Legislature(1997 - 1998)
05/08/1997 08:30 AM 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
May 8, 1997
8:30 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Joe Green, Chairman
Representative Con Bunde, Vice Chairman
Representative Brian Porter
Representative Jeanne James
Representative Norman Rokeberg
Representative Eric Croft
Representative Ethan Berkowitz
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 60
"An Act providing for an advisory vote on the issue of capital
punishment."
- MOVED HCS SB 60(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
* HOUSE BILL NO. 252
"An Act relating to criminal records; relating to notice about and
registration of sex offenders and child kidnappers; and amending
Rules 11(c) and 32(c), Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure."
- BILL HEARING CANCELLED
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SB 60
SHORT TITLE: ADVISORY VOTE ON CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) TAYLOR, Pearce
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/24/97 126 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/24/97 126 (S) JUDICIARY
03/10/97 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
03/10/97 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
03/11/97 671 (S) JUD RPT 4DP 1DNP
03/11/97 671 (S) DP: TAYLOR, MILLER, PEARCE, PARNELL
03/11/97 671 (S) DNP: ELLIS
03/11/97 671 (S) FISCAL NOTES (GOV, CORR, LAW)
03/11/97 671 (S) FIN REFERRAL ADDED AFTER JUDICIARY
03/24/97 832 (S) INDETERMINATE FNS (ADM-2)
04/09/97 (S) FIN AT 6:00 PM SENATE FINANCE 532
04/10/97 1075 (S) FIN RPT 4DP 2NR 1DNP
04/10/97 1075 (S) DP: PEARCE, SHARP, PHILLIPS,
TORGERSON
04/10/97 1075 (S) NR: PARNELL, DONLEY; DNP: ADAMS
04/10/97 1075 (S) PREVIOUS FN (GOV)
04/11/97 (S) RLS AT 10:45 AM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
04/11/97 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
04/29/97 (S) RLS AT 10:45 AM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
04/29/97 1543 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR & 1DNP 4/29/97
04/29/97 1546 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
04/29/97 1546 (S) AM NO 1 FAILED Y6 N11 E3
04/29/97 1547 (S) AM NO 2 FAILED Y5 N12 E3
04/29/97 1548 (S) AM NO 3 FAILED Y5 N12 E3
04/29/97 1549 (S) THIRD READING 4/30 CALENDAR
04/30/97 1583 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME SB 60
04/30/97 1583 (S) PASSED Y13 N6 E1
04/30/97 1583 (S) ADAMS NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION
05/01/97 1626 (S) RECON TAKEN UP - IN THIRD READING
05/01/97 1626 (S) PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y13 N6 E1
05/01/97 1627 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
05/02/97 1463 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
05/02/97 1463 (H) JUDICIARY
05/05/97 1530 (H) FIN REFERRAL ADDED
05/07/97 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM SENATE FINANCE 532
05/07/97 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
05/08/97 (H) JUD AT 8:30 AM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
Senator Robin Taylor
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 30
Juneau, Alaska 99811
Telephone: (907) 465-4906
POSITION STATEMENT: Prime Sponsor SB 60
JOSH FINK, Intern
Alaskans Against the Death Penalty
P.O. Box 202296
Anchorage, Alaska 99520
Telephone: (907) 258-2296
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 60
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 97-81, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIRMAN JOE GREEN called the House Judiciary Standing Committee to
order at 8:30 a.m. Members present at the call to order were
Representatives Bunde, Porter, James and Green.
CHAIRMAN JOE GREEN announced that because of a conflict, the House
Judiciary Committee would recess to the call of the chair. The
meeting was recessed at 8:32 a.m. Chairman Green called the House
Judiciary Committee back to order at 9:50 a.m. Members present at
the call to order were Representatives Con Bunde, Brian Porter,
Jeannette James, Eric Croft, Ethan Berkowitz and Chairman Joe
Green. Representative Norman Rokeberg arrived at 10:15 a.m.
SB 60 - ADVISORY VOTE ON CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
Number 033
CHAIRMAN GREEN advised members that the bill before them was SB 60,
"An Act providing for an advisory vote on the issue of capital
punishment." He noted that Representative Croft had prepared an
amendment for the committee's consideration.
REPRESENTATIVE ERIC CROFT moved to amend SB 1, 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)
These estimates assume 10 capital punishment cases annually.
It is also estimated that the total fiscal cost for the trial
and subsequent legal proceedings, incarceration pending execution,
and execution for one capital punishment case would be:
(INSERT FISCAL COST)
For the purpose of comparison, the estimated total fiscal cost of
the trial and subsequent legal proceedings and incarceration of a
person sentenced to a mandatory 99-year term of imprisonment
without parole as provided under current law is:
(INSERT FISCAL COST)
Considering this shall; and 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 estimate, in consultation with the
Legislative Budget and Audit Committee, and submit 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 appropriate places shown in sec 1 of this Act.
REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES objected.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT explained that Amendment 1, SB 60, was,
basically, identical to the amendment the committee adopted on the
House version of the bill, and would place on the ballot, the
fiscal costs expected to be realized by the affected state
agencies. This amendment; however, was different than the action
taken on the House Bill in two different areas.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT advised members that the first difference
would place on the ballot a comparison of the expected costs of a
death penalty sentence versus a sentence of life in prison. He
explained that the Department of Corrections had provided
additional information which reflected that the average prisoner
was approximately 30 years old and would live to be approximately
75 years old, which would equate to an average of 40 to 45 years in
prison. With that calculation, it would cost the state an average
of $1.7 million to incarcerate an individual for life.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT explained that the second change involved
adding the phrase, in consultation with the Legislative Budget and
Audit Committee, which would give the legislature some consultive
role in the "making of the numbers" process. He noted that it
still read, "each department shall submit", but the added language
provided legislative input to some extent.
Number 227
REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER asked if the committee actually had the
numbers that they would get from the Knowles Administration.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT explained that what the committee was
currently in possession of were the fiscal notes that were provided
by affected departments on SB 60. He pointed out that what was
remarkable to him, as he further studied the issue, was how
consistent the raw dollar numbers were. Representative Croft
advised members that there was a fairly consistent number of $5
million more costs for the death penalty from studies done in
California and New York. The sheet that he distributed to members
entitled Death Penalty Cost Analysis - First Four Years, compared
the numbers compiled by the Hickel Administration, which was pro
death penalty, to the numbers calculated by the Knowles
Administration, which opposed the death penalty. Representative
Croft noted that Mr. McNally and former Attorney General Charlie
Cole, explained that both the governor and the attorney general had
made the death penalty a top priority, which was reflected in a
Joint House and Senate Judiciary Committee meeting in 1994.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT expressed that the numbers calculated by the
Hickel Administration were remarkably similar to the Knowles
Administration's expected costs to reinstate the death penalty, and
also indicated a fair amount of agreement to what was shown
nationally.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT explained that because the Hickel
Administration planned for a 60 bed death row facility, and the
Hickel Administration planned for a 30 bed death row facility, that
he removed the capital costs indicated by the Department of
Corrections. He stated that to include the Public Defender's
Office, the Office of Public Advocacy, the Department of Law and
the Court System and the operating costs of the Department of
Corrections, the numbers by both administrations amounted to
approximately $4 million cost per case. Representative Croft
further stated that each administration estimated a different
number of death penalty cases, which was because the prior bill was
slightly different and took in a more limited number of cases.
However, when calculating the cost per case from each
administration, you arrive at, basically, the same numbers; whether
pro death penalty administration, or anti death penalty
administration, as well as a lot of similarity in the numbers from
state to state.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT advised members that he knew there was another
alternative considered that they provide some multiple. He felt
that it would say to the people, "this could cost you three to five
times", versus the cost of a sentence to life in prison.
Representative Croft stated that by keeping the raw numbers, a)
because they seemed to be consistent and defensible, and b)
whatever is placed on the ballot would be attacked in some respect,
that he felt what he was proposing would have more support than
what they could get from a multiple. Representative Croft stated
that on the raw level, he wanted to know what the cost would be.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT reminded members that when discussing the
House version, they considered the analogy of purchasing a car, or
constructing a skating rink in Anchorage. He noted that no one
says, "buy this new car and it will cost you three to five times
less than you are paying now." Representative Croft stated that he
wanted to know how much the car cost.
Number 446
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated that he felt there was room for
criticism in either "camp"; however, what he liked about
Representative Croft's proposed amendment was that it was bolstered
by the right hand column and could be validated, as opposed to what
everyone thought of the cost estimate of moving the capital. He
emphasized that what was presented were two administrations with
two totally different philosophies on the issue, whose agencies had
arrived at, virtually, the same numbers. Representative Porter
advised members that that was pretty defensible evidence.
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if what was reflected involved a four year
cost to the state.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT responded that it was. The numbers presented
on the comparison sheet were the numbers arrived at by both
administrations for a four year period. He pointed out that the
two comparisons differed in their totals, $40 million versus $25
million; however, that was because the Hickel Administration
estimated 6 death penalty cases per year, versus 10 death penalty
cases per year which was estimated by the Knowles Administration.
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked for clarification on the cost for one death
penalty case.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER explained that the average death penalty
case, which resulted in an execution, would cost the state
$4,065,000.
CHAIRMAN GREEN stated that the cost of a life sentence would cost
the state approximately $1.7 million, as calculated by the affected
agencies.
REPRESENTATIVE ETHAN BERKOWITZ pointed out that there was also a
distinction in those costs, whereby the $1.7 million cost for a
life sentence would be spread out over a period of time, so the
present value of that money would be significantly less than the $4
million which the state would have to pay, up front, right now.
Number 603
CHAIRMAN GREEN advised members he certainly concurred with that
statement having been in business; however, unfortunately,
governments did not work in present worth, but he understood what
Representative Berkowitz said and felt it was a very good point.
CHAIRMAN GREEN stated that so there was no question in anyone's
mind, what members were discussing was a total cost estimate of
putting a person to death for the conviction of first degree
murder, as opposed to the cost for life in prison. He asked if
there was any documentation that supported the cost of $1.7 million
for life imprisonment.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT advised members that there had been
conversations with the Department of Corrections who provided their
average life expectancy and average age coming in, which resulted
in the cost of $1.7 million present dollar value. He noted that he
did not have that in writing. Representative Croft explained that
the Department of Corrections would come in with the Legislative
Budget and Audit Committee and provide a number. He stated that
the question had not been asked as to how much per case exactly,
although some of those over four years, "tried on day one, trial
goes over into year two, appeal is through year 3", that he was
dividing it by the number of cases they estimated in their own
fiscal note per year.
CHAIRMAN GREEN agreed and pointed out that what was provided for
visual review was a good breakdown and probably as defensible as
one could get. He wondered if they should not have something
similar to the litany that went with a person being incarcerated
for 40 years, that it would cost "X" amount of dollars. Chairman
Green expressed that he was concerned with providing a number that
did not have back up support, and suggested that they might include
language that would reflect that, "this number is supported by
results compiled by states who currently have the death penalty,
that those cases run two to five times higher than the cost for
life in prison."
Number 745
CHAIRMAN GREEN recognized the presence of Senator Robin Taylor, the
prime sponsor of SB 60, and asked if he would like to join members
at the witness table.
SENATOR ROBIN TAYLOR expressed that he thought the committee was
talking about fiscal notes of $2 to $4 million dollars, and did not
know what bill the committee was considering.
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE stated that on the dollar amounts
provided, that it was his understanding there had been some
changes, in various states, as to the number of appeals allowed
under a death penalty case, and the amount of time involved. He
asked if the numbers presented reflected current conditions, or did
they recognize a reduced number of available appeals in a death
penalty case.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT explained that the numbers reflected current
conditions and did not estimate some the restrictions on appeals.
He added that there was a limit to how far an appeal could be
restricted if someone were going to be executed. The process could
be streamlined somewhat, but a lot of it could not be eliminated.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE stated that the figures then would present the
worst case scenario if they did not take into consideration the
fact that the process had changed somewhat in other states with
respect to the appeal process.
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if Representative Croft would concur with that
statement. He stated that because some states had modified their
process, were members looking at a worst case scenario. It was his
understanding that the numbers were based on the current process
and represented a factual reflection.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT agreed with the Chairman's statement.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER reminded members that the previous
legislature streamlined the post conviction relief process about as
tight as it could be constitutional done. He did not think that in
the foreseeable future there would be any more efficiency that
could be done to the state system to reduce appellate costs of a
criminal case.
Number 907
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated that the costs, to his
understanding, also reflected, or should reflect, the number of
cases that were charged as a capital case where the jury did not
return a capital verdict, because those cases would be more
expensive.
Number 935
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES advised members that she had always been in
support of capital punishment; however, she changed her mind this
past year purely and simply because she had little faith in the
judicial system. She noted that there was a case where a person
was determined to be innocent who had been on death row a long
time; however, that did not mean that she did not support the
concept of capital punishment in heinous crimes. Representative
James advised members she could think of some and she did not see
any reason for that person to continue to live. She stated that
she knew that people who were opposed to capital punishment had
different ideas as to why, or why not the state should have capital
punishment. Representative James advised members that the
question, as posed in SB 60, did not define what kind of a capital
punishment bill would result from a positive vote of the people.
She noted that it could very well be that it would only pertain to
those who kill a police officer, or people who had killed numerous
times, or killed young children. Because of that, she believed the
four or 10 cases estimated to take place every year were totally
out of the whole concept of what was being considered.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES advised members that she did not have a
problem with saying that in states that had implemented capital
punishment there had been, by experience, a percentage of
difference in the cost of the capital punishment cases. What she
had a problem with was setting a large dollar amount that purely
and simply would cause and create people to vote "no" on something
that they really wanted to vote "yes" on.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that the fact, that at the ballot box
she might vote "no", she still believed strong enough in the public
process that she did not want to oppose putting out for people to
vote on because she felt they were entitled to that vote. Based on
everything she had just said, Representative James reiterated that
she did not like throwing big numbers out to the public because
there was not a clue as to what type of bill would result out of a
positive vote of the people.
Number 1078
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER advised members what was interesting to him
was the bottom number, and if the amendment were amended to reflect
the same information per case, as opposed to an estimate of cases
because members did not know what type of bill would result, if
that would alleviate some of Representative James' concerns.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES advised members they would still be subject to
who provided the numbers and how they were calculated. She agreed
that the numbers members were presently reviewing were pretty
close, and felt they were valid numbers. But, quite frankly, to
Representative James, if she was voting on a capital punishment
bill and she knew that it was only for those terrible, terrible
cases, which was not posed on the ballot question, with 15 or 16
young children dismantled and killed by someone finally caught,
that $4 million per case would not budge her at all, she would
still be in favor of capital punishment.
Number 1168
CHAIRMAN GREEN noted that Representative James provided a good
point; however, he thought the point had been made that the person
on the street who would be voting would have their own different
views on the issue. He pointed out that Joe Public 1 might feel it
should only be for the heinous crime of killing uniformed police
officers, whereas Joe Public 2 might feel it should be anyone who
commits murder and Joe Public 3 might feel that the death penalty
should not be implemented under any circumstance. Chairman Green
felt that what was before them was a cost approximation that was
fairly close, and calculated by two different administrations who
had opposite views on the subject of capital punishment.
CHAIRMAN GREEN advised members that his only concern was that the
figures were based on estimates, although he felt they were very
good estimates, and because of the caveat that they would be
confirmed by the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee, the fact
that they fell within the range that members had seen historically
from outside, was that the death penalty cost two to five times
more than life in prison. Chairman Green pointed out that if the
public voted with the knowledge that it would be more expensive to
impose the death penalty, that was one thing; however, if the
people voted thinking that the death penalty was cheap, which many
people did, placing a "yes" or "no" question before them would not
provide all the facts.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES advised members that through her conversations
with people around the state, particularly those in her district,
she did not believe that was the case. She believed they were
either in support of capital punishment or they were not, and the
money was not relevant to them. Representative James stated that
she did believe that what the legislature should do when asking the
people a question was to pose a question they could answer, and she
thought that placing a cost on the ballot assumed the kind of a
bill that would result in what she believed was unfair, because she
felt the legislature could enact a capital punishment bill that
would not reflect the costs presented on the document under review.
Number 1300
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ pointed out that SB 60 stated, "capital
punishment for murder in the first degree." He explained that
murder in the first degree describe a number of different types of
homicides and felt it was fairly clear that within that universe of
homicides there would be 10 cases every year that would qualify for
consideration of the death penalty, or somewhere within that
vicinity. He believed what was presented was a pretty accurate
estimation.
CHAIRMAN GREEN explained to Senator Taylor that the committee had
been deliberating on his bill and a proposed amendment to the bill.
He asked the Senator if he had seen a copy of the proposed
amendment and if he would like to address the committee.
SENATOR TAYLOR advised members he did have a copy of the proposed
amendment before him and stated that he felt it was interesting and
asked what bill it was attached to. Senator Taylor questioned what
bill any of the reflected state agencies had before them to base a
fiscal note on, adding that it was gross speculation by a group of
advocates opposing the very question.
SENATOR TAYLOR advised members that there was a significant savings
within a death penalty state that the advocates against the death
penalty did not want to talk about. The best example Senator
Taylor could provide was the case of the three German tourists who
had been shot to death in their car when they pulled up to an
intersection in Florida. Senator Taylor relayed that that
intersection was approximately three quarters of a mile from his
wife's parents home, and one which he drove through every time he
visited. Senator Taylor advised members that the people who
committed that heinous offense were caught, and Florida, as members
were aware, had had the death penalty for quite some time. He
reminded members that Ted Bundy was executed in the state of
Florida, who after being incarcerated in Colorado, escaped and went
on to kill another eight or nine people because no one had killed
him.
SENATOR TAYLOR went on to say that the three individuals that
literally pulled up and executed a group of total strangers in a
rental car in Florida, did so in order that they could steal their
money. Those individuals, after being apprehended plead out.
Senator Taylor advised members that was a felony murder in that
state; a gun was used, a crime was committed and death occurred
during the commission of a felony, which carried the death penalty
in that state. Senator Taylor asked if it was not funny that the
state did not spend a dime on anyone of those trial because all
three plead out to the charges. The least that any of those
offenders got was an 18 year old who plead out so he could get 40
years to serve. Senator Taylor asked how many millions of dollars
were saved, in that state, in those three cases. He felt members
would have to ask themselves why anyone would plead guilty in order
to get 40 years to serve. Senator Taylor advised members that
because two or three years before that, the state of Florida
executed Ted Bundy and the statute those offenders were charged
with would have resulted in their execution too. They knew that
their choice was that they would either "fry", or they would get a
chance, so they plead out to a lesser type sentence.
SENATOR TAYLOR pointed out that no one would provide those numbers,
and added that the Attorney General's office or the district
attorneys office would not bring those numbers because those were
the people that blew how many millions of dollars attempting to
convict Mr. Peel.
SENATOR TAYLOR thought it might be necessary to sit and listen more
carefully when Senator Jerry Ward tells about the young Native box
boy working at the Carr's Supermarket where he worked, his buddy,
who when he left work one night a fellow named Ed Meech [Ph] was
waiting for him outside and beat him to death in the parking lot.
Ed Meech went to jail, the state incarcerated him and then turned
him loose about 20 years later so he could shot-gun to death four
Anchorage youths in Russian Jack Park.
SENATOR TAYLOR emphasized that if someone in the room had a bill
that had anything to do with the fiscal notes, he would like to
discuss that bill, and discuss how the state would end up trying
more capital cases in Alaska than California did in a year. He
pointed out that that was what the "note" was based on.
SENATOR TAYLOR advised members that, "if in fact we want to talk
about the bill I brought to your committee, it's got a fiscal note
on it; it tells you exactly what it's going to cost to put it on
the ballot. Now, if you want to be an advocacy group and go out
and advocate against it, that's you're right, God bless you, I wish
you luck. That's what this is, this is merely advocacy;
speculation on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, and
I can't even get a chance to see the pin that these people are
estimating this on. Are they taking the average death penalty
statute among 27 different states that have it? That'd be an
interesting bill, wouldn't it, Mr. Chairman, I mean, how do we do
that? Every single one of these states have little, subtle nuances
and differences, both within their laws and within their statutes.
Some of the death penalty states have very, very narrow statutes
that would only involve heinous offenses and killing police
officers. Some of the other states have very broad statutes that
allow it on any felony death, felony murder rule. Two kids hold up
a Seven Eleven and one of them goes running out of the place and
drops his gun and it kills some innocent bystander; it's a felony
murder. In some states that could get you the death penalty. I
don't know that I'd be willing to go that far in drafting a death
penalty bill. I don't know how many of you would. I don't know
how many of us would want to have one that was just limited to
really heinous offenses or just limited to police officers, or
officers in our corrections facilities. I don't have any idea how
that might -- might move around here.
"But you see, if I don't have any idea about that, where did all
these ideas come from, and what bill are they based on? And if
they're not based on my bill, it's a great discussion; it's
something that -- part of the public debate that needs to take
place on this bill as it moves towards a decision by the public.
And I can guarantee the members of this committee, the advocacy
groups that are available to debate this subject are ready, willing
and able to do it. And I'm sure we're going to see a very
extensive debate of the issue, but we have to get to the issue
first. I would really appreciate the committee moving the bill as
is, and if, in fact, there is a different fiscal note that needs to
be placed, or financial consideration that needs to be placed on
it, I think that's why we have a Finance Committee."
Number 1670
CHAIRMAN GREEN expressed to Senator Taylor that he thought they
were mixing apples and oranges; one, talking about a fiscal note
that would put the question on the ballot, versus educating the
people as to what reinstatement of the death penalty might cost, of
which there was a significant difference.
SENATOR TAYLOR responded that if they were going to educate the
people as to what it might cost, it would be necessary to know what
the people were being educated on. He asked if it was the
California death penalty, the Florida death penalty, or the Georgia
death penalty. Senator Taylor pointed out that he could not tell
because there was no way to debate the numbers with the committee
because he did not know what they were based on. He advised
members that if he knew what the numbers were based on he could
call up that state and get information from them on how many cases
get charged as a capital murder, and how many plead out to first or
second degree murder that did not carry a capital punishment.
Senator Taylor reiterated that he did not know the answer to that,
and if he did, he could say, "Look at the savings involved here,
cause see, our prosecutors are limited to only one charge. We do
not have capital offenses, and as a consequence, anytime you get
into a situation where there is a multiple murder, you know that
you're looking at somebody that's probably going get the
opportunity to serve two 90 plus year sentences." Senator Taylor
expressed that to a defense attorney, that was a death sentence
because the state would put that person in a "cage" for the rest of
their life, and they would only come out of that "cage" in a body
bag. How could that be called anything else but a death sentence.
SENATOR TAYLOR advised members that it was kind of like buying life
insurance; people like to call it life insurance. He advised
members if someone was handed down a sentence of life in prison,
that person would not be coming out of prison, they would die in
prison. "We don't say, death in prison sentence. It's like the
life insurance salesman, he doesn't say I'm selling you death
insurance because you collect when you die, I'm selling you life
insurance ...."
CHAIRMAN GREEN made note that the conversation had digressed from
the question.
Number 1751
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT advised Senator Taylor the committee was
discussing his bill, SB 60, and his amendment to the Senator's bill
which would allow people to know the cost of the death penalty. He
noted that Senator Taylor made a persuasive argument for having the
death penalty, and felt the Senator would continue to do so.
Representative Croft explained that the amendment was attempting to
put on the ballot, as they would with any other item that costs the
people of Alaska money, what the committee felt implementation of
the death penalty would cost the state.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT pointed out that he was not in the habit of
defending the Hickel Administration; however, he would have to say
that they were not an advocacy group against the death penalty, but
the opposite. What the committee looked back to was what that
administration had estimated the cost of the death penalty to be;
an administration that wanted the death penalty.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT advised members that he did not know
California, Georgia or Florida's statute either, nor which one the
state of Alaska would end up adopting. What did appear to be
consistent were the costs involved. He noted that the Senator
could make his arguments as to why the death penalty did not cost,
but that had not been the experience of the states with the death
penalty, nor had it been an estimation of either a pro or anti
death penalty administration that it would not cost.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT explained that, through his amendment, he
wanted to place some reasonable estimate of the cost before the
people when the legislature asks them to make the decision. He
noted that the amendment provided for involvement by the
Legislative Budget and Audit Committee, the numbers on the document
were not necessarily the final numbers. It provides that the
departments bring those numbers back after consultation with the
Legislative Budget and Audit Committee. Representative Croft did
not believe there was anything unfair in the discussion about
providing a good faith estimate of the price tag involved in having
capital punishment in the state of Alaska.
Number 1830
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated that he thought Senator Taylor
raised an interesting point when he said that we did not know what
cases would qualify for the death penalty. He stated with that
being the case, how could the voters know what the simple question
in front of them was.
SENATOR TAYLOR felt the question posed by Representative Berkowitz
demeaned the public because he felt the people knew what they
wanted when they elected their state representatives. "How did
they know what the cost was going to be of electing a Berkowitz?
How did they know what the cost was going to be of electing a
Taylor? They didn't."
SENATOR TAYLOR advised members they were asking about a concept,
and it was the concept that was the question. He stated that it
was a very simple question and a very simple concept, not
complicated at all. Senator Taylor pointed out that they were
dealing with the youngest, most highly educated population in the
United States of America, and he had a great deal of faith that
they could figure out the question. He did not believe the voting
population was naive to not realizing there would additional costs
to a death penalty system. Senator Taylor thought the people were
very sophisticated about the entire question, in fact, he stated
that if members watched TV, read newspaper articles or read
magazines over that past year, that he had seen more television
programs on the death penalty coming from one side or the other of
the issue than he had seen in his entire life.
Number 1928
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ pointed out that Senator Taylor
characterized in his sponsor statement the bill being akin to a
poll. It seemed to Representative Berkowitz that without adequate
concern for the form of the question, it just winds up being a
"push poll."
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if Representative Berkowitz thought the
question begged an answer, one way or another, and asked if he
thought the question was biased in one way.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ believed it was biased because it was
inadequate in its totality; did not set predicate, did not explain
the conditions or the terms.
SENATOR TAYLOR pointed out that the words were not his, the bill
had been through several different crafters. To him it appeared to
be a very objective statement, that you either vote for or against
the issue being posed. He noted that he realized there were a
number of ramifications to the issue on both sides, which he had no
quarrel with. Senator Taylor did not know how it could be stated
anymore simply. He stated that if it was reworded to state
something like; "There's lots of evil, awful mean people running
around out there today, and lots of them kill little tiny children,
and rape and pillage, and so on; do you believe some of these
people ought to be put to death?" Senator Taylor thought, in that
case, they would be talking a pretty good push. He stated that it
could be written the other way; the court system makes mistakes and
there were all sorts of problems out there, so should something be
done that would be final; which might be a bit of a push as well,
from the other side.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ noted that there was a Dittman Poll
included in the bill packets in which the question provided an
alternative between life without parole and the death penalty;
which would you choose. He believed the question formed in that
manner had less push.
SENATOR TAYLOR felt that was really a jury question. He advised
members that in many states it was the jury that sets the penalty
in a capital case, and they would have to make the decision of
death, or life without parole. Senator Taylor pointed out that the
advocates for that question always try to twist it around and say;
"See, the public didn't really know they had this other choice."
Senator Taylor continued to state; "You can't be alive in Alaska,
read a newspaper and not know that you've got that choice. We see
significant sentences reported in the press in Alaska, very often,
sentences that will go 200, 300 years. Well, you know looking at
that, with one third good time he still isn't going to make it out
of there." Senator Taylor did not believe the public was that
naive, nor did he believe it was a poorly drawn question, and added
that the bill drafters could not find a more objective way to draft
the language.
Number 2060
CHAIRMAN GREEN reiterated the analogy of a person who wanted to buy
a car; car "A", or car "B", and the first thing most people ask,
even though car "B" was a much nicer looking car, was how much does
it cost. Chairman Green felt that was the thrust of the amendment;
to allow the people to have a reasonable idea that there were two
alternatives to keep a serious criminal off the streets and one was
a whole lot more expensive than the other. That was what Chairman
Green felt the people ought to be aware of when considering such a
question placed on an advisory ballot.
SENATOR TAYLOR advised members if that were true he would not mind.
He asked who, 20 to 25 years in the state of Alaska, would have
believed the state would be spending the kind of money it was
spending per prisoner today, and then figure out the cost of
keeping the prisoner around for 50 years, or 20 years, to keep
him/her healthy, sitting in a cage with everyone sitting there
watching the prisoner waiting for him/her to die. Senator Taylor
stated that death by natural causes in a case, was apparently
satisfactory to the people today. Senator Taylor suggested that
they compare that with what the cost of the trial would be, because
the only thing that could be charged out different was the cost of
the trial and the appellate process. So, was there an increase?
Senator Taylor stated that there probably was if the state was
going keep an individual in jail for that length of time, but if
not, what would the state realize in savings. Senator Taylor
pointed out that the savings was not reflected in any of the fiscal
notes members had before them, and the single biggest savings he
was trying to explain to the committee, from real life experience
and he felt Representative Porter would agree, was what percentage
of cases, in general that get charged, actually result in trials.
Senator Taylor stated that the number of cases that actually went
to trial was minuscule; the majority of the cases charged were
plead out. He expressed that if the state had to try every single
case, the judiciary would have to be twenty times larger that it
presently was. Senator Taylor emphasized that the savings that
would be realized were huge when you add that additional tool.
SENATOR TAYLOR pointed out that if the state's prosecutors only had
the death penalty available to them, and chose never to use it, it
would be a huge savings in that case.
Number 2166
CHAIRMAN GREEN wondered who would have thought 25 or 30 years ago
that court trials would cost nearly as much as they presently did,
or professional baseball player's salaries be what they were today.
CHAIRMAN GREEN noted that Anne Carpeneti with the Criminal Division
of the Department of Law was in the audience, and he asked if she
wanted to discuss the fiscal note submitted by the Department of
Law; Ms. Carpeneti said she was available to answer questions.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES pointed out that the election booklets always
contain a statement on both sides of the issue being presented to
the public, and she felt that would be the best place to disclose
the information provided in Amendment 1, SB 60. She believed that
people in favor of the death penalty could then vote against it if
they felt the cost would prohibit the reinstatement of the death
penalty. Representative James added that she was not aware of the
ratio of people who actually read the election booklet.
CHAIRMAN GREEN noted that several people had signed up to testify;
however, testimony had been closed on the House version of the bill
and he felt additional testimony would be a repeat of previous
testimony because the bills were identical. Chairman Green did
recognize one individual in the audience who was not able to
testify previously, and in an effort to keep the scales balanced on
the committee's decision, invited Josh Fink to provide comments to
the committee.
JOSH FINK, Intern, Alaskans Against the Death Penalty, expressed
that he realized the House Judiciary Committee had spent a
considerable amount of time on the issue of the death penalty. Mr.
Fink advised members there was a lot of misinformation, among the
public regarding the death penalty, that would impact people's
decision on how to vote on the question posed in SB 60. Mr. Fink
felt it was incumbent that the public be informed and be given
information to allow for a reasonable and deliberate decision.
MR. FINK pointed out that polls had consistently shown why a
majority of Alaskans support the death penalty, because those
people believe that first degree murderers were out on the streets
within 20 years. He stated that that was simply not true, that it
was impossible in the state of Alaska, and in fact, the average
sentence for murder in the first degree was 76 years imprisonment,
and the average age of conviction was 29 years old. Mr. Fink
pointed out that the public believed those individuals were
released within 20 years and that was what would drive the vote.
MR. FINK further stated that the public thought the death penalty
was cheaper than incarceration. He noted that Senator Taylor had
suggested there was no evidence of that, and Mr. Fink agreed that
it was difficult to narrow the costs down precisely; however, he
believed that the amendment before the committee and the
information that had been provided was fair, reasonable and fairly
accurate. Mr. Fink advised members that he had never seen a study
that suggested the death penalty was cheaper than life in prison.
He pointed out that there had been numerous studies that had
indicated increased costs. California, according to "Sacramento
Bee", reflected $90 million a year to provide a death penalty and
they estimated $15 million per execution.
MR. FINK advised members that the Dallas Morning News estimated
$2.3 million per execution, three times the cost of life in prison,
and the Miami Herald estimated $3.2 million, or 6 times the cost of
life in prison without parole. So there were groups and
researchers that had indicated the death penalty would result in
increased costs, which Mr. Fink thought was based on fairly
reasonable and substantiated grounds.
MR. FINK recommended that members adopt the proposed amendment, and
expressed his appreciation of the time and effort the House
Judiciary Committee had put into a very difficult issue. He felt
it was critical that if the question went forward that the public
be provided some information to make a deliberate and reasoned
choice. Mr. Fink advised members that he was clearly convinced,
with the misconceptions among public, that there would need to be
a serious campaign effort, although he was not sure the resources
were available to educate the people of the state, and to the
extent the House Judiciary Committee could ensure that some basic
information was provided in the question, he felt was extremely
important.
Number 2327
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE reiterated the statement made by
Representative James regarding both sides of the issue would be
presented in the election pamphlet, and with the amount of lobbying
the committee had received on the issue, he could not believe there
would not be an incredible amount of lobbying done, on both sides
of the issue, if it would come to a public vote. He expressed that
he was not quite sure why there would be the concern that people
would not be informed on the issue.
MR. FINK noted that members, being involved themselves in
campaigns, were aware that it was a costly process, it took a lot
of energy and effort to get a message to the public, and was
generally harder to raise money for causes than it was for
individual candidates. He felt the resources might be out there
and there would be an effort; however, it would be difficult to
mount the kind of campaign to get the education out to the public
that would overcome the existing misinformation. Mr. Fink stated
that he was not sure the resources were available to effectively
get the message out. He pointed out that if the legislature was
going to move forward with the question, he did not understand why
there would be an objection to provide what were reasonable
estimates from two different administrations; one opposed, one in
favor of the death penalty who, basically arrived at the same
numbers.
Number 2442
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE agreed that he did not object to provide
information, which was to him a given, that it cost more to execute
a person than to keep them in prison for life. He asked Mr. Fink
if the information was provided on the ballot, and if the public,
with the knowledge that the death penalty was more expensive than
life in prison but chose to support the death penalty, would the
organization Mr. Fink represented accept the death penalty, or
would they still be advocating against it.
MR. FINK responded that he was not capable of speaking for the
organization on that question. He advised members that personally,
he had no problem with the public voting on the question fully
informed, and added that he also had no doubt they would vote
against it if they were fully informed.
Number 2442
CHAIRMAN GREEN noted that there were bond issues which held a
significant amount of pro and con views, and pointed out that the
bond issues did not pose a straight forward question such as "Do we
need a bond issue for schools?" Those do include numbers for the
public's information, so when they vote, they vote knowingly what
it was going to cost.
TAPE 97-81, SIDE B
Number 000
CHAIRMAN GREEN reiterated that the House Judiciary Committee had
taken significant testimony on the issue, as well as hearing the
pro and con views on the moral issue of the death penalty, which
was one of the reasons he would not take more public testimony on
the bill. He noted that the bill also had another committee of
referral to the House Finance Committee which would allow for
further testimony on the proposed legislation.
CHAIRMAN GREEN advised members with respect to SJR 3 - PRISONER
RIGHTS LIMITED TO FEDERAL RIGHTS, that he felt the committee was
probably not sufficiently knowledgeable on the issue and it was his
decision not to consider the bill until they received a response
from the study committee. With that, Amendment 1, SB 60 was before
the committee and Representative Croft would provide a final
statement on the amendment.
Number 068
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT advised members that the amendment was not
attempting to provide a full education in the ballot question, nor
present the voter pamphlet information in the question, but simply
an attempt to put the best estimate possible on the cost of the
death penalty on the question. He pointed out that all the other
arguments, pro and con, could be thrashed out in public debate, in
the voter pamphlet and in whatever other forum that might take
place.
Number 102
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if Representative Croft would consider a
friendly conceptual amendment to proposed Amendment 1, somewhere
between lines 12 to 14, to include a statement that would reflect
that the cost estimate was borne out by reviews of other states who
had found their cost range of two to five times more than life in
prison.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT advised members he would accept that as a
friendly amendment to Amendment 1.
CHAIRMAN GREEN pointed out that if it was found that those costs
were not there, it could be stricken. His intent was to state that
it was not just a local estimate, but actually fell into the same
range of that of the states in the Lower 48.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG objected to the conceptual amendment to
Amendment 1, and asked that the Chairman explain his intent
further.
CHAIRMAN GREEN explained that, prior to Representative Rokeberg's
arrival, the committee had shown from two different
administrations, one in favor of the death penalty and one opposed,
that the cost for carrying out the act would be something in the
nature of $4 million. And the cost of incarceration for 45 years
amounted to a cost to the state of approximately $1.7 million.
Chairman Green advised Representative Rokeberg that that provided
a ratio of how much more it would cost the state to put someone to
death versus imposing a sentence of life in prison. Sentencing a
prisoner to death would cost the state approximately two times more
than imposing a life sentence without parole. Chairman Green
explained that the point of his friendly amendment would provide
additional evidence that studies of states who had the death
penalty in the Lower 48 reflected that the death penalty cost two
to five times more than life in prison without parole.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG advised members that he would not attempt
to support anything like that unless the ballot also reflected the
costs of incarceration.
CHAIRMAN GREEN stated that the ballot would reflect those cost
figures, as well, so the public would have the opportunity to
compare the two respective costs to the state.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG removed his objection. There being no
objection, the conceptual amendment to Amendment 1 was adopted.
CHAIRMAN GREEN advised members Amendment 1, as amended was now
before the committee and asked if there were any objections to the
adoption of Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES objected to the adoption of Amendment 1, SB
60, so a roll call vote was taken. In favor: Representatives
Porter, Croft, Berkowitz and Chairman Green. Opposed:
Representatives Bunde, Rokeberg and James. Amendment 1, SB 60 was
adopted by a vote of 4 to 3.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE moved to report HCS SB 60 (JUD) out of
committee with individual recommendations.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ objected for the purpose of making a
statement. He advised members that he was uncomfortable with the
idea of taking advisory votes. Representative Berkowitz felt that
in a way it abdicated the responsibility of a state legislator to
do it simply as a way of polling the public on one particular issue
where extensive polls already existed. He felt it was
unnecessarily contentious, and he did not like being pressured that
somehow members were just weather vane figures who were going to go
with the direction of the political winds. Representative
Berkowitz advised members that he was opposed to the bill, and
noted that the legislature was not taking advisory votes on other
difficult issues, but were singling out this one particular issue
which seemed to him was politically motivated, and he did not care
to be a part of that.
Number 370
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated not speaking for the issue at hand, but
no one would find her voting against putting something out for the
public to make a decision on. She pointed out that she had faith
in the public, and believed that government was of the people and
she had no problem with conducting an advisory vote on any issue.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ advised members that he had no problem
with the public weighing in on issues, or with the public providing
direction; however, the concept of an advisory vote seemed to him
not what the initiative process was all about.
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if the objection to moving HCS SB 60(JUD) out
of committee was maintained. Representative Berkowitz maintained
his objection, so a roll call vote was taken. In favor:
Representatives Bunde, Porter, Rokeberg and James. Chairman Green
reluctantly voted in favor. Opposed: Representatives Croft and
Berkowitz. HCS SB 60(JUD) was reported out of the House Judiciary
Committee with a vote of 5 to 2.
CHAIRMAN GREEN reiterated that information relating to SJR 3 was
not yet available, so that bill would not be considered at the
present time.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 434
CHAIRMAN GREEN announced to members that this was the final meeting
of the House Judiciary Standing Committee, First Session of the
Twentieth Legislature. With nothing further to come before the
committee, Chairman Green adjourned the meeting at 10:45 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|