Legislature(1995 - 1996)
05/03/1996 03:30 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE BILL 52
"An Act authorizing capital punishment, classifying
murder in the first degree as a capital felony, and
establishing sentencing procedures for capital
felonies; authorizing an advisory vote on instituting
capital punishment; and providing for an effective
date."
BRANT MCGEE, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), DIRECTOR,
OFFICE OF PUBLIC ADVOCACY, ANCHORAGE, spoke in opposition to
the proposed legislation. He pointed out that costs do not
appear to be attached to the proposal. Mr. McGee stressed
that implementing the death penalty would be
"astronomically" costly and that execution would be many
times more expensive than life in prison without parole.
The legislation will impose indirect costs on every citizen
who attempts to bring their case before an impartial
tribunal.
Mr. McGee continued, the defense and prosecution costs
estimated for the first four years would alone amount to $18
million dollars. He urged the Committee to consider the
costs associated on any bill associated with the death
penalty. Representative Martin agreed that voters should be
informed regarding the costs involved.
V. BONNIE LEMBO, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), ASSISTANT
DISTRICT ATTORNEY, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, ANCHORAGE, opposed the
legislation as passage would seriously increase the work
load for all prosecuting attorneys and it would become more
difficult to obtain the cooperation of witnesses. If a
person knows that when they cooperate with the government as
a witness, and that someone they care about could face
execution, they are more hesitant to provide the needed
information.
Ms. Lembo continued, it will be more difficult to obtain
convictions in homicide cases. The standard of proof being
"beyond a reasonable doubt" would remain legally the same.
Both practically and humanly, a person would be more
reticent to loath someone to death unless they are convinced
without a "shadow of a doubt".
Ms. Lembo concluded, she feared that there would be court
case capital rulings which will make it more difficult to
obtain a court conviction in other kinds of criminal cases,
and judges will become more careful in capital cases. In a
judgement call, judges will tend to error in favor of the
defense when a human life is at stake.
She informed members that there is little scrutiny on
appeals or curatorial attacks in other case convictions
when sentencing to life without parole.
Ms. Lembo pointed out that the bill as written does not have
a fiscal note attached. This is a very complex matter and
will involve increased expenses for the defense agencies,
the Department of Corrections and the Court System. She
stressed that each agency should be required to provide a
meaningful fiscal note. Representative Martin requested a
faxed copy of Ms. Lembo's testimony.
REX LAMONT, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), PRIVATE
PRACTIONER- CRIMINAL DEFENSE, ANCHORAGE, spoke in opposition
to the death penalty. He addressed the impact to the poor
and the minorities. Our criminal justice system continues
to have a number of fallacies in adequately representing the
poor. Currently, the Legislature is unable to fully fund
the public defender and public advocacy agencies. He urged
the Committee not to pass the proposed legislation.
AVERIL LERMAN, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), ANCHORAGE,
spoke against the proposed legislation. She provided
Committee members with a brief history of the death penalty
in the State of Alaska. There were three hangings in
Fairbanks between 1900 - 1957. Three hanging also took
place in Juneau during a ten year period.
The history of Alaska has shown that an ill advised vote by
"uninformed" people will not reflect the way those same
people will feel ten years later. At that time it would be
too late for the decision to be reversed.
HUGH FLEISCHER, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), ANCHORAGE,
spoke against passage of SB 52. He had read an article
written in February, 1995, by a well known
attorney/prosecutor in New York, Robert Martinthaw. Mr.
Martinthaw spoke about the death penalty and how it hinders
the fight against crime. To date, 350 people have been
wrongfully accused and convicted of murder.
SUSAN ORLANSKY, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), ATTORNEY IN
PRIVATE PRACTICE, ANCHORAGE, spoke in opposition to SB 52.
She stressed that an advisory vote on the death penalty
would not be a good idea. When people vote on ballot
questions, they vote on limited information and emotion.
Legislators are chosen representatives for the people, and
are responsible to analysis information regarding voters
concerns.
She pointed out that we like to think that we live in a
civilized society, although, no other modern western
civilized country supports the intentional killing of other
human beings by the state. Ms. Orlansky urged Committee
members to take a stance to support the dignity and sanctity
of human life and vote against the bill. Representative
Martin agreed.
SENATOR ROBIN TAYLOR questioned what the fear was in
allowing Alaskans to express an opinion at the poll. He
suggested that the question was a simple one, and that
Alaskans should be given the opportunity to voice their
opinion. He emphasized that voters should not be kept from
expressing their opinions because of someone else's
personal, philosophical or theological points of view.
Senator Taylor referenced a poll that had been provided to
the Senate Judicial Committee.
Representative Martin asked who had requested the poll.
Senator Taylor replied that the pollster provided the poll
independently and then sent the result to him on his own.
The poll had not been requested. This was a statewide poll
taken involving an interview of 500 people. Senator Taylor
interjected that the people of Alaska have not been heard
from on the issue.
Representative Martin questioned the costs involved with the
proposed legislation. Senator Taylor responded that there
was no way to project the costs. He suggested, an attempt
to ascertain the savings associated with the change, would
be equal to the cost of the trial. He concluded that the
only cost incurred with passage of the legislation would be
the cost in placing the measure on the ballot, which would
amount to $2 thousand dollars.
Representative Martin asked how many people would be
eligible for the death sentence at this time, it the bill
should pass. Senator Taylor explained that the November
vote would only be an advisory vote to the Legislature as to
whether or not to implement the action. No one already with
a conviction and judgement would be subject to the
sentencing. He reiterated that there would be no
retroactivity to the death penalty.
Representative Martin inquired why this legislation had been
proposed as a bill instead of a resolution. Senator Taylor
stated that it was a bill in order to accomplish the full
purpose of implementing a death penalty within the State of
Alaska. Representative Martin asked if Senator Taylor would
object if the legislation was changed to a resolution.
Senator Taylor noted that he would not support that motion.
Representative Therriault agreed that resolutions were
usually incorporated for motions as proposed. He asked if
putting the question on the ballot would be subject to a
veto. Senator Taylor replied that he did not know.
Representative Therriault voiced concern with the finality
of execution given the number of mistaken cases. Senator
Taylor agreed that mistakes happen but he believed that the
United States has the finest judicial system in the world.
He added, people are killed all the time in accidents.
People do not expect perfection out of any institutions
within this country.
Representative Kohring voiced his support of the legislation
and noted that he wanted to cross-sponsor the bill.
Representative Navarre countered Representative Kohring,
speaking in support of the current judicial system. He
acknowledged that SB 158 would be much worse for the
criminal victims throughout the State. Representative
Navarre emphasized that innocent people will die because of
mistakes or because the judicial system is weighted in favor
of the wealthy. He agreed that the legal system in this
country is the best in the world, and that is because a
person has the presumption of innocence, a right to an
attorney and the right to an appeal process. In most cases,
it will be the poor that the State will have to pay for the
prosecution and the defensive all the way to the Supreme
Court. He maintained that the status quo would be more
financially sound.
(Tape Change, HFC 96-160, Side 2).
Senator Taylor responded that living in a correctional
facility for the "rest of ones natural life" was a death
sentence. He could not understand a philosophical belief
system which could think that would be a more humane
treatment than to execute that person. He emphasized that
both sentences result in the termination of that person's
life; although, one would take longer than the other.
Senator Taylor stated that it becomes a choice whether that
person deserves the right to continue to utilize services
and receive benefits. He elaborated that those benefits and
services should be made available to other productive
members in society.
Representative Navarre pointed out that there have been
cases in which "new" evidence was brought forth and innocent
people were set free. Many people are beat by the system
and he concluded that the death penalty has no ability for
recourse.
JAMES MCCOMAS, PRESIDENT, ALASKANS AGAINST THE DEATH
PENALTY, ANCHORAGE, spoke against SB 158. He pleaded that
the Committee consider the voice of rural Alaska. He noted
the late hour of the meeting and the fact that the
Legislative Information Offices (LIO) across the State had
closed except in Anchorage. Mr. McComas stressed that
information from rural Alaska is critical because 75% of the
people executed have been and will continue to be Native.
He interjected that 25% of the people executed were white
even though white people committed 75% of the crimes. Every
Native organization has strongly denounced the proposed
legislation.
Mr. McComas addressed Senator Taylor's intent. He stressed
that the sponsor was playing a political game and that
peoples lives are at stake. He thought that it was Senator
Taylor's intention to have the Governor veto the
legislation. Mr. McComas believed if Senator Taylor really
had wanted to know what people thought, he would have
proposed the idea as a resolution. The legislation's intent
would be to force a veto in order that it could be
campaigned against in the fall election. Mr. McComas
objected to "politics" being played with issues of life and
death.
He continued, there should not be an advisory vote until the
public is adequately educated regarding the concern. The
volunteers for Alaskans Against the Death Penalty is a
volunteer organization and can not afford such an
undertaking. Legislators have the responsibility to
debating important issues. Mr. McComas noted that there has
been no debate on the death penalty within either Body of
the Legislature. He informed Committee members that most
people (voters) think that it would cost more to house a
criminal for life in prison than the death penalty. That is
a misconception! He advised that there are thirty-seven
states with the death penalty in tact, and for the sponsor
to insinuate that "we do not know the costs" is a lie. The
attorney general's estimate for each execution will cost the
State $5 million dollars. Mr. McComas pointed out that $5
million dollars is one half of the Department of Law's
budget for an entire year. States that are going bankrupt
because of enforcing the death penalty. It costs too much
money.
Mr. McComas continued, popular opinion is totally wrong.
People were asked how long someone convicted of murder
would be sentenced. He noted that 78% of Alaskans believed
it would be 20 years or less; those people are afraid of a
crime risk repeat which could not happen. Under the Alaska
Statutes, anyone convicted of a first degree murder must
serve twenty years without "good time" and without parole.
No one is released. The average first degree murder
sentence, according to the Department of Law, is 80-90
years. In those cases that could be death eligible, parole
is restricted. Mr. McComas summarized, there is no public
safety risk which the death penalty can address.
He continued, the question proposed in SB 52 is slanted and
inaccurate. Mr. McComas spoke to the "tolerance" that has
existed in the State of Alaska. If the death penalty is
ratified, the values of tolerance will decimate. He spoke
to the mean spirited intent of the legislation's sponsor.
He urged Committee members to further consider the death
penalty.
Capital punishment has been struck from the law of every
western industrialized nation except America. It has been
struck from the law of the Soviet Union and Africa. Yet, in
the land of liberty, a sponsor schemes to provide a
gubernatorial veto for the purpose of campaigning to create
the false appearance of an uninformed public mandate in
order that they can resume for first time in 46 years, which
Alaskans are worthy of life.
In defense of Representative Martin being cut off by
Representative Mulder, Representative Navarre stressed that
it is the Legislature's responsibility to provide adequate
understanding of such complex issues as being presented.
JOYCE BAMBERGER, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), SELF,
COMMISSIONER, ALASKA HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, ANCHORAGE,
spoke against the proposed legislation. She compared the
Legislature's intent not to place the North Star Oil lease
legislation out for public vote, whereas, at the same time
considering a vote on placing human resources out for public
opinion. The duty of legislators is to protect life.
KIM MCGEE, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), ANCHORAGE FRIENDS
COMMUNITY - QUAKERS, ANCHORAGE, stated that Quakers have
always been against the death penalty and are against the
bill. Quakers uphold the sanctity of all life. "That of
God" exists in each person. She concluded that the State
can not emulate the person lost by taking another persons
life.
MICHAEL LEMAN, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), BUSINESSMAN,
ANCHORAGE, spoke in opposition to the proposed legislation.
He believed that the proposal was being fuelled by a
misconception regarding the length of prison sentences. The
death penalty will not save money. He summarized that the
death penalty is "racist"; capital punishment means if you
don't have the "capital", you get the "punishment".
ANNE WILKAS, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), ASSISTANT
PUBLIC DEFENDER, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, ANCHORAGE, voiced
opposition to SB 52. She advised that voters are ignorant
regarding the issue and that the House Finance Committee
members are responsible for weighing the monetary conditions
of the legislation. Voters do not have that information
available to them. No agency affected by the death penalty,
supports the death penalty.
Ms. Wilkas spoke to the moral costs wrapped up in the death
penalty. There does exist a racial disparity impact.
Innocent people will be killed. She explained that there
are strong moral implications of the death penalty bill.
The decision should be made by people who are educated and
informed. She urged Committee members to vote no on the
death penalty.
KATHY HARRIS, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), ANCHORAGE,
spoke against the proposed legislation. She pointed out
that almost all religious affiliations oppose the death
penalty and noted that all the testimony had been against
passage of the bill.
KEVIN MCCOY, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), ANCHORAGE,
testified against of SB 52. He suggested that the
legislation should require careful study; matters this
important should not be rushed through the last couple of
nights. He reiterated the high costs associated with
implementing the death penalty.
CHARLES CAMPBELL, PREVIOUS DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, SELF, JUNEAU, spoke against the proposed
legislation. He corrected Senator Taylor's misconception of
life in a prison cell as "death". He agreed that it is not
much of a life, but an overwhelming majority of "lifers"
make a "life" for themselves somehow in it. They often have
jobs at industries within the prison and are capable of
sending money home to their families or try to cover
restitution costs associated with their crime.
Mr. Campbell pointed out that the Legislature is more
informed than voters regarding the issues. The death
penalty is far more costly than life in imprisonment. He
stressed that it is not fair to put the question to the
voters, when legislators know they will be voting on
misinformation. He stated that would be inappropriately
using the electorate.
In response to Representative Martin's question, Mr.
Campbell indicated that there are about three thousand
people on death row today. Death row continues to grow;
there is no way that the number of persons added could be
executed. The average time between the death sentence and
the execution is nine years.
(Tape Change, HFC 96-161, Side 1)
BARBARA BRINK, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ANCHORAGE testified via the
teleconference network in opposition to SB 52. She stressed
that the death penalty is a complicated issue. She agreed
that there is a costly appeal process. She emphasized that
there is a separate sentencing trial. She noted that the
cost of maintaining an inmate on death roll is greater than
keeping an inmate in the general population. She noted that
in the state of California it costs $15 million dollars per
execution. She gave examples of costs in other states. She
maintained that the cost will be significant enough to
require taxes. She asked what programs will be reduced to
pay for the cost of the death penalty.
BARBARA HOOD, ANCHORAGE testified via the teleconference
network in opposition to SB 52. She maintained that there
is no constituency for the legislation. She emphasized that
vengeance is a terrible trait. She alleged that the power
to take human life is a power no government should have.
JOHN SALEMI, DIRECTOR, PUBLIC DEFENDER AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF
ADMINISTRATION testified via the teleconference network in
opposition to SB 52. He emphasized that the death penalty
is not a simple issue. He acknowledged citizens are
concerned regarding crime in their communities. He
maintained that the perception of a yes vote on the death
penalty is that public safety will be helped. He argued
that studies demonstrate that the death penalty does not
lessen crime. He noted that the cost of defending seven
death penalty cases would be approximately $1.5 million
dollars. He questioned where the funding will come from.
He emphasized that the money could be better spent on other
public safety items. He stressed that 38 other states have
shown that there is no savings and that the death penalty
does not deter crime. He noted that rural committees have
not been heard from on the legislation. He observed that
rural communities will be the most affected.
REBECCA DAVIS, FAIRBANKS testified via the teleconference
network in opposition to SB 52. She maintained that many
innocent people have been executed in the United States.
She alleged that more innocent people, particularly
minorities, will be kill. She emphasized the fiscal cost.
SCOTT DAVIS, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, FAIRBANKS testified
via the teleconference network in opposition to SB 52. He
maintained that it is inconsistent to be anti-abortion and
pro-death penalty. He emphasized that the death does not
deter crime.
DEAN GUANELI, CHIEF ASSISTANT ATTORNEY, DEPARTMENT OF LAW
testified in opposition to SB 52. He noted that the
Administration opposes SB 52 because it is too expensive.
He estimated that the cost per trial would be $3.5 million
dollars or greater. He stressed that the death penalty
skews the case law related to criminal prosecution. He
noted that capital punishment is not reversible. He
observed that capital punishment has a discriminatory impact
on minority members. He added that capital punishment does
not deter crime. The death penalty was repealed in 1957.
Mr Guaneli stressed that the Legislature is the proper forum
for discussion of the issue. He observed that an advisory
vote is a snap shot of public opinion in one point in time.
He maintained that the advisory vote is likely to be affect
by the most recent news headline. He emphasized that it is
a complicated issue that should not be resolved by a yes or
no vote. He noted that the legislation would need to be
amended to include a reference to the Alaska State
Constitution.
In response to a question by Representative Brown, Mr.
Guaneli observed that the cost of instituting capital
punishment is difficult. He noted that the costs are spread
over a number of years. Trial and investigation costs occur
early. Appeals at the state and federal level would be
extended to a number of years.
Representative Parnell noted that the Department of Law's
fiscal note reflects the belief that an affirmative advisory
vote would result in the institution of the death penalty.
RACHEL KING, ALASKANS AGAINST THE DEATH PENALTY spoke in
opposition to SB 52. She noted that the addition of the
fiscal notes reflect a cost of $5.0 million dollars before
the first execution takes place. She observed that it has
been difficult to testify in regards to the legislation.
She gave examples of hearings in Senate Judiciary where
individuals were unable to testify. She recounted
experiences as a public defender in Ketchikan. She stated
that she had a client convicted that she knew was innocent.
The person's conviction was later reversed. She observed
that as a public defender in Kotzebue she had an annual
caseload of 225 cases. She alleged that the justice system
in rural Alaska will be overwhelmed. She observed that
since 1970, 59 innocent people have been released from death
row.
Representative Kohring spoke in support of SB 52. He MOVED
to report CSSB 52 (JUD) out of Committee with individual
recommendations and with the accompanying fiscal notes.
Representative Martin OBJECTED. He MOVED to TABLE CSSB 52
(JUD). Representative Kohring OBJECTED. A roll call vote
was taken on the MOTION to Table SB 52.
IN FAVOR: Martin, Navarre, Therriault, Brown
OPPOSED: Mulder, Parnell, Grussendorf, Kelly, Kohring,
Hanley
Co-Chair Foster was absent for the vote.
The MOTION FAILED (4-6).
Representative Martin maintained that the advisory vote
should be established through a resolution. Co-Chair Hanley
explained that the legislation was in order.
A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION to report CSSB 52
(JUD) from Committee.
IN FAVOR: Mulder, Parnell, Grussendorf, Kelly, Kohring,
Hanley
OPPOSED: Navarre, Therriault, Brown, Martin
Co-Chair Foster was absent from the vote.
The MOTION PASSED (6-4).
Representative Martin MOVED to RESCIND the Committee's
action in reporting CSSB 52 (JUD) out of Committee.
Representative Kohring OBJECTED. He spoke in support of
capital punishment. He WITHDREW his objection.
A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION to move CSSB 52
(JUD) out of Committee.
IN FAVOR: Parnell, Grussendorf, Kelly, Kohring, Hanley
OPPOSED: Navarre, Therriault, Brown, Martin
Co-Chair Foster and Representative Mulder were absent for
the vote.
The MOTION FAILED (5-4).
CSSB 54 (JUD) FAILED to pass from Committee.
SENATE BILL NO. 191
An Act relating to election campaigns, election
campaign financing, the oversight and regulation of
election campaigns by the Alaska Public Offices
Commission, the activities of lobbyists that relate to
election campaigns, and the definitions of offenses of
campaign misconduct; and providing for an effective
date."
(Tape Change, HFC 96-161, Side 2)
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|