Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.

Page 7 · column 1 of 6 · from the scan, no model involved

The clipping this text was read from
The clipping this text was read from

tax

“triggerman” law

A proposed bill aimed at eliminating Virginia’s “triggerman” law received approval from the Senate Crime Commission; the legislation is considered likely to pass during the General Assembly’s 2007 session.

Under current Virginia law, only the person who directly commits the act of capital murder is, eligible for capital punishment.

Anyone else present during the crime would not be eligible for capital punishment, even if hfe or she ordered the murder to be committed.

During the 2006 session of the General Assembly, Del. C. Todd Gilbert (R-Shetiandoah) submitted a bill designed to repeal the triggerman law as it now stands.

Previously in 2006, the bill passed the House of Delegates, but stalled in the Senate when Sen. Kenneth W. Stolle (R-Virginia Beach), who is chairman of both the Senate Courts of Justice Committee and the Senate Crime Commission, referred the legislation to the crime commission for study.

The bill was approved by the commission, but failed to pass during the General Assembly’s 2006 session. However, the legislation likely will pass in the 2007 session, according to Gilbert’s office.

“This will be a major change to Commonwealth law,” said Gilbert’s legislative aide, Gary Frink.

Opponents of the bill say eliminating the triggerman law would cost the Commonwealth millions more in court costs when hundreds of suspects become eligible for capital punishment.

Also, opponents worry that repealing the triggerman law would destroy an important safeguard against mistakes in the trial process.

Supporters of the bill, including Gilbert, say the bill’s intent is not to execute those who played a lesser role in a murder.

Prosecutors still would have to prove an accomplice had the same premeditated intent as the triggerman.

—By Andrew Price

85.8%