Legislature(1993 - 1994)
03/11/1994 01:30 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 11, 1994
1:30 p.m.
TAPE HFC 94-58, Side 2, #000 - end.
TAPE HFC 94-59, Side 1, #000 - end.
TAPE HFC 94-59, Side 2, #000 - 420.
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Larson called the House Finance Committee to order
at 1:30 p.m.
PRESENT
Co-Chair Larson Representative Hoffman
Co-Chair MacLean Representative Martin
Vice-Chair Hanley
Representative Brown Representative Parnell
Representative Foster Representative Therriault
Representative Grussendorf
Representative Navarre was not present for the meeting.
ALSO PRESENT
Bishop Michael Kenny, Diocese of Juneau; Charles Rohrbacher,
Juneau; Charles Campbell, Ex-Director, Department of
Corrections; John Salemi, Director, Public Defender Agency,
Department of Administration; Brant McGee, Director, Office
of Public Advocacy, Department of Administration; Nancy
Shaw, Anchorage Federal Defender; Kimberly Martus,
Anchorage, Alaska NAtive Justice Center; Donald Cabana, Ex-
Warden of Mississippi Prison System; Virgina Phillips,
Sitka; John Shaffer, Stika; John Lyle, Fairbanks;
SUMMARY INFORMATION
HB 162 "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;
amending Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure 32,
32.1, and 32.3 and Alaska Rules of Appellate
Procedure 204, 209, 210, and 212; and providing
for an effective date."
SSHB 162 was HELD in Committee for further
discussion.
1
HOUSE BILL NO. 162
"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; amending Alaska Rules of Criminal
Procedure 32, 32.1, and 32.3 and Alaska Rules of
Appellate Procedure 204, 209, 210, and 212; and
providing for an effective date."
Co-Chair Larson noted that SSHB 162 would be assigned to a
subcommittee consisting of Co-Chair MacLean as Chair and
Representatives Hanley and Brown.
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS testified in support of SSHB 162. He
noted that the advisory vote, section 13, was removed by an
amendment adopted by the House Judiciary Committee. (The
House Judicary Committee did not incorporate the amendment
into a House Judicairy Committee Substitute.)
Representative Sanders felt that fiscal impact estimates in
fiscal notes submitted for SSHB 162 are too high.
Representative Sanders quoted testimony by Mr. Edward
McNally, District Attorney, Anchorage to the House Judiciary
Committee.
"In this state, we rarely ever see a guilty plea to
First Degree Murder. That is not true in 38 other
states where they have capital punishment. There are
killers in this state who should plead guilty to First
Degree murder. They confess to the police. It's on
video tape. They waived Miranda. The gun is there.
There are eye witnesses to the crime. And yet, under
current Alaska law, there is simply no incentive to
plead guilty to murder and to accept responsibility for
their crime. There is nothing the state can offer,
nothing we can do. And so they don't plead. We have a
trial. And guess what? The trial is very expensive.
The process is very traumatic to victims and survivors.
And in many cases, in which the evidence is
overwhelming, the trial can become little more than a
prolonged sentencing proceeding."
JOHN LYLE, FAIRBANKS testified via the teleconference
network in opposition to SSHB 162. He acknowledged that
crime has "gotten out of hand". He stressed that the death
penalty has not been proven to be a deterrent. He asserted
that the death penalty is disproportionately used against
non whites. He maintained that the death penalty
contradicts what educators try to teach children, "don't
2
hit, don't hurt."
VIRGINA PHILLIPS, SITKA testified via the teleconference
network. She read written testimony from Mary Stoltis,
Sitka.
"The question before you today is what is more cost-
effective? Keeping someone out of society for the rest
of his/her life, or killing him/her outright by lethal
injection? Once again, we are putting monetary value
on human life..." (Ms. Soltis' complete written
testimony is on file with the House Finance Committee)
Ms. Phillips testified that she believes the wisest solution
is to give the person the choice of life in prison or the
death penalty.
DONALD CABANA, EX-WARDEN, STATE OF MISSISSIPPI testified via
the teleconference network from Mississippi. He stressed
the cost of maintaining a death row facility. He asserted
that it is unwise to house death row inmates with general
maximum security prisoners. He maintained that the state of
Kansas saved $38 million dollars in the first five years
after the death penalty was abolished. He observed that it
is not cheaper to execute a prisoner. He pointed out that
death row prisoners in Mississippi spend an average of 7 to
seven and a half years in prison prior to execution. He
stressed that it is cheaper to house a prisoner to the
average age of 75 or 80 years. He accentuated that there is
a risk that innocent individuals will be incarcerated and
executed. He referred to the impact on those that run death
row facilities.
In response to a question by Co-Chair Larson, Mr. Cabana
estimated the yearly incarceration cost of Mississippi
maximum security facilities at $12.0 to $15.0 thousand
dollars per prisoner.
MICHAEL KENNY, BISHOP, DIOCESE OF JUNEAU testified in
opposition to SSHB 162 on moral, philosophical and personal
grounds. He observed the need to take into account moral
ramifications. He maintained that there are public
misconceptions regarding the death penalty. He asserted
that there is no evidence to support that the death penalty
deters crime. He alleged that capital punishment
contributes to the climate of violence. He reiterated that
the death penalty cannot be meted out fairly. He stressed
that poor and minorities do not have the same means of
defense as wealthier individuals. He acknowledged that
concerns about violence are valid. He stressed that
legislators must lead the state in taking on measures that
are truly effective in fighting crime.
3
Representative Parnell questioned how social justice can be
met. Bishop Kenny replied that social justice creates a
climate where human rights are valid and respected. He
asserted that the death penalty does not contribute to a
climate of respected human rights. He clarified that he is
not opposed to life in prisonment.
RICHARD CURTNER, ATTORNEY, FAIRBANKS testified via the
teleconference network in opposition to SSHB 162. He
recounted his experience with death penalty litigation in
Ohio. He observed that death penalty cases are more costly.
He explained that capital cases involve two defense
attorneys. He noted that there are typically 50 to 100
pretrial motions. He stressed that any issue that could
save someone's life must be explored and litigated. More
expert witnesses are employed including a mitigation expert
to prepare for possible sentencing. Jury selections are
more lengthy as attorneys question personal opinions
regarding the death penalty. Trials are more lengthy. Once
found guilty, a sentencing trial pursues and can be longer
than the primary trial.
Mr. Curtner noted that the state of Ohio has had a death
penalty for twelve years. There are 127 persons on death
row in Ohio. No prisoner has been executed in Ohio. All
Ohio cases are in appeal or pending before the United States
Supreme Court. He suggested that there would be
constitutional challenges to SSHB 162. He maintained that
any convictions for capital punishment under SSHB 162 would
be be brought before the United States Supreme Court.
Representative Martin questioned if the death penalty would
be considered cruel and unusual punishment. Mr. Curtner
anticipated that the death penalty would not meet the
state's requirement for constitutionality based on the fact
that it is cruel and unusual punishment.
(Tape Change, HFC 94-59, Side 1)
KIMBERLY MARTUS, ALASKA NATIVE JUSTICE CENTER, ANCHORAGE
testified via the teleconference network in opposition to
SSHB 162. She noted that there are many Native groups
opposed to SSHB 162. She maintained that the death penalty
cannot be evenly applied. She felt that a racial bias would
effect judgments. She maintained that the high cost to the
state would be balanced on the back of rural Alaska. She
suggested that rural Alaska cannot afford to have funding
for necessary programs further neglected.
Ms. Martus noted the disproportionately high number of
Native victims. She observed that Native women are four and
4
a half times as likely to die as the result of a homicide
than a non white. She observed that even though Natives
constitute a high proportion of victims they are not in
favor of the death penalty.
Ms. Martus observed that Natives and African Americans
represented 80 percent of those executed during territorial
times. She stressed the need for long term solutions to
address the root of crime.
JOHN SHAFFER, SITKA testified via the teleconference network
in opposition to SSHB 162. He asserted that the death
penalty cannot be applied evenly to minorities. He stressed
the need to enhance rehabilitation.
CHARLES CAMPBELL, EX-DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
JUNEAU reiterated that the death penalty does not deter
crime and is expensive to institute. He maintained that
public opinion surveys indicate that, while 80 percent of
the public supports a death penalty, their support is based
on erroneous information regarding the deterrent quality and
cost of capital punishment. He suggested that the public
would not favor the death penalty if they could be certain
that offenders would be jailed for life. He pointed out
that the Miami Herald stated that the average cost of an
execution in Florida is $3.2 million dollars. He emphasized
that the murder rate has increased in Florida and Texas
since these states instituted a death penalty.
Mr. Campbell addressed the issue of convictions of innocent
persons. He asked if it is reasonable to assume that the
227 persons convicted out of 200,000 murder prosecutions
were the most deserving to die, the ones who committed the
most heinous, brutal killings. He noted that a
disproportionate number of those executed were poor, racial
minorities or poorly defended at the time of trial. He
added that nine were juveniles; ten were accomplices (not
convicted of the actual killing); four were executed after
their convictions were upheld by tie votes in the United
States Supreme Court. He interjected that a significant
number of those convicted were thought to be innocent, by
persons who have studied their cases.
FRANK SMITH, BARROW testified via the teleconference network
in opposition to SSHB 162. He observed that the state of
Florida is contemplating the death penalty for 14 year old
offenders. He stressed that 90 percent of death row inmates
were victims of severe childhood abuse and neglect. He
suggested that it would be prudent to spend money on early
prevention and to address programs that reduce instances of
childhood abuse and neglect.
5
RONNIE ROSENBERG, FAIRBANKS testified via the teleconference
network in opposition to SSHB 162. She asserted that the
death penalty does not work to deter heinous violent crime.
She observed that those that commit violent crimes do not
think of the consequences. She expressed concern with the
fiscal cost associated with the institution of a death
penalty.
CHARLES ROHRBACHER, JUNEAU testified in opposition to SSHB
162. He stressed that no criminal justice system can say
with a hundred percent certainty that no innocent persons
will be executed. He pointed out that all other sanctions
allow remedies for wrongful convictions. There is no remedy
in the death penalty. He observed that approximately 400
persons convicted of capital crimes between 1930 and 1992
were later shown to be innocent. He emphasized that these
were persons who never should have been arrested. He noted
that 23 innocent persons are believed to have been executed.
He added that 48 death row inmates have been released since
1993.
Mr Rohrbacher recounted his personal experience, as a
reporter in San Francisco, with a mistaken capital
conviction. He noted that the person in question was a
young Korean boy convicted of a gang murder. He was poorly
represented and spoke limited English. Asian witnesses were
not questioned during the trial. The boy was convicted on
the testimony of three white tourist. The case was later
overturned.
WILLIAM FULLER, ESTER testified via the teleconference
network in opposition to SSHB 162. He stressed the adverse
effects of guards assigned to death row facilities.
NANCY SHAW, FEDERAL DEFENDER, DISTRICT OF ALASKA, UNITED
STATES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT discussed the cost of defending
capital cases. She was able to compare recent cases tried
in Alaska. She observed that in a recent case comprising
five defendants charged with mail bombing defense costs have
totalled $964.0 thousand dollars. She pointed out that the
total is incomplete since trials for two of the defendants
have not yet occurred and appeals have not been filed. She
stressed that every avenue is examined by the defense when
the case carries a capital charge. She estimated that this
capital trial in Alaska would average $377.5 thousand
dollars per defendant.
(Tape Change, HFC 94-59, Side 2)
In response to a question by Representative Sanders, Ms.
Shaw estimated that a trial seeking life imprisonment would
cost about half as much as one seeking the death penalty.
6
JENNY BELL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AWARE SHELTER testified
against SSHB 162. She noted that she is also the
Chairperson for Juneau's Minority Community Police Relations
Task Force which is comprised of 16 minorities. She
observed that there is a high percentage of minorities
within the Alaska correctional system. She noted that 48
percent are minorities, 32 percent are Alaska Native. She
asserted that minorities will suffer from inequities in the
justice system, law enforcement system and during
incarceration. She suggested that funding would be better
spent on law enforcement and child and sexual abuse
programs. She noted that there is a disproportionate number
of Native enforcement personnel.
Ms. Bell added that the Alaska Native Brotherhood and Alaska
Native Sisterhood are opposed to the death penalty.
KAREN HEGYI, ATTORNEY BARROW testified via the
teleconference network in opposition to SSHB 162. She
emphasized the need to fund programs in rural Alaska. She
maintained that programs which address the law enforcement
and legal needs of rural Alaska are inadequately funded.
She asserted that "young men, women, and families are
falling through the cracks and are not getting the help they
desperately need." She maintained that the state of Alaska
cannot afford the death penalty.
Representative Therriault questioned if the appeal process
could be abbreviated or accelerated for persons on death
row.
JOHN SALEMI, DIRECTOR, PUBLIC DEFENDER AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF
ADMINISTRATION answered that the appeal process cannot be
changed due to mandates placed by the United States Supreme
Court. He stressed that defenders must "turn over every
stone". He added that if there is a conviction the defender
must then try to prove that the death penalty would not be
an appropriate sanction for the offender. He observed that
the process has been reviewed by the Supreme Court over the
past few years. He did not anticipate that the process
would be shortened significantly.
BRANT MCGEE, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF PUBLIC ADVOCACY, DEPARTMENT
OF ADMINISTRATION added that state and federal Constitutions
guarantee safe guards to due process. He stated that
national offenders are now averaging nine years and eight
months on death row, from time of conviction to time of
execution. He stressed that offenders determined innocent
while awaiting execution, would have been executed if
appeals had not allowed additional evidence to be
accumulated.
7
Representative Sanders queried if capital trials receive
better representation. Mr. Salemi assured him that
attorneys do the same excellent job that they can in every
case. He explained that capital offense trials require
additional pretrial and post trial motions and appeals.
Factors of mitigation must also be established for
sentencing.
Mr. McGee observed that a study of homicide cases in Los
Angeles, California revealed that capital offense trials
average four times as many pretrial motions. He added that
jury selection took six times as long. He noted that the
survey found that the average homicide case runs
approximately 20 trial days or one month. A capital case
runs approximately 129.9 days or six and a half months.
Representative Brown noted that individuals wishing to
testify from Anchorage were unable to testify, due to
difficulties with teleconference monitors.
HB 162 was HELD in Committee for further discussion.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 3:23 p.m.
8
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|