Legislature(1997 - 1998)
01/29/1998 01:40 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
JANUARY 29, 1998
1:40 P.M.
TAPE HFC 98 - 11, Side 1
TAPE HFC 98 - 11, Side 2
TAPE HFC 98 - 12, Side 1
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Gene Therriault called the House Finance Committee
meeting to order at 1:40 p.m.
PRESENT
Co-Chair Hanley Representative Kelly
Co-Chair Therriault Representative Kohring
Representative Davies Representative Martin
Representative Davis Representative Moses
Representative Grussendorf Representative Mulder
Representative Foster was absent from the meeting.
ALSO PRESENT
Senator Jerry Ward; Senator Lyda Green; Jim McComas,
Alaskans Against the Death Penalty, Juneau; Peggy Burgin,
Anchorage; Dale Kelly, Alaskans Against the Death Penalty,
Anchorage; Vicki Otte, Alaska Natives Justice Center,
Anchorage; Ron Reed, Juneau; Patricia Paddock, Douglas;
Isabel Hesson, Juneau; William Cole, Physician, Juneau;
Charles Campbell, Juneau; Cami Moline, Juneau; Chip Wagoner,
Juneau; Lizzie Berne, Douglas; Mary J. Horton, Juneau; Ellen
Campbell, Juneau.
The following testified via the teleconference network:
Stephen V. O'Connor, Anchorage; Lisa Fitzpatrick, Anchorage;
Jennifer Fiess, Attorney Anchorage; Rich Curtner, Anchorage;
Barbara Hood, Anchorage; Jennifer Rudinger, Alaska Civil
Liberties Union (ACLU); Barbara Brink, Alaska Public
Defenders Agency; Christine Davidson, Anchorage; Cari
Stoddard, Anchorage; Dana Lederhos, Anchorage; Leslie
Hiebert, Office of Public Agency; Karen Button, Anchorage;
Richard Heacock, Alaska Christian Conference.
SUMMARY
SB 60 "An Act providing for an advisory vote on the
issue of capital punishment."
SENATE BILL NO. 60
"An Act providing for an advisory vote on the issue of
capital punishment."
RON REED, JUNEAU testified via the teleconference network in
opposition to SB 60. (Mr. Reed's full written testimony is
on file.) He maintained that the State would spend half of
the Department of Law's current budget to obtain the first
execution. He asserted that there is an inherent bias in
the criminal justice system. He observed that the
percentage of Alaska Natives incarcerated is twice as high
as the percentage of Alaska Natives in the general
population. He pointed out that all three of the executions
that took place in Juneau, prior to 1957, involved
minorities, despite the fact that 74 murders were committed
by Caucasians. Between 1903 and 1957 three-quarters of all
hangings, in Alaska, were of Natives and Blacks, while
three-quarters of the murders were committed by Caucasians.
Mr. Reed maintained that capital punishment does not deter
crime. He asserted that due to presumptive sentencing the
state of Alaska incarcerates a higher percentage of its
population than the national average.
Mr. Reed maintained that there has not been an "explosion"
of crime in Alaska. He asserted that money needed to
implement capital punishment would be better spent in other
ways.
SENATOR ROBIN TAYLOR, SPONSOR OF SB 60 spoke in support of
the legislation. He observed that SB 60 would seek the
advice of Alaskan voters on the issue of capital punishment.
He emphasized that SB 60 would not impose the death penalty
in Alaska. He maintained that opinion polls reflect
Alaskans' desire for capital punishment. He argued that
life without parole is a death penalty. He noted that a
March 1996 poll, conducted in Alaska, showed that 62 percent
of those polled favored the death penalty over life without
parole. He observed that support for capital punishment
crossed all demographics, including location, gender, age,
party affiliation, employment status and length of time in
the community. He stressed that Alaska has one of the
youngest, best educated and well read populations in the
Nation. He maintained that Alaskans will cast votes based
on information, not emotion. He emphasized that the cost of
the ballot issue would be approximately $3,000 thousand
dollars.
Representative Davies questioned why an advisory vote would
be preferred over a poll. Senator maintained that an
advisory vote is the most effective poll. He observed that
he has sponsored or co-sponsored every capital punishment
bill before the legislature for the past 13 years. He
pointed out that none have been enacted. He asserted that
the public is ready to participate in a debate on capital
punishment.
STEPHEN V. O'CONNOR, ANCHORAGE testified via the
teleconference network in opposition to SB 60. He observed
that he has a BA in Criminal Justice. He asserted that the
death penalty has been used in a discriminatory manner and
is costly in time and effort. He pointed out that capital
punishment is not reversible. He maintained that capital
punishment is not effective as a deterrent. He claimed that
capital punishment legislation is politically motivated.
LISA FITZPATRICK, ANCHORAGE testified via the teleconference
network in opposition to SB 60. She stressed that it is the
responsibility of the Legislature to determine if the death
penalty is an appropriate form of punishment. She
maintained that an advisory vote invites a response based on
fear and anger. She stressed that the public does not have
the information available to legislators.
JENNIFER FIESS, ATTORNEY ANCHORAGE testified via the
teleconference network in opposition to SB 60. She stated
that she worked as an attorney in New York City for 10
years. New York has had the death penalty for 2 years and
has yet to put someone on trial. She asserted that the
advisory vote promotes people's reactions based on vengeance
without knowledge of how capital punishment is administered.
She emphasized that there is a large capacity for human
error. She maintained that the person on the street does
not understand the complexity of capital punishment. She
emphasized that mercy is a component of justice
SENATOR JERRY WARD, spoke in support of SB 60. He noted
that he was also speaking on behalf of Senator Lyda Green.
He maintained that Alaskans should be allowed to vote on the
enactment of capital punishment. He stressed that "there is
no way, that someone who has committed murder, that is
executed, will ever murder again". He observed that
execution is final.
RICH CURTNER, ATTORNEY, ANCHORAGE testified via the
teleconference network in opposition to SB 60. He stated
that he prosecuted capital punishment cases for 10 years in
Ohio before he moved to Alaska. He observed that there are
150 people on death row in Ohio. He observed that there has
not been an execution since capital punishment was
implemented in Ohio. He stressed that the cost has been
enormous. He maintained that it is 6 times more expensive
for a death penalty case than a case involving life in
prison without parole. He emphasized the high emotional
cost on those that implement capital punishment.
BARBARA HOOD, ANCHORAGE testified via the teleconference
network in opposition to SB 60. She emphasized that there
is a high human cost. She works with a support group for
victims' families, Murder Victims' Families for
Reconciliation. She stated that, in many instances,
families urge against capital punishment. She quoted the
group's founder, Marie Deans:
The death penalty is a false God promising to bring
justice and closure to victims' families. There is no
justice for murder. You cannot give enough time in
prison, and you cannot kill enough people to make up
for the precious, unique human life that murder takes.
Instead, we must put the vast resources we spend on
killing a small percentage of murderers into preventing
homicides.
Ms. Hood also quoted form Celeste Dixon. She noted that Ms.
Dixon was a supporter of capital punishment throughout the
trial of the man accused of killing her mother. However,
when she saw the defendant's mother crying and learned that
he had been abused as a child, she couldn't stop thinking of
him as a person.
(Due to time considerations Ms. Hood was unable to finish
her testimony. A copy of her additional remarks is
available on file.)
JENNIFER RUDINGER, ALASKA CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION (ACLU)
testified via the teleconference network in opposition to SB
60. (Ms. Rudinger's written remarks are on file.) She
emphasized that the system is fallible. She asserted that
voters should know that there are racial disparities in the
charging, sentencing, and imposition of the death penalty.
BARBARA BRINK, ALASKA PUBLIC DEFENDERS AGENCY testified via
the teleconference network in opposition to SB 60. She
expressed surprise that such an important criminal justice
issue is being considered for an advisory vote. She
observed that there are a lot of related factors and
maintained that the "big picture" is within the legislative
providence to decide. She observed that death penalty cases
are more expensive. She stressed that California spends $15
million dollars and Texas spends $2.3 million dollars per
execution.
CHRISTINE DAVIDSON, ANCHORAGE testified via the
teleconference network in opposition to SB 60. She stressed
that capital punishment is expensive. She maintained that
the death penalty is based on vengeance. She suggested that
funding be spent on education rather than on implementing
capital punishment. She stressed that there is a difference
between vengeance and justice.
CARI STODDARD, ANCHORAGE testified via the teleconference
network in opposition to SB 60. She noted that errors have
been made in capital punishment cases. She cited an
Illinois case where a falsely convicted person was released
after 10 years on death row. She emphasized that people and
governments make mistakes.
DANA LEDERHOS, ANCHORAGE testified via the teleconference
network in opposition to SB 60. She maintained that people
are better than the worst thing they ever did in their life.
LESLIE HIEBERT, OFFICE OF PUBLIC AGENCY testified via the
teleconference network in opposition to SB 60. She did not
think that the advisory vote would provide legislators with
any meaningful advice needed to make a reasoned decision on
the issue. She alleged that an advisory vote would shift
the Legislature's responsibility.
KAREN BUTTON, ANCHORAGE testified via the teleconference
network in opposition to SB 60. She observed the
seriousness of the issue. She stressed the need to end
violence, not "reenact it."
(Tape Change, HFC 98 -11, Side 2)
Ms. Button acknowledged that she has not always been in
favor of capital punishment. She stated that money should
be put toward crime prevention.
RICHARD HEACOCK, ALASKA CHRISTIAN CONFERENCE testified via
the teleconference network in opposition to SB 60. Mr.
Heacock noted that the Alaska Christian Conference adopted a
resolution in opposition to the death penalty (copy on
file).
Senator Taylor replied to remarks by testifiers. He
maintained that the 1987, Stanford study was badly flawed.
He observed that the authors subsequently stated that it has
not been proven that any of the executed defendants were
proven innocent.
Senator Taylor noted that six percent of juveniles convicted
of murder and paroled in 1978 were arrested for murder again
within 6 years.
Co-Chair Therriault observed that, if SB 63 is passed, some
of these offenders would be waived into adult court.
Senator Taylor emphasized that legislation to implement
capital punishment has not been crafted. He observed that
young offenders could be excluded. He observed that capital
punishment could be implemented with a broad or narrow
interpretation.
Senator Taylor stated that in 1984, an estimated 810
defendants convicted of murder had committed 821 new
murders. He maintained that the execution of these
defendants would have saved 821 lives.
Senator Taylor noted that FBI crime reports revealed that in
1993, criminals released on parole, probation or pre-trial
release murdered 7,700 people. Nine to 15 percent of those
on death row in 1994, had committed at least one additional
murder prior to the murder for which they were sentenced to
death.
Senator Taylor quoted the poet Hyam Barshay:
"The death penalty is a warning, just like a lighthouse
throwing beams out to sea. We hear about shipwrecks,
but we do not hear about the ships the lighthouse
guides safely on their way. We do not have proof of
the number of ships it saves, but we do not tear the
lighthouse down."
Senator Taylor argued that race of the victim or defendant
does not play a major role. He stated that, according to
1995 NAACP Legal Defense Fund statistics, 82 percent of
murder victims in death penalty cases were white and 13
percent were black. Of these, 47 percent of the defendants
were black and 38 percent were white. He added that 56
percent of those executed were white and 38 percent were
black. He stated that the 1981 American Sociological Review
concluded that there is no evidence of system wide
discrimination in the imposition of the death penalty beyond
the 1950's.
Senator Taylor acknowledged the cost associated with capital
punishment cases. He maintained that millions of dollars
are saved by allow defendants facing a death penalty to
plead for life without parole.
Senator Taylor observed that there is a big difference
between a vote to change the constitution and an advisory
vote.
Senator Taylor emphasized that there are 38 states that are
using capital punishment as a prosecuting tool. He asked
how life in prison without benefit of parole is anything
other than a death sentence.
JIM MCCOMAS, ALASKANS AGAINST THE DEATH PENALTY refuted
statements by Senator Taylor. He observed that the study in
the Stanford Law Review was written by two assistant U.S.
attorneys, who were told to write a quotable piece to
support the death penalty. He maintained that it was not an
independent finding.
Mr. McComas provided members with a report titled,
"Innocence and the Death Penalty", by the Subcommittee on
Civil and Constitutional Rights, Judiciary Committee, U.S.
Congress, 1993 (copy on file). He observed that the report
found that there have been 48 cases of innocent individuals
released from death row since 1973.
Mr. McComas referred to Senator Taylor's statement that 810
defendants convicted of murder had committed 821 new
murders. He clarified that these statistics were based on a
letter to the editors of the Stanford Law Review from
someone who studied 32,000 thousand people convicted of
homicide. He noted that, according to these statistics, 1
percent of people convicted of homicide commit another
homicide. He observed that not all of the 810 offenders
were "death eligible." He noted that the U.S. Supreme
Court has held that aggravated first-degree murder is the
only offense that can carry a death sentence.
Mr. McComas stressed that the voters may have different
ideas about what capital punishment legislation would be
enacted. He pointed out that the Senator Taylor has
sponsored substantive death legislation.
Mr. McComas maintained that 78 percent of Alaskans think
that first-degree murders will be released within 20 years.
He asserted that there has not been a case in the state of
Alaska where a person convicted of first-degree murder was
released and subsequently committed an additional murder.
He stated that no person convicted of first degree murder in
the state of Alaska has ever killed another inmate or prison
guard.
Mr. McComas emphasized that the money used to implement the
death penalty could be spent on child protection and alcohol
intervention. He observed that it is an emotionally charged
issue that divides communities. He maintained that the
odds of being sentenced to death are four times greater if a
white person is killed than if a black person is killed.
PEGGY BURGIN, ANCHORAGE testified in opposition to SB 60.
Her daughter was murdered in Anchorage. She stated that
she did not want to be responsible for someone else's death.
She emphasized the need for prevention.
DALE KELLY, ALASKANS AGAINST THE DEATH PENALTY, ANCHORAGE
testified in opposition to SB 60. She asserted that many
Alaskans are uninformed in regards to capital punishment.
She did not think that a ballot question would provide
sufficient information. She noted that it would take
millions to enact the legislation due to federal safeguards
and guidelines. She urged that the estimated $50 million
dollars needed to implement capital punishment legislation
be used to support children.
VICKI OTTE, ALASKA NATIVES JUSTICE CENTER, ANCHORAGE
testified in opposition to SB 60. She observed that the
Alaska Native Justice Center, the Alaska Federation of
Natives, and the Alaska Intertribal Councils unanimously
oppose the reinstatement of capital punishment. She
asserted that Alaskans do not have enough information to
make a decision. She suggested that money that would be
spent on implementing the death penalty be spent on things
that will benefit children.
ISABEL HESSON, JUNEAU testified in opposition to SB 60. She
maintained that it is wrong to take a life.
WILLIAM COLE, PHYSICIAN, JUNEAU testified in opposition to
SB 60. He stressed that the death penalty is administered
with prejudiced against the poor and minorities. He
emphasized that it is a great responsibility to kill
someone. He maintained that unless an individual is willing
to have the matter of life and death in their personal
hands, they should not vote for the death penalty.
CAMI MOLINE, JUNEAU testified in opposition to SB 60. She
stressed the difficulty of teaching children to be
nonviolent. She maintained that capital punishment is at
its core violent. She asserted that the ballot question
would exploit people that do not know the facts. She
alleged that capital punishment has not been proven to
deter violent crime, that it costs millions of dollars to
put one prisoner to death, and that those that are chosen to
die are poor men of color. She emphasized that an execution
will not take away the family's grief.
CHARLES CAMPBELL, JUNEAU testified in opposition to SB 60.
He stated that a person that murders a white person is
almost 5 times as likely to be executed than someone who
murders a black person. He observed that the American Bar
Association passed a resolution calling for a moratorium in
the use of the death penalty. He noted that their decision
was based on concerns that poor offenders are inadequately
represented. He observed that the federal government
eliminated all funding for death penalty legal resource
centers across the country. He maintained that there will
always be outrageous inequities in the administration of
capital punishment. He asserted that capital punishment is
"absurdly expensive, has no value as a deterrent and is
destructive in other ways." He observed that Russia,
Ukraine and South Africa have suspended the death penalty.
CHIP WAGONER, JUNEAU testified in opposition to SB 60. He
maintained that "God is watching us." He maintained that
the bar of civilization and justice has been raised. He
asserted that capital punishment would lower the bar. He
asked why there should be an advisory vote if the answer is
already known. He argued that an advisory vote is not the
ultimate poll. He stated that the question is simplistic.
He asserted that a neutral poll would give better answers
than an advisory vote. He maintained that a ballot question
places a burden on members of the faith community that would
fight against capital punishment. He noted that he is a
former chairman of the Southeast Republicans. He emphasized
the intensity of the issue.
LIZZIE BERNE, DOUGLAS testified on SB 60. She referred to
HCS CSSB 60 (JUD). She observed that the committee
substitute would require voters to consider how much it
costs to execute someone versus what it would cost to let
them live their life in prison. She maintained that the
committee substitute indicates that certain human lives have
a monetary value. She observed that Senator Taylor stated
that people should use information not emotions to make
their decision. She emphasized that emotions make us human.
MARY J. HORTON, Juneau testified in opposition to SB 60.
She stated that she respects the lives of those that are
unborn and those that are born. She maintained that life
without parole allows the offender an opportunity to change.
She stressed that there are more important things to spend
the money and time on.
ELLEN CAMPBELL, JUNEAU testified in opposition to SB 60.
She stated that she has been a prison volunteer. She noted
the difficult choice facing legislators. She stressed that
legislators have an opportunity to stand for that, which is
best.
SB 60 was HELD in Committee for further consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 3:36 p.m.
House Finance Committee 9 1/29/98
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|