|
Dear
George:
I hope that people will take a look at Meredith's statement on the death
penalty and her support of the Innocence Protection Act, which are up on
her website now. The article
in the paper was dreadful, and I can understand how people would look
at that and bemoan her response to the issue. But if they look at her unabridged
statement of her position, they will see that there is a VAST difference
between her position and Virgil's.
| THE DEATH PENALTY AND THE INNOCENCE
PROTECTION ACT
We have a long tradition in this country, and in our Commonwealth, of
finding some crimes so heinous that taking the life of the criminal is the
only appropriate recourse. I support the death penalty in appropriate cases.
The problem with the implementation of the death penalty is the distressing
number of cases across the country – more than 100 now – in which
a defendant was convicted of capital murder, and sentenced to death, only
to learn 10 or 15 years later that the wrong man was on death row. In Illinois,
for example, the conservative Republican governor stopped all executions,
because courts in that state had actually found that more than half of those
sentenced to death were in fact innocent.
With DNA evidence available now, we are learning that we have imprisoned
and sentenced to death many innocent people. And it is not just happening
in Illinois; in the last 11 years, 3 men on Virginia’s death row have
had their sentences commuted because of doubts about whether they were guilty.
The Charlottesville City Council, on which I serve, passed a resolution
calling on Virginia to stop executions until we can implement procedures
that will allow us to be sure that we are not sentencing innocent people
to death. I voted for that resolution, because I believe that it is essential
that if we are to have a death penalty, we need to make absolutely sure
that we are not executing people who are innocent.
That is why I believe that we should pass the Innocence Protection Act
(IPA). The Act, introduced in the Senate (S. 486) and the House of Representatives
(H.R. 912), is a bi-partisan effort to reduce the risk of wrongful convictions
and the ultimate injustice: wrongful execution. The dual purposes of the
IPA are to expand access to post-conviction DNA testing and to set higher
professional standards for counsel in capital cases. The IPA takes no position
on the death penalty itself and is supported by those who also support capital
punishment — including Democrats like Senator Joseph Lieberman and
Virginia’s own Senator John Warner. While the House and Senate versions
differ in some respects, both would make DNA testing available to federal
and state prisoners in capital and non-capital cases, and both would encourage
states to improve the quality of appointed defense counsel in capital cases.
The House bill (H.R. 912) has 242 cosponsors, including 176 Democrats,
65 Republicans, and 1 Independent. The Senate bill (S. 486) has 29 cosponsors,
including 23 Democrats, 5 Republicans, and 1 Independent. The IPA has also
been endorsed by former and current prosecutors, victims and victim advocates,
national civic organizations, faith-based groups and newspapers across the
country.
New technologies like DNA testing have given us the ability to better
assess guilt, and we should study how to make use of modern methods to assure
swift, fair judgment – and to impose the death penalty, where it is
the right thing to do. " (Richards
for Congress Website, September 3, 2002) |
And once we have recognized that there is a difference in their positions,
please let us not engage in cannibalism, as we complain that her position
is not pure enough. If those of us who would like the federal death penalty
to be abolished are going to beat her up over her failure to go all the
way down that road, we guarantee that no one with a view more moderate than
Virgil's will get elected.
Virgil knows that by raising this issue, he deflects attention from the
REAL issues in this race:
1. Jobs for those who have been dependent on the dying textile and tobacco
industries;
2. Prescription drugs for seniors
3. Funding
for education
At a time when thousands of workers in the Fifth District are losing
their jobs every month, Virgil wants to talk instead about the death penalty,
about which many people feel strongly, but which will directly affect only
a handful of people in the Fifth District. Here's my prediction -- the next
divisive attack is going to come over abortion, probably some variant of
the so-called "partial
birth abortion" procedure. This is another debate that directly
affects only a handful of people in the Fifth District, but people feel
strongly about it, and it will distract attention away from the "big
three" -- jobs, prescription drugs, and education.
If the election turns on those three issues, Meredith can win. If the
debate gets off onto other matters like the death penalty and abortion,
Meredith loses.
Let's not let Virgil dictate the terms of the debate. Let's not play
into his hands.
Lloyd Snook (electronic mail, September 3, 2002)
|
