Legislature(1997 - 1998)
03/26/1997 01:18 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
March 26, 1997
1:18 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Joe Green, Chairman
Representative Con Bunde, Vice Chairman
Representative Brian Porter
Representative Norman Rokeberg
Representative Jeannette James
Representative Eric Croft
Representative Ethan Berkowitz
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 131
"An Act providing for an advisory vote on the issue of capital
punishment."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 53
"An Act relating to the authority of the Department of Corrections
to contract for facilities for the confinement and care of
prisoners, and annulling a regulation of the Department of
Corrections that limits the purposes for which an agreement with a
private agency may be entered into; authorizing an agreement by
which the Department of Corrections may, for the benefit of the
state, enter into one lease of, or similar agreement to use, space
within a correctional facility that is operated by a private
contractor, and setting conditions on the operation of the
correctional facility affected by the lease or use agreement; and
giving notice of and approving a lease-purchase agreement or
similar use-purchase agreement for the design, construction, and
operation of a correctional facility, and setting conditions and
limitations on the facility's design, construction, and operation."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 131
SHORT TITLE: ADVISORY VOTE ON CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) SANDERS, Rokeberg, Kohring
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/13/97 332 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/13/97 333 (H) JUDICIARY, FINANCE
03/12/97 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/12/97 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/24/97 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
DAVID SEID
415 Main, Number 206
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Telephone: (907) 225-6189
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 131
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY SANDERS
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 414
Juneau, Alaska 99811
Telephone: (907) 465-4945
POSITION STATEMENT: Prime Sponsor HB 131
MARY GEDDES
2610 West 27th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99715
Telephone: (907) 248-3710
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 131
BARBARA BRINK, Acting Public Defender
Public Defender Agency
Department of Administration
900 West 5th Avenue, Suite 200
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 264-4400
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 131
BRANT MCGEE, Public Advocate
Office of Public Advocacy
Department of Administration
900 West 5th Avenue, Suite 525
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 2693501
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 131
JAMES MCCOMAS, President
Alaskans Against the Death Penalty
3520 Spinnaker Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99516
Telephone: (907) 258-0704
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 131
DEAN GUANELI, Chief Assistant Attorney General
Criminal Division
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811
Telephone: (907) 465-3428
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 131
CHARLES CAMPBELL, Former Commissioner
Department of Corrections
3020 Douglas Highway
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-1252
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 131
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 97-47, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIRMAN JOE GREEN called the House Judiciary Standing Committee to
order at 1:18 p.m. Members present at the call to order were
Representatives Con Bunde, Brian Porter, Norman Rokeberg, Jeannette
James and Chairman Joe Green. Representatives Ethan Berkowitz and
Eric Croft arrived at 1:21 p.m.
HB 131 - ADVISORY VOTE ON CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
Number 092
CHAIRMAN GREEN announced the first order of business would be House
Bill No. 131, "An Act providing for an advisory vote on the issue
of capital punishment." He noted that public testimony had been
closed; however, he would allow members of the public who were
signed up to testify at the previous hearing to do so at this
committee meeting.
DAVID SEID, resident of Ketchikan, Alaska, asked that the committee
not pass HB 131. It was his belief that the bill oversimplified
the issue and that it was a legislative responsibility to decide
what a crime was, and the proper penalty for a crime. Mr. Seid
pointed out that legislators were elected by the people with the
understanding that they would engage in a spirited and informed
debate, and especially when dealing with a most important public
policy issue, because it involved the issue of whether the
government should place sanctions on the ultimate laws of liberty.
MR. SEID pointed out that the merit that he believed the
legislature needed to debate and consider, at the very least, was
whether it was acceptable that the United States would be the only
western democracy that had not condemned capital punishment. He
noted that what the bill was asking for was government sanctioned
intentional killing.
MR. SEID asked if it was acceptable for the state to employ a
system to kill people when the state already had other severe
penalties in place that provided for life imprisonment, and one
that was enforced in the most serious intentional killings.
MR. SEID questioned whether it was acceptable to have the ultimate,
irrevocable sanction, the taking of somebody's life, as a penalty
when the state operates under a system of men and women, which he
would say was inherently flawed because everyone is human, and what
if the state executed an innocent person, which had happened in
other states. Mr. Seid asked if the death penalty was an
acceptable alternative to the severe punishments already in place
when there were such amazing costs involved. He pointed out, for
example, that in Florida and California, it cost six times more to
execute someone than life in prison. Mr. Seid expressed that there
had to be a lengthy appeal process because the penalty was
irrevocable.
MR. SEID asked that the committee consider the fiscal note provided
by the Department of Law that was presented in 1992 which reflected
their costs, alone, to be $21 million for the first four years.
Mr. Seid advised members that the legislature must evaluate the
issues prior to deciding on whether it was acceptable for the
government sanction of killing individuals. Mr. Seid concluded by
stating that he was against the death penalty in any form, and
asked that members vote no.
Number 340
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if Larry Gondek was available to testify from
Glennallen, Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY SANDERS expressed that he had Mr. Gondek's
letter and would like to read it into the record. He noted that
Mr. Gondek was not able to return to testify at the present
hearing.
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS read, into the record, a statement prepared
by Larry Gondek from Gakona, Alaska. "This is Representative Jerry
Sanders, and this is from Larry Gondek, from Gakona, Alaska, and
the subject is reimposition of the death penalty. He says; "I
would like to thank the Judiciary Committee for this opportunity to
testify on the reimposition of the death penalty for capital
murder. The brutal slaying of Alaska State Trooper Bruce Heck
cries out for the death penalty. The alleged assailant, Mr.
Phillips, had an extensive police record. It is time for us to
send a message to criminals. We, as a society, will not tolerate
criminals barbaric behavior. We must have a deterrent that will be
swift, sure and severe punishment for those who assault, batter or
kill police officers. I do not know how to express the moral
outrage and anger I feel. Juries should be given the opportunity
to choose between the death penalty for capital murder, or life
with no parole. Respectfully submitted for your consideration."
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS advised members he would provide a copy of
Mr. Gondak's letter to the committee.
CHAIRMAN GREEN moved on to take testimony via teleconference from
Anchorage, Alaska.
MARY GEDDES advised members she was a long time resident in
Anchorage, Alaska that she owned a home and paid her property taxes
like everyone else. Ms. Geddes stated that while on her way to
work that morning, she encountered the usual kind of horrible
walking conditions that currently existed in Anchorage. She
advised members that reminded her of the last election that was
held. Ms. Geddes explained that the last election held featured a
question on the ballot as to whether or not the municipality of
Anchorage should incur debt and construct additional ice rinks in
the city. Ms. Geddes pointed out that she was thinking about how
very different the results would have been if it had merely asked
the question, "Should the city of Anchorage construct more rinks
for recreational facilities." Ms. Geddes stated that she felt that
everyone would have, unthinkingly, without too much consideration,
approved the idea.
MS. GEDDES explained that rather than the municipality presenting
a very short and simple question, it put forth and outlined the
extensive costs of constructing ice rinks. She stated that the
voters, in considering the other stresses and strains on the
municipal budget, decided that it could not support such a measure.
MS. GEDDES stated that the consideration as to whether an ice rink
should be built was a much less complex issue than the one being
proposed. Ms. Geddes advised members that there was no way that
the advisory vote question promoted education as to the various
considerations the state would have to implement. She expressed
that it did not advance intelligent discussion, and most of all,
did not allow for any type of examination of the costs, stains and
stresses the implementation of a death penalty would put on the
state.
MS. GEDDES noted that the committee had some information; however,
wished to reiterate some headlines to the members. She noted that
back in 1988 the cost in California for the implementation of the
death penalty was in the order of $90 million a year; 1988 dollars.
Ms. Geddes stated that California tax payers were spending some
where in the order of $15 million per execution. Ms. Geddes
pointed out that those costs would certainly be greater today, and
as she understood, there was presently an estimate of over $30
million to implement the death penalty. Ms. Geddes asked that
members not pass HB 131 as it did not promote intelligent debate.
Number 714
BARBARA BRINK, Acting Public Defender, Office of the Public
Defender Agency, Department of Administration, advised members she
had been allowed to testify at the previous meeting; however, she
would be available for questions and could also speak once again on
the issue.
CHAIRMAN GREEN thanked Ms. Brink for being available to respond to
any questions, and asked if Mr. Brant McGee was available to
provide testimony.
BRANT MCGEE, Public Advocate, Office of Public Advocacy, Department
of Administration, expressed that he would reiterate some of Ms.
Geddes remarks regarding the cost of the death penalty. He advised
members that the Office of Public Advocacy would be particularly
hard hit by the cost of the extremely expensive cases that would
result with the reinstatement of the death penalty in the state of
Alaska.
MR. MCGEE advised members that in 1992 a [Indisc.] study revealed
that their death penalty cases cost $2.3 million a piece, and in
1988 Florida found that their death penalty cases cost $3.2 million
each, and in 1982, a New York study, done in some detail, indicated
a cost of $1.8 million each. Mr. McGee stated that in Texas and
New York it was found that death penalty cases cost more than three
times as much as it would have cost to keep the average defendant
in prison for the remainder of his natural life.
MR. MCGEE advised members that everything he had learned was that
the cost of implementing the death penalty was at least several
times the cost of incarceration for life, which was frankly counter
intuitive, because most people assumed that it would be cheaper to
kill people than it was to keep them in prison, especially at the
high prison cost of nearly $40,000 a year per inmate in Alaska.
MR. MCGEE pointed out that there was literally no evidence that he
had been able to discover that killing people was cheaper than
incarcerating them. He advised members that his concern, as was
the concern expressed by Ms. Geddes, was that none of the cost
information was provided in the ballot question.
MR. MCGEE reminded the Chairman, and other members of the
committee, that they would be having the present conversation
across a table in Willow, Alaska, if the cost information had not
been included on the ballot when Alaskans voted on whether or not
to move the state capitol.
Number 881
REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG noted that Mr. McGee had indicated
he had figures from other states, and asked if he could tell the
committee what his estimate would be to handle the appeals of
someone convicted of a capital crime in the state of Alaska.
MR. MCGEE expressed that he could not provide an estimate; however,
advised members that the average life span of a person convicted
and given the death penalty in the rest of the country was 9.8
years. So basically, Mr. McGee declared that the state would spend
tens of millions of dollars before executing the first Alaskan if
the death penalty were reinstated. He pointed out that the fiscal
note provided by his agency reflected what it would cost for
dealing with just three cases per year. Mr. McGee explained that
that was three new cases per year, but all the cases would
accumulate over a 10 year period, so there would be 30 active cases
within the Office of Public Advocacy prior to executing the first
individual. Mr. McGee stated that beyond that, he would not be
able to provide an estimate, or breakdown, in terms of how much it
would cost to go through both the state and the federal appellate
process.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Mr. McGee if the legislature capped
the amount of legal fees available to those defendants, as well as
the time frame for court proceedings, if that would pass
constitutional muster. He also expressed that it was his
understanding there were federal regulations, and perhaps federal
law that had been implemented in the last two years, that might
impact the appeals process.
MR. MCGEE advised members that to the first question posed by
Representative Rokeberg, he was fairly confident it would not pass
constitutional muster. He stated that the U.S. Supreme Court had
held that death was different, and that super due process would
apply to death cases, which he expressed was a very short answer to
a very complicated question.
MR. MCGEE responded to Representative Rokeberg's second question in
the affirmative. He explained that the federal government,
Congress, had moved to limit the amount and type of Habeas Corpus
relief available to state prisoners, which he felt would have a
deciding impact on how much litigation would occur in the federal
court after the state court procedure was completed. Mr. McGee
advised members he was unable to estimate how much because the
state of Alaska had no experience to point to in terms of the
impact of the federal laws. He continued to state that his
suspicion was that the courts would always be reluctant to short
circuit the appellate process when a person's life was at stake.
Mr. McGee advised members that the culture of the courts in America
was never going to be hospitable to the notion that it would be
necessary to rush to judgment in cases where the system was being
asked to kill Americans.
Number 1065
REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER pointed out that members of the
committee had a document before them that purported to be a four
year estimate of fiscal impact on the various agencies in the
state. He noted that for the Public Defender's Office the figure
was $11.5 million, and for the Office of Public Advocacy, $7.7
million. Representative Porter asked Mr. McGee if he would agree
with those estimated costs.
MR. MCGEE advised members that those figures would represent a
correct estimate in his view. He wanted to caution the committee
members, because those figures reflected an estimated amount
related to 10 cases per year, and advised members that he, and the
Public Defender went out of their way to be conservative in terms
of the costs associated with potential cases. Mr. McGee thought
that the initial cases would probably cost well in excess of what
they had estimated on their fiscal notes. He expressed that they
would have to remember that the initial cases would be far more
heavily litigated than the 10th or 15th case. Mr. McGee advised
members that the first couple of years would be quite intense;
intense in terms of the expenditure of public dollars.
Number 1150
REPRESENTATIVE ERIC CROFT advised members that he created a chart
tallying up the fiscal notes, which were asterisk fiscal notes,
that presented estimated costs if the death penalty was
implemented. Representative Croft asked for an explanation as to
whether the initial trial was more expensive in a capital case, or
did the numbers more reflect the cost of the appellate process.
MR. MCGEE expressed that Barbara Brink had indicated that she had
some specific information in response to that question.
Number 1178
BARBARA BRINK advised members she appreciated the question because
she felt it was a popular misconception that what costs so much
were the appeals. She thought that they should be very concerned
about the additional cost of the trial because capital trials were
very different from regular trials. Ms. Brink reiterated Mr.
McGee's statement that it involved a super due process because of
the extra care that must be taken occurred at the trial level, not
the appellate level. She pointed out that it would be a great
mistake to think that streamlining the appellate process would cut
the costs.
MS. BRINK continued to explain that every capital felony trial was
bifurcated, which meant that two jury trials would take place; the
first trial would determine the guilt or innocence of the person,
and the second trial, also a jury trial, was necessary to determine
whether or not aggravating factors existed, or whether or not
mitigating factors existed that out weighed the aggravating factors
in order to determine whether a sentence of death should be
imposed. Ms. Brink advised members that the experience of the 38
states who have the death penalty, was that capital trials required
far more defense services than a non-capital trial.
MS. BRINK stated that in addition, the American Bar Association
standards for justice provides that in every capital case there
must be a minimum of two defense attorneys, and in fact, one of
those defense attorneys must have had previous capital defense
experience. Mr. Brink advised members that there were no such
qualified attorneys in the state of Alaska, not having had the
death penalty since Territorial days. Ms. Brink expressed that as
stated by Mr. McGee, the state would incur incredible set-up costs
because of the need to recruit outside, and hire lawyers who were
qualified under basic legal standards to perform capital cases.
MS. BRINK further explained that during the investigation of a
capital case evidence had to be examined, experts would have to be
retained, forensics would have to be accomplished, and it was
estimated in the other states that motion practice in a capital
case was five times more costly than a regular non-capital case.
Ms. Brink additionally stated that the trial was incredibly time
consuming, and it had been estimated that a simple capital trial
could take anywhere from six months to two years, or even longer.
MS. BRINK stated with respect to the sentencing phase, which was
not really a sentence hearing, but a second jury trial where
excessive investigation would have to be done that the ABA
standards, once again, mandated a categorical investigation as to
every phase of the individual's life from the day they were born.
Ms. Brink pointed out that 240 witnesses were interviewed in a
recent case in California; searched out, examined, took statements
and testimony, 120 of those witnesses were called to testify at
trial. Ms. Brink reiterated that it was not just the appellate
process that would present excessive costs to the state, but that
super due process was due at the trial level as well.
Number 1330
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT pointed out that an individual who testified
during the previous hearing expressed that on an appeal, evidence
of actual innocence may not be allowed, and asked if that was
really true.
MR. MCGEE pointed out that members were talking to two lawyers,
neither of which had litigated death cases. He stated that what he
thought that witness was referring to was a Supreme Court ruling
which essentially affirmed the disallowance by a lower court, of
evidence of innocence being presented under then current law. Mr.
McGee advised members that that was, frankly, a pretty spooky
decision for people who practice criminal law because all had
believed that, at a minimum, evidence of innocence would be allowed
to be heard; maybe not ruled favorably upon, but at least allowed
to be heard. Then the Supreme Court formed a decision that said,
"No, that is not the case, we drew a hard and fast line in terms of
the extent that one can go in Post Conviction relief, and we meant
it."
MR. MCGEE stated with respect to another question posed by
Representative Croft, that he did have specific data from a Los
Angeles County study that was done in 1992. He advised members
that that data indicated there were four times as many motions
filed in a capital murder trial, as opposed to a non-capital murder
trial. Jury selection took six times as long, and the number of
court days devoted to the trial was one month versus six and one
half months. Mr. McGee pointed out that that was the most specific
study he had seen yet, in terms of drawing distinctions between
what could be referred to as a normal murder trial, as opposed to
a capital case. Mr. McGee expressed that the name of the case to
which the witness referred on Monday was Herrara v. Collins [Ph],
which could be found at 506 ___; 113 Supreme Court 853; 122 L.Ed.
2d 203 (1993) cite.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT claimed then that if evidence of innocence was
not presented in the first Habeas Corpus Petition filed, but
evidence of innocence was found after that petition was filed, that
it could not be allowed in a second Habeas Corpus Petition.
MR. MCGEE advised members that was his understanding, although he
explained that was through his reading of a newspaper analysis of
the case, not a reading of the actual case.
Number 1496
JAMES MCCOMAS advised members he was the President of Alaskans
Against the Death Penalty, a volunteer organization with nearly
1000 members on its mailing lists, and thousands of organizational
affiliate members. Mr. McComas expressed that at least five
members of the House Judiciary Committee opposed the death penalty
for various reasons, and had indicated they would vote against it
if a substantive death bill were brought before the legislature.
He noted that some members were having difficulty in voting against
an advisory vote bill, on that issue. Mr. McComas advised members
he would limit his discussion to six reasons why members should
vote against the advisory vote bill, HB 131.
MR. MCCOMAS stated that if the question was, "Why not an advisory
vote?", the first answer would be that no one had demonstrated the
need for, or benefit from, the death penalty in Alaska. He pointed
out that it had been very interesting to listen to Representative
Sanders, who did not offer one justification as to why the
legislature should be considering an advisory vote on the
reinstatement of the death penalty, rather than the important
issues the legislature should be governing on. Mr. McComas stated
that the only example Representative Sanders provided involved a
baker who killed a number of people, and was serving a sentence of
life without parole, who would probably like to escape, but had
not. Mr. McComas advised members that so far, that was the
strongest argument presented to the House Judiciary Committee as to
why the question should be put to the voters.
MR. MCCOMAS advised members that the real question was why should
they be talking about the death penalty at all in a state that
since statehood had never had the death penalty, and in a physical
area, where for 100 years it had been experimented with and learned
that it was unfair, arbitrary, racially discriminatory, and
frankly, sickening. He noted that it had been found so sickening
that the Marshals refused to carry out anymore executions in
Juneau, Alaska after the hanging of Eugene LaMore, a man who may
have been innocent. Mr. McComas pointed out that after that
execution, the city of Juneau made arrangements to have any further
killings done in the state of Washington. Mr. McComas stated that
the first question was not, why not have an advisory vote, but
provide one justification why there should be one.
MR. MCCOMAS advised members that the second answer to the question
was that the results of an advisory vote would simply be an
expression of public misinformation. He stated that because of the
lack of public interest in the issue, because of the inability of
the sponsors, on either side of the legislature, to identify a
single benefit, and because the death penalty had never been used
in the state since statehood, the state really did not know
anything about the death penalty.
MR. MCCOMAS pointed out that two years ago, the Alaskans Against
the Death Penalty conducted a poll through Jean Cracium and
Associates of 650 Alaskans, statewide. He noted that,
unfortunately, it was slanted towards Anchorage because it was
easier to poll in Anchorage than it was to poll rural Alaska. Mr.
McComas advised members that the public response, when asked which
they believed cost more, the death penalty or life in prison
without parole; 75 percent of the Alaskan response was that life in
prison cost more. Mr. McComas pointed out that Representative
Sanders had said that no one had proven to him that the death
penalty cost more. He advised members there were 38 states that
currently had the death penalty, and wondered which state could be
named that claimed it had saved money by use of the death penalty.
MR. MCCOMAS emphasized that every state had admitted that having
the death penalty was extremely, extremely expensive, noting that
some figures had arisen claiming $2.6 million to $15 million per
execution, and not just because of the trial costs. Mr. McComas
explained that what one would have to understand was that the
effort to get a death sentence and execution was usually
unsuccessful. He noted that by the time the trial on the merits of
the case had taken place, and next the death sentencing trial, the
state would have paid out all the costs of a capital case. Mr.
McComas stated that if the person was found not guilty at the first
stage, or not given the death penalty, those would all be wasted
costs if one was a proponent of capital punishment. He added that
even when given the death sentence it would not mean that person
would be executed. Mr. McComas stressed that the national reversal
rate in capital cases was 50 percent, which meant that half of the
time the court sends the person back to go through that expensive
process all over again, which was why the per execution, that
actually took place, cost millions and millions of dollars.
MR. MCCOMAS expressed that by totalling up the fiscal notes
submitted on HB 131, they amounted to an estimate of $50 million,
and he thanked Representative Croft's office for providing that
informational data, which reflected only the first four years of
state costs, with no executions yet having been accomplished, and
probably none would be for the next six years after that.
MR. MCCOMAS expressed that if the legislature were to ask the
people if they thought there should be national health insurance
guaranteed to every citizen of the state, regardless of race,
creed, color or wealth, the answer would be yes. If the question
were asked if the public felt their social security benefits should
be guaranteed at the average of their four highest years, the
answer would be yes. Mr. McComas pointed out that if the public
was then asked if they were ready to pay for those things, they
would realize the same experience as was found with the capital
move, and the experience Ms. Geddes had on the ice rink move. Mr.
McComas advised members if they really wanted to know what the
public thought about the death penalty, put the real choice before
them, and include in the question that the appropriate state
departments had estimated a cost of at least $50 million for the
first four years, with no executions until the 10th year; should we
enact the death penalty? Mr. McComas stated that he would be happy
to go to the bank on the results of that poll, adding that that was
what it was all about; not, do you like the death penalty in the
abstract, but are you willing to pay for it.
MR. MCCOMAS advised members that the next question asked of those
650 people, was if a person was convicted in Alaska of first degree
murder and sentenced to life, how long would they think the person
would be in prison before being paroled or released back into
society. Mr. McComas pointed out that 78 percent of Alaskans
believed that a convicted, sentenced, first degree murderer would
be back on the streets within 20 years. Mr. McComas noted that as
members of the Judiciary Committee, they knew that no person
convicted of first degree murder could possibly be back on the
street in 20 years because there was a 20 year mandatory minimum
sentence in this state.
MR. MCCOMAS pointed out that the figures he and Mr. Guaneli had
arrived at over the years in an attempt to figure out what the
average sentences were, was that the average sentence for murder in
the first degree in the state of Alaska was 80 to 90 years. He
noted that even the sponsor of HB 131 admitted to committee members
during the previous hearing that in the aggravated first degree
murder cases, which would be the ones that were death eligible if
the death penalty existed in the state, were getting a life
sentence without parole. Mr. McComas stated that was either
because they were convicted of so many counts that they receive the
300 or 400 year sentence, or because they get the 99 year sentence
and Alaska Judges restrict their parole eligibility to make sure
they die in prison. He expressed that that was another reason why
the advisory vote would present a mandate that was really
meaningless because they would getting votes from 80 percent of the
voters who thought murderers would be wandering around in 20 years,
when the truth was, they would never get out of prison at all. Mr.
McComas expressed that committee members could learn, and know that
by studying the facts, but it was not known to the general public.
MR. MCCOMAS expressed that the second answer to the question, why
not an advisory, was that all they would get was a measure of
public misinformation.
MR. MCCOMAS stated that answer number three to that question was
that it was the legislature's responsibility to stop bad public
policy. He stated that if the state wanted to run government on
the basis of 30 minute sound bites, and get together once in the
evening on the internet, all half a million residents, he guessed
that could be done. Mr. McComas pointed out that the state of
Alaska had a representative form of government because the people
did not have the time and opportunity to study the issues. Mr.
McComas advised members that he would predict, that in almost all
cases, when an issue was studied and a conclusion reached based on
good public policy and conscience, that they would not lose the
voters needed, as a political matter, in order to continue in the
positions a legislator holds.
MR. MCCOMAS pointed out that if the state wished to change its form
of government, he had a list that members might wish to consider,
such as an advisory vote on tort reform, the tobacco tax,
subsistence issues, Indian Country. He noted that members would
more than likely respond to that by saying; "those issues are all
so complicated, take tort reform, sure, everyone wants tort reform,
but they don't understand that this is the whole balance of
fairness in the civil justice system." Mr. McComas advised members
that it was the same with the death penalty.
MR. MCCOMAS expressed that he was thinking the previous night that
if Coretta [Ph] Scott King could say "no" to the death penalty for
the assassination of her husband, he felt legislative members could
vote "no" on an advisory vote they knew would be based on a
misinformed public.
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked that Mr. McComas expedite the remainder of his
testimony.
MR. MCCOMAS advised members he was doing the best he could;
however, wished to point out that he had studied the issue a lot
and was attempting to help the committee.
MR. MCCOMAS referenced South Africa and stated that if there ever
was a country where a governmental death penalty was justified, it
was in post-apartheid South Africa. He noted that people were
maimed for political reasons and killed for political reasons;
however, Mr. McComas pointed out that they were holding courts of
reconciliation, and were pardoning the people that maimed and
killed. He felt if South Africa could do that, that members should
be able to vote "no" on the advisory vote proposed in HB 131.
MR. MCCOMAS continued with reason number four, advising members
that an advisory poll meant politics, not policy, would decide the
death penalty issue. He stated that if the question were asked as
presently worded, there would be a 75 percent to 80 percent
approval rating from the public. Mr. McComas pointed out that
there had been a 75 percent to 80 percent approval rating from the
public in every death and non-death state in which that unfair
question had been posed. He expressed that it was obvious why that
would be the result, because people would be thinking that they
were saving money and making the streets safer, when neither one
results from the death penalty.
MR. MCCOMAS stated that then the question for those members who
opposed the death penalty was; "When I'm faced with a 75 percent,
or 80 percent public mandate, will I still be able to vote against
the death penalty, or will I decide this is just one issue where
the people had been heard." Mr. McComas felt that members of the
House Judiciary Committee who opposed the death penalty would vote
against it, irrespective of whether or not there was a popularity
vote on the issue or not. He stated that he was far from convinced
that the legislature, as a whole, would be able to resist, and in
particular in a year when a gubernatorial race would be taking
place. Mr. McComas stated that his position was that members
should be a little bit brave today, instead of setting themselves
up for trying to explain their opposition to the death penalty in
the face of an 80 percent purported mandate.
MR. MCCOMAS pointed out that reason number five was that an
advisory vote would not change the facts. That, however popular
the death penalty was, it would still be three to six times more
expensive than life without parole, and would still have no affect
on crime. Mr. McComas explained that not only was there no proven
deterrent affect of the death penalty, but studies had begun to
suggest, with increasing consistency, that the violence of the
death penalty actually insights violence in the community. Murder
rates become higher in capital systems where retribution was the
rhetoric on the street, than in non-capital states.
MR. MCCOMAS advised members that no matter how popular, the death
penalty would still be applied on the basis of the race of the
accused, and the race of the victim. He noted that in territorial
days, in this century, 75 percent of the homicides were committed
by white people and 75 percent of those executed, before the
territorial legislature put an end to the madness, were non-white,
the exact opposite; 25 percent of the murders were committed by
non-white citizens and they were killed 75 percent of the time.
MR. MCCOMAS pointed out that wealth also played into the scene, and
members had heard about mistaken convictions. Mr. McComas noted
that a number of items had been handed out to members, of which one
was entitled Millions Misspent. He referred to a document that was
a Congressional Subcommittee report that documented 48 cases in
twenty years, 1973 to 1993 where individuals were released from
death row on grounds of innocence; those mistakes were caught.
Mr. McComas advised members that half the people on death row did
not even have a lawyer or the chance of showing their innocence, if
in fact they were innocent.
MR. MCCOMAS referred to another document titled Murder Victim
Families for Reconciliation, and advised members that was a
national group that contained 16 to 20 stories, and an explanation
of the unbelievable kinds of crimes they suffered. Every single
one was an adamant opponent of the death penalty, nor did they want
the memorial of their loved one to be the death of another human
being.
MR. MCCOMAS advised members that the sixth reason, and his final
reason why members should vote no on HB 131 was that the bill
represented politics in the worst sense. He pointed out that the
sponsor, Representative Sanders, had been asked where the language
came from during the previous hearing, and an answer was not really
provided. Mr. McComas stated that he could tell members where the
language came from; from Senator Robin Taylor, that it was Senator
Taylor's bill filed first in the Senate, and then sponsored in the
House by Representative Sanders. Mr. McComas pointed out that
Senator Taylor wanted to run for governor, and at the end of the
session last year the same bill died in the House Finance Committee
because Representative Therriault, Republican from North Pole,
decided, as a matter of conscience, that he would not promote
bringing the death penalty back to the state of Alaska. Mr.
McComas expressed that Senator Taylor had been closeting people,
and basically saying, "Don't worry, this really isn't about the
death penalty, we just want to make the governor veto this bill.
We just want to have the benefit of being able to use that
politically."
MR. MCCOMAS stated that members would have to ask themselves if
they had been receiving organized input or hundreds of calls and
people clamoring offices for the purpose of bring back the death
penalty. He advised members that did not exist in the state of
Alaska. There was no clamor to bring the death penalty back to the
state, and what was before them was a political effort to,
basically, provoke a gubernatorial veto before the next election.
Mr. McComas felt that that, in and of itself, was a good reason to
vote against the advisory vote bill even if members opposed the
administration, and maybe even more so if they opposed the
administration because they would be making the very strong
statement, and the kind of statement members would want their
constituents to hear, which was, when it comes to life and death,
you don't play politics.
Number 2264
DEAN GUANELI, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division,
Department of Law, expressed that members had heard an awful lot of
reasons for opposing the death penalty, and he would only highlight
some of those reasons rather than repeat them in detail. He stated
that he, as well, would provide a prosecutor's perspective on
capital punishment.
MR. GUANELI stated that members had heard that capital punishment
was disproportionately imposed on minorities and that innocent
people had been, and certainly could be executed. Mr. Guaneli
pointed out that the death penalty was an irreversible action, and
that the criminal justice system was not perfect. He pointed out
that with more accessibility to DNA testing techniques, more
innocent people had been found imprisoned across the United States.
Mr. Guaneli pointed out that usually that had been found in rape
cases where the perpetrator had left bodily fluid samples that
could be tested by DNA, although that often did not happen in
murder cases where the murderer did not leave a sample. Mr.
Guaneli stated that in the cases where there had been samples left,
dozens of people who had been convicted, primarily on eye witness
testimony, had been found to be innocent through DNA testing,
factually innocent. He advised members that that could, and
actually did happen in murder cases.
MR. GUANELI noted that members had heard that capital punishment
was too expensive, that figures from the other states were their
experience. He pointed out that so far in Alaska, it could only be
speculated as a best guess in terms of the fiscal impacts. Mr.
Guaneli advised members that the fiscal notes were based on the
previous experiences of other states where it took approximately
9.6 years of very detailed trial and appellate litigation to bring
someone to the death chamber. Mr. Guaneli pointed out that the
most recent statistics he had seen, and had just seen since the
Department of Law prepared their fiscal note, was that the
experience in 1995 was that of those people who were actually
executed, it took an average of 11.2 years of litigation.
MR. GUANELI expressed that the federal government had enacted
legislation called the Efficient Death Penalty, or Effective Death
Penalty Law, that would shorten up that period of time, which might
crank it back down to 9.6 years of litigation. The fact remained
that the death penalty involved years and years of litigation,
which was the reason for the excessive costs it would require.
MR. GUANELI pointed out that members had also heard that it was
inconsistent to try to, as a society, decrease violence by the
government intentionally killing people. Mr. Guaneli stated that
from a prosecutor's perspective, he felt the death penalty did one
other thing, which was that it tended to skew the case law in any
state. He expressed that death penalty cases were treated
differently by the courts, and scrutinized much more carefully;
every piece of evidence, every word spoken by the prosecutor in
questioning and opening and closing argument, and every action by
the defense attorney, was scrutinized in terms of, did the defense
attorney provide effective assistance of counsel or not. Mr.
Guaneli advised members that everything in a death penalty case was
absolutely different, and the rulings on evidence and procedure
were scrutinized extremely carefully. He stated that the rulings
that were applied in death penalty cases often trickle down to
other types of non-capital cases, making it much more difficult for
prosecutors to obtain convictions in non-capital cases because the
evidence rules had changed simply as a result of capital punishment
existing in the state.
MR. GUANELI pointed out that even if members overlooked all those
objections, and if they were willing to run the risk that a few
more minorities would be executed; even if willing to run the risk
that a few innocent people might be killed, even if the state was
willing to bear the expense, even if the state did not care that it
would create legal problems in other types of cases, and even if
members did not care that it sent the wrong message about stopping
violence, then at least, should not capital punishment stop murders
from occurring, and have some deterrent affect. Mr. Guaneli stated
that the problem was that it did not, and studies from all over the
country showed that the death penalty did not deter the crime of
murder.
MR. GUANELI continued and stated that if members did not believe
that or believe the studies, that they believed, as rational
people, that the death penalty would deter murder, that he thought
they should ask themselves what kind of murderers did it deter.
Mr. Guaneli stated that the fact of the matter was, from a victim's
standpoint or perspective, that half of the victims of murder in
this country were white, and half of them were black. He stated
that of those people who were sentenced to death, overwhelmingly,
almost all of them had killed someone who was white.
TAPE 97-47, SIDE B
Number 000
MR. GUANELI advised members that first degree murder was treated
very severely in Alaska. Statistics that he had run, personally,
showed that the vast majority of first degree murderers received
sentences in the range of 70, 80, 90, 99 years, and up. Mr.
Guaneli pointed out that the kinds of cases that were cited by
death penalty supporters, particularly in other states was where
someone convicted of murder got out of jail and killed again. That
does not happen in the state of Alaska. He noted that as
Representative Sanders stated during the previous hearing, "We do
lock them up forever." Mr. Guaneli advised members that that was
true.
MR. GUANELI stated that as a prosecutor involved in a murder case
where the person received a sentence of 99 years, he breathed a
sigh of relief. He was over and done with that case, and could
move on to the next case on his calendar. Mr. Guaneli advised
members that he participated in a case in Juneau, Alaska, of a
serial killer who had killed a number of people in other states and
came to Alaska and committed a brutal murder in Juneau. He
received a sentence of 99 years without parole. Mr. Guaneli
reiterated that the case was over and done, and the District
Attorneys office could move on to the next case.
MR. GUANELI pointed out that the state did not want to be fighting
a case like that for the next 11.2 years, but get on with the
business of state government, which was prosecute cases and deal
with them in a way that would protect the public, yet at the same
time, would not run all the risks that the state would realize
through capital punishment.
MR. GUANELI advised members that the decision of the Territorial
Legislature to ban the death penalty was a correct one, and urged
that members not take a giant step backwards.
Number 077
CHAIRMAN GREEN noted that in discussion about the death penalty, it
had been indicated to him that there was no way the state could be
sure that once a sentence was imposed of 70 to 90 years, that a
more liberal review would not come back and change that.
MR. GUANELI explained that the current legislature recently made a
number of changes to Criminal Rule 35, in which once a prisoner had
gone through their first appeal process, and once they had gone
through the post conviction relief process, which was in essence a
second appeal, that the changed law severely limited the prisoner's
ability to come back to court after a given period of time. He
added that the legislature had already taken a giant step, and an
effective one to limit the ability of one to come back before the
courts time and time again. Mr. Guaneli advised members that the
federal courts had adopted similar rules that would limit
accessibility to federal Habeas Corpus petitions, although in
capital cases a slightly different route takes place.
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if the same restriction would apply in a
capital case where the death penalty was being sought.
MR. GUANELI thought that, as indicated by Mr. McGee and others, the
courts treat capital cases very differently. He noted that even
when past legislation had been before the legislature that had a
detailed death penalty law set out, tried to do some things to
short circuit it. Mr. Guaneli felt there would always be those
attempts; however, felt that Alaska had a system currently in place
that worked, and to inject capital punishment into that, he
believed would mess up the works and result in 11.2 years of
litigation.
Number 176
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE stated that existing law would not exempt
death penalty cases from a Rule 35 review.
MR. GUANELI advised members that the courts had traditionally
treated death penalty cases differently, and certainly at the
federal level. He believed that there was a great risk that courts
would find that the existing limitations that had been imposed by
the legislature would be unfair in death penalty cases.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked what the cost would be to the
Department of Law for prosecuting a single death penalty case.
MR. GUANELI noted that he did not have the department's fiscal note
in front of him, although stated that it went into some detail as
to what would be the likely cost. He advised members that the
department's fiscal note was based on two very expensive and
lengthy trials, one in Southeast Alaska, the Peel Case, and one in
Fairbanks, the Neil McKay [Ph] Case. He stated that based on that
experience, it would cost, in terms of the trial phase, several
hundred thousand dollars. Mr. Guaneli expressed that one thing
that came to mind when talking about costs, was that they might
very well have a serious murder in a small town, which meant that
venue would probably have to change. That would require that
prosecutors move and witnesses would have to go to the designated
city where the trial would take place, which involved a lot of
hidden costs and he did not know if a lot of those hidden costs
could be reflected in the department's fiscal note. Mr. Guaneli
anticipated at least hundreds of thousands of dollars would be the
typical capital case at the trial phase alone, and then the
appellate level process would go on for a decade.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ advised members that based on having been
a prosecutor in an office that was operating under tight budget
constraints, his concern was that when the priority became high end
cases; death penalty and major felony cases, lower level cases
would be neglected; misdemeanors and lower level felonies. He felt
that was to the overall detriment to public safety, and asked that
Mr. Guaneli respond to that conclusion.
MR. GUANELI believed that was absolutely correct, which was why in
the department's fiscal note they reflected the need for a special
unit to handle death penalty cases, which would include a special
unit of attorneys who would be available, not only to deal with
cases in Anchorage, but to fly out to any small area in the state.
He stated that it was very true, that unless there was a special
unit dealing with those cases, the rest of the work in the office
would stop. Mr. Guaneli advised members that in all the major
homicide cases the state had litigated, it usually took two
attorneys, and that would result in other work coming to a halt in
the smaller offices or additional personnel would be necessary.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ pointed out that the previous night the
Department of Law suffered some budget cuts, as most departments
did, and could not help but wonder what would happen if the
department had to bear the costs of doing death penalty
prosecutions at the same time of having to operate under a tight
budget constraint.
MR. GUANELI advised members that it simply could not be done under
existing resources.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked Mr. Guaneli if he had participated in
coming up with the numbers listed on the document entitled FISCAL
IMPACT OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT - FIRST FOUR YEARS.
MR. GUANELI advised members that the Department of Law participated
to the extent of identifying which murder cases the state had had
experience with that would likely fall within those that would be
prosecuted as capital cases, and a prediction of how many would
likely be convicted.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if the department had considered the
Criminal Rule 35 amendment when calculating their costs as
reflected on the fiscal note.
Number 410
MR. GUANELI advised members that it was his belief that the numbers
on the fiscal note were based on the national experience of 9.6
years of appellate litigation, whether under Criminal Rule 35, or
a Federal Habeas Corpus; then back to state court and then back to
federal court, et cetera.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if the changes to Rule 35 would not cut
those costs down some, if not challenged as being unconstitutional.
MR. GUANELI advised members that it was conceivable that it could
be cut down a little bit on the state side, but there would then be
the route of federal court as well. He reiterated that death
penalty cases jump from state court to federal court and the
federal court sends it back to state court; however, advised
members that he was not convinced that greatly limiting the
appellate routes in death penalty cases would withstand scrutiny by
the courts.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked what the average number of first degree
murder cases would qualify for the death penalty in the state
within the past 10 years.
MR. GUANELI advised members that the department had found, going
back a couple of years, that approximately 17 first degree murders
would have had the kind of aggravating factors that might qualify
as a death penalty case, per year. He pointed out that the
department based their fiscal note on the assumption that they
would elect to pursue a capital case in 10 of those 17 cases, which
was an attempt to make a realistic guess at the fiscal impact. Mr.
Guaneli stated that there may have been some mitigating factors in
7 of those 17 cases, so state would decide not to pursue those
cases as a death penalty case. Mr. Guaneli stated that the
department had anticipated nine out of 10 convictions, and of those
nine convictions, estimated that six cases could result in the
imposition of the death penalty.
Number 516
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked Mr. Guaneli, with respect to the 9.6 and 11.2
years that it would take to litigate a capital case, if there would
be anyway to suppress that process down to possibly three years.
MR. GUANELI advised members that a good proportion of current cases
that move to the Alaska Appellate Courts take two to three years
under current rules and procedure. He stated that adding on to
that the more careful scrutiny that death penalty cases get, and
adding on to that the scrutiny the federal courts had imposed,
that to attempt to suppress the process would be impossible.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that the recap of the fiscal
impact the state would realize through implementation of capital
punishment reflected approximately $19 million for the Public
Defender's Office and the Office of Public Advocacy. The
Department of Law reflected approximately $10.3 million and asked
if that was an appropriate ratio for the cost of defense over the
cost of prosecution.
MR. GUANELI expressed that he was not in a position to comment
about fiscal notes prepared by other agencies. He did point out
that the public defender would have to increase its staff greatly,
not only multiple attorneys per case, but also investigative
resources would have to be increased greatly. Mr. Guaneli advised
members that the same would apply to the Office of Public Advocacy.
He noted that there would be cases, in addition, to the allegation
of the public defender not providing effective assistance of
counsel, the case would then bounce over to the Office of Public
Advocacy. Mr. Guaneli stated that he could anticipate their
numbers as being reasonable.
Number 638
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ noted that the numbers on that particular
document did not reflect any additional costs to the Department of
Public Safety, or police agencies.
MR. GUANELI agreed that it did not include anything from the law
enforcement agencies.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ pointed out that the defense would have to
absorb those costs themselves.
MR. GUANELI stated that the defense would require extensive
investigative resources.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Mr. Guaneli if the department used
the McKay case, which involved a change of venue and was rather
extensive in terms of its length and complexity, when working up
their fiscal note.
MR. GUANELI advised members that the Department of Law used the
Peel case as a basis for arriving at approximate amounts. He
stated that the Peel case was, he believed, the most expensive case
the state had prosecuted. Mr. Guaneli pointed out that the
department did not use the actual cost of the Peel case in the
fiscal note, but as a gauge in order to determine what was in the
ball park. He stated that the estimate per case, as estimated by
the Department of Law, was less than one half of what the state
spent in the Peel case.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if Mr. Guaneli would say that it
would be extraordinarily difficult to attempt to estimate the costs
of a capital case prosecution because of not having an actual
experience over a long period of time to compare with.
MR. GUANELI advised members that he believed that the costs of the
trial were much more solid for the department to anticipate in a
first degree murder case. They would expect at least 30 or 40
witnesses and could anticipate their per diem costs, airfare and
expert witness costs because the department had experience with all
those things, as well as the costs of the state's attorneys. So,
in terms of the trials, he believed that the department's costs
were reasonable and solid, and he would stand by them. Mr. Guaneli
stated that in terms of the 9.6 years, or 11.2 years; i.e., the
appellate review and the cases that bounce up and down, that he
thought costs were softer simply because it did take such a long
period of time. Some defendants, such as Gary Gillmore who said,
"Let's do it, let's get on with it"; they waive their rights and
even that took a long time to make sure their waiver was
intelligent and the person competent. Mr. Guaneli noted that other
death row prisoners would drag the process out, and pointed out
that there were people on death row in other states who had been
there 20 plus years.
Number 790
CHAIRMAN GREEN felt what the Department of Law was projecting was
whether or not Alaska would follow the average cost of the other
states, regarding the number of appeals, et cetera, but not the
cost of the court room action, itself.
MR. GUANELI stated that would be correct.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT pointed out that members had again heard
testimony about the murder of Trooper Heck [Ph], and if the
murderer was convicted in the state of Alaska, how long would he
spend in prison.
MR. GUANELI advised members that he believed the answer would be 99
years without the possibility of parole. He stated that there was
a special law that the present legislature enacted regarding the
killing of uniformed police officers that would apply to such a
case.
Number 855
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER agreed with Representative Berkowitz's
concern that the fiscal note was incorrect to the extent that the
Department of Public Safety was not represented because he could
validate that the costs to the Department of Public Safety, and to
police departments of municipalities, would increase tremendously.
He noted that with a first degree murder case there would be one
in-court investigator for the duration of the trial itself, and
that a capital punishment case would have at least two in-court
investigators for the duration of the trial. That would last at
least six months versus one month, which would result in a lot of
felony cases that would not get investigated.
MR. GUANELI stated that there was no question that what
Representative Porter just outlined would be correct. He advised
members that was the state's experience in the Peel case that they
needed two or three investigators off their duty stations, and he
believed the same was true in the McKay case.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if that would involve additional people
for a capital punishment case.
MR. GUANELI pointed out that there was no question that in any
first degree murder case additional police resources were required.
He stated that in capital murder cases, it was a fact that every
piece of evidence was looked at through a microscope. He referred
to it as somewhat like having the O.J. Simpson trial all the time.
All investigators have to be on call constantly, that whenever the
defense raised a point, the state would have to send the
investigators out to do follow up investigation. Mr. Guaneli
reiterated that everything was looked at with a great deal of care,
and the investigators had to be available to do additional work
constantly, and to be available in court to help the prosecutors
prepare the case.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that they would not want to add in all
the costs, but only the accelerated costs in a fiscal estimate of
what the costs would be.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER advised members that he was talking about
accelerated costs, over and above the cost to prosecute a first
degree murder case.
Number 978
CHARLES CAMPBELL former Commissioner, Department of Corrections,
advised members that there was one matter that was particularly
troubling to him and was pleased to see that Representative Sanders
was still in attendance because he wanted him to hear it, because
it could quite possibly go to the question of the safety well-being
of the populace.
MR. CAMPBELL advised members that in 1969, Glenn Pearce [Ph], and
William Bowers [Ph], both criminologists at Northeastern
University, published a report on their comprehensive study of the
death penalty in New York State from 1907 until 1964. Mr. Campbell
stated that over that period of time, 692 executions were carried
out. He stated that during these 97 years, each of the months in
which one or more executions were carried out, it was followed by
an average increase of two additional homicides in the state of New
York. That brought about the question, did that mean that
executions caused innocent people to be murdered, and it was felt
there had to be some other explanation.
MR. CAMPBELL pointed out that Dr. Pearce, who was an exceedingly
careful, objective social scholar, had been on the look out for
another explanation for the past 17 years. Mr. Campbell pointed
out that he speaks with Dr. Pearce every two or three years. He
advised members that there had been additional, less extensive
studies that tended to corroborate Dr. Pearce's results. Dr.
Pearce was still not sure, but as the years had gone by, Dr. Pearce
had become increasingly inclined to give value to the apparent
finding that publicized executions, rather than having a deterrent
effect, were inclined to incite persons who were predisposed to
violent crime.
MR. CAMPBELL expressed that he would tell the committee why he
believed that to be true. He pointed out that he had been involved
with Corrections for a good number of years. He had seven
different field assignments during his 20 years with the federal
prison system. One of those assignments was at the Medical Center
for Federal Prisons in Springfield, Missouri, where they conducted
major psychological studies ordered by the courts; both federal and
state cases. Mr. Campbell advised members he sat through many
hours of briefings on some of the most bizarre and violent
criminals one could ever imagine. He noted that he had a medical
job at the medical center, but also had a case load of two persons
with whom he had to go into the cell and have face to face
interviews with from time to time. Both of those people had
committed vicious murders; one person was a multiple murderer. Mr.
Campbell stated that the point he wanted to make was as he thought
of those wretched individuals locked up at the medical center in
Springfield, Missouri, was that it was absolutely preposterous to
think that those kinds of people would hesitate for one instant to
commit murder by the prospect of being put to death by the state.
MR. CAMPBELL stated that one could add to all of that the clear and
unmistakable pattern that emerges when you look at comparative
murder rates in North America and in Europe. He stated that the
jurisdictions that have the death penalty have higher murder rates.
The jurisdictions that had initiated the death penalty, or
reinstated the death penalty, as the 38 states in the United States
since Greg v. Georgia, have either seen no change, or an increase
in their murder rates. The states of Florida and Texas could
demonstrate that rather dramatically. Mr. Campbell pointed out
that it was true that no social scholar had ever been able to
refute the findings of Robert Rontell [Ph], who conducted his
extensive studies in Europe over 100 years ago that demonstrated a
pattern of high homicide rates following increased use of the death
penalty.
MR. CAMPBELL stated that it could not be said that any one factor
he was pointing out proved anything beyond question. However,
everything, all of the statistics, all of the anecdotal evidence
leaned in one direction. He expressed that members could not avoid
suspecting, and stated that he was beginning to believe that the
term "violence begets violence" was far more than just a pais
axiom. Mr. Campbell was convinced it was the truth, and even if
one should consider what he was saying was just a bunch of
nonsense, what if they were wrong; what if there was validity to
what he was telling members. Mr. Campbell did not think it was a
chance worth taking.
MR. CAMPBELL advised members that the reinstatement of the death
penalty in the state of Alaska would not be a good idea, that there
were no purposes to be served, no needs to met, no problems to be
solved or advantages to be gained, unless members were basing their
support on vengeance. He pointed out that vengeance was the only
thing left to base their decision on if they supported the death
penalty. Mr. Campbell stated that he simply could not believe that
most of the people of Alaska, of whom many take their Biblical
injunctions seriously, would be interested in such a change in
criminal justice policy, based on vengeance. He advised members he
opposed the idea of an advisory vote because he opposed anything
that conceivably could move the state closer to restoration, or
reinstatement of the death penalty.
Number 1326
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG expressed his appreciation of Mr.
Campbell's long interest in Corrections and background in penology,
and stated that he was curious if he had been able to determine if
there was any long term trend in any country that showed any
diminution of homicide. Anecdotally, he suspected that the long
term trends had been an increase in homicide, and asked if there
would be a potential for the increase in homicide after an
execution had taken place.
MR. CAMPBELL advised members that he did not know the answer to
that question. He knew the rough data of there being an
inclination for there to be no change as a result of the death
penalty, or a reduction in homicide rates where the death penalty
existed. Mr. Campbell pointed out that Canada abolished the death
penalty in 1976, and it was not known if it proved anything;
however, the homicide rate had decreased in that country since the
abolishment of the death penalty.
MR. MCCOMAS requested that he be able to respond to Representative
Rokeberg's question. He stated that basically, over the long term
there had not been a constant increase or decrease in homicide
rates. There had been a fluctuation if measured for 100,000
population, and it seemed that the things that correlated most
directly with that were demographic changes in a population.
Number 1482
CHAIRMAN GREEN recognized Mr. McGee's request to respond to the
fiscal impacts reflected in his fiscal note.
MR. MCGEE advised members that he wished to supplement Mr.
Guaneli's remarks regarding the Peel case. Mr. McGee expressed
that he was the opposing counsel in that case so he could respond
from the other side of case. Mr. McGee noted that Mr. Guaneli
testified that he basically cut the numbers in half, with respect
to witness costs, and Mr. McGee advised members that his numbers
reflected the same thing. He stated that was probably perhaps
because neither Mr. Guaneli or himself wanted to contemplate the
possibility of another Peel case in Alaska. Mr. McGee noted that
although it was the longest criminal trial in the history of the
state, it was just eight months. He expressed that in Los Angeles
County the average death penalty case was six and a half months,
which was just short of Alaska's state record. Mr. McGee felt that
the numbers on the fiscal note reflected very conservative evidence
on the part of the Department of Law and the Office of Public
Advocacy in terms of the actual costs that they should
realistically anticipate in terms of the litigation of death
penalty cases. Mr. McGee asked that members recall, as well, that
the Peel case was about guilt or innocence; there was no penalty
phase in that case, so literally, half of the costs of a lot of
death penalty cases were not incurred in the Peel case, or in any
other homicide cases in Alaska. He asked that members bear in mind
that the homicide cases in Alaska were half of what a regular
capital case would involve because the state did not have separate
trials on the issue of sanctions, or imposed punishment.
Number 1581
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Mr. McGee if the defense of a capital
case required a substantially greater cost than the prosecution of
the case.
MR. MCGEE responded that in terms of costs per case borne by the
agencies, borne by OPA and borne by the Department of Law, he would
say did, simply because OPA would not receive the benefit of the
law enforcement assistance which the Department of Law receives.
He pointed out that capital cases were fact intensive cases, both
phases, and the agency would be devoting a lot of its resources to
the investigation of the case. Mr. McGee stated that certainly in
the Peel case the defense was out-spent by the prosecution, but
asked that members remember that the numbers on the Peel case did
not include any attorneys fees at all.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked how much the Peel case cost the state
of Alaska, both for the prosecution and the defense.
MR. MCGEE stated that his estimate, at the time, was several
million dollars. He pointed out that the initial trial lasted
eight months which occurred approximately 16 months after the
arrest of the primary suspect, John Peel, and that resulted in a
hung jury, 9 to 3 for not guilty. The case was then re-tried in
Juneau, Alaska, and that trial lasted four months and resulted in
an acquittal. Mr. McGee stated that his estimate of total costs of
all resources was well in excess of several million dollars, and
reminded members that was half a trial; an adjudication of guilt or
innocence, not a capital case that required two separate trials.
He reiterated that it was tried twice and was a very intensive
case, but pointed out that there were no appeals because Mr. Peel
was acquitted. Mr. McGee advised members that one could readily
argue that the Peel case was as cheap as the state could ever get
off with a death penalty case. Again he expressed to members that
both Mr. Guaneli and himself had cut their actual cost figures in
half in order to do per case estimates on the contractual costs.
MR. MCGEE advised members that it would be hard to make the case
that the fiscal notes were exaggerated, in fact, he felt if
anything, the opposite would be true.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if Mr. McGee had said several million
dollars, or $7 million.
MR. MCGEE expressed that he stated several million.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if Mr. McGee could put an exact
number on the Peel case.
MR. MCGEE stated that he could not, in fact, would not have any
idea because the only numbers they had historical access to, at
this point, were contractual and travel costs. He pointed out that
no one, to his knowledge, had made a calculation of what it cost
Alaska State Troopers to have all its investigators available, full
time, for a couple years, and what it cost the Department of Law
for their various attorneys, as well as what it cost OPA as to its
involvement in the case. He reiterated that he would estimate, at
the very minimum, it would cost several million dollars.
Number 1868
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER underscored Mr. McGee's comments and advised
members that in most other states, the county and state prosecutors
offices had their own investigative staff, and that was not the
case in the state of Alaska.
CHAIRMAN GREEN pointed out that it had been said that jurors were
sometimes swayed because of the type of case they were serving on,
and if the case being tried was a death penalty case, that it could
possibly be acquitted rather than rendering a guilty verdict
because of the possibility of the death penalty being imposed.
MR. MCGEE advised members that he believed that was a valid
argument, simply because he took the word of prosecutors that he
had talked with throughout the country, and prosecutors whose word
he had read about around the country, as well as his good friend
and former opposing counsel, Peter Gruenstein, who was for many
years one of the more outstanding prosecutors in the state of
Alaska, who handled many homicide cases in this state, including
some against Mr. McGee. Mr. McGee advised members that Mr.
Gruenstein was verbally convinced that jurors could be swayed,
which was one of the primary reasons why he was so strongly opposed
to the death penalty. Mr. McGee stated that Mr. Gruenstein
believed that killers would walk away because of the possible
imposition of the death penalty.
MR. GUANELI advised members that he also thought that could happen,
and that it ought to be a concern to everyone, and was certainly a
concern to the courts. Mr. Guaneli pointed out that he felt that
was one reason why the jury selection phase of any capital case was
so long, drawn out and complicated. He expressed that in other
states they attempt to find what was termed, "death qualified
juries", people who have, or lack, certain feelings about the death
penalty. Mr. Guaneli stated that what it often meant was that
there was something called individual voir dire. In Alaska, the
jury panel is questioned as a whole, together, and in death penalty
cases, as well as in the Peel case, there was individual voir dire
whereby by each juror was questioned individually in front of the
judge and the attorneys. Mr. Guaneli expressed that they spent
approximately an hour with each juror going over a long list of
questions that had been agreed to by both the defense and the
prosecutors, and approved by the judge in the case. He noted that
it was a very intensive procedure, with the jury selection process
that took many, many weeks. Mr. Guaneli stated that much of the
length of time in the trial was simply jury selection to try to
avoid the kind of thing Chairman Green had brought attention to;
however, he stated that often times even that did not work.
Number 2093
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked if the voir dire process was to protect
the defendant.
MR. GUANELI stated that he thought that individual voir dire, and
very careful voir dire, was a method of preserving the rights of
both sides in a case.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked if, through voir dire questioning, the
potential jurors were asked how they felt about the death penalty,
and whether they could impose it.
MR. GUANELI advised members that those were the types of questions
asked, as well as questions relating to a person's religious views,
their moral scruples, philosophical views about the death penalty,
about crime, about all sorts of things. He reiterated that it was
a very intensive process, and a very invasive process to many
jurors to have their deepest held beliefs probed.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated with respect to voir dire
questioning, if Mr. Guaneli would envision that an entire jury
panel would be selected and held, throughout the voir dire process,
if the death penalty were to be reinstated.
MR. GUANELI asked if Representative Berkowitz was referring to the
jury panel being sequestered.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated not necessarily sequestered, but
his experience with picking a jury was such that everyone was
called into the courtroom, or jury room, and each person would be
plucked out, one at a time, while everyone else was sitting there
spinning their wheels.
MR. GUANELI stated that he felt there were a variety of ways that
could be done. He believed that in the Peel case, they would get
to a juror every half hour to an hour and they basically scheduled
them that way so people would have a scheduled time to show up at
the court house. Mr. Guaneli felt there were ways it could
minimize the impact on jurors; however, the jury selection process
was certainly a very intense process.
Number 2216
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated that it would be fair to say that
for the pool under consideration for jury duty, that even during
the selection process, and certainly during the trial phase, it
could constitute a substantial imposition on the individual's
ability to lead free and unfettered lives.
MR. GUANELI felt that was always the case in any long trial. He
stated that it was certainly true in the Simpson case, or other
trials that last a long time. He stated that it was unfortunate,
but the price we pay for living in a society that has a jury system
as its form of justice.
TAPE 97-48, SIDE A
Number 000
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated to Mr. Guaneli, that given the
constraints put on the Department of Law in terms of budgeting, and
in being in a position as a prosecutor if there were not ways that
the criminal justice system could be more cost effective in
delivering their services by placing certain parameters, or limits,
on those services. He asked Mr. Guaneli if he thought, as an
attorney philosophically, that justice should have a blank check.
MR. GUANELI expressed that he did not believe any state agency
deserved a blank check for anything it did. But he did believe
that based on the laws that were in place, and based on the
constitutional protections provided, that justice and fairness
under the state's system was not cheap. Mr. Guaneli thought that
there was a cost that must be borne, whether that cost was as a
result of a court-imposed doctrine, or simply the plain reading of
the constitution. Mr. Guaneli pointed out that there was a minimum
below which the state could not short cut the system.
CHAIRMAN GREEN stated that there being no further questions by
committee members, he would close public testimony on HB 131, and
the issue would now be before members for discussion.
Number 164
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT moved for the adoption of Amendment 1, HB 131,
page 1, line 8, delete [Shall], and insert; If the Alaska State
Legislature enacts a law providing for capital punishment for
murder, the following annual fiscal costs to the following state
agencies are estimated to result: (INSERT FISCAL COSTS)
Considering this, shall, and on page 1, following line 12, insert
a new bill section to read: "*Sec. 2. Each department that
expects to be affected by the enactment of a law providing for
capital punishment for murder in the first degree shall submit an
estimate of that fiscal impact to the lieutenant governor not less
than 180 days before the time the question in sec. 1 of this Act
will appear on the ballot. The lieutenant governor shall insert
those estimates into the question at the place shown in sec 1 of
this Act.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG objected.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT explained that Amendment 1 did what some of
the speakers had spoke to today by placing the estimated costs to
state agencies on the advisory ballot. He made reference to the
single page document that had been referred to a number of times
during the meeting, and advised members that he had requested his
staff to prepare that document. Representative Croft explained
that the numbers reflected were only those submitted by the various
agencies on their fiscal notes. He stated that it was, basically,
an addition of a four year time cycle of estimated costs by the
affected departments.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT reiterated the situation with the ice rink
proposal in Anchorage, Alaska, where after the people realized what
it would cost voted the proposal down. Representative Croft felt
that was the real question that should be placed on the advisory
ballot. He felt what was provided by the agencies were good faith
estimates based on the history of Alaska trials, and based on what
had happened in other states. Representative Croft pointed out
that Alaska had a rare advantage in this case because so often
members were making laws and wondering what they would do. He
expressed with HB 131, the legislature had 38 other laboratories
who had reimposed the death penalty, and had seen what had taken
place in those states, with the costs being two to six times over
and above the cost to imprison someone for life. Representative
Croft informed members that it cost the state of Alaska
approximately $100 per day to house one prisoner, and to house that
prisoner for 30 years would cost the state a little over $1
million. He added that he did not know how long the person would
live while in state custody, but just chose 30 years as an example.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG believed that was a mathematical error.
CHAIRMAN GREEN advised members they would revisit that concern.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT further explained that evidence had been
provided that in no case did any state save money by implementing
the death penalty, which he believed stood unrefuted.
Representative Croft pointed out that members had received good
estimates regarding the length of capital trials and what they
cost, and to place the issue before the people in its original
form, would be asking a misleading question. Representative Croft
pointed out that what the question was, was if the public wanted to
pay the cost for implementing and utilizing the death penalty as
criminal punishment in the state of Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT expressed that Representative Porter rightly
pointed out that in the proposed amendment, on line 4, the word
"additional" should be inserted after the word "following", and
Representative Croft would accept that as a friendly amendment to
Amendment 1.
CHAIRMAN GREEN pointed out that he mentally calculated quickly what
it would cost the state to house a prisoner for 30 years and he
came up with approximately $1.08 million.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG expressed that he did mis-speak somewhat,
that he was using a different figure and agreed with the estimated
calculation arrived at by both Representative Croft and Chairman
Green.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES advised members that she liked the language of
the amendment and additionally, did not like to mislead people.
She stated that when you begin a survey with a question beginning
with, "If you knew that ....", et cetera, that it did allow people
the opportunity to have a more realistic position on the issue.
Representative James advised members that she could support the
amendment as put forth by Representative Croft.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked if the word "additional" was now
included in the amendment before the committee.
CHAIRMAN GREEN expressed that it was still under discussion;
however, he did not see a problem with inserting the word
"additional".
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that he did see a problem and
objected to the friendly amendment to Amendment 1.
Number 724
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG was concerned about the clarity of the
costs, in relation to the super due process that had been referred
to in earlier testimony. However, Representative Rokeberg did not
feel it could be done anyway, so he withdrew his objection to the
friendly amendment to Amendment 1; therefore, the word additional
would be inserted after the word "following" on page 1, line 4, of
Amendment 1.
CHAIRMAN GREEN advised members Amendment 1, as amended was before
the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER pointed out that the amendment referred to
estimated costs, not exact costs, and to the extent that they could
be calculated as carefully as possible he was sure would be done,
and thought the amendment would allow that to occur. He stated
that it would not include the numbers on the previous fiscal notes
because they addressed a specific bill, and it would not be
necessary to establish what was contemplated as costs for the death
penalty because that would have to be in the wording.
Representative Porter expressed that if members were discussing a
death penalty bill for the slaying of police officers only, that
would be one thing; however, if it affected any first degree
murder, that would be an entirely different circumstance and he
felt it would be necessary to establish what type of cases the
costs would be reflecting. Representative Porter still felt it was
a valid point to present that information to the public because the
issue was an extremely expensive proposition.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated that the legislature, of all people,
should know that the likelihood of a commensurate budget increase
in those areas was slim to none, and from that standpoint, there
would be no doubt in his mind that there would be an awful lot of
criminal justice activity that would not get accomplished. He felt
that it was only fair if there would be a ballot vote that those
facts be presented to the public.
CHAIRMAN GREEN agreed with the statement of Representative Porter.
He reiterated that he had conducted a poll in his district the
previous year as to whether the people supported the death penalty,
and two thirds said yes. The question then continued to state that
if the people were aware that it would cost one and a half to two
times of the cost of life in prison, it dropped to 50 - 50
immediately. He pointed out that if the question had stipulated
costing three to eight times that of life in prison, the results
would have been even lower that 50 percent. Chairman Green felt
the cost issue was very valid, and though it may not reflect exact
figures, it would certainly educate the public as to what they
would be voting on.
Number 960
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG advised members he was very disturbed, and
stated that there had been testimony before the committee which he
found rather disturbing, in its form, that he disagreed with. For
example, to say that it was a given fact that the death penalty
would cost three to six times as much as life in prison because it
did in other states and, historically, in the past prior to federal
law that it would cost three to six times more was just not right,
that it was false. Representative Rokeberg stated that he thought
the original question Chairman Green posed to his constituents
might be closer to what the death penalty would cost, except that
the cost was still not known. Representative Rokeberg pointed out
that there had been testimony at the present hearing which
reflected that no one knows how much the Peel case cost, and to use
the highest cost case, that and the McKay case as a baseline, might
be a good conservative method in which to calculate costs, but in
this instance, everything and everybody seemed to be trying to bulk
up a number, which came down to having a game of numbers.
Representative Rokeberg continued by stating that the question
would become who calculates the cost, and what assumptions did they
use. For example, Representative Rokeberg pointed out that they
just had a little bit of a side board situation about how much it
costs to incarcerate a criminal in the state of Alaska. He stated
that the fact of the matter was that it depended on what the
average age of a criminal was, which he would submit was probably
in the twenties, and how long they live, which he submitted was
longer than 30 years, and could possibly be up to 50 years if they
considered the statistical averages.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG felt that if members were going to proceed
along the lines of providing numbers to the public that members
should start making some assumptions and give directions, because
he would suggest that the same people who provided bogus numbers
for the capitol move, would provide bogus numbers on this issue.
Representative Rokeberg expressed that he did not mind the point
that was being made was that there was a cost attached, but to try
to quantify the costs down to a "gnat's eyebrow", and to attempt to
charge someone, as the amendment did, to come up with the numbers
and bring them back and put them on the ballot was totally crazy.
Representative Rokeberg advised members that they would not get any
real numbers unless there was a very strict oversight on how the
numbers were drafted. He stated that he did not care if it was net
present value, nominal dollars, or anything; it just did not work,
and the best that they could expect was what they used to call in
the real estate business as WAGS, "wild ass guess." He felt it was
a mistake, and believed members were going down the wrong path.
CHAIRMAN GREEN pointed out that the state operated off fiscal notes
and everyone has their views and make estimates of what should be
spent. He stated that to say it would not be possible to come up
with a specific number might be so; however, they could provide an
estimated cost range, or "this is the number, plus or minus".
Chairman Green expressed that to say they would not be able to come
up with numbers, so therefore, numbers would not be included he
felt was equally foolish.
Number 1172
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated that it was interesting that
Representative Rokeberg considered the numbers to be far flung. He
stated if members wanted to talk numbers, they should consider the
deterrent value of implementing the death penalty. Representative
Berkowitz advised members there had been no solid numbers offered
on that issue, and no solid reasons offered as to why the
legislature should even take the step being proposed in HB 131.
Representative Berkowitz stated that if they were going to juggle
numbers in the air, they should juggle numbers that were pertinent
to the passage of the particular bill before the committee, which
were the fiscal notes and were the affects of the reinstatement of
the death penalty. He further stated that there was numerical
showing or nothing quantifiable about its positive benefits.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated with that spirit in mind, he would
like to offer a conceptual amendment to add into the fiscal impact
the costs to the Department of Public Safety, and law enforcement
agencies.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES felt that public safety and law enforcement
agencies would be involved because they were included as state
agencies.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ thought they were talking about the four
departments listed on the one page document entitled Fiscal Impact
of Capital Punishment, which included Corrections, Administration,
Law and the courts.
CHAIRMAN GREEN agreed with Representative Berkowitz understanding
of who would submit costs to the lieutenant governor.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES expressed that that document had nothing to do
with the amendment before the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated that he had no objection to having the
Department of Public Safety come in; that they probably should, and
expressed that he was not quite sure why they had not submitted a
fiscal note on HB 131. He would expect, and hoped that every
affected department would submit a fiscal note and the big gap
seemed to be the Department of Public Safety. Representative Croft
did not know if they needed to amend Amendment 1 to specifically
list every affected agency, so to include the Department of Public
Safety.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES advised members that she was not in favor of
listing the agencies affected because they could then run into the
problem of leaving someone out. She thought what was on the record
would include the Department of Public Safety because they were an
affected agency.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER advised members that there was a pretty
simple way of expanding the law enforcement costs. He expressed
that the state was very fortunate to have a unified district
attorneys office, that no matter what police agency brings them the
case, the district attorneys' office had a handle on all the cases
and if the Department of Public Safety could arrive at a cost for
one case, all that would be necessary was to multiply that figure.
Number 1319
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES advised members that she was pleased with the
amendment in its current form and believed that it would represent
the people well and provide the means to answer the question with
knowledge.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG expressed that it was necessary for him to
leave; however, if they were going to continue discussion on
presenting a cost to the public, he would take a very strong
exception to the number provided by the Department of Corrections,
which required separate beds, et cetera, for $16 million. He
thought that figure was absolutely false, and felt if the committee
was going to pursue the issue that someone from the Department of
Corrections should provide direct testimony on that issue.
CHAIRMAN GREEN pointed out that the amendment was not specific to
any numbers. He felt there was a miscommunication and would talk
to Representative Rokeberg about that later because he needed to
leave the committee at this time to chair the House Labor and
Commerce Committee.
Number 1484
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS advised members that with or without
Amendment 1, he would like to see the bill moved forward. He felt
the amendment was a mistake. Representative Sanders pointed out
that he remembered voting on the capitol move; he voted three times
to move the capitol and when they finally put the price of the move
on the ballot, he voted not to pay the price. But he, like the
rest of the public, realized that they only put the price on the
ballot in order to kill the initiative. Representative Sanders
stated that everyone knew that, and they were not fooling the
public. He expressed that a gentleman had testified that 75
percent of the public wanted the death penalty and that they had
been frustrated for 20 years by a few people in the legislature.
"But don't think we're going to fool the public with this." Either
way, Representative Sanders reiterated that he would like to see
the bill move forward.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated that those were interesting
comments, and pointed out that there were often times when he would
see something that he wanted, but when a price tag was placed on
the item, like a new car, he'd have to say he could not afford it.
Representative Berkowitz advised members that that was part of
understanding exactly what you're able to buy or pay for, so he
felt it was necessary to include a price tag on the proposed
legislation because that was the only way it could be done fairly.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES advised members that she certainly agreed with
what Representative Sanders said regarding the capitol move, and
pointed out that she voted for it even after seeing what it would
cost because she felt it was a false calculation. She believed it
still was, and they did not fool her on that one, and they would
not fool her on this one either if there was not good backup
documentation provided in support of the numbers presented.
Representative James stated that she would not deny there would be
additional costs for implementing the death penalty; however, how
much additional costs was questionable. She advised members she
felt comfortable with the language in the amendment, but that the
people providing the cost estimates better have the numbers backed
up in some manner.
Number 1594
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated that if HB 131 would subsequently pass
and the computations begin, he would aim it at what the question
was, which was "death penalty for first degree murder", and that
would be the basis for the calculating the costs.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES expressed that she would like to receive a
copy of the calculations prior to them being put before the public.
CHAIRMAN GREEN advised members that Amendment 1, as amended, was
before the committee. Because of Representative Rokeberg's
departure, his objection could not be maintained, and Amendment 1,
HB 131 was adopted.
CHAIRMAN GREEN advised members he would not take action on the bill
itself until members had time to absorb the testimony they had
heard and reviewed the backup materials provided. The bill would
be brought up at a later date for final discussion.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 1661
There being nothing further to come before the House Judiciary
Committee, Chairman Green adjourned the meeting at 3:17 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|