I wish we could get rid of the Death Penalty altogether.

I have a procedural, philosophical and a religious beef with capital punishment. I understand those who support the death penalty though. I think some folk certainly deserve to die for their crimes, but I am far from comfortable with the ability of mankind to make that level of judgment.

Is it weird that I totally support someone having to stand around making big rocks into small rocks and have very little problem with making prisoners work.(not prison industries by the way, those things are horrible)

because there is simply no way to make the process absolutely accurate, fair, or just, and given that it's the most serious penalty we can impose, if we can't be completely right every single time, then we shouldn't be doing it.

Why should only the triggerman be subject to the death penalty?  The triggerman is not always the worst of the bad guys.  The non-triggerman is sometimes the ringleader (possibly in the DC sniper case, for example).  

When the Commonwealth's Attorney is determined to get a death sentence in a big case, the law currently tells him who to go after.  Sometimes, that's a mere follower rather than the leader.  Why not let the CA go after the leader in those cases?  

I'd prefer to do away with the death penalty altogether, but that's not in the cards.  

I'm a Democrat and in favor of retaining the death penalty for the worst of the worst.  To distinguish between the actor (triggerman) and the co-conspirators, or principals in the second degree is a legitimate legal distinction.  I don't care how much one encourages, helps, assists, encites, or any other verb you can come up with, when the shooter actually pulls the trigger he has made his bed.  There is nothing preventing the admission of testimony about the co-conspirators or "assistants" in an effort for the defense to mitigate punishment.  Capital Murder is the most serious charge in Virginia, but even capital murder does not AUTOMATICALLY result in a death sentence.  It is up to the Jury to decide whether or not it is capital murder and if they so decide, whether the punishment is death or life without parole.  There are so many safeguards in the system that the citizens should have more confidence in a capital murder conviction than a conviction for any other offense.  So although I am in favor of the death penalty, it should not be expanded to include NON-triggermen.

There are so many safeguards in the system that the citizens should have more confidence in a capital murder conviction than a conviction for any other offense.

How many death row inmates have been exonerated by the Innocence Project, again?

Thanks for your respect.

In the case of a hired capital murder: for example, A hires B to kill a policeman; current law would allow a capital murder conviction only of B.  This bill would allow the capital murder conviction of A as well.  I think that in many cases, the non-triggerman is the "worst of the worst" and should be punished equally or even to a greater degree than B.  

Al Capone wasn't the triggerman.
John Allen Muhammad wasn't the triggerman in all of the sniper murders.
Charles Manson wasn't the triggerman in all of the family murders (maybe none, I'm not sure).

I think in these cases and others, the instigators should be held equally responsible, even if that includes the death penalty.