Legislature(1993 - 1994)

11/16/1993 09:00 AM JUD

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
txt
                                                                               
           JOINT SENATE AND HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE                          
                        November 16, 1993                                      
                            9:00 a.m.                                          
                                                                               
                                                                               
  SENATE MEMBERS PRESENT                                                       
                                                                               
  Senator Robin Taylor, Chairman                                               
  Senator Rick Halford, Vice-Chairman                                          
  Senator Dave Donley                                                          
  Senator Suzanne Little                                                       
                                                                               
  SENATE MEMBERS ABSENT                                                        
                                                                               
  Senator George Jacko                                                         
                                                                               
  HOUSE MEMBERS PRESENT                                                        
                                                                               
  Representative Brian Porter, Chairman                                        
  Representative Jeannette James, Vice-Chairman                                
  Representative Gail Phillips                                                 
  Representative Pete Kott                                                     
  Representative Joe Green                                                     
  Representative Jim Nordlund                                                  
  Representative Cliff Davidson (participated                                  
       via teleconference from Kodiak)                                         
                                                                               
  HOUSE MEMBERS ABSENT                                                         
                                                                               
  Representative John Davies                                                   
                                                                               
  OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT                                                    
                                                                               
  Representative Con Bunde                                                     
  Representative Ed Willis                                                     
  Representative Jerry Sanders                                                 
                                                                               
  COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                           
                                                                               
  HJR 43:   Proposed an amendment to the Constitution of the                   
            State of Alaska relating to penal administration.                  
                                                                               
  HB 162:   "An act authorizing capital punishment,                            
            classifying murder in the first degree as a                        
            capital felony, and establishing sentencing                        
            procedures for capital felonies, authorizing an                    
            advisory vote on instituting capital punishment;                   
            amending Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure 32,                    
            32.1, and 32.3 and Alaska Rules of Appellate                       
            Procedure 204, 209, 210, and 212; and providing                    
            for an effective date."                                            
                                                                               
  SB 127:   "An act authorizing capital punishment,                            
            classifying murder in the first degree as a                        
            capital felony, and establishing sentencing                        
            procedures for capital felonies; authorizing an                    
            advisory vote on instituting capital punishment;                   
            and providing for an effective date."                              
                                                                               
                                                                               
  PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION                                             
                                                                               
  HJR 43 - No previous action to record.                                       
                                                                               
  HB 162 - No previous action to record.                                       
  SB 127 - No previous action to record.                                       
                                                                               
                                                                               
  PREVIOUS FLOOR ACTION                                                        
                                                                               
  BILL:  HJR 43                                                                
  SHORT TITLE: PRINCIPLES OF PENAL ADMINISTRATION                              
  SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) PORTER,Phillips,Barnes                         
                                                                               
  JRN-DATE    JRN-PG                     ACTION                                
  04/24/93      1496    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)                  
  04/24/93      1496    (H)   JUDICIARY                                        
  04/25/93              (H)   RLS AT 01:00 PM SPEAKER'S                        
                              CHAMBER                                          
                                                                               
  BILL:  HB 162                                                                
  SHORT TITLE: CAPITAL PUNISHMENT FOR MURDER                                   
  SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) SANDERS,Olberg,Bunde,Kott,                     
  Vezey,James                                                                  
                                                                               
  JRN-DATE    JRN-PG                     ACTION                                
  02/18/93       380    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)                  
  02/18/93       380    (H)   JUDICIARY, FINANCE                               
  02/22/93       421    (H)   COSPONSOR(S): BUNDE                              
  02/24/93       445    (H)   COSPONSOR(S): KOTT                               
  03/01/93       495    (H)   COSPONSOR(S): VEZEY                              
  03/02/93       510    (H)   COSPONSOR(S): JAMES                              
                                                                               
                                                                               
  BILL:  SB 127                                                                
  SHORT TITLE: CAPITAL PUNISHMENT FOR MURDER                                   
  BILL VERSION:                                                                
  SPONSOR(S): JUDICIARY                                                        
                                                                               
  JRN-DATE    JRN-PG                     ACTION                                
  02/19/93       416    (S)   READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)                  
  02/19/93       416    (S)   JUDICIARY, FINANCE                               
  03/18/93              (S)   JUD AT 01:00 PM                                  
                                                                               
  WITNESS REGISTER                                                             
                                                                               
  DEBORAH IVY, Attorney                                                        
  Victims for Justice                                                          
  1007 W. Third, #400                                                          
  Anchorage, Alaska 99801                                                      
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Supported HJR 43.                                       
                                                                               
  LINDA AKERS, Deputy Director                                                 
  of Crime Strike for the NRA                                                  
  2600 N. Central Street                                                       
  Phoenix, Arizona 85025                                                       
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Supported HJR 43.                                       
                                                                               
  WILLIAM F. DEWEY, Attorney                                                   
  1150 P Street                                                                
  Anchorage, Alaska 99501                                                      
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Proposed changes to HJR 43.                             
                                                                               
  ELIZABETH BELLINGHIRI, Staff                                                 
  Representative Jerry Sanders                                                 
  State Capitol                                                                
  Juneau, AK 99801-1182                                                        
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on HB 162.                                    
                                                                               
  JERRY LUCKHAUPT, Attorney                                                    
  Legislative Legal Counsel                                                    
  130 Seward Street, #401                                                      
  Juneau, Alaska 99801                                                         
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Drafted HB 162 and SB 127.                              
                                                                               
  EDWARD E. MCNALLY, District Attorney                                         
  Third Judicial District                                                      
  1031 W. 4th, Suite 520                                                       
  Anchorage, Alaska 99501-1975                                                 
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Supported HB 162 and SB 127.                            
                                                                               
  JOHN SALEMI, Director                                                        
  Public Defender Agency                                                       
  900 W. 5th, Suite 200                                                        
  Anchorage, Alaska 99501-2090                                                 
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed HB 162 and SB 127.                              
                                                                               
  BRANT MCGEE, Director                                                        
  Office of Public Advocacy                                                    
  900 W. 5th, Suite 525                                                        
  Anchorage, Alaska 99501-2090                                                 
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed HB 162 and SB 127.                              
                                                                               
  SHARON NAHORNEY                                                              
  619 E. 5th                                                                   
  Anchorage, Alaska 99501                                                      
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Supported HB 162 and SB 127.                            
                                                                               
  TED LEMAIRE                                                                  
  701 Birch                                                                    
  Anchorage, Alaska 99501                                                      
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on HB 162 and SB 127.                         
                                                                               
  DONNA DINSMORE POFF                                                          
  Anchorage LIO                                                                
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Supported HB 162 and SB 127.                            
                                                                               
  JONATHAN KATCHER, Attorney                                                   
  912 W. 6th Ave.                                                              
  Anchorage, Alaska 99501                                                      
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed HB 162 and SB 127.                              
                                                                               
  MICHELLE KERR                                                                
  Anchorage LIO                                                                
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Supported HB 162 and SB 127.                            
                                                                               
  JOHN FARLEIGH                                                                
  1319 H Street                                                                
  Anchorage, Alaska 99501                                                      
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed HB 162 and SB 127.                              
                                                                               
  RANDALL BURNS                                                                
  American Civil Liberties Union                                               
  P.O. Box 201844                                                              
  Anchorage, Alaska 66520                                                      
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed HB 162 and SB 127.                              
                                                                               
  HUGH FLEISCHER, Attorney                                                     
  1401 W. 11th Ave.                                                            
  Anchorage, Alaska 99501                                                      
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed to HB 162 and SB 127.                           
                                                                               
                                                                               
  TERRY BURRELL                                                                
  3716 Wesley Ave.                                                             
  Anchorage, Alaska 99508                                                      
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Supported HB 162 and SB 127.                            
                                                                               
  JOHN HAVELOCK                                                                
  604 W. 4th Ave., Suite 21                                                    
  Anchorage, AK 99501                                                          
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed HB 162 and SB 127.                              
                                                                               
  MARIE JOSIE JONES                                                            
  9499 Brayton Drive, Lot 41                                                   
  Anchorage, AK 99507                                                          
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed HB 162 and SB 127.                              
                                                                               
  ALLAN BARNES                                                                 
  UAA Justice Center                                                           
  3211 Providence Drive                                                        
  Anchorage, Alaska 99508                                                      
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on HB 162 and SB 127.                         
                                                                               
  DIANE SCHENKER                                                               
  Department of Corrections                                                    
  2200 E. 42nd Ave.                                                            
  Anchorage, Alaska 99508                                                      
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Discussed fiscal note for Corrections.                  
                                                                               
  KATHY KAINER                                                                 
  311 Melody Place, Apt. A                                                     
  Anchorage, Alaska 99504                                                      
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed HB 162 and SB 127.                              
                                                                               
  JACK KEANE                                                                   
  2152 Dawson Street                                                           
  Anchorage, Alaska 99503                                                      
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed HB 162 and SB 127.                              
                                                                               
  LISA RIEGER, Attorney                                                        
  UAA Justice Center                                                           
  3211 Providence Drive                                                        
  Anchorage, Alaska 99508                                                      
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed HB 162 and SB 127.                              
                                                                               
  FRANK CAHILL                                                                 
  2303 Tulik Drive                                                             
  Anchorage, Alaska 99517                                                      
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed HB 162 and SB 127.                              
                                                                               
  ARTHUR E. CURTIS                                                             
  605 Sitka, # 203                                                             
  Anchorage, Alaska 99501                                                      
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed HB 162 and SB 127.                              
                                                                               
  DR. DAVID DOLESE                                                             
  2517 Foraker Drive                                                           
  Anchorage, Alaska 99517                                                      
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed HB 162 and SB 127.                              
                                                                               
  RON DAILEY                                                                   
  7841 Port Orford Drive                                                       
  Anchorage, AK 99516                                                          
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed HB 162 and SB 127.                              
                                                                               
  CHARLES E. MCKEE                                                             
  1800 DeBarr Road, # 63                                                       
  Anchorage, Alaska 99504                                                      
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed HB 162 and SB 127.                              
                                                                               
  CONSTANCE GRIFFITY                                                           
  Sitka, Alaska                                                                
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed HB 162 and SB 127.                              
                                                                               
  LIZ DODD                                                                     
  100 Parks Street                                                             
  Juneau, Alaska 99801                                                         
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed HB 162 and SB 127.                              
                                                                               
  RON REED                                                                     
  112 Behrends Ave.                                                            
  Juneau, Alaska 99801                                                         
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed HB 162 and SB 127.                              
                                                                               
  BILL GLUDE                                                                   
  P.O. Box 22316                                                               
  Juneau, Alaska 99802                                                         
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed HB 162 and SB 127.                              
                                                                               
  AMY PAIGE                                                                    
  592 Satter Street                                                            
  Juneau, Alaska 99801                                                         
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed HB 162 and SB 127.                              
                                                                               
  DAVID RICHARDS                                                               
  393 Bering                                                                   
  Soldotna, Alaska 99669                                                       
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed HB 162 and SB 127.                              
                                                                               
                                                                               
  WRITTEN TESTIMONY RECEIVED FROM THESE PEOPLE:                                
                                                                               
  JOHN SHAFFER                                                                 
  303 Kimsham                                                                  
  Sitka, Alaska 99835                                                          
                                                                               
  KEVIN F. MCGEE                                                               
  1113 N Street                                                                
  Anchorage, Alaska 99501                                                      
                                                                               
  MARY GEDDES                                                                  
  2544 Forest Park Drive, # 2                                                  
  Anchorage, AK 99517                                                          
                                                                               
  MATTHEW NICOLAI                                                              
  601 W. 5th Ave., Suite 200                                                   
  Anchorage, AK 99501                                                          
                                                                               
                                                                               
  ACTION NARRATIVE                                                             
                                                                               
  TAPE 93-59, SIDE A                                                           
  Number 001                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN ROBIN TAYLOR called the Joint Senate and House                      
  Judiciary Committee to order and invited REPRESENTATIVE                      
  BRIAN PORTER to begin the meeting.                                           
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE PORTER, CHAIR, HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE,                     
  recognized committee members present from the House                          
  Judiciary Committee:  VICE-CHAIR JEANNETTE JAMES, MAJORITY                   
  LEADER GAIL PHILLIPS, REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN,                              
  REPRESENTATIVE JIM NORDLUND, and REPRESENTATIVE CLIFF                        
  DAVIDSON testifying via teleconference from Kodiak.  He                      
  introduced both his legislative aide, ERIC MUSSER, and the                   
  House Judiciary Counsel, DANIELLE ROPER.                                     
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN TAYLOR also reported a quorum of the Senate                         
  Judiciary Committee with the appearance of SENATOR DAVE                      
  DONLEY and SENATOR SUZANNE LITTLE.                                           
  CHAIRMAN PORTER introduced HJR 43 (PRINCIPLES OF PENAL                       
  ADMINISTRATION) by the House Judiciary Committee to the                      
  agenda.  He explained that HB 162 (CAPITAL PUNISHMENT FOR                    
  MURDER), along with the companion bill in the Senate, SB 127                 
  (CAPITAL PUNISHMENT FOR MURDER) would be considered later by                 
  SENATOR TAYLOR.                                                              
                                                                               
  At that time, CHAIRMAN PORTER welcomed REPRESENTATIVES CON                   
  BUNDE and ED WILLIS, and announced the committee was now                     
  connected by teleconference to Barrow, Ketchikan, Kodiak,                    
  and Kotzebue.                                                                
                                                                               
  Number 030                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER gave a historical review of HJR 43, credited                 
  SENATOR DONLEY for his involvement in the bill, and                          
  expressed his desire to see the bill passed this session.                    
  He introduced JANICE LIENHART, who has worked for Victims                    
  for Justice on the bill.  Additionally, CHAIRMAN PORTER                      
  presented the two parts of the bill as proposed                              
  constitutional amendments, and he described the manner in                    
  which the amendments would be confirmed in the legislative                   
  process and by a vote of the public.                                         
                                                                               
  Number 051                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER continued with an explanation of the bill as                 
  it dealt with Section 12 of Article I in relation to his                     
  previous experience in law enforcement.  He reviewed the                     
  provisions of Section 12 as explained in the Constitution to                 
  be the "reformation of the offender."  CHAIRMAN PORTER                       
  expressed his disagreement with this concept both presently                  
  and from his past work in law enforcement and urged the                      
  reconstruction of the constitutional provision to read as                    
  follows:  "Penal Administration shall be based upon the                      
  following, in the order provided.  First, the need for                       
  protecting the public, community condemnation of the                         
  offender, and the principal of reformation."  CHAIRMAN                       
  PORTER didn't propose the removal of reformation from the                    
  amendment, but thought it was time everyone else was given                   
  equal, if not first, consideration.                                          
                                                                               
  Secondly, CHAIRMAN PORTER indicated the need for a provision                 
  to include, within the Constitution, rights for the victims                  
  of crime, and he explained the need to balance the rights of                 
  people as described in the Bill of Rights in the U.S.                        
  Constitution.  He criticized the Constitution of the State                   
  of Alaska, how it most benefitted the defendants in criminal                 
  justice suits, and how the legislation would increase the                    
  fundamental rights for victims by placing the provisions of                  
  HJR 43 in the Alaskan Constitution.                                          
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER continued to assure the continuance of                       
  rights that presently exist for criminal defendants, but he                  
  said HJR 43 would present more balanced rights to victims                    
  than have not existed previously.                                            
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER concluded his presentation and called on the                 
  first person to testify, DEBORAH IVY, representing  Victims                  
  for Justice.  In addition, he explained MS. IVY would then                   
  introduce LINDA AKERS, a Deputy Director for Crime Strike,                   
  and a former U.S. Attorney for Arizona.                                      
                                                                               
  Number 096                                                                   
                                                                               
  SENATOR TAYLOR noted for the record the appearance of                        
  SENATOR HALFORD, Senate President.                                           
                                                                               
  MS. IVY introduced herself to the Joint Judiciary Committee                  
  as a victim's rights advocate, a life-long Alaskan resident,                 
  and a law partner in the firm of DELANEY, WILES, HAYS,                       
  REITMAN, & BRUBAKER, INC. in Anchorage.  She described the                   
  organization of Victims for Justice in Anchorage as being                    
  led by JANICE LIENHART and her sister to assist crime                        
  victims throughout the State of Alaska, and she further                      
  described her reasons for being involved in the                              
  organization.                                                                
                                                                               
  MS. IVY thanked CHAIRMAN PORTER, and the members of the                      
  Joint Judiciary Committee, for the opportunity to address                    
  the legislators, and to commend them for taking the lead in                  
  passing a resolution to provide constitutional rights to                     
  crime victims, and she stressed the importance of their                      
  step.  She reiterated her commitment to assisting the                        
  committee members to pass the resolution on victim's                         
  constitutional rights, and she reviewed some concepts on the                 
  background of constitutional rights for victims, beginning                   
  with the work of a presidential task force on victims of                     
  crime in 1981 & 1982 under PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN.                          
                                                                               
  As a result of this work, it was suggested the Sixth                         
  Amendment to the U.S. Constitution be expanded to include                    
  "the victim in every criminal prosecution shall have the                     
  right to be present and be heard at all critical stages of                   
  the judicial proceedings."  MS. IVY continued to explain the                 
  work done by local victims rights leaders in other states to                 
  implement victim's constitutional rights by amending their                   
  state constitutions, and thereafter to pursue amending the                   
  U.S. Constitution.                                                           
                                                                               
  Number 152                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. IVY described to date the provision by fourteen states                   
  for victim's rights by changing their constitutions, with                    
  twelve more states presently seeking to amend their                          
  constitutions.  In addition, she described previous flagrant                 
  disregard for the statutory rights of crime victims in these                 
  states.  She quoted the findings of the presidential task                    
  force as asserting the statutory rights were, and are,                       
  subservient to the offender's constitutional rights and                      
  would not be changed until the victims were given equal                      
  consideration.                                                               
                                                                               
  MS. IVY continued to explain why this "basic law" should be                  
  in the Alaska State Constitution to prevent victims from                     
  becoming second class citizens in the process, and she                       
  discussed the relevance of the experience of victim's rights                 
  in the State of Michigan to the Alaskan Constitution.  MS.                   
  IVY explained how victims can become brutalized by a lack of                 
  victim's rights and cited an Alaskan case, Raven v. State,                   
  to prove her argument for amending the Alaskan Constitution.                 
                                                                               
  Number 209                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. IVY described the pervasiveness of crime throughout the                  
  State of Alaska, and she examined the protection for the                     
  offender through numerous provisions.  She enumerated these                  
  protections as given in statute and interpreted "due                         
  process" to give expanded protection to the offenders.  MS.                  
  IVY also explained she did not propose to remove these                       
  protections for the offenders, but to change the status quo                  
  where presently the victim is "victimized" by both the                       
  offender and the judicial system.                                            
                                                                               
  Number 258                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. IVY requested that the proposed amendment be placed                      
  before the voters in the next general election, and she                      
  explained why she thought the voters would vote "yes."  She                  
  concluded by sharing a quote from THOMAS JEFFERSON, since                    
  she thought it was particularly relevant.                                    
                                                                               
  At the conclusion of her testimony, CHAIRMAN PORTER reviewed                 
  the process from there and decided to invite MS. IVY to                      
  introduce LINDA AKERS.  MS. AKERS was introduced as the                      
  Deputy Director for Crime Strike, an arm of the National                     
  Rifle Association, working primarily in the area of victims                  
  rights advocacy to establish rights for crime victims and to                 
  combat crime through legislative reform.                                     
                                                                               
  MS. IVY reviewed her background of service as a U.S.                         
  Attorney, as a member of the U.S. Attorney General's                         
  advisory committee to assist the attorney general in                         
  formulating national policies within the U.S. Department of                  
  Justice, as well as other relevant positions in the justice                  
  system.                                                                      
                                                                               
  Number 307                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. AKERS commended the legislators for taking the step                      
  forward to provide for the rights of victims as well as for                  
  the accused.  She thanked the chairmen and members of both                   
  the Senate and House Judiciary Committees.                                   
                                                                               
  MS. AKERS testified as to her position with the National                     
  Rifle Association to provide criminal justice reform, with                   
  her main emphasis on victim's advocacy.  She described her                   
  vantage view of the impact of laws on the victims in                         
  relationship to the accused and the victims.  She described                  
  a time when victims she observed had no rights, but were                     
  merely used as evidence in a case.                                           
                                                                               
  MS. AKERS enumerated the grievances as perceived in victim's                 
  rights - no rights at all for victims in Alaska and for all                  
  but a few states in the United States.  She narrated lengthy                 
  scenarios in which victims were further victimized by the                    
  judicial system.                                                             
                                                                               
  Number 354                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. AKERS explained how the courts could balance the rights                  
  of the victim against the rights of the accused, and why the                 
  changes should be made by inclusion in the constitution                      
  rather than by statue.  She outlined the problems of                         
  amending by statute using the premise of "fundamental law."                  
  She took on the arguments by those opposed to victim's                       
  rights, giving her answers from personal experience.  MS.                    
  AKERS explained how the changes would add to the                             
  responsibilities of the prosecutor, but stressed that no                     
  right of the victim would come at the expense of the                         
  defendant in the proposed amendment to the constitution.                     
  She took on the problem of cost, explaining why there would                  
  only be a minimal rise in cost.                                              
                                                                               
  Number 404                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. AKERS explained the tremendous cost of crime to the                      
  victim and to society, and gave her opinion that the                         
  government's most important function should be the                           
  protection of life, liberty, and property of people.  She                    
  gave some background information on experience in Arizona                    
  with the passage of a victim's Bill of Rights in 1990 in a                   
  ballot initiative, and a subsequent set of laws written to                   
  implement the constitutional amendment in 1992.  She traced                  
  the evolvement of the victim's rights law in the Arizona                     
  Courts and gave extensive examples of cases to show the                      
  balance in the law.                                                          
                                                                               
  Number 450                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. AKERS explained the opponents of victim's rights in                      
  Arizona had raised the same "predictions of doom" as those                   
  heard in Alaska, but she declared these predictions have not                 
  come true.  She also explained how the victims have become a                 
  part of the criminal justice system to the advantage of                      
  everyone in Arizona, and how the sanctity of the                             
  constitution could also be preserved in Alaska.                              
                                                                               
  MS. AKERS enumerated the plus side of the constitutional                     
  amendment which would provide the victims with basic rights                  
  to respect, protection, participation, justice, healing, and                 
  finality to their ordeal.  She described how obstacles to                    
  the victims would be minimized in terms of getting their                     
  rights established.  She concluded her remarks with a                        
  success story from Arizona and answered questions from the                   
  audience.                                                                    
                                                                               
  Number 499                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER thanked MS. AKERS for her extensive coverage                 
  of the manner in which the constitutional amendment works in                 
  Arizona.  He then read the specific victim's rights in HJR
  43 to be considered for inclusion in the Alaska                              
  Constitution.  He claimed the legislation would not change                   
  any of the statutory rights presently provided.                              
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER then opened the meeting to questions, and                    
  called on SENATOR DONLEY, who described the differences                      
  between HJR 43 and SJR 2 (RIGHTS OF VICTIMS OF CRIMES).                      
                                                                               
  TAPE 93-59, SIDE B                                                           
  Number 001                                                                   
                                                                               
  SENATOR DONLEY spoke to possible interpretation when new                     
  material is introduced in the constitution.                                  
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER explained the phrase in question was                         
  recognized by the Alaska Supreme Court.                                      
                                                                               
  SENATOR DONLEY explained victims were not treated in the                     
  same manner as the public.                                                   
                                                                               
  There ensued a discussion among the legislators and MS. IVY,                 
  who asked for a clear delineation to prevent problems with                   
  interpretation.                                                              
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE GREEN questioned a point by MS. AKERS about                   
  the placement of the provision in the Alaska State                           
  Constitution as to whether it could be overridden by any                     
  other condition.                                                             
                                                                               
  MS. AKERS explained it would give the victim's rights parity                 
  and equality within the fundamental document, whereas                        
  statutes can be subject to change, be amended, and be                        
  interpreted when inconsistent with a constitutional                          
  provision.  She also interpreted a constitutional provision                  
  as always given precedence over a statute.                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE GREEN than asked if there was any benefit to                  
  certain wording of the proposed amendment to prevent liberal                 
  interpretation by the courts.                                                
                                                                               
  MS. AKERS said the more specific the rights, the less chance                 
  it would be open to interpretation.                                          
                                                                               
  Number 063                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. AKERS continued to explain the enumeration of specific                   
  victim's rights on which to be relied by the victims and the                 
  courts as was done in Arizona.                                               
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER next called on REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE, who                     
  asked about the opposition to the victim's rights amendment.                 
                                                                               
                                                                               
  Number 100                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. AKERS explained there was opposition from those who                      
  didn't want anything done to the rights of the defendant,                    
  from those who complained about cost, and prosecutors, who                   
  were concerned about various aspects.  She gave examples of                  
  these oppositions from her assignment in Arizona.                            
                                                                               
  Number 129                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked if it would be considered a                       
  greater burden by the defense attorneys.                                     
                                                                               
  MS. AKERS replied the defense attorney would still have all                  
  of the rights that accrued to the defendant as established                   
  by judicial principles and court interpretations.  She                       
  pointed out the differences between the defense attorney and                 
  the role of the prosecutor.                                                  
                                                                               
  Number 160                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JAMES expressed her distress that there has                   
  been unfair treatment of the victims, and they should have                   
  already been protected under the constitution.  She agreed                   
  with the quote from THOMAS JEFFERSON, and urged the "pushing                 
  forward" of the legislation.                                                 
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER agreed with her distress.                                    
                                                                               
  In his turn, SENATOR DONLEY explained his feelings that the                  
  rights of the defendant were well protected, the costs were                  
  negligible, and the classic traditional criminal law theory                  
  had not done a good job in protecting the rights of the                      
  victims.  He suggested the bureaucracy as a huge opponent                    
  because the implementation of the rules create new jobs and                  
  new steps to follow - which they don't like.                                 
                                                                               
  SENATOR DONLEY also disagreed there should be any impact on                  
  the defendants, but said there would be the question of the                  
  impact on sentencing.  He referred to a previous case                        
  concerning a victim's impact on sentencing, and he asked MS.                 
  AKERS if she knew of such legislation.                                       
                                                                               
  MS. AKERS said the case was overturned and the victims were                  
  allowed to talk about the impact of the capital crime on                     
  them at the sentencing phase.                                                
                                                                               
  SENATOR DONLEY thought it was important to differentiate                     
  between the guilt phase and the sentencing of the defendant.                 
  He reminded the committee the victim did not get a chance to                 
  testify until guilt had been assigned and not prejudicial to                 
  the guilt of the defendant.                                                  
                                                                               
  Next CHAIRMAN PORTER called on REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS who                   
  said SENATOR DONLEY had partially answered her question, but                 
  she wanted to know what had held up passage of the bill in                   
  the past.                                                                    
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER said he would ask someone to testify on                      
  this.                                                                        
                                                                               
  SENATOR TAYLOR explained he had sat on three sides of the                    
  issue, one being as a public defender during his time in                     
  private practice, his service of six years on the district                   
  court bench, and now, to look at the issue from the                          
  legislative perspective.  He was in agreement with SENATOR                   
  DONLEY 'S description of the stages to decide on guilt and                   
  moving on to what is an appropriate sentence - an entirely                   
  different forum.  SENATOR TAYLOR explained it was at this                    
  point the additional attention from the victim would be                      
  important.                                                                   
                                                                               
  Number 263                                                                   
                                                                               
  SENATOR TAYLOR described how, in earlier years, defendants                   
  might plead to a Class A misdemeanor and end up in his                       
  district court without the benefit of the superior court                     
  with pre-sentencing reports from those involved with the                     
  defendant.  He also described how he tried, when he was a                    
  judge, to contact the victim, which he felt gave him a                       
  broader depth of the offense.  SENATOR TAYLOR thought it                     
  enabled him to provide a rehabilitative factor in the                        
  sentencing of the defendant.                                                 
                                                                               
  SENATOR TAYLOR discussed with CHAIRMAN PORTER the advantage                  
  of slowing down the repeat offender, and how important he                    
  thought the legislation was to structuring sentencing.                       
                                                                               
  Number 305                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. AKERS used the recent DENNY trial in Los Angeles, in                     
  which the victim had forgiven his assailants, to explain the                 
  use of the victim's impact statement.                                        
                                                                               
  SENATOR TAYLOR agreed that many people resolve their                         
  feelings as a victim by forgiveness.                                         
                                                                               
  MS. AKERS explained it was important that the victim have                    
  the right to participate and be heard.                                       
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked MS. AKERS if there was any                        
  relation to civil cases, and she had no evidence from                        
  Arizona that made it easier to sue in such a case.                           
                                                                               
  SENATOR DONLEY asked MS. AKERS for some additional                           
  information on principles not directly in the victim's                       
  rights area.  MS. AKERS explained his request dealt mainly                   
  with appellate decisions as to the purpose of sentencing.                    
  She thought his proposed language should be kept in mind                     
  during the implementation of the legislative language.                       
                                                                               
  Number 422                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER next invited WILLIAM F. DEWEY, a criminal                    
  defense attorney from Anchorage, to testify on the proposed                  
  legislation.                                                                 
                                                                               
  MR. DEWEY criticized the previous testimony for discussing                   
  the criminals and criminal defendants as if they were                        
  already convicted, and their rights as being different from                  
  those of a citizen.  Based on his experience, he thought the                 
  proposed legislation was cosmetic, and he gave some examples                 
  from his cases.                                                              
                                                                               
  MR. DEWEY said all of the victim's rights mentioned in the                   
  proposed legislation were currently in statute, but he                       
  explained the statutes were flawed and should be known to                    
  the legislators.  He said the establishment of liability to                  
  the victim is there at the time of the criminal offense, and                 
  many criminals in this state have the means to pay their                     
  victim for the crime they have committed.                                    
                                                                               
  MR. DEWEY said the present Victims Crime Act puts the                        
  lawyer, at the time of conviction, at a disadvantage to                      
  obtain police reports, witness statements, the kinds of                      
  information necessary to further litigate the rest of the                    
  action - to present a restitution argument to a judge.  He                   
  claimed those are not available to a crime victim now.  MR.                  
  DEWEY said laws should be formulated to allow crime victims                  
  the ability to get restitution.  He reviewed a second                        
  provision in the act that absolves the Department of Law and                 
  prosecutors from liability for not doing what they are                       
  required to do under the act.                                                
                                                                               
  Number 485                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. DEWEY said the results were, when the lawyer was not                     
  given the information by the prosecutor, to increase the                     
  expenses to the attorney representing the victim.  He                        
  claimed there was no definition, except for a broad policy                   
  sense, in the Victims Crime Act as to what damages are                       
  available to victims.  He gave some case histories to                        
  support restitution.  MR. DEWEY suggested the committee                      
  focus on the real victim's needs and work towards that end.                  
  He reviewed his reasons as to why the present act would not                  
  work and what is needed to put some teeth in the law to make                 
  it work.                                                                     
                                                                               
  When asked to summarize, MR. DEWEY reviewed his solutions to                 
  meaningful legislation to which a civil litigant is                          
  entitled.                                                                    
                                                                               
  SENATOR DONLEY said that in 1987 he testified in support of                  
  a bill containing all of MR. DEWEY'S suggestions, but it was                 
  opposed by the Department of Law, the Governor's Office, and                 
  the court system.                                                            
                                                                               
  TAPE 93-60, SIDE A                                                           
  Number 001                                                                   
                                                                               
  SENATOR DONLEY claimed his legislation was killed by the                     
  bureaucracy and described an ingrained opposition to the                     
  proposals in HJR 43.                                                         
                                                                               
  There was some general conversation among the legislators,                   
  and MR. DEWEY resumed his criticism saying all of the                        
  provisions were in statute now.  He suggested the committee                  
  challenge the court system on the efficiency of the system                   
  and move forward to deal with the suggestions by SENATOR                     
  DONLEY.                                                                      
                                                                               
  There was a review of the reasons for putting the Victims                    
  Crime Act into the Alaska Constitution by CHAIRMAN PORTER,                   
  mainly to protect the provisions in case the statutory                       
  rights come into conflict with the constitutional rights of                  
  the defendants.                                                              
                                                                               
  In answer to a question from SENATOR TAYLOR on what he would                 
  like to see in the bill, MR. DEWEY listed a definition of                    
  restitution in the constitutional provision written to have                  
  some meaning.  He said restitution presently has no meaning                  
  to a crime victim who wants to go to court to ask for                        
  restitution of nonspecific damages, and he explained why the                 
  present definition did not work.                                             
                                                                               
  Number 062                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. DEWEY gave some suggested language that would protect                    
  the right of the victim to collect additional civil damages.                 
                                                                               
  SENATOR DONLEY clarified the language by explaining that                     
  victims of crime have greater rights than other people in                    
  civil court, because the previous Victims Rights Act                         
  provided fewer exemptions from the collection of restitution                 
  from people who committed the crime.  He explained how there                 
  was a more limited scope in present proceedings.                             
                                                                               
  MR. DEWEY explained how the view could be changed to make                    
  restitution simpler.                                                         
                                                                               
  SENATOR DONLEY concluded with a follow-up as to whether it                   
  would be appropriate to include victims in Section 1.                        
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER and SENATOR TAYLOR discussed the role of the                 
  victim in the decision making stages and whether it belonged                 
  in Section 24, to keep the victim apprised of all                            
  proceedings.                                                                 
  HB 162 - CAPITAL PUNISHMENT FOR MURDER                                       
                                                                               
  SB 127 - CAPITAL PUNISHMENT FOR MURDER                                       
                                                                               
  Number 118                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER relinquished the committee chair to SENATOR                  
  TAYLOR, who announced the hearing on HB 162 (CAPITAL                         
  PUNISHMENT FOR MURDER) and SB 127 (CAPITAL PUNISHMENT FOR                    
  MURDER).                                                                     
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN TAYLOR explained there would be a balance of                        
  testimony on both sides of the issue.                                        
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN TAYLOR called the meeting back to order and gave                    
  some background information when he co-sponsored a similar                   
  bill six years ago.  He said this was the first hearing to                   
  be held in ten years on this issue.  He further said he                      
  hoped the debate would reach the floor in both houses for a                  
  vote, and he thought there should be a point in time when                    
  the death penalty should be used at the discretion of the                    
  jury.                                                                        
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN TAYLOR spoke about the differences in the two                       
  bills, but felt there could be some modifications in both.                   
  He then invited REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS to give an overview                   
  of his bill, HB 162.                                                         
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS thanked those present who came to                     
  discuss capital punishment, saying it has needed to be                       
  addressed for many years.  He claimed the will of the people                 
  has been thwarted in past attempts to institute the death                    
  penalty.                                                                     
                                                                               
  Number 404                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS explained the bill seeks the death                    
  penalty in cases of first degree murder with aggravating                     
  circumstances.  He further explained that if the legislation                 
  is passed by the legislature, it would go the public for an                  
  advisory vote.  REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS claimed the people of                 
  Alaska have been in favor of the death penalty by 75 to 85%                  
  in the different polls.  He feels the death penalty would be                 
  a deterrent and was supported by the will of the people.  He                 
  then turned the remainder of the overview over to his aide,                  
  ELIZABETH BELLINGHIRI.                                                       
                                                                               
  MS. BELLINGHIRI suggested that rather than giving a                          
  sectional analysis, she would defer to JERRY LUCKHAUPT, the                  
  attorney who drafted both capital punishment bills.                          
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS checked to be sure MR. LUCKHAUPT                      
  would point out the differences in the two bills.                            
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE PETER KOTT asked to question MS. BELLINGHIRI                  
  as to his understanding the only difference in the two bills                 
  was the prosecutorial discretion in the House version as to                  
  the treatment of the offenders and the impact on the fiscal                  
  notes.                                                                       
                                                                               
  Number 454                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. BELLINGHIRI noted the fiscal notes were similar as                       
  presented by the Department of Law despite the text change                   
  to reflect the prosecutorial discretion.  She said the                       
  fiscal note for SB 127 should be approximately four times                    
  greater than for HB 162 based on figures from the Department                 
  of Law.  She reviewed their analysis of the statistical                      
  manner on which they based their costs and explained why the                 
  fiscal impacts were not really similar.  The Department of                   
  Law decided to change their fiscal note for the Senate                       
  version to make it a more accurate reflection.                               
                                                                               
  Number 450                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. BELLINGHIRI explained what she called a "brief                           
  difference" in the two bills, and she further explained the                  
  use of the prosecutorial discretion to preserve the                          
  integrity of the system.  She said the discretion provision                  
  was to be used in heinous situations where death was a                       
  possible sentence, otherwise, the two bills were the same.                   
  Without prosecutorial discretion, MS. BELLINGHIRI said the                   
  legislation opened the doors to litigation.                                  
  CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked MR. LUCKHAUPT, Legislative Counsel for                 
  Legal Services, to testify on the two bills.                                 
                                                                               
  MR. LUCKHAUPT began by noting both bills were drafted by him                 
  in similar fashion but were based on different versions of                   
  death penalty bills from the Fifteenth and Sixteenth                         
  Legislature.  He explained SB 127 was from a bill co-                        
  sponsored by CHAIRMAN TAYLOR from the Fifteenth Legislature                  
  that actually passed the Senate that year, but did not                       
  proceed from there.  He also explained the bills had been                    
  updated over the years to reflect the U.S. Supreme Court                     
  Cases on the death penalty issue.                                            
                                                                               
  MR. LUCKHAUPT said the death penalty issue is one of the                     
  most litigated issues to be found, but the direction from                    
  the supreme court has made the bills easier to draft, such                   
  as to narrow the discretion of the jury to the                               
  particularized nature of the crime and the particularized                    
  characteristics of the defendant.  The narrowing of this                     
  focus permits the imposition of the death penalty.                           
                                                                               
  MR. LUCKHAUPT then reviewed the differences, such as                         
  "findings" in HB 162 but not in SB 127.  He said these                       
  findings are for the legislature to decide whether or not to                 
  use.                                                                         
                                                                               
  MR. LUCKHAUPT gave a comprehensive sectional analysis of                     
  both bills.                                                                  
                                                                               
  TAPE 93-60, SIDE B                                                           
  Number 001                                                                   
                                                                               
  This tape began with SENATOR DONLEY asking questions about                   
  the aggravators.                                                             
                                                                               
  MR. LUCKHAUPT answered that in order to impose the death                     
  penalty on someone convicted of first degree murder, at                      
  least one of the statutory aggravating factors, given later                  
  in the bill, must be present.                                                
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if they were specific to this death                    
  penalty.                                                                     
                                                                               
  MR. LUCKHAUPT said they had been added in 1992.                              
                                                                               
  MR. LUCKHAUPT continued with the sectional analysis and                      
  expanded on some of the points which would provide for a                     
  bifurcated trial and some options.                                           
                                                                               
  Number 125                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked MR. LUCKHAUPT if the burden of                   
  proof for the jury in finding the aggravating factor must be                 
  unanimous and beyond a reasonable doubt.  Once that is                       
  found, if they balance that and any other aggravating                        
  factors against any mitigating factors they have found to a                  
  preponderance of the evidence, which is a lower standard?                    
                                                                               
  Number 135                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. LUCKHAUPT quoted the supreme court as saying that once                   
  the aggravating factor is found beyond a reasonable doubt                    
  the case is then eligible for the death penalty, and the                     
  mitigating factors end up being a way to determine whether                   
  or not the death penalty should be imposed.                                  
  There was a general discussion of mitigating and aggravating                 
  factors and the problems of proof.                                           
                                                                               
  Number 375                                                                   
                                                                               
  SENATOR HALFORD spoke about the court of appeals as being                    
  totally a legislative creation and questioned whether the                    
  legislature could define the court of appeals by statute.                    
  He said the court of appeals is not constitutional nor is it                 
  constitutionally protected.                                                  
                                                                               
  MR. LUCKHAUPT said the bill had changed the jurisdiction of                  
  the court of appeals by not allowing them to hear capital                    
  offenses.  In answer to a question by SENATOR HALFORD, MR.                   
  LUCKHAUPT argued it was not a rule change.                                   
                                                                               
  SENATOR HALFORD asked if the legislature, by simple                          
  majority, could repeal the existence of the court of                         
  appeals, which was created by simple majority.                               
                                                                               
  MR. LUCKHAUPT believed they could.                                           
                                                                               
  Number 414                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked MR. LUCKHAUPT to be available for                      
  questions after lunch.                                                       
                                                                               
  (The committee recessed for lunch.)                                          
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN TAYLOR reconvened the meeting in the midst of                       
  questions to MR. LUCKHAUPT by SENATOR HALFORD on the                         
  standards for the use of the aggravator and the mitigator.                   
                                                                               
  MR. LUCKHAUPT explained the court would rule on the                          
  relevancy of the mitigating factor.                                          
                                                                               
  SENATOR HALFORD continued to question MR. LUCKHAUPT closely                  
  on the use of the mitigating factors and where they are                      
  found.                                                                       
                                                                               
  MR. LUCKHAUPT said the court could not limit the number of                   
  mitigators that go to the jury, so there is no way to list                   
  them - but the judge must allow any relevant mitigating                      
  evidence to go to the jury.                                                  
                                                                               
  If the list can not be constitutionally contained, SENATOR                   
  HALFORD asked if there were any parameters.                                  
                                                                               
  MR. LUCKHAUPT quoted from supreme court decisions that would                 
  allow any one juror to hang the process.                                     
                                                                               
  SENATOR HALFORD wanted to know to what extent the                            
  legislature can make the statute work, because he was                        
  concerned the legislature would be creating something that                   
  cannot ever be used.                                                         
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN TAYLOR expressed interest in a more complete answer                 
  to the use of mitigating factors as used by the other                        
  thirty-seven states that have a death penalty statute on                     
  their books.                                                                 
                                                                               
  SENATOR DONLEY asked to add a caveat to the question asking                  
  how many of those state have parallel provisions in their                    
  constitution.                                                                
                                                                               
  MR. LUCKHAUPT began his explanation by discussing the                        
  balance of reformation with the protection of the public,                    
  and he repeated testimony from the constitutional                            
  convention.  He said some of the Western states had                          
  comparable language, but it was difficult to find a state                    
  that makes a perfect match.  He also explained HB 162 and SB
  127 were based on the Georgia system, which is used the most                 
  in the 37 states that allow capital punishment.  He reviewed                 
  similar systems from other states.                                           
                                                                               
  MR. LUCKHAUPT said when the death penalty was struck down in                 
  1968 by the U.S. Supreme Court, they struck down a series of                 
  state laws that required mandatory imposition of the death                   
  penalty for various crimes.  States, such as Georgia,                        
  adopted a system approved by the supreme court in the early                  
  1970's.                                                                      
                                                                               
  TAPE 93-61, SIDE A                                                           
  Number 001                                                                   
                                                                               
  This tape picks up the question and answer session by                        
  CHAIRMAN TAYLOR and SENATOR HALFORD with MR. LUCKHAUPT, who                  
  was explaining additional aspects of the death penalty,                      
  including the length of time served by people on death row.                  
  He reviewed the number of appeals that could be made in                      
  Alaska, even with the new legislation.                                       
                                                                               
  MR. LUCKHAUPT said the lack of prosecutorial resources could                 
  hamper the use of the death penalty in Alaska, and he                        
  reviewed the problems involved in prosecuting a death                        
  penalty case.  He offered to do some additional research on                  
  the constitutional limits.                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE PORTER presented two understandings and asked                 
  MR. LUCKHAUPT to comment.                                                    
                                                                               
  MR. LUCKHAUPT explained the voir dire procedure where,                       
  before the trial, the two sides talk to the jury to                          
  determine what they know about the case and their feelings                   
  about the death penalty.  He also explained the role of the                  
  judge and new juries in this action.                                         
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked if there was anything in the                     
  bills that would alleviate the concerns people have at the                   
  lapsed time between conviction and the execution sentence.                   
                                                                               
  MR. LUCKHAUPT talked about the limitation on the court of                    
  appeals in the bills and the provision for direct appeal to                  
  the Alaska Supreme Court, which can remove about a year from                 
  the appellate process.  He described proposals in the                        
  federal system to streamline the federal habeas corpus                       
  procedures, but he said it did not impact the bills.  MR.                    
  LUCKHAUPT didn't hold out much hope for speedy trials.                       
                                                                               
  Number 093                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked for some understanding on the                     
  procedure.  For instance, what if the defendant pleads                       
  guilty? Would there still be a long drawn out process?                       
                                                                               
  MR. LUCKHAUPT explained, under SB 127, if the defendant                      
  pleads guilty to first degree murder, the death penalty                      
  phase of the sentencing proceedings would begin.  Under HB
  162, if the prosecutor has not elected to seek the death                     
  penalty, even if the defendant pleads guilty, there would be                 
  no death penalty phase.  If the prosecutor elects to seek                    
  the death penalty, or if the defendant pleads guilty without                 
  a plea bargain as to a life sentence, then the death penalty                 
  phase would begin.                                                           
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE GREEN read from HB 162 and asked about the                    
  jury.                                                                        
                                                                               
  MR. LUCKHAUPT explained the role of the jury in the                          
  sentencing phase of the trial, or in the case of the judge                   
  hearing the case, a jury would have to be convened to hear                   
  the sentencing phase.                                                        
                                                                               
  They continued to discuss these provisions at some length.                   
                                                                               
  Number 190                                                                   
                                                                               
  SENATOR DONLEY returned to constitutional issues and                         
  directed  MR. LUCKHAUPT to page 9 of a memorandum from JACK                  
  CHENOWETH, an attorney from Legislative Legal Counsel, for                   
  his opinion on the test for constitutionality under Article                  
  1, Section 12, and asked if he shared the same opinion as                    
  MR. CHENOWETH.                                                               
                                                                               
  MR. LUCKHAUPT expressed no problem with MR. CHENOWETH'S                      
  conclusion or his reasoning and explained there would be no                  
  way to predict what the Alaska Supreme Court would do under                  
  a challenge.  He cited the Raven Case as an example in                       
  Alaska and summarized conclusions from other states.                         
                                                                               
  SENATOR DONLEY asked MR. LUCKHAUPT on what he based his                      
  analysis of the law and gave an example from a previous                      
  meeting on the "rule of evidence" where the courts refused                   
  to recognize "legislative intent."  SENATOR DONLEY wanted to                 
  know if his analysis was based on what a neutral tribunal                    
  would do or take into consideration the unique                               
  characteristics of Alaska.                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. LUCKHAUPT explained that all of the considerations were                  
  factored into his decision, and he noted the inclination of                  
  the Alaska Supreme Court to utilize the state constitution                   
  to justify or strike down various actions of the legislature                 
  or the executive branch.  As a general rule, supreme courts                  
  in other states have not been too active in the enforcement                  
  of their own constitutions, but Alaska has been different.                   
  He thought the Alaska Supreme Court has acted in a liberal                   
  manner in defendant's rights but felt there has been a                       
  change in the supreme court over the last few years, which                   
  he also felt has mirrored the changing perception about                      
  crime by residents.                                                          
                                                                               
  Number 276                                                                   
                                                                               
  SENATOR DONLEY again expressed his concerns about how the                    
  laws could be made constitutional, and he referred to                        
  several points of concern in both MR. CHENOWETH'S and MR.                    
  LUCKHAUPT'S memorandums.                                                     
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN TAYLOR assured him there would be more hearings on                  
  the death penalty bills.                                                     
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN TAYLOR brought the questioning to a close to allow                  
  more time to hear from others, beginning with EDWARD                         
  MCNALLY, District Attorney for the Third Judicial District                   
  in Anchorage and DEAN GUANELI, Chief of the Legal Services                   
  Section of the Criminal Division, on the teleconference line                 
  from Juneau.                                                                 
  MR. MCNALLY expressed his appreciation at being able to                      
  participate in the discussion and acknowledged those who had                 
  championed the battle for capital punishment.  He began by                   
  conveying the support of GOVERNOR WALTER HICKEL for the                      
  efforts of the committee and the governor's promise to sign                  
  any legislation that would ensure that "cop killers, and                     
  others guilty of vicious and heinous murders in Alaska, will                 
  face the full range of constitutionally approved penalties."                 
                                                                               
  MR. MCNALLY also brought the personal thanks of ATTORNEY                     
  GENERAL CHARLIE COLE, who regretted that he was unable to                    
  participate in person.  He explained that both the governor                  
  and the attorney general had made the death penalty and the                  
  battle against violent crime a top priority.                                 
                                                                               
  Number 333                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. MCNALLY proposed questions to be asked of those who                      
  oppose the death penalty, and he began with some background                  
  material, including "the death penalty is in effect in                       
  Alaska today for R.D. CHEELEY.  He said PRESIDENT BILL                       
  CLINTON is working to add forty-seven new categories to the                  
  laws that will be in effect in the state of Alaska through                   
  the Federal Court System."                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. MCNALLY noted the trial would take place in Portland,                    
  Oregon, and he asked the participants where they would                       
  prefer to see the case heard.                                                
                                                                               
  MR. MCNALLY then focused on the governor's concern for "cop                  
  killers" and the change in attitude of the offender towards                  
  the police.  He said today the police are the first ones                     
  shot and targeted by criminals armed with a staggering array                 
  of weapons.  He reminded the committee of the weapons shown                  
  in a previous meeting, and he presented a case history of a                  
  heinous crime against a police officer by a juvenile with                    
  one of these weapons.                                                        
                                                                               
  Number 408                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. MCNALLY presented some background information on the                     
  sentencing procedures in Alaska and in other states where                    
  they have capital punishment.  He asked why the prosecutors                  
  in the state of Alaska do not have the same tools as the                     
  prosecutors on the federal level, with the full array of                     
  penalties on the books.  MR. MCNALLY urged a response from                   
  opponents of capital punishment.                                             
                                                                               
  When talking about costs, MR. MCNALLY gave a perspective on                  
  the cost of not having a death penalty.  He thought there                    
  were many cases that could be "disposed of" short of a                       
  trial, thus saving on cost.  He offered the statistic of                     
  30,000 policemen and women being killed in this country                      
  since it was founded, twenty-six of whom were killed here in                 
  Alaska.  He said these figures don't take into account the                   
  wounded, the disabled, and the suffering of the families of                  
  the officers.                                                                
                                                                               
  Number 462                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. MCNALLY said the Alaskan troopers and cops deserve all                   
  the protection the law, passed by the legislature, can                       
  offer, and criminals need to understand that in Alaska, if                   
  you shoot a cop, you will be severely punished .... possibly                 
  with their life.  He returned to fiscal notes and budget                     
  considerations and observed that the cost of the fiscal                      
  notes are unknown and resource determinations are made every                 
  day when they are screening 1,400 felony cases a year.  MR.                  
  MCNALLY urged the legislators not to make fiscal notes an                    
  obstacle to the proposed legislation.                                        
                                                                               
  MR. MCNALLY said the death penalty was warranted in Alaska                   
  for two principal reasons:  first, because it can deter                      
  certain crimes involving premeditation and calculation; and                  
  second, society has the right to exact a just and                            
  proportionate punishment for reprehensible offenses.  He                     
  gave two examples to prove his case for the death penalty.                   
                                                                               
  TAPE 93-61, SIDE B                                                           
  Number 001                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. MCNALLY gave the following statement:  "A criminal                       
  justice system that is limited like ours, only to lesser                     
  sanctions, is lacking in adequate deterrents and fails to                    
  meet our community standards, and their need to exact a just                 
  and proportionate punishment for the gravest offenses."                      
                                                                               
  MR. MCNALLY enumerated the reasons given for criminal                        
  behavior, but he rejected those in favor of designating                      
  criminal behavior as a choice between good and evil.                         
                                                                               
  MR. MCNALLY concluded by describing the memorial placed in                   
  Washington, D.C., to the slain police men and women of the                   
  United States, as well as the memorial at the state                          
  trooper's headquarters in Anchorage with the names of the                    
  twenty-six officers attached to a statute of an Alaskan law                  
  enforcement officer.  He offered his services, as well as                    
  those of DEAN GUANELI in Juneau, to answer questions on the                  
  fiscal notes.                                                                
                                                                               
  Number 067                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN TAYLOR thanked MR. MCNALLY for his presentation,                    
  but requested the deferment of questions to allow persons on                 
  the other side of the issue to testify.  He then called on                   
  JOHN SALEMI, Director of the Public Defender Agency, and                     
  BRANT MCGEE, Director for the Office of Public Advocacy to                   
  testify.                                                                     
                                                                               
  Number 075                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. SALEMI spoke to the issue he thinks binds all persons in                 
  the room together, which is our perception that we need to                   
  do something in this nation, in this state and in this                       
  community, to enhance the public safety of law abiding                       
  citizens.  He suggested that people were attending the                       
  meeting to support the bills because they are frightened and                 
  frustrated by crime, and they wanted solutions.                              
                                                                               
  Number 102                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. SALEMI would not characterize himself as someone who was                 
  trying to defeat an enactment of the death penalty, but as a                 
  person just as concerned as the participants in the meeting                  
  over public safety issues.  He explained he planned to                       
  present some information so the public could make an                         
  informed decision about how to use the finite resources that                 
  we have in this state to fight crime, to provide                             
  rehabilitation, and to prevent further victimization of the                  
  populace.                                                                    
                                                                               
  MR. SALEMI spoke to the perception that capital punishment                   
  deters crime, which he classified as logical and rational.                   
  He quoted REPRESENTATIVE SANDER'S view that the death                        
  penalty would deter criminals, and he described a "stack of                  
  studies" which indicates that capital punishment does not                    
  have a deterrent effect.  He asked the participants to look                  
  at more obvious evidence, which he said was thirty-seven                     
  large-scale experiments which are the states that have the                   
  death penalty, some for many years.                                          
                                                                               
  Number 130                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. SALEMI explained there were no statistics from the                       
  thirty-seven states that gave evidence the death penalty had                 
  deterred violent crime or homicides.  "In fact," he said,                    
  "much of the evidence suggests just the opposite, there is                   
  no significant impact."                                                      
                                                                               
  MR. SALEMI acknowledged that society is apparently becoming                  
  increasingly dangerous, but those tools employed are not                     
  working to fight crime.  He listed capital punishment as one                 
  of those failed experiments.  He explained that if the death                 
  penalty is removed as a deterrent to crime, it leaves only                   
  one other strong or compelling use, which is to reaffirm the                 
  values of society - possibly a moral judgement.                              
                                                                               
  Number 158                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. SALEMI discussed the down-side in using capital                          
  punishment to achieve retribution, the first being the                       
  expense, and he respectfully disagreed with MR. MCNALLY on                   
  the resource decisions, and drew on the experience of other                  
  jurisdictions to speculate that it would be enormously                       
  expensive to employ capital punishment in this state.  He                    
  quoted the prevailing belief that it is just the cost of law                 
  enforcement, the cost of justly punishing people.                            
                                                                               
  MR. SALEMI enumerated a list of what he considered the                       
  crimes that really affect individuals on a large scale                       
  basis:  drug trafficking, burglaries, auto theft, property                   
  damage, sexual abuse, and more.  He explained the money that                 
  would go towards processing the death penalty cases would be                 
  detracting from efforts of law enforcement in addressing the                 
  crimes that affect all of us on a very regular basis.                        
                                                                               
  MR. SALEMI described the justice system as being frail, the                  
  probability that capital punishment would be instituted in                   
  the state, and that innocent people would be executed.  He                   
  said no matter how many resources are spent on the legal                     
  process, mistakes will be made, and he reviewed all the                      
  procedures that might go wrong on all levels of a death                      
  penalty case.  MR. SALEMI said these cases can be                            
  documented.                                                                  
                                                                               
  Number 274                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. SALEMI explained that both he and MR. MCGEE would need                   
  larger budgets to process capital punishment cases.  He                      
  listed what he considered better uses for the money, and he                  
  suggested using it for the education of people on crimes and                 
  deterrents.  He offered each member of the committee packets                 
  of information on studies about capital punishment.  He                      
  concluded by urging people to go beyond the emotional                        
  components and look at the practical effect of sound public                  
  policy.                                                                      
                                                                               
  MR. MCGEE described his agency, the Office of Public                         
  Advocacy, as small, expending about $6.4 million in public                   
  funds in the representation of about ten thousand citizens                   
  in the state, with primary responsibility to abused and                      
  neglected children, incapacitated persons, and indigent                      
  criminal defendants when the court has determined the Public                 
  Defender Agency has a conflict of interest.                                  
                                                                               
  MR. MCGEE said among his primary responsibilities is cost                    
  control, because nearly two-thirds of the cases for which he                 
  is responsible are performed by private contractors and                      
  court appointed professionals throughout the state.  He said                 
  he had become a student on the costs of the death penalty                    
  over the past few years because it has been considered                       
  before.                                                                      
                                                                               
  MR. MCGEE expressed pleasure at being able to share his                      
  personal research information, and he referred to a New York                 
  study in 1982 which determined the average cost for each                     
  death penalty case at $1.8 million.  He extrapolated that to                 
  $2.5 million per case in 1996 dollars, and he said it did                    
  not point to the real costs in every case.                                   
                                                                               
  Number 380                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. MCGEE reviewed expenditures in California of $593                        
  thousand for trial costs alone, with one case in which they                  
  expended over $5 million, and in one county, California                      
  contracted with six private defense counsels to represent                    
  three separate criminal defendants at $450 thousand per                      
  defendant per trial.  In 1988 California was spending over                   
  $90 million a year on capital cases, and since capital                       
  punishment was instituted eleven years ago the costs have                    
  amounted to about $750 million.  He said California just                     
  executed their first person earlier this year.                               
                                                                               
  MR. MCGEE explained the prosecution failure rate is quite                    
  high on the number of people actually executed as opposed to                 
  those for whom the death penalty is pursued.  The trial                      
  costs alone in California is about $6 million before the                     
  person is put on death row.  He further explained in Florida                 
  the cost is $3.2 million per execution.                                      
                                                                               
  MR. MCGEE presented the combined fiscal notes for the Alaska                 
  Court System, the Department of Law, the Public Defender                     
  Agency, and the Office of Public Advocacy, which would total                 
  over $21 million in the first four years from the enactment                  
  of the death penalty.  He claimed the figure would likely                    
  double during the first ten years, and it would be at least                  
  eight to ten years before the first Alaskan defendant is                     
  executed, which would mean Alaska would spend at least $40                   
  to $50 million before the first Alaskan defendant is                         
  executed.                                                                    
                                                                               
  Number 414                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. MCGEE stressed the importance of the impact on the                       
  scarce resources in the state in relation to the experiences                 
  in other states, and he quoted California as devoting half                   
  the time of their supreme court to death penalty cases.                      
  Currently none of the Alaskan Supreme Court time is used on                  
  death penalty cases, but MR. MCGEE contended there would be                  
  tens of thousands of Alaskans who are trying to get into                     
  district courts, small claims court, superior court, and the                 
  Alaska Supreme Court who would have to wait their turn in                    
  line.  He further contended there would be a dramatic                        
  slowing of the process of both criminal justice in other                     
  cases and civil justice in all cases if the legislature                      
  enacts a law that mandates the expenditure of vast public                    
  resources on just a few cases.                                               
                                                                               
  Number 430                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. MCGEE disagreed with MR. MCNALLY as to the extent of the                 
  costs, and he encouraged legislators to become informed on                   
  the vastly expensive undertaking that should go forward only                 
  with very good reasons.  In his own agency, MR. MCGEE                        
  described how his representation of other individuals within                 
  his statutory mandate would suffer if he had death penalty                   
  cases, since they would be the highest priority cases in                     
  every office in which they are housed.  He offered to                        
  respond to any specific questions and to share his research                  
  information on other aspects of the death penalty.                           
                                                                               
  Number 461                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN TAYLOR thanked both MR. SALEMI and MR. MCGEE,                       
  praised their professional presentations, and assured them                   
  they would be involved in additional debate.                                 
                                                                               
  Next, CHAIRMAN TAYLOR invited SHARON NAHORNEY, who testified                 
  as a member of a family of victims of violence.  She thought                 
  it was important to keep the death penalty issue before the                  
  legislature because they will realize it is a just law and a                 
  "must have" law for the state of Alaska to maintain a safe                   
  and sane society.                                                            
                                                                               
  MS. NAHORNEY suggested that money could be saved by not                      
  providing law libraries and law degrees for prisoners to                     
  create more appeals that come back through the court system.                 
  She asked them to consider how to calculate the cash value                   
  of avoiding murders and the value of the life of a loved                     
  one.                                                                         
                                                                               
  MS. NAHORNEY thought the capital punishment bill was                         
  necessary to protect our community, and she felt the death                   
  penalty can be a key anti-weapon and a major deterrent.  She                 
  cited seven and a half years as the average life sentence                    
  for murder across the nation, putting them out to walk among                 
  us.  She didn't think this time period was enough, and crime                 
  was repetitive and seasoned criminals come out to re-offend.                 
  She gave some histories to defend her statements.                            
                                                                               
  Number 499                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. NAHORNEY described that the new breed of criminals                       
  raised on crack and more prone to violence bring about an                    
  increase in homicides.  She reviewed the statistics of those                 
  favoring the death penalty, the problems in rehabilitation,                  
  and the release of criminals due to prison overcrowding.                     
  She recommended more prisons if there is not to be a death                   
  penalty, and she blamed the courts for being too concerned                   
  with the rights of the prisoners rather than the rights of                   
  society.  She said a constitutional amendment must be passed                 
  to give victims equal rights to perpetrators.                                
                                                                               
  MS. NAHORNEY reviewed a series of studies on the low number                  
  of criminals committed for their crimes, the rise in crime                   
  rates, and the lack of protection for society.                               
                                                                               
  TAPE 93-62, SIDE A                                                           
  Number 001                                                                   
  Testimony continued from tape three on the "Gillmore Effect"                 
  where publicized harsh punishments appear to contribute to                   
  lower rates of violent crime, while unpublicized harsh                       
  punishments have no affect on the rate of violent crime.                     
                                                                               
  Number 030                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. NAHORNEY believes that had a death penalty been in                       
  effect in 1985 when her family was murdered, it would have                   
  been a sufficient deterrent to the murderers to have                         
  prevented the crime.                                                         
                                                                               
  Number 071                                                                   
                                                                               
  TED LEMAIRE, the grandfather of a victim, MANDY LEMAIRE,                     
  testified he left the Lower Forty-Eight to escape rising                     
  crime rates, and he encouraged the legislature to look at                    
  anti-crime legislation.  Despite the fact that his eleven-                   
  year-old granddaughter was kidnapped, sexually assaulted and                 
  murdered, he remains opposed to the death penalty.  He has                   
  accepted her death.                                                          
                                                                               
  MR. LEMAIRE considers the real problem to be crime.  He                      
  advocates dealing with crime, but not through the death                      
  penalty.  He believes crime will affect all people at some                   
  point in their lives.                                                        
                                                                               
  Number 131                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. LEMAIRE continued, saying the death penalty will not                     
  deter a criminal, nothing will deter a criminal.  In his                     
  grand-daughter's case, he said the criminal had stalked                      
  several other girls before killing his granddaughter.  He                    
  explained that the difference between us and the criminal is                 
  that we can be deterred by a host of things and the criminal                 
  cannot.                                                                      
                                                                               
  MR. LEMAIRE referenced an occurrence several months ago of a                 
  confrontation between a gunman and police officers at Tudor                  
  and Muldoon in Anchorage where the gunman could not be                       
  deterred.  He noted the gunman in the incident was a repeat                  
  offender.  He said criminals lack the ability to see how the                 
  principles of right and wrong apply to them.  MR. LEMAIRE                    
  claimed the law must be consistently practiced and applied                   
  to be a deterrent, something which has never been done.                      
                                                                               
  Number 248                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. LEMAIRE summarized by saying he has seen the public                      
  defender and public advocacy people at work and he was                       
  offended by their operation.  He claimed they had money to                   
  burn and their budgets should be cut.  He said the biggest                   
  problem with the use of the death penalty was the legal                      
  hassles that are generated, and attorneys who over-utilize                   
  the appeals process should be penalized.                                     
                                                                               
  Number 305                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN TAYLOR requested information on people wishing to                   
  testify and asked for show of hands for those unable to                      
  testify in Juneau.  He stated he was willing to stay as long                 
  as it takes for everyone who wishes to testify to do so.                     
                                                                               
  DONNA DINSMORE POFF said she was testifying on behalf of her                 
  son who was murdered.  She contacted thirty-four legislators                 
  regarding her son and was disappointed that she only                         
  received responses from two legislators, REPRESENTATIVES                     
  GRUSSENDORF and SANDERS.  She said it takes too long for                     
  justice to be served.                                                        
                                                                               
  Number 387                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN TAYLOR assured MS. POFF that all her comments from                  
  both days of testimony will be in the record.                                
                                                                               
  MS. POFF summarized by saying she never wants anyone to                      
  forget her son and urged the committee to expedite the                       
  passing of these bills.                                                      
                                                                               
  Number 428                                                                   
                                                                               
  JONATHAN KATCHER testified that the cost of the death                        
  penalty is not intended to be a reflection of what the lives                 
  of the victims are worth, but will take away funds and                       
  resources from prosecuting crime.  He thinks that                            
  implementing the death penalty would prolong the pain of                     
  crime victims and their families because of the greater                      
  degree of scrutiny with which the courts would examine these                 
  cases.                                                                       
                                                                               
  Number 468                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. KATCHER said he found it ironic that the same                            
  legislature that is contemplating giving juries the power to                 
  dispense a sentence of capital punishment is also                            
  contemplating taking away the power of juries to award                       
  compensation in cases in civil court.                                        
                                                                               
  MR. KATCHER described a person and a crime that would fall                   
  under the guidelines of this legislation.  He stated that                    
  this person is now heavily involved as an advocate in the                    
  Native sobriety movement and is now doing positive things                    
  for this community and this legislature, because it's saving                 
  money by getting to the heart of the Native sobriety issue.                  
  He urged the legislature to resist the emotional element in                  
  the passage of the death penalty.                                            
                                                                               
  Number 535                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN TAYLOR called the next witness, MICHELLE KERR, who                  
  said she couldn't believe that the death penalty wouldn't                    
  deter someone from committing a crime.  She said she                         
  couldn't  think of a better argument for the death penalty                   
  than when someone from prison conspires and succeeds in                      
  killing someone else.  She also agreed with the concept of                   
  "an eye for an eye."                                                         
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN TAYLOR thanked the previous witness and called the                  
  next witness, JOHN FARLEIGH, who stated he was at one time                   
  on a jury for a murder trial.  He said murder is a horrible                  
  thing and deserves to be punished as harshly as possible,                    
  but real life cases are not as "cut-and-dried" as they are                   
  on Perry Mason.                                                              
                                                                               
  TAPE 93-62, SIDE B                                                           
  Number 001                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. FARLEIGH summarized by saying it would be hard for a                     
  jury to decide whether or not to use the death penalty for                   
  fear that an innocent person would accidentally be sentenced                 
  to death.  He thinks it would have been much harder for the                  
  jury on which he served to come to a decision had the death                  
  penalty been an available sentencing option.  He concluded                   
  by saying the death penalty is a permanent decision and the                  
  potential for executing someone wrongly exists.  He                          
  commented that if someone who is sentenced to serve jail                     
  time is later found to be innocent, then at least that                       
  person can be let out of jail.                                               
                                                                               
  Number 059                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN TAYLOR thanked MR. FARLEIGH again for his testimony                 
  from the point of view of the juror and thanked him for                      
  giving his time and energy to the American jury system.                      
                                                                               
  The next witness was RANDALL BURNS, representing the Alaska                  
  Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), who stated the ACLU is opposed                 
  to the death penalty and believes that capital punishment is                 
  inconsistent with our fundamental values.  He said the ACLU                  
  is not soft on crime, but believes that any state that would                 
  authorize the killing of another is committing an immoral                    
  act.  He said it is an issue of respect for human life.                      
                                                                               
  MR. BURNS said it teaches the permissibility of using                        
  violence to solve social problems, and capital punishment is                 
  really murder by the government.                                             
                                                                               
  Number 105                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. BURNS continued by saying the facts simply do not                        
  support the idea that the death penalty would be a deterrent                 
  to possible violent criminals.  Most people think they will                  
  be able to avoid detection in committing a crime, and the                    
  death penalty simply is not going to stop that mind set.                     
                                                                               
  MR. BURNS raised the issue of fairness because death row                     
  inmates are disproportionately composed of African-                          
  Americans.  He thought that in Alaska, Alaska Natives would                  
  possibly make up a large number of the inmates on death                      
  row.                                                                         
                                                                               
  MR. BURNS commented that in the trial courts of this nation                  
  at this time the killing of a white person is treated much                   
  more severely than the killing of a black person.  Of the                    
  168 persons executed between January 1977 and April 1992,                    
  only twenty-nine have been convicted of killing a non-white                  
  person, and only one of these twenty-nine persons was white                  
  himself.                                                                     
                                                                               
  MR. BURNS stated that as utilized in our justice system, the                 
  death penalty is reserved for murderers, regardless of their                 
  race, who kill a white person.  When discretion is used in                   
  sentencing a person, it has always been used in this country                 
  to mark for death the poor, the friendless, the uneducated,                  
  and members of racial minorities, thus discretion becomes                    
  injustice.   Also, he said you cannot correct a mistaken                     
  conviction once the state has taken that person's life.                      
                                                                               
  MR. BURNS offered a list of examples of persons who have                     
  been on death row who were later found to have been innocent                 
  of the crimes for which they were sentenced and were later                   
  released from prison.                                                        
                                                                               
  Number 165                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN TAYLOR requested that MR. BURNS submit a copy of                    
  the list to the committee.                                                   
  MR. BURNS suggested the legislators make alterations to                      
  existing laws in order to clarify for the public that life                   
  imprisonment without the possibility of parole exists in                     
  this state and can be used by prosecutors.                                   
                                                                               
  MR. BURNS said he understands no person convicted in Alaska                  
  of first degree murder is eligible for parole for at least                   
  thirty-three years.  He urged the legislature to adopt                       
  specific language offering life without parole in Alaska and                 
  ending the idea that we should be bringing the death penalty                 
  to the state.                                                                
                                                                               
  Number 198                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. BURNS said in regards to the death penalty assuaging the                 
  grief suffered by the family of the victim, that most                        
  families of victims say that no penalty can substitute for                   
  the loss of a loved one.  He quoted from a report entitled                   
  "Sentencing for Life" which was submitted to the committee.                  
                                                                               
  MR. BURNS offered another report, "Millions Misspent:  What                  
  Politicians Don't Say About the High Cost of the Death                       
  Penalty," which he submitted to the committee along with a                   
  brochure on a poll which found that only 41% of the                          
  population would support the death penalty if there were                     
  provisions in law for first degree murderers to be sentenced                 
  to life in prison with no possibility of parole.                             
                                                                               
  Number 238                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN TAYLOR called the next witness, HUGH FLEISCHER, an                  
  Anchorage attorney, who said there were no guarantees                        
  whatsoever in this legislation that the only people                          
  sentenced to death would be those who are without a doubt                    
  guilty of a heinous crime.  He recalled the second person to                 
  be executed in the U.S. after the death penalty was                          
  reinstated in 1979 was JOHN SPEKALINK, whose case was                        
  mismanaged by the defense, since there were strong                           
  indications that he had acted in self-defense when he                        
  committed the murder for which he was accused.  In addition,                 
  there were comments from one of the defense attorneys                        
  stating that he did not feel qualified enough to defend MR.                  
  SPEKALINK.                                                                   
                                                                               
  Number 289                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. FLEISCHER said there are flaws in the system, and it is                  
  important that the state do everything possible to help                      
  victims of crime, but it should also insure that our state                   
  does not make an innocent person a victim of this process.                   
                                                                               
  Number 337                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN TAYLOR thanked MR. FLEISCHER for testifying and                     
  called the next witness, TERRY BURRELL, who described to the                 
  committee her neighborhood community council meeting where                   
  everyone agreed that it should be a priority to stop the                     
  increasing rate of crime and to protect the neighborhoods.                   
  She supported SB 162 or a combination of the Senate and                      
  House bills relating to the subject, whichever could be                      
  implemented.  She also would like to see a limit on the                      
  number of appeals available to defendants.                                   
                                                                               
  MS. BURRELL asked the legislature to please pass a capital                   
  punishment law, effective January 1, 1995.  She believes                     
  that lethal injection or hanging would be a deterrent and                    
  agrees with ED MCNALLY'S testimony.  She has not been a                      
  victim of crime, but thinks the death penalty is needed.                     
  MS. BURRELL urged the committee to ignore the testimony of                   
  the ACLU.                                                                    
                                                                               
  Number 376                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN TAYLOR thanked MS. BURRELL for testifying and                       
  called on JOHN HAVELOCK, who apologized to the committee for                 
  not being able to hear previous testimony in order to avoid                  
  repeating anything already said.  He thought that if capital                 
  punishment was an option in sentencing, there would be more                  
  defendants pleading guilty on lesser charges in order to                     
  avoid the risk of being punished with the death penalty.  He                 
  questioned whether this would be a desirable thing to do and                 
  thought that it would be adding to the power of prosecutors.                 
  MR. HAVELOCK doesn't like the trend of the past thirty years                 
  of taking more discretion away from judges and giving it to                  
  prosecutors.                                                                 
                                                                               
  Number 422                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. HAVELOCK continued by saying he thought this bill is a                   
  part of that trend, and in addition, the death penalty is                    
  not a good idea under the particular circumstances of the                    
  administration of justice.  He is not opposed to the death                   
  penalty for moral reasons, but thinks that in Alaska it                      
  would be a particularly "lousy idea."                                        
                                                                               
  MR. HAVELOCK also considered that under the Constitution of                  
  the State of Alaska this bill would be unconstitutional.                     
  His advice, if the death penalty is really needed, would be                  
  to amend the Constitution of the State of Alaska.  He                        
  believes that the death penalty would cause problems in the                  
  multi-racial population of the state, since figures show                     
  that minorities would probably be unduly affected by such a                  
  law.                                                                         
                                                                               
  Number 470                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. HAVELOCK also declared it would add to the increased                     
  divisions between ethnic groups.  He commented on the fact                   
  that during the time he has been attending the committee                     
  meeting he has seen no blacks, and perhaps one Native.  He                   
  once again asserts that the effect of the death penalty                      
  would be to increase interracial hostility.  MR. HAVELOCK                    
  continued his analysis of the constitutionality of capital                   
  punishment in the state.                                                     
                                                                               
  Number 537                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. HAVELOCK totally agreed with the need to do more for                     
  victim's rights, and he agreed with the option of sentencing                 
  first degree murderers to life imprisonment without chance                   
  of parole.                                                                   
                                                                               
  SENATOR DONLEY asked about the constitutionality of having                   
  the death penalty available for any charge of aggravated                     
  first degree murder, and if MR. HAVELOCK doesn't think it is                 
  rather a large leap from a sentence of twenty years to one                   
  of death.                                                                    
                                                                               
  Number 568                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. HAVELOCK responded he wasn't particularly bothered by                    
  the difference between the possibility of a twenty year                      
  sentence and one of death.  It does remind him of how much                   
  he is bothered to see the cost of the justice system going                   
  up and up and up.  His theory was that every time one part                   
  of the criminal justice system gets a little more money, you                 
  have to give money to the other parts of the criminal                        
  justice system, but he thinks each part should get a little                  
  less money.  It seemed to him that the essence of fairness                   
  for defendants is in the balance of funds within the court                   
  system, not the total sum of the defender's budget.                          
                                                                               
  Number 599                                                                   
                                                                               
  SENATOR HALFORD reminded people that the legislature does                    
  not set the budget for the Public Defender Agency, but the                   
  court system sets their budget; the legislature only                         
  supplements the Public Defender Agency's budget.                             
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked MR. HAVELOCK to look over the legal                    
  opinion by JACK CHENOWETH regarding the bill.                                
                                                                               
  An UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER noted that there was also a question                 
  of constitutionality regarding Section 12 and asked MR.                      
  HAVELOCK to review HJR 43 in relation to amending Section                    
  12.                                                                          
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN TAYLOR thanked MR. HAVELOCK once again for his                      
  testimony and called the next witness, MARIE JOSEPH, who                     
  stated she was not a victim, but she felt that many victims                  
  are not seeing justice done.  She thought it was time to                     
  pass a capital punishment law, and the legislature could                     
  pass laws that would make capital punishment more cost                       
  effective.  (TAPE 4 ended before MS. JOSEPH was finished                     
  testifying.)                                                                 
                                                                               
  TAPE 93-63, SIDE A                                                           
  Number 001                                                                   
                                                                               
  (TAPE 5 was not started until part way through this witness'                 
  testimony.)                                                                  
                                                                               
  ALAN BARNES from the University of Alaska, Anchorage said                    
  the Justice Center would offer to answer those questions                     
  objectively.  He said he was familiar with the Spekalink                     
  situation and also with the Nelson/Pogeny case.                              
                                                                               
  Number 020                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN TAYLOR called the next witness, DIANE SCHENKER,                     
  from the Department of Corrections, who had several points                   
  she wanted the committee members to consider.  The first one                 
  would be to add the term "probation officer" to the list of                  
  other terms used to describe peace officers, or simply use                   
  the term "peace officer" consistently to describe all these                  
  positions.  She said another option would be to use the term                 
  "correctional employees."                                                    
                                                                               
  Secondly, MS. SCHENKER asked the committee to consider not                   
  using hanging as an option in carrying out a sentence of                     
  capital punishment.  She said it is difficult and more                       
  expensive than other types of execution.                                     
                                                                               
  Number 053                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. SCHENKER also informed the committee that the fiscal                     
  note had been dramatically revised from the previous year                    
  because the department made the erroneous assumption that                    
  had these people not been sentenced to death, they simply                    
  would not have existed in the system.  In fact, had they not                 
  been sentenced to death, they most certainly would still                     
  have had a fiscal impact on the system.  The fiscal note has                 
  been revised to show that impact.  MS. SCHENKER claimed                      
  there is no space in the correctional system for the next                    
  person sentenced to ninety-nine years in prison and, in                      
  fact, the prison system is 130 persons over capacity.                        
                                                                               
  MS. SCHENKER said, with or without this bill, more space for                 
  prisoners will need to be either contracted or built.  She                   
  stated here would be no difference in the housing of inmates                 
  on death row and the housing of other comparably classified                  
  inmates - other than the last twenty-four hours before the                   
  execution.                                                                   
                                                                               
  SENATOR DONLEY asked MS. SCHENKER to clarify where she got                   
  her information on how death row prisoners are housed.                       
                                                                               
  Number 092                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. SCHENKER told SENATOR DONLEY that she had talked to                      
  officials in the State of Washington and to persons who have                 
  worked on death row in both Washington and California.                       
                                                                               
  Number 100                                                                   
                                                                               
  SENATOR DONLEY answered that he was more concerned with the                  
  safety of other prisoners and correctional officers if                       
  criminals, sentenced to capital punishment, were housed with                 
  the general prison population.  He asked MS. SCHENKER if it                  
  wouldn't be preferable to house persons on death row                         
  separate from other prisoners.                                               
                                                                               
  MS. SCHENKER noted that all prisoners, regardless of the                     
  reason for incarceration, are segregated at the beginning of                 
  their stay.  She said the incentive for prisoners to behave                  
  is in their having access to television, telephones, etc.                    
                                                                               
  MS. SCHENKER was asked if the agencies coordinated their                     
  work on fiscal notes, and she responded that a meeting had                   
  been scheduled for all agencies to get together following                    
  the committee meeting.  She said she had talked briefly with                 
  the Office of Management and Budget regarding her fiscal                     
  note, and though it was agreed her fiscal note did not clash                 
  with anyone else's, that was as far as the discussion went.                  
  She commented that a lot of assumptions must be made in                      
  order to prepare a fiscal note for this legislation, and it                  
  therefore may be rather arbitrary.                                           
                                                                               
  Number 145                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN TAYLOR thanked MS. SCHENKER and called the next                     
  witness, CATHY KAINER, who testified she has personal                        
  knowledge of the financial cost of the death penalty, having                 
  worked in Texas while the death penalty was used.  She                       
  believed capital punishment cases tie up the justice system,                 
  causing delays at all levels.  She said the effect the death                 
  penalty had on the judicial system was the best argument for                 
  abolishing the death penalty.                                                
                                                                               
  MS. KAINER thought resources could be better used in the                     
  prevention of crime rather than spending millions of dollars                 
  trying to put a few people to death.  She stated that by                     
  instituting capital punishment, we are moving backwards from                 
  the rest of the world.  Most countries in the world are                      
  moving towards abolishing the death penalty.  MS. KAINER                     
  listed a number of countries and the dates on which they                     
  abolished the death penalty in those countries.  She said we                 
  needed to ask ourselves how other criminal justice systems                   
  work, since other countries don't seem to be suffering from                  
  the same high rate of crime as the United States.                            
                                                                               
  Number 199                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN TAYLOR thanked MS. KAINER for her patience and                      
  called the next witness, JACK KEANE, who stated he has                       
  always been opposed to the death penalty, particularly in                    
  Alaska, which he has always considered to be ahead of the                    
  other states in modern, clear, scientific thinking.  MR.                     
  KEANE quoted from the constitution, "Life, liberty, and the                  
  pursuit of happiness, we hold those rights to be                             
  inalienable."  He said somehow or other we've ended up with                  
  a supreme court that says, "Well, in these special cases we                  
  can sort of skip that provision."                                            
                                                                               
  MR. KEANE said he believes that capital punishment is                        
  unconstitutional, and hopes the state of Alaska won't join                   
  Texas and South Africa in instituting a death penalty.  He                   
  questioned whether it would be practical, considering we may                 
  only have one execution every one to two years, and whether                  
  it would really make a difference in terms of protecting the                 
  citizens of the state from violent criminals.                                
                                                                               
  Number 276                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. KEANE did not think the justice system in Alaska works                   
  well enough to entrust it with the death penalty.  He                        
  claimed he has seen things go wrong in the system, and it                    
  shouldn't have the power to impose the death penalty.                        
                                                                               
  Number 300                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN TAYLOR thanked MR. KEANE for his patience in                        
  waiting to testify and called the next witness, LISA RIEGER                  
  from the UAA Justice Center, who announced to the committee                  
  she was speaking from the point of view of an attorney who                   
  has tried a death penalty case.  She said the process of                     
  trial and sentencing in death penalty cases is extremely                     
  costly, and she was not sure that anything would be gained                   
  by having the death penalty.                                                 
                                                                               
  Number 334                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN TAYLOR thanked MS. RIEGER and called the next                       
  witness, FRANK CAHILL, who told the committee that he                        
  opposed the death penalty.  He said he thinks there is a                     
  significant chance of convicting the wrong person, and he                    
  feels it is uncivilized.  MR. CAHILL suggested we don't cut                  
  off people's hands to stop them from snatching purses, etc.                  
  He advocated, as MR. BURNS does, life sentences without                      
  possibility of parole.  MR. CAHILL'S final reason for                        
  opposing the death penalty was because he thinks there is a                  
  chance that capital punishment would be applied unfairly,                    
  and he doesn't want to be part of a system that treats                       
  anybody unfairly.                                                            
                                                                               
  Number 383                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN TAYLOR called the next witness.                                     
                                                                               
  ARTHUR E. CURTIS testified it would be a shame to pass a law                 
  instituting capital punishment.  He stated that the                          
  statistics show very clearly that capital punishment is not                  
  a deterrent.  He said that all the faults of the judicial                    
  system are magnified when you get to the level of capital                    
  punishment, and capital punishment cases put too much                        
  sustained pressure on everyone involved in the case:  the                    
  jury, the prosecutors, and the justices.                                     
                                                                               
  MR. CURTIS told the committee that it would also be a huge                   
  expense to the system.  He thinks that passing a capital                     
  punishment law would only constitute a symbolic resolution                   
  of the problem of violent crime and would not address the                    
  real causes and solutions.                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. CURTIS offered a suggestion to the committee as part of                  
  the solution to the problem of violent crime, which would be                 
  to spend more money on drug rehabilitation centers.  He                      
  thought it was pathetic that our society is looking for a                    
  violent solution to violence.                                                
                                                                               
  Number 435                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN TAYLOR called the next witness, DAVID DOLESE, who                   
  read a written statement to the committee regarding an                       
  experience he had shortly before the end of World War II in                  
  which the army division of which he was a part surrounded                    
  and liberated a German concentration camp in Austria.  He                    
  said that the terrible things he saw in the concentration                    
  camp convinced him that when governments decide to execute                   
  their own people, mankind's dark and evil side emerges in a                  
  fearful manner.                                                              
                                                                               
  DR. DOLESE continued reading his statement, describing how                   
  he thought a justice system should function.  He said that                   
  execution does not have to be used to reach the goal of                      
  protecting law abiding citizens from violent criminals.  He                  
  suggested that capital punishment smacks of vengeance and                    
  should not be part of an ideal government's actions - that                   
  government should be above such emotional responses.                         
                                                                               
  Number 511                                                                   
                                                                               
  DR. DOLESE compared legalized execution as being on the same                 
  path as the torture and extra-judicial executions that occur                 
  in other countries.  He urged the committee to not debase                    
  themselves by embracing this easy way out.                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asks DR. DOLESE if he was also opposed to                    
  the war crimes trials that occurred after WWII and the                       
  results of those trials.                                                     
                                                                               
  Number 520                                                                   
                                                                               
  DR. DOLESE replied that he was not opposed to the trials                     
  being held or to the executions at the time they occurred.                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN TAYLOR thanked DR. DOLESE for his testimony and                     
  called the next witness, RON DAILEY, who stated he was                       
  speaking in opposition to the death penalty legislation.  He                 
  agreed with most of the reasons given by previous witnesses,                 
  but said he would confine his testimony to the moral                         
  question of whether we should use our courts to carry out                    
  executions.  MR. DAILEY also thought it is a most                            
  uncivilized act.  He claimed he was not soft on crime, but                   
  believed that if someone commits a murder, that person                       
  should be put in prison for the rest of their life without                   
  the possibility of parole.  He said since that view is more                  
  stringent than the current laws, he cannot be considered                     
  soft on crime.                                                               
                                                                               
  Number 559                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN TAYLOR thanked MR. DAILEY for his testimony and for                 
  being patient in waiting to testify.  He then called the                     
  next witness, CHARLES E.MCKEE, who said he has studied what                  
  the Bible says regarding capital punishment, and he quoted                   
  several passages from the Bible.  He noted the legislation                   
  before the committee related to the judicial and financial                   
  aspects of capital punishment.  He also explained that both                  
  Christianity and commerce are a part of common law.                          
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN TAYLOR acknowledged that MR. MCKEE was discussing                   
  interesting debates, but asked MR. MCKEE to stay on the                      
  topic.                                                                       
                                                                               
  Number 633                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. MCKEE asked CHAIRMAN TAYLOR to allow him to make his                     
  point and accused the people around him of diverting his                     
  attention from the subject matter.  He then mentioned a                      
  report which he was willing to hand out to the committee of                  
  what OPEC has done to our society.                                           
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN TAYLOR advised MR. MCKEE this hearing was not about                 
  OPEC.                                                                        
                                                                               
  MR. MCKEE said he has an interest in resolving heinous                       
  crimes in our society because there has been an attempted                    
  murder on his life.  He mentioned that a U.S. marshall tried                 
  to instigate an attack him on October 18 after he found an                   
  indictment on JUDGE HOLMES.  MR. MCKEE described numerous                    
  attacks on his person.                                                       
                                                                               
  Number 685                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN TAYLOR acknowledged that MR. MCKEE probably has                     
  some great points on other subjects and that he would enjoy                  
  listening to them sometime, but if MR. MCKEE wouldn't stick                  
  to the legislation before the committee, he would leave.                     
                                                                               
  MR. MCKEE continued his previous testimony, saying he                        
  opposed the legislation regarding capital punishment                         
  primarily because it recognized the monetary system in                       
  operation in the U.S.                                                        
                                                                               
  Number 723                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN TAYLOR thanked MR. MCKEE for his testimony and                      
  asked if there was anyone on the teleconference network who                  
  would like to testify.                                                       
                                                                               
  TAPE 93-63, SIDE B                                                           
  Number 001                                                                   
                                                                               
  Next to testify was CONSTANCE GRIFFITY, who agreed with much                 
  of the testimony expressed by others opposed to the death                    
  penalty.  She has been a member of the ACLU for fifty years,                 
  has studied the issue of the death penalty, and believes it                  
  has been used disproportionately to punish minorities.  She                  
  was concerned that this would also happen if the death                       
  penalty was implemented in Alaska.  She agreed that the                      
  money would be better spent controlling the causes of                        
  violence.  She believed the death penalty itself is by                       
  definition premeditated murder.  She expressed a hope that                   
  the committee would consider all that has been said today                    
  regarding whether the death penalty really does serve our                    
  needs.  She said HJR 43 makes sense to her; she does not                     
  believe victims should have to wait years and years and                      
  years for restitution.                                                       
                                                                               
  Number 047                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN TAYLOR thanked MS. GRIFFITY for her testimony and                   
  asked if there was anyone else on-line who would like to                     
  testify.                                                                     
                                                                               
  LIZ DODD testified she was opposed to the death penalty for                  
  a number of reasons.  She thought by implementing a death                    
  penalty, Alaska would be repeating the mistakes of other                     
  states.  She said capital punishment would be a drain on                     
  public resources with no measurable deterrent effect.  She                   
  claimed not all families of victims of violent crimes were                   
  in favor of capital punishment, and Alaska's justice                         
  policies should be driven by prevention of crime, not by                     
  retribution.                                                                 
                                                                               
  MS. DODD cited a passage from the Alaska Constitution                        
  supporting her belief that capital punishment was                            
  unconstitutional.  She said lives built on child abuse and                   
  neglect, alcohol and drug abuse, domestic and culturalized                   
  violence, are lives which all too often end in tragedy.  She                 
  said the state needs to address violence where it begins in                  
  people's lives, rather than adding on one more violent                       
  ending.                                                                      
                                                                               
  Number 080                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. DODD observed that support for the death penalty assumes                 
  that the justice system in Alaska is working without                         
  discrimination, and the state is somehow above error.  The                   
  death penalty is uncorrectable in situations in which an                     
  error occurs.  MS. DODD noted the titles of two books in                     
  which the committee might be interested:  In Spite of                        
  Innocence and Dead Man Watching.                                             
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN TAYLOR thanked MS. DODD for testifying and called                   
  the next witness, RON REED, who expressed his concern that                   
  implementing the death penalty in Alaska would do nothing                    
  but polarize the state, increase the cost of our criminal                    
  justice system, and sooner or later culminate in the                         
  judicial murder of someone wrongly convicted of a crime.  He                 
  said past experience with the death penalty in other states                  
  found an increase in violent crime during the time in which                  
  capital punishment was used.                                                 
                                                                               
  Number 130                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. REED said violence begets more violence, innocent people                 
  would undoubtedly be executed, and the composition of                        
  inmates on death row would probably be made up of a                          
  disproportionate number of Alaska's Native people and other                  
  people of color.  Finally, the state would incur the high                    
  cost associated with the implementation and maintenance of a                 
  death penalty.                                                               
                                                                               
  Number 148                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN TAYLOR thanked MR. REED for his testimony and                       
  requested anyone who read from written statements to please                  
  give a copy to the committee for their files.  CHAIRMAN                      
  TAYLOR called the next witness.                                              
                                                                               
  BILL GLUDE said he was speaking in opposition to the death                   
  penalty and was horrified the possibility of implementing a                  
  death penalty in Alaska was being considered.  He appraised                  
  the death penalty as being premeditated and the deliberate                   
  killing of Alaskan citizens by our state government.  He                     
  does not believe the problem of violent crime can possibly                   
  be solved by committing more murder in the name of the                       
  state.                                                                       
                                                                               
  MR. GLUDE stated that people who commit violent crime are                    
  not thinking clearly about the consequences, don't care                      
  about the consequences, or are intoxicated and therefore                     
  would not be deterred by the possibility of being sentenced                  
  to death.  He concluded by asking the committee members to                   
  consider how each of them would feel if anyone were to be                    
  wrongly executed as a result of their actions on this                        
  legislation.  He commented  that there are no easy                           
  solutions.                                                                   
                                                                               
  Number 188                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN TAYLOR thanked MR. GLUDE for his testimony and                      
  asked if there were any more people in Juneau who wished to                  
  testify.                                                                     
                                                                               
  Number 190                                                                   
                                                                               
  AMY PAIGE stated for the committee that she was opposed to                   
  capital punishment on moral and religious grounds and                        
  believes it is no different from the crimes it seeks to                      
  punish.  She said it was morally wrong for the state to                      
  enact laws based on revenge for wrongs committed.                            
                                                                               
  MS. PAIGE said since the laws of our country state we must                   
  regard all people as equal to one another, there was no                      
  justification for the distinctions set forth in the                          
  legislation before the committee that would recommend the                    
  death penalty based on who the victim of the crime was.  She                 
  said this aspect of the legislation was unconstitutional.                    
                                                                               
  Number 210                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN TAYLOR thanked MS. PAIGE for her testimony and                      
  called for witnesses from Soldotna.                                          
                                                                               
  Number 212                                                                   
                                                                               
  DAVID RICHARDS informed the committee that he is definitely                  
  in favor of the death penalty.  He based his conviction on                   
  moral and religious grounds because he feels that death is                   
  proper justice for a person who willingly murders another                    
  person.                                                                      
                                                                               
  MR. RICHARDS did not think that deterrent should be an                       
  issue, but that capital punishment was a matter of proper                    
  justice.  He was in favor of putting an advisory vote                        
  relating to the implementation of capital punishment on the                  
  ballot so that the people of the state of Alaska can vote on                 
  the issue.                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN TAYLOR thanked MR. RICHARDS for his testimony and                   
  noted for the record that written testimony was received                     
  from JOHN SHAFFER, KEVIN MCGEE, MARY GEDDES, and MATTHEW                     
  NICOLAI.                                                                     
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN TAYLOR also noted for the record that three members                 
  of the House and one member of the Senate stayed for this                    
  meeting until 6:07 p.m.                                                      
                                                                               
  As there was no one else waiting to testify, CHAIRMAN TAYLOR                 
  thanked all the participants for their testimony, their                      
  patience, and adjourned the meeting.                                         

Document Name Date/Time Subjects