George,

Seven [anti-death penalty activists] met with Delegate Rob Bell over lunch at the boisterous Guadalahara on Dec. 20 to discuss the death penalty in Virginia. He was very candid and listened attentively to our concerns, though rarely agreeing with them.

Del. Bell is an advocate for the death penalty. He regards it as the most just response to heinous crimes. It also serves a practical purpose, since he does not believe that there is such a thing as life without parole; the legislature can reinstate the parole system at any time. [I am under the impression that a jury can impose a sentence of life without possibility of parole, but I'm not sure.]

He does not think the 21-Day Rule is a good idea. We could not get him to say that he would support a repeal bill.

He stated that those who commit capital crimes are horrible, despicable people. He did not acknowledge that mental torture is imposed on death row inmates. He said that he had never visited death row or witnessed and execution and would not commit to doing either. However, he seemed proud of his time as a prosecutor and his experience with victims.

He realizes and accepts that no system of justice is going to get the right person 100% of the time, but executing an innocent person is an acceptable risk.

He was evasive on the issues of cost and deterrence. He was not concerned that medical personnel were committing a breach of ethics by participating in executions.

He made the point several times that abolitionists pursuing a moratorium as a step toward abolition was disingenuous. Getting him to consider a moratorium on its own merits was difficult. He gave a similar response when asked whether he supported executing the mentally ill, mentally retarded and juveniles. He seemed to regard opposition to executing those groups as a method of paving the way for abolition, and that there sufficient protection for the mentally ill already in the plea not guilty by reason of insanity. Our stand of opposing the death penalty seemed, in his view, to invalidate our viewpoints on related issues such as racism, classism, and unfairness in the justice system.

Regarding fairness, he thinks it is impossible to address the geographic inequalities in application of the death penalty (prosecutorial discretion in seeking the death penalty) because those disparities exist throughout the range of crimes, from misdemeanors to capital murder. If it were up to him, he would have the death penalty applied more broadly to address the inequality.

Strangely, he admitted that in the distant future it might reflect poorly on us as a society to have the death penalty.

Overall, we had considerable doubts about his openmindedness. But this was a valuable meeting to establish a dialogue and gain an understanding of his views. Hopefully it will lay the groundwork for cooperation. We should keep in mind his disapproval of the 21 Day Rule and write letters to encourage him to support a repeal bill. We should also remind him that a moratorium is in order while biases in the justice system are studied.

Anne Meador (electronic mail, December 27, 2001).