J. Lowenstern: I have been instructed by the Green Party to vote for the moratorium or abolition of the death penalty, as you will see in literature [enclosed with survey]. I believe for mass murders (10 or more) could be executed. But again by my nomination I will vote to abolish the death penalty.
C. Lowrie: No.
J. Miller: Yes. I believe the death penalty is a deterrent and certain crimes demand it.
V. Motley: If you are sure you have THE RIGHT DEFENDANT and the crime meets the punishment. The cost used to incarcerate a defendant could be better used to pay a needy child’s cost of education.
K. Nawash: My main concern is that no innocent person is ever executed.
D. Oppenhagen: Yes for heinous crimes and killing a police officer. However, we must look at how it’s being implemented. I feel it is unfairly applied with regard to race and socioeconomic status.
K. Orion: No. I believe in future generations people will look back to this as an archaic and barbaric practice.
H. Parrish: Yes. Serves as a deterrent to crime. Now give anyone convicted every right and protection to assure that someone who is not guilty will not be executed.
B. Peabody: No – the L.P. is the only party on the ticket against the D.P. The Democratic Attorney General wants to expand the death penalty!
K. Plum: No. Death penalty is not applied fairly. Death penalty is not a deterrent.
B. Pollack: Yes. Virginia juries should have a full range of punishments from imprisonment to death. If there were such a range, juries would have alternatives to the death penalty.
W. Redpath: No. Please see my website, redpath2001.com under “issues”.

G. Schoenborn: No, not as it is presently written. I feel these laws should be reexamined and probably rewritten. I am not certain I would completely do away with the death penalty, but I do feel Virginia’s laws need overhauling and updating.
J Simpson: no. It is irreversible if evidence comes to light clearing the accused. Also I do not believe my creator would appreciate me taking the life of one of his creations if it were not in response to an imminent threat to the lives of others or myself.
R. Stermer: No. The courts are capable of error. I would not risk the life of an innocent person.
M. Van Landingham: No.
V. Watts: See question 2.

2. There have been serious questions raised in recent years about the fairness of the application of the death penalty and about the likelihood that innocent people will be executed. The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission (JLARC) is currently studying the use of the death penalty in Virginia and is expected to address these questions, among others. Do you favor a moratorium on executions in Virginia until the JLARC study is completed? If so, why? If not, why not?
J. Almand: Yes because I think the study may raise serious questions about the fairness of the application of the death penalty.
S. Bleicher: Yes. But the length of the moratorium should depend on fixing the flaws, not on when JLARC reports.
V. Callahan: I supported the proposed moratorium on executions and in my capacity as chairman of JLARC I initiated the study on the death penalty.
D. Collins: Yes, see #1 above.
F. Crittenden: I do support a moratorium on executions in Virginia until we are satisfied that the death penalty is fairly applied. I would like to eliminate any chance of an innocent person being executed.
K. Darner: Yes – for reason above.

H. Hagenau: Yes, I favor a moratorium.
J. Jones: Moratorium. I have so voted.
S. Landes: No, it is fine to make sure individuals by study are not executed if not guilty, but the courts and juries should not be overruled by virtue of a legislative study.
J. Lowenstern: I do support a moratorium. Poor people who can’t afford a lawyer get executed; money buys justice.
C Lowrie: Yes.
J. Miller: No. Let’s see if there are problems before we impose a moratorium.
V. Motley: Yes; to make sure of the defendant’s rights and right to life and a fair trial.
K. Nawash: If we have proof that the death penalty is not being administered fairly, then, yes, I support a moratorium.

D. Oppenhagen: Yes- see above. Once executed, we can never bring the person back.
K. Orion: Yes. Surely, in such an important area, all possible avenues of thought, review, and study should be explored.
H. Parrish: No. See above. I also serve on JLARC.
B. Peabody: Yes.
K. Plum: Yes. Death penalty is not applied fairly, Innocent people may already have been executed.
B. Pollack: Not necessary. Courts and the Governor have plenary authority to stay such executions.
W. Redpath: Yes. But I favor abolishing the death penalty outright.
G Schoenborn: Yes, so that innocent people are not put to death.
J. Simpson: Yes. I support a moratorium. Specifically because of recent findings regarding innocent people being sentenced to death only to have evidence presented later clearing them.
R. Stermer : Yes, see above.
M. Van Landingham: Favor moratorium.
V. Watts: Yes, I support a moratorium not just until the JLARC study is complete, but until questions that it will raise are resolved.

3. Virginia's "21-day" rule is one of the strictest in the nation. Under this rule, no evidence may be considered by a court if it is not produced within 21 days of the date of sentencing, even if the evidence would establish that a convicted person was actually innocent of the crime charged and even if everyone agrees that it could not have been discovered within that time limit. The fairness of this rule has been questioned by leaders of both political parties in Virginia. In the last session of the General Assembly, a bill was passed creating an exception to the 21-day rule for DNA evidence, but that exception will not go into effect unless the people of Virginia approve an amendment to the Virginia constitution in November, 2002. Until then, the 21-day rule remains in effect as it always has. Even assuming the amendment is passed, the 21-day rule will remain in effect for all other cases, even cases where the evidence demonstrates conclusively that the person is innocent.
Do you support repeal of Virginia's 21-day rule in capital cases? If so, why? If not, why not?
J. Almand: Yes and I have introduced legislation to do this. The legislation was passed so that the amendment from the 2001 session goes into effect on November 15, 2002 whether or not the voters approve it. There will undoubtedly be a court challenge if the voters fail to approve it and it nonetheless goes into effect a few days later.
S. Bleicher: YES. Convincing new evidence should always be considered.
What is the Federal rule on this? Would it be politically palatable to adopt the Federal rule into Virginia law? Would it work technically?
V. Callahan:   I support repeal of the 21-day rule.
D. Collins: Yes. Given the “irrevocable” nature of the penalty,I find it incongruent to incorporate arbitrary time-frames for review of new data.
F. Crittenden:I do support repeal of Virginia’s 21-day rule in capital cases. If a person has been wrongly convicted he/she should not have barriers to prevent him/her from conclusively demonstrating his/her innocence.
K. Darner: Yes – our version is neanderthal! I’ve voted for changes and I have supported Del. Almand each time.
H. Hagenau: Yes I support repeal of the 21-day rule.
S. Landes: No, we made revisions during the last session as you mentioned, and no other changes need to be made. Again you ignore the fact of courts’ and juries’ findings.
J. Lowenstern: The 21-day rule is idiotic; of course it should be repealed.
C. Lowrie: Yes – It’s ridiculous!
J. Miller: Yes. Simple fairness and the search for justice demands repeal.
V. Motley: YES, if you are innocent you are innocent regardless of when you are able to prove it. Time should not make you guilty.
K. Nawash: I support the repeal of the 21-day rule in all cases.
D. Oppenhagen: Yes – as we see daily, improvements in DNA technology are freeing prisoners. Also, if the attorney is incompetent or court-appointed, the deadline might be missed through no fault of the convicted.
K. Orion: Yes. Justice should be deliberate, considered, and always open to human factors that may influence its practical application.
H. Parrish: No. I support the easing of the restrictions we passed in the 2000 session.
B. Peabody: Yes.
K. Plum: Yes. I have introduced bills to repeal the 21-day rule in the past and I will patron or copatron such bills in the future.
B. Pollack. Yes.
W. Redpath: Yes.
G. Schoenborn: Yes; it’s unfair because 21 days is to short amount of time.
J. Simpson: Yes. I support the repeal of the 21-day rule.
R. Stermer: Yes, see above.
M. Van Landingham: Yes.
V. Watts: Yes, I support outright repeal of the 21-day rule in capital cases. I believe we must review a capital offense conviction any time a judge rules that relevant evidence of innocence and/or evidence which has bearing on a sentence of death should be heard. Deathbed confessions seldom occur immediately after the trial and scientific research is spurring new forensic techniques (i.e. the presence of types of organisms that accurately indicate place and time of death.). We should never carry out the irreversible act of putting a person to death if there is any doubt.

4. The death penalty is expensive. A single capital murder trial can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, even if the defendant does not receive the death penalty in the end. Do you think this is a better use of the people's money than using it for other public safety costs such as police salaries and equipment? If so, why? If not, why not?
J. Almand: I don’t think cost is the best argument against the death penalty. Life imprisonment is also costly as is any murder trial.
S. Bleicher: I don’t think the issue is expense - - life imprisonment is also expensive. The death penalty should stand or fail on its merits as a deterrent.

V. Callahan: We have super maximum security prisons. We ought to use them for convicted murderers rather than go through the long, expensive appeals process, thus delaying justice. If we just put them away for life, justice will be served.
D. Collins: I feel strongly that if the death penalty remains an alternative it is crucial to ensure that adequate legal representation is provided. However, I feel that it would be preferable to be able to allocate some of these funds toward other public safety issues.
F. Crittenden: I ideally wish for tax dollars to be spent for much more productive things that would benefit our citizens. I do, however, understand that public safety includes prosecuting criminals and the death penalty is a remedy that can be used. I also believe that defendants must be adequately represented by skillful lawyers which would save the Commonwealth money. I support having public defenders for capital murder cases.
K. Darner: Yes – and having programs in prison to rehabilitate even if they’re in for life.
H. Hagenau: Undecided.
S. Landes: Yes, see my response in question #1. The reason the costs are so high is usually because people or attorneys are opposing law enforcement officers and prosecutors. So the very people you say you want to help your organization and others have opposed! Law enforcement supports the death penalty!
J. Lowenstern: I have always heard that life in prison is cheaper than the death penalty (trial and other costs).
C. Lowrie: No.
J. Miller: If cost was the sole determining factor for public policy we’d be doing a lot less of some very important initiatives.
V. Motley: NO. Trial costs and punishment costs need to be considered distinct costs. The public wants justice if the crime meets the punishment.
K. Nawash: Yes, I would rather spend the money for public safety costs.
D. Oppenhagen: There are some cases where capital punishment is the only assurance we have that the person will never leave jail. I fully believe in prevention, but we need to have this option available.
K. Orion: No, as previously stated, I do not support the death penalty.
H. Parrish: Yes and No. Of course prevention is always a better way to go. However, unfortunately, we will always have criminals and the need for trials.
K. Plum: Yes. Need to work on the prevention side of crime. Work on eliminating the root causes of crime.

W. Redpath. No.
G. Shoenborn: Oddly worded question!! No, I do not think expensive trials are a better use of taxpayers’ money. However, we must re-examine Virginia’s laws. For example, why not make a drug pusher caught selling millions of dollars worth of illegal drugs post a cash bond of $500,000 for the first offense, then a million for the second - - at least it keeps them locked up and off the street, from killing other people.
J Simpson: No. This is another reason to repeal the death penalty in Virginia.
R. Stermer: My objections to the death penalty are based on the possibility of error. Cost is also a factor, but is not as important.
M. Van Landingham: Yes.
V. Watts: The critical issue of cost is that of reforming the representation of indigent defendants accused of an offense that could result in the death penalty so that these defendants have competent attorneys who have expertise in capital murder trials.

5. Polls consistently show that a majority of Virginians prefer, as an alternative to the death penalty, life in prison with no possibility of parole for a minimum of 25 years combined with restitution of the victim's families.   (See enclosed report.) Do you agree with your fellow Virginians? If so, why? If not, why not?
J. Almand: Virginia actually has life imprisonment with no possibility of parole as an alternative to the death penalty. I have been surprised at the number of death sentences, which have been recommended by the jury inspite of their instruction about this alternative.
S. Bleicher: I’m not really persuaded by your poll data. I wonder if the result would be the same if restitution were dropped [or added to the death penalty alternative]. I really find most people deeply ambivalent about the death penalty.
V. Callahan: Yes.
D. Collins: Yes.
F. Crittenden: I believe there are some cases where a defendant is so dangerous that being in prison for life would only endanger others that come in contact with him or her.
K. Darner: Yes-there is immense hypocrisy with a nation that executes, but refrains from any executions on the Sabbath days of Saturday and Sunday.
H. Hagenau: Undecided – and – I do not understand why it’s called “life” in prison if you could only serve 25 years.
J. Jones: Yes. Justice may be served in this manner.
S. Landes: No, you are not taking into account the many you have not polled. You do not represent the majority of the constituents I represent! Also, polling depends how you ask the question.
J. Lowenstern: Sounds good. My website does mention restitution. I believe the death penalty is way overused in the Old Dominion.
C. Lowrie: Yes (no parole at all)
J. Miller: I agree in certain cases, but not all.
V. Motley: NO, the costs of incarceration can be better utilized. As far as restitution, most defendants will not be able to make restitution for crimes involving the death penalty anyway.
K. Nawash: These decisions must be made on a case-by-case basis.
D. Oppenhagen: Your statement doesn’t follow. Life without possibility of parole means just that. The 25-year minimum means nothing. Life without parole should be just that.
K. Orion: Yes.
H. Parrish: The “majority” depends on who is polled and how the poll is written. I do not agree. I also do not think 25 years is necessarily a long enough term.
B. Peabody: Yes.
K. Plum: Yes.
B. Pollack: Restitution from whom? Vistims’ families should have a large voice in the fate of the capital murderer.
W. Redpath: Yes
G. Shoenborn: No- life in prison—if that’s the judge’s decision - - means just that; one must spend the rest of their life in prison and in addition, yes, make a restitution to the victim’s family. Yes, I do believe in rehabilitation of prisoners and especially feel we need to make more mental health services available to prisoners and their families. However, if a judge sentences someone to “life,” prison is where they stay. Possibly judges should consider evaluations by social workers as to whether the person can be re-hab’d in 25 years. We need to be tough on people killing and maiming others.
J. Simpson: I support, for the applicable crimes, life in prison with no possibility of parole. The statement “for a minimum of 25 years” is contradictory to the statement “no possibility of parole”.
R. Stermer: Yes, see #1.
M. Van Landingham: Yes.
V. Watts: Yes, I agree that we must have an alternative(s) to the death penalty including life without any possibility of parole, but I do not feel that the death penalty should be abolished if the reforms being discussed are instituted.
6. Do you believe it is possible that we may execute an innocent person with our current system? If so, do you believe that is an acceptable price to pay for the benefits of having a death penalty?
J. Almand: Yes [it’s possible]. No [not an acceptable price to pay]. I believe steps are being taken to reduce that possibility and that more will be suggested in the JLARC report.
S. Bleicher: YES. I think it will always be possible under any system. But the risk under the current system is just too high.
V. Callahan: Yes – I believe it is rare but I also believe it has happened.
D. Collins: Yes. No, I do not feel it is acceptable for the state to be responsible for the death of innocents, particularly when alternatives are available.
F. Crittenden: I do believe it is possible that we may execute an innocent person with our current system. That is why I support the JLARC study and solicit therefrom suggestions as to how we may enact legislation to eliminate the risk.
K. Darner: Yes – I have no doubt we’ve done it or come close, nothing makes an error in execution “acceptable”.

H. Hagenau: Is it possible? Yes. Acceptable – no.
J. Jones: Yes, innocent persons may be wrongly convicted. It is likely that someone has been wrongly executed.
S. Landes: No, with DNA evidence it does not likely occur. In the past maybe, but now it is very unlikely.
J. Lowenstern: Innocent people have been and will be executed. In our legal system and is all systems nothing is perfect. Taking a life, when there is false testimony or shoddy work by a number of factors is terrible.
C. Lowrie: A. Yes, and that’s the biggest problem. B. No.
J. Miller: I believe it is possible – as anything is possible. I don’t know that an innocent person has been executed in VA.
V. Motley: YES, an innocent person may be executed and this is not an acceptable price to pay.
K. Nawash: If it is possible to execute an innocent person then I believe it is an unacceptable price to pay for the benefits of having a death penalty.

D. Oppenhagen: Yes – that is why I want a moratorium until we study it further.
K. Orion: Yes - - - and ----No.
H. Parrish: No, because of the many legal precautions now in place.
K. Plum: Yes, we may execute an innocent person under the present system. In fact, we may already have executed innocent persons.
B. Pollack: Yes [it’s possible]. No [not an acceptable price to pay]
W. Redpath: Yes [it’s possible]. No [not an acceptable price to pay]
G. Shoenborn: Yes - - and no.
J. Simpson: Of course it is possible. I don’t believe it is an acceptable price to pay for the possible benefits of having a death penalty.
R. Stermer: Yes [it’s possible]. No [not an acceptable price to pay]
M. Van Landingham: Yes.
V. Watts: Yes, I am convinced it is possible that we may execute an innocent person with our current system, which is why I have answered this questionnaire as I have.

Do you have any other comments about the death penalty?
F. Crittenden: The death penalty is a very complex and serious issue. It has such a tremendous impact upon our community. I would like to look at how the death penalty deters future crimes of the same nature in our Commonwealth. I would like to look at whether other states in the united states are successful or unsuccessful with its implementation. It is apparent that most Virginians are rethinking the imposition of the death penalty, particularly in light of DNA evidence and the Washington case. I am prepared to take a thorough look at the death penalty in Virginia.

K. Darner: I oppose it.
J. Lowenstern: A dilemma I wrestle with – If we are to be a moral society, how can we kill a man. We the state or people in authority must lead by example. War, why do we fight and kill people. Aren’t we advanced enough as a civilization to find ways of mediation and arbitration. We must learn to live among other people and be civil. We must use the example of a majority to bring a sane, peaceful nature, to those who cause trouble to find the just but merciful punishment and hope and work for a peaceful, happy, communicative and coherent world.
V. Motley: The issue should not be the death penalty, the issue should be justice by fair trials, fair tribunals, and fair journeys.
K. Orion: It puzzles me that Christians, who have been instructed by their leader to disregard the “old ways” (of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, etc.) forget to apply this teaching to criminal justice solutions.
B. Peabody: The Dem’s seem to love it. Join the LP.org.
K. Plum: Thank you for the important work that VADP does. I believe we are making progress.

W. Redpath: (1) D.P. assumes perfectability of administration of justice that is not humanly possible. (2) We should stand with our allies on this issue, not nations such as China and Iran.
G. Shoenborn: I have begun to restudy these issues. I am very glad there is a JLARC set up. I will anxiously follow their progress. I look forward to studying more about this issue.

The following was printed in the October 27 issue of the Lynchburg News & Advance. Candidates for office were asked a number of questions including their views on the death penalty. Below are their responses.
Mark Early-Candidate for Governor
Q- Do you think the death penalty is a deterrent to violent crime?
A- I do. I think it saves lives. I don't think you can scientifically prove it's a deterrent, but I think it does save lives and I think it's also a way of upholding a high standard and just saying we value human life.
Mark Warner-Candidate for Gov.
Q- Do you think the death penalty is a deterrent to violent crimes?
A- Yes. I think there are some crimes so heinous that they deserve the ultimate sanction. And I believe that the death penalty needs to be administered fairly. I think it is. And I believe we have to make progress in Virginia to make sure that it's administered fairly by changing the 21-day rule and DNA testing. I would mandate DNA testing for all death penalty (cases).
Q- Do you support a moratorium on the death penalty?
A- No.

Tim Kaine- Candidate for Lt. Gov.
Q-Do you support the death penalty?
A- I will take an oath and I will uphold the law, so from a legal standpoint, it is the law and I'll uphold it. I've long had moral concerns about the death penalty. I'm not a big government person because human beings' judgment is infinitely fallible, and the history of the death penalty in Virginia and the way it's been applied shows how             fallible it is and how unfair it often is. So I've got some serious concerns about it. Life in prison without parole is the preferable punishment for anybody who commits a premeditated murder. That's a very strongly held moral belief. But I'm used to taking an oath, I've done it four times, to uphold the law, and I will. ... But I may try to educate and persuade and win some hearts and minds on the issue. …
Q- Do you think the death penalty deters violent crime?
A- I don't believe it does. In just anecdotal evidence - that's a question I'm not sure will ever be answered - in Richmond, we've cut our homicide rate by 60 percent by investing in smart technology, by coming up with creative law enforcement programs to try to reduce gun violence. During the time that I've been in public office - and there have been a lot of homicides - there has only been one case that was prosecuted capitally in the city court system. So we haven't relied on the death penalty as the deterrent. Instead what we've done is try to toughen some of our law enforcement strategies to prevent crime, and those things have dropped our crime         rate.
Jay Katzen- Candidate for Lt. Gov.
Q-Do you think the death penalty deters violent crime?
A-Yes, I do. If you extrapolate it a little bit and look at the effect that Project Exile has had, for instance, where you know that you bring or carry or use a gun illegally, that you're going to get five years in the federal slammer, that's certainly has empirically shown to be a deterrent. …
Jerry Kilgore- Candidate for Attorney General-
Q-Do you support the death penalty? Why?
A- I do support the death penalty. I've been a prosecutor at the state and federal level. As secretary of public safety I reviewed all the death penalty cases that came up, because it was our job at the Department of Corrections to carry out death sentences that the court and then the governor approved. I've read some very
heinous facts, and some very troubling facts. The death penalty in Virginia has been upheld by every court as a fair death penalty statute. It's very limited, in that it takes murder plus some other heinous crime, whether it's rape or armed robbery. You have to have two crimes before the jury can even consider imposing a death          sentence. I oppose a moratorium on the death penalty. I believe the moratorium bill my opponent supported just last year sweeps too broadly. It would have ended the death penalty for those that have pled guilty, those that have been found guilty and stopped their appeals… Now, I do strongly support using DNA technology in
questionable cases. Governor Allen was quick to order DNA testing, Governor Gilmore has ordered it, but you have to do it on a case-by-case basis
Q- Do you think the death penalty deters violent crime?
A- I absolutely do. It deters violent crime. I've read transcripts where accomplices would say, "I'm not going to … Years ago (a state senator) was speaking on the floor of the state senate, and he was talking about a rather violent case down in Virginia Beach, where one of the assailants was on tape saying, "I'm not                participating in this crime because I do not want to get the electric chair." We can also ask for the death penalty for killing of a law enforcement officer performing his or her duty, and I don't know what deterrent we would have in the prison system, if we didn't for lifers, those who are already in for a life term, to protect our prison officers. I don't know where the deterrent would be. They would get no more sentence, we don't have parole in Virginia, they're going to serve life in prison regardless. There would be nothing the state could do to deter them from
committing another violent act, and another violent act. I just support it, have always supported it.

Donald McEachin- Candidate for Attorney General-
Q- Do you support the death penalty?
A- Yes. I have 22 votes in support of the death penalty, bills where children have been killed - not all these bills passed into law, but the bill was about children being killed, witnesses being killed, serial killers on the loose, including an up and down vote on repeal where I voted against repeal. So it's troublesome that someone who wants to be the state's lawyer, like Jerry Kilgore, would just make up whatever facts he wants to make up, in terms of my record. It leads you to wonder what other things will he make up to advance his political agenda. I'm happy to debate Jerry on the record, on my record and on his record. But it's not right for him to make things up, like he's done in the case of the death penalty.
Q- So you don't have a moral problem with the death penalty, but you voted for a moratorium on it?
A- I supported a moratorium bill that was put before us in January of last year, that had an eye toward ... the JLARC study being released, then the 2002 General Assembly would be able to take that study, do with it what it will, and then we'd be in a position to call the moratorium off. And I believe that's why most folks who voted for
the moratorium voted for it. We had Republicans vote for the moratorium as well, who are certainly the type that don't want anyone to say they're opposed to thedeath penalty. Again, that's Jerry Kilgore making things up out of thin air.
Q- Does the death penalty deter violent crime?
A- No. It's retribution - our criminal justice system is multi-faceted, and part of that is retribution.

Home | News & updates | Action alerts | Vigil info | Upcoming events | Men on the row Va. death penalty info | Execution info | 21-day rule Join VADP | Search