Legislature(1995 - 1996)
04/15/1996 01:45 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
April 15, 1996
1:45 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Brian Porter, Chairman
Representative Joe Green, Vice Chairman
Representative Con Bunde
Representative Bettye Davis
Representative Al Vezey
Representative Cynthia Toohey
Representative David Finkelstein
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR SENATE BILL NO. 52(JUD)
"An Act providing for an advisory vote on the issue of capital
punishment."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL 481
"An Act authorizing capital punishment, classifying murder in the
first degree as a capital felony, and allowing the imposition of
the death penalty when certain of those murders are committed
against children; establishing sentencing procedures for capital
felonies; and amending Rules 32, 32.1, and 32.3, Alaska Rules of
Criminal Procedure, and Rules 204, 209, 210, and 212,
Alaska Rules of Appellate Procedure."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SB 52
SHORT TITLE: ADVISORY VOTE ON CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
BILL VERSION: CSSSSB 52(JUD)
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) TAYLOR,Pearce; REPRESENTATIVE(S) Rokeberg
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/25/95 83 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/25/95 83 (S) JUD, FIN
02/09/95 222 (S) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED-REFERRALS
02/09/95 222 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/09/95 222 (S) JUD, FIN
02/07/96 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
02/07/96 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
03/06/96 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
03/06/96 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
03/12/96 2706 (S) JUD RPT CS 3DP 1DNP NEW TITLE
03/12/96 2707 (S) FISCAL NOTE TO SB & CS (GOV)
03/26/96 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/28/96 2939 (S) FIN RPT 4DP 2NR (JUD) CS
03/28/96 2939 (S) ZERO FNS (DPS, COURT)
03/28/96 2939 (S) PREVIOUS FN (GOV)
03/29/96 (S) RLS AT 12:05 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
04/09/96 3092 (S) RULES RPT 3CAL 2NR 4/9/96
04/09/96 3093 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
04/09/96 3093 (S) JUD CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
04/09/96 3093 (S) ADVANCE TO THIRD READING FLD Y11 N5 E4
04/09/96 3094 (S) THIRD READING 4/10 CALENDAR
04/10/96 3123 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSSSB 52(JUD)
04/10/96 3124 (S) MOTION TO RETURN TO 2ND RDG FOR AM 1
04/10/96 3124 (S) RETURN TO SECOND FOR AM 1 Y14 N6
04/10/96 3124 (S) AM NO 1 FAILED Y9 N11
04/10/96 3125 (S) AUTOMATICALLY IN THIRD READING
04/10/96 3126 (S) PASSED Y12 N8
04/10/96 3126 (S) DUNCAN NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION
04/11/96 3175 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/12/96 3689 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
04/12/96 3689 (H) JUDICIARY, FINANCE
04/15/96 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/15/96 3784 (H) CROSS SPONSOR(S): ROKEBERG
BILL: HB 481
SHORT TITLE: CAPITAL PUNISHMENT FOR CHILD MURDER
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MASEK,Kohring,Ogan
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/09/96 2686 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/09/96 2686 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY
02/29/96 2972 (H) STA REFERRAL WAIVED
02/29/96 2972 (H) REFERRED TO JUDICIARY
04/15/96 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
RACHEL KING, Director
Alaskans Against the Death Penalty
1014 West 16th Ave., Number 1
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 276-3489
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SB 52 and HB 481
SENATOR ROBIN TAYLOR
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 30
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3873
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor to SB 52
REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY MASEK
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 418
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-2679
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor to HB 481
LISA RIEGER, Faculty
Justice Program
University of Alaska
2350 Captain Cook Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99517
Telephone: (907) 248-5472
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SB 52 and HB 481
APRIL FERGUSON
Self-government Instructor
Kawerak, Inc.
P.O. Box 948
Nome, Alaska 99762
Telephone: (907) 443-4340
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SB 52 and HB 481
AMY COFFMAN
Amnesty International
P.O. Box 80280
College, Alaska 99708
Telephone: (907) 457-4426
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SB 52 and HB 481
STEVE WILLIAMS
P.O. Box 6379
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Telephone: (907) 225-1573
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SB 52
JEFF GRAHAM
P.O. Box 1725
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
Telephone: (907) 283-3793
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SB 52 and HB 481
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General
Criminal Division
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
Telephone: (907) 465-4043
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SB 52 and HB 481
JOE AUSTIN, Retired Police Officer
Anchorage Police Department
5201 Secluded Circle
Anchorage, Alaska 99516
Telephone: (907) 345-3806
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SB 52
MARGARET THOMAS
P.O. Box 865
Nome, Alaska 99762
Telephone: (907) 43-2951
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 52
CHRIS HAIGH
280 East Birch Hill Road
Fairbanks, Alaska 99712
Telephone: (907) 457-7834
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 52
CHARLES CAMPBELL
Former Director of Corrections
3020 Douglas Highway
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-5793
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 52
AVERIL LERMAN
14020 Venus Way
Anchorage, Alaska 99515
Telephone: (907) 345-8586
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 52
SYBIL SKELTON
15 Eleanor Street
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
Telephone: (907) 479-9837
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 52
JIM SYKES
P.O. Box 1
Anchorage, Alaska 99524
Telephone: (907) 278-7436
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 52
BRANT MCGEE
Office of Public Advocacy
900 West 5th
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 274-1684
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 52 & HB 481
SUZI GREGG FOWLER
603 West 12th Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-3279
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 52 & HB 481
MARY GEDDES
2610 West 27th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99517
Telephone: (907) 248-3610
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 52 & HB 481
CHARLES ROHRBACHER, Member
Amnesty International
Troy Avenue
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-9774
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 52
MICHEAL LEMAY
5800 Glenn Highway, Number 110
Anchorage, Alaska 99504
Telephone: (907) 338-4109
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 52 & HB 481
GEORGE PARTLOW
P.O. Box 240557
Douglas, Alaska 99824
Telephone: (907) 364-3309
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 52 and HB 481
SUSAN ORLANSKY
2708 West 64 Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99502
Telephone: (907) 248-1141
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 52 and HB 481
AMY PAIGE
592 Seatter Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-4409
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 52 and HB 481
ANNE WILKAS, Assistant Public Defender
900 West 5th Avenue, Number 200
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 264-4400
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 52 and HB 481
ROBERT WOLFE
201 Behrends Avenue
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-2864
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 52 and HB 481
LYNN SIMLER, Executive Director
ACLU
P.O. Box 102844
Anchorage, Alaska 99520
Telephone: (907) 258-0044
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 52
DOUG MERTZ
319 Seward Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-4004
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 52
CAROL GRAY
Address and telephone number not provided
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 52 and HB 481
BARBARA BRINK, Deputy Director
Alaska Public Defender Agency
900 West 5th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 264-4400
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 52 and HB 481
JERRY SHRINER, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Corrections
240 Main Street, Suite 700
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4640
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 52 and HB 481
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 96-52, SIDE A
CHAIRMAN BRIAN PORTER called the House Judiciary committee meeting
to order at 1:45 p.m. Members present at the call to order were
Representatives Green, Bunde, Toohey and Vezey. Representatives
Davis and Finkelstein arrived at their respective times; 1:50 p.m.
and 1:46 p.m. Representative Green left the meeting at 2:00 and
never returned.
SB 52 - ADVISORY VOTE ON CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
HB 481 - CAPITAL PUNISHMENT FOR CHILD MURDER
CHAIRMAN PORTER suggested that the pending testimony be taken in
combination to the legislation scheduled for hearing since the
subject matters are interconnected.
Number 312
RACHEL KING, Director, Alaskans Against the Death Penalty,
testified on SB 52 and HB 481. Ms. King offered that the committee
was probably already aware of the problems in the other states with
the death penalty provisions, such as racial bias, the additional
costs, the lack of deterrent value, and the fact that innocent
people are being executed. She stated that she wouldn't
concentrate on HB 481, but on SB 52.
MS. KING stated that there have been polls conducted in Alaska and
she would concede that if this question was posed to the voters
next November, the majority of Alaskans would in fact support
capital punishment. She believes this is because Alaska has not
heard any informed debate about this issue. Alaska has not a death
penalty in this state for almost 40 years. There is no reason why
Alaskans would be familiar with problems of the death penalty. In
fact, many Alaskans are unfamiliar with the criminal justice system
in general.
MS. KING referred to a nationwide, bi-partisan poll conducted about
three years ago which showed that most Americans support the death
penalty for two reasons, fear and cost. They believe that most
people convicted of murder serve less than seven years in jail and
they believe that the death penalty will save them money. This is
why they support the death penalty. Based on this poll, Alaskans
against the Death Penalty commissioned a poll of their own, the
results of which she referred to on poster board for the
committee's review.
MS. KING said that as part of this poll they asked participants the
question that if a person is convicted in Alaska for first degree
murder and sentenced to life, how long did they think that the
convicted person would serve in jail before paroled and released
back into society. 37 percent said between 1 and 9 years, 23
percent said between 10 and 14, 18 percent said between 15 and 20
and on down the line. Only 1 percent of Alaskans knew the correct
answer which was 51 years or more. The fact is, the average
sentence for all first degree murders in Alaska is between 80 and
90 years. In the type of case which would be a death eligible
case, the typical sentence is 99 years without parole. If it is a
multiple homicide, then the sentence would be multiple 99 year
sentences.
MS. KING continued that 78 percent of Alaskans believe that people
sentenced to murder in the first degree get less than 20 years in
jail. In fact, this is a legal impossibility. 20 years is the
mandatory minimum. Alaskans believe that people are serving
lenient sentences and they believe they need a death penalty to
make them safe.
MS. KING added that the second question asked was, which did they
believe cost more, the death penalty or life in prison without
parole. Again, 74 percent said life in prison cost more, 21
percent said the death penalty and 5 percent said they were unsure.
Every state that has studied this issue has found that they are
spending between two and six times more money on the death penalty
than on life in prison. She gave the committee a copy of a report
entitled, "Millions Misspent," which substantiates all of the
figures which she outlined.
MS. KING stated that if they take this issue to the voters next
fall, the voters will think they will be saving money and that they
will be protecting themselves. In fact, they are already protected
from dangerous criminals and they will be spending a lot more money
by voting for the death penalty. This money could be spend towards
other crime prevention programs. She asked the committee to vote
against SB 52 and to issue a press release explaining to the public
why the death penalty is a bad idea and why the advisory ballot is
a bad idea.
MS. KING summed up her comments by noting that there has been many
times in the history of the United States where laws were later
proved to be unjust, yet enjoyed a majority opinion such as,
slavery, Jim Crow laws, no voting rights for women, etc. These are
all examples of law that if a popular poll was taken at that time
the majority opinion would have been in support of these laws.
Over time, we learn that these laws are unfair and unjust. She
submitted to the committee that this is what's happening with the
death penalty worldwide. Countries are moving away from the death
penalty, even South Africa abolished the death penalty last year.
39 years ago Alaska had the foresight as a territory to abolish the
death penalty.
MS. KING stated that she is staying with an individual named Burke
Riley who was one of the original territorial legislators who voted
for abolition of the death penalty back in 1957, and she asked him
why he voted against it. His response was that it was inhumane and
unfair and we all realized that. Alaska realized this 40 years ago
and she asked the committee not to repeat this same dark history
that Alaska has already visited.
Number 657
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE asked Ms. King about an ad campaign on
television against the death penalty and wondered if they would
continue with this campaign if this bill were to pass.
MS. KING responded that this ad campaign was sponsored by Amnesty
International and she referred to a booklet provided to the
committee which contains most of these ads. This was National
Amnesty which gave a grant. Ms. King's organization has a very
small budget, she stated that she's practically a volunteer
although she is the Executive Director and they don't have a lot of
resources. Yes, she said they would continue to run ads such as
this although she's not convinced they would have enough money to
thoroughly educate the public anyhow.
Number 743
SENATOR ROBIN TAYLOR came forward as sponsor to SB 52. He noted
that this bill was a simple one and provided for an advisory ballot
question, yes or no, on whether or not to re-institute capital
punishment in the state of Alaska. He believed that the question
is not so simplistic that people will be confused by or that they
will disregard or not take into consideration other options. One
of the other options is that Alaska has very lengthy sentencing
available. He noted that it's not uncommon to read about someone
in the press who has received a 99 year sentence. "As a
consequence, the argument is made that because of the emotionalism
or some desire of vengeance on the part of the public that that
would carry the day over and beyond the contemplation of what
existing sentencing structures truly relate to as far as the amount
of time people actually are serving and I was concerned about that
argument when it was raised and with no prompting I might add from
my office, I didn't know he was doing it." Mr. Dittman, of Dittman
Reach Corporation of Alaska ran a poll of 555 Alaskans where that
very question was asked and the results of the poll were that 62
percent of the public still favors the death penalty over the
possibility of a sentence where a person would receive life without
the benefit of parole. He noted that this was a death sentence no
matter what it's called.
SENATOR TAYLOR stated that when asked, the people voted 2 to 1 in
favor of reinstituting the death penalty. Thirty-three percent
favored life without parole and 62 percent favored the death
penalty, 5 percent were unsure. He cited that this was an
interesting number. Statistically whenever they take polls in
Alaska and there is a number as low as 5 percent in the unsure
category, this is a very small amount. This is a low number and it
indicated to him that the public has thought about this quite a
bit, enough that they have made up their mind.
Number 949
REPRESENTATIVE CYNTHIA TOOHEY said she is a strong believer in the
death penalty, but what she's not a strong believer in the $5 to $7
million per appeal these people are allowed. She understood that
there was some legislation being considered in Congress to limit
this appeal process. She asked how close they were to this and she
thought that this issue would sway the committee to vote for or
against this legislation.
SENATOR TAYLOR felt as though there was legislation on the federal
front and he thought that whatever state legislation to come out of
this proposed initiative would begin the debate of what they could
do as a state procedurally. Once they get to this point there are
several things which they can do on a state level which would not
violate the constitutional rights which can limit the number and
types of appeals. He knew the federal government was working very
hard on this. He noted that they've already limited habeas corpus
appeals and pleas significantly, not that he would want to see
anyone's opportunity for a fair hearing cut off, but implied with
Representative Toohey's question is a fact of life everyone has
become very frustrated with the fact that it takes 8 to 12 years
before these people are sentenced even before the appeal process
has been concluded. He thought that this was an inordinately long
period. Justice delayed is justice denied and it's a very
expensive process.
SENATOR TAYLOR added that the cost of the death penalty case may be
high, but no one ever takes into consideration the number of cases
which plead out because their only other option is to go through a
trial where they might risk a death penalty sentence. In fact, the
young people who killed the German tourists in Florida, one of them
plead out to get a 44 year sentence without benefit of parole,
because he plead guilty to felony murder. Had he not done so, this
trial would probably have cost a million dollars since he could
have been sentenced to death.
Number 1116
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID FINKELSTEIN asked what was the reason behind
not making a decision on this issue in the legislature.
SENATOR TAYLOR responded that to be perfectly candid, he felt as
though there was enough resistance in the legislature right now and
there existed narrow enough philosophical groups that it would be
difficult to pass it. "The main reason I believe that we need to
probably turn to the public one more time is to see if we can bring
back to these halls people more representative of the public's
philosophy on that question or at least people who will come down
here and say yes, 75 percent of my constituents said they want
this, I'm personally opposed to it, but I will make my own choice,
as we all have to. At this point they can say 'well I don't think
that many people support it,' or they'll say, 'it's a bad
question,' the question isn't being phrased right or whatever."
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN offered that they might say, "it's not
a good idea."
SENATOR TAYLOR said certainly and that he didn't denigrate these
reasons. He thought some of them were good reasons to oppose it.
He stated that it made him feel good when these executions occur
and there are a groups of people standing in the cold and the rain.
It made him feel good that there is some human compassion and
concern about these individuals.
Number 949
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE referred to other referendums initiated by the
legislature and wondered if this initiative went one way or the
other, would it be binding on the legislature as to whether or not
they choose to act.
SENATOR TAYLOR responded that this was absolutely correct. "I
think that there does come a time when it becomes more difficult or
maybe you become a bit more accountable to the public regarding
their desires on various issues." He noted that the state of
California, through their Supreme Court threw out their death
penalty and then offered that the state of California at the next
election threw out their Supreme Court. These things can have
impacts.
Number 1271
REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY MASEK testified as sponsor to HB 481. She
introduced HB 481 to save the lives of children. Under the current
system of justice when a sexual predator strikes they have no
incentive to preserve their young victim's life. This legislation
is to serve as notice to any predator who would consider murdering
their victim for any reason and an indicator that they may be
forfeiting their own life in the process. She wanted to keep this
bill narrow and aimed at saving children's lives. By giving the
death penalty as an option, she pointed out that it was not an
mandatory measure. The jury has the option to impose the death
penalty. This would require a majority vote from a jury. If one
person opposes the death penalty, the capital punishment provision
would not be imposed.
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK continued by stating that she hoped this bill
would save some lives which otherwise might be lost by sexual
predators. She referred to a newspaper article disseminated to the
committee about a man who claimed he molested 200 children. In
some of his letters to the victims parents he said he was doomed to
repeat his crimes and kill the victims in order that they wouldn't
be able to identify him. HB 481 would send a message to these
predators that their behavior will not be tolerated. She stated
that this was a sensitive issue, but when it came to saving
children they must do all that they can. Alaska has one of the
highest rates of child abuse and there is no reason why children
have to suffer from these serious offenses.
Number 1537
LISA RIEGER, Justice Program, University of Alaska testified by
teleconference from Anchorage on SB 52 and HB 481. She stated that
she has two young children, one of them is almost three. Ms.
Rieger offered that she opposes both these bills. In regard to the
advisory bill she responded to a few of Senator Taylor comments.
First, the cost factor, the expense of the appeals that are
available to people convicted with the death penalty are not
necessarily where the costs start to accrue. She used the example
of the O.J. Simpson trial and the expense of it before any appeal
was filed.
MS. RIEGER stated that she used to practice law in California and
was involved with death penalty litigation. One case she noted in
particular took seven months of court time. There were two
separate juries impaneled, each of which used 180 citizens in order
to obtain a jury pool. This case went to trial four years after
the initial offense. There were two attorneys on each side, all of
whom were paid by the state. It consumed seven months of court
time with court personnel and juries.
MS. RIEGER also referred to a comment made by the Senator to use
the death penalty as a negotiating tool, which is a disingenuous
use of prosecution, to use the death penalty so people will plead
guilty in order to avoid trial. The third point she wanted to
make when in California practicing law, the California Supreme
Court did not throw out the death penalty. It carefully assessed
cases that came through of people who were convicted of the death
penalty, but there were many convictions which were upheld by the
court. In regards to HB 481, the deterrent of death for
perpetrators not to kill their victims has been demonstrated over
and over again to have absolutely no validity in dissuading people.
Number 1713
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN noted their discussion earlier about
these lengthy procedures and he assumed that they were all
constitutionally based. If this is the case, he asked if there was
anything in Alaska's constitution somehow to reduce these
procedures on due process, that's different than California's
constitution.
MR. RIEGER responded that she didn't think so. Alaska's
constitution is even stronger than California's in regards to
(indisc. - coughing.)
Number 1747
APRIL FERGUSON, Self-government Instructor, Kawerak, Inc. testified
by teleconference from Nome on SB 52 and HB 481. Kawerak is a
consortium of 20 tribes in the Bering Straights region. She was in
attendance to this meeting at the request of the president to read
a resolution in opposition to the reinstatement of the death
penalty in Alaska into the record.
WHEREAS Kawarak, Inc. is concerned with the equitable treatment of
Alaska Natives within the criminal justice system; and
WHEREAS Alaska Natives account for only 13.5 percent of the state's
prison-age population, yet 32 percent of the jail population is
comprised of Alaska Natives; and
WHEREAS there is significant evidence of racial bias toward
economically disadvantaged members of ethnic minorities in
administration of the death penalty in other jurisdictions; and
WHEREAS there is substantial concern among the Native community and
no evidence to the contrary that in all likelihood the Alaska
system of criminal jurisprudence is not capable of avoiding racial
bias in the trial process; and
WHEREAS the majority of Alaska Natives and people residing in rural
areas of the state do not have the means to acquire adequate legal
defense counsel when charged with serious crimes; and
WHEREAS establishing a death penalty law and implementing it will
cost millions of dollars and thereby deprive Alaska Natives and
their communities of critical resources for service programs that
focus on crime prevention; and
WHEREAS Alaska Native tribes and organizations have historically
opposed the death penalty as demonstrated by past actions to defeat
federal death penalty legislation;
NOW THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED that Kawerak, Inc. is opposed to
the reinstatement of the death penalty in Alaska; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Kawerak, Inc. urges rural and urban
legislators alike to oppose any effort to reinstate the death
penalty in Alaska.
MS. FERGUSON stated that on a personal note and on her own behalf
she suggested that if these bills do manage to be passed, she
suggested that both of them should be amended to require a public
broadcast so that this mechanistic, impersonal, bureaucratic taking
of a human life does not become a dirty little business behind
closed doors.
Number 1853
AMY COFFMAN, Amnesty International testified on SB 52 and HB 481 by
teleconference from Fairbanks. She stated that Amnesty
International opposes the death penalty in all cases and referred
to the third amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Ms. Coffman noted
the cost to kill a person far exceeds the cost of keeping a person
in prison for the remainder of their life. The death penalty is
racist, sexist and classiest. No state has seen a drop in crime,
while pretending to use the death penalty as a deterrent. The
United States is the only westernized, industrialized nation to use
the death penalty, yet it maintains the highest crime rate.
MS. COFFMAN stated that innocent people have and will be murdered
at the hands of the government. She did not understand why after
all the facts have been presented and after numerous people have
testified against the death penalty, why it is the concept of the
death penalty tries to be implemented. She illustrated that it was
a non-effective form of governmental murder, with reprimands
violence with violence and murder with murder. She questioned
putting this issue to the voters and how can the average voter be
qualified to decide when they have not been given all the facts
behind the death penalty.
MS. COFFMAN noted that the U.S. government uses the death penalty
as a scapegoat for their crime rate. She asked for them to give
the people programs, not body counts. Furthermore, on the appeal
situation, back in the 1970's the death penalty was determined to
be unconstitutional since it didn't allow adequate time and
appropriate appeal systems to appeal cases.
MS. COFFMAN referred to an individual who came to Alaska from
Arizona to educate a group on the death penalty. They conducted a
survey following this forum and over 75 percent of the people in
attendance had different thoughts from the time they walked in, who
were for the death penalty, to the time that they left. Either
this talk prompted further thought or their idea of the death
penalty was reversed.
Number 1990
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE responded to the statement made about
expecting the general public to make a decision on this issue and
he felt that it would be very much like a jury making a decision in
trial. It appeared to him that this witness just said that, "if
people are educated they will oppose the death penalty." He
wondered then how she could oppose Senate Bill 52.
MS. COFFMAN stated that she opposed this bill under all
circumstances because she would not want to see the death penalty
implemented in the state, but she found from the lecture which they
gave is that people don't know all the facts. The rationale behind
declaring that the death penalty was the right way to go was based
on the innate idea that revenge is the answer to murder when it's
not. It has not been proven to stop the number of murders which
take place and in the U.S. if they put to death every person who
committed a murder, they would murder 26,000 people a year.
Number 2048
STEVE WILLIAMS, testified on SB 52 by teleconference from
Ketchikan. He spoke against SB 52 and said it was the wrong way to
create law. He said that they should leave initiatives to loony
states like California. Secondly, he noted that this issue is very
emotional and likened it to the logging issues in their area. He
added that these types of issues need to be resolved through
informed debate. Thirdly, he offered that the sentence of death is
usually unfairly handed down. A prime example was O.J. Simpson, a
rich black man. The prosecution made the decision not to seek the
death penalty in this situation because Mr. Simpson was popular,
but Mr. Williams made the argument that if this murder had involved
a poor black man, this person would be sitting on death row right
now.
MR. WILLIAMS referred to HB 481 and agreed with Representative
Masek that sick and perverted individuals are those who prey on
children, but the death penalty is not a deterrent. No one goes
into these heinous crimes thinking that they're going to get
caught.
Number 2163
JEFF GRAHAM testified against both SB 52 and HB 481 by
teleconference from Kenai. He stated that he supports democratic
processes, but he thought it was possible to misuse these processes
as well in regards to SB 52. By offering a simple vote to the
public on a complex issue could be an example of this mis-use. He
thought that when considering the enactment of this death penalty,
the alternatives and costs should be investigated first.
Number 2208
ANNE CARPENETI, Criminal Division, Department of Law testified
against SB 52 and HB 481. She stated that the Department of Law
opposes both these forms of legislation. Ms. Carpeneti said that
she would list all the reasons against these bills, but not
necessarily in the order of importance.
MS. CARPENETI initially stated that capital punishment is too
expensive. The Department of Law's fiscal note reflects this. At
a time when their resources are shrinking it doesn't seem
worthwhile to take this much money and focus on one group of
individuals. There is evidence to suggest that the death penalty
in other states costs from three to six times as much as it is to
house someone in prison for the rest of their lives with no
possibility of parole.
MS. CARPENETI stated that the second reason that they oppose this
legislation is that the death penalty will excuse case law, in
addition to the courts which have required them to recognize "super
due process," in death cases because they are different, it affects
the case law in another way.
A lot of issues in a criminal jury trial or a court trial are left
to the sound discretion of the trial court judge. In cases
involving stakes so high as the death penalty, it's human nature,
and it's probably good that a trial court judge would bend over
backwards to make sure he or she was correct in their ruling which
may have an impact on the ultimate result of a case. These cases
get decided and discussed on appeal in appellate decisions and then
they come back and are applied to all cases. She noted that "they
have to do something with them" and it makes it harder for them to
get convictions in other cases because they have evidentiary
rulings that were made in death penalty cases which probably may
not have been the right decision, but they are applied to all cases
just the same.
MS. CARPENETI noted that thirdly, the criminal justice system is
not perfect. We make mistakes, we have in the past, we will in the
future. Innocent people have been executed and we can probably
expect that they will be in the future. The problem with making a
mistake in a capital case cannot be fixed. The department is also
concerned about the discriminatory application of the death
penalty. In Alaska's history more Native people and non-white
people were executed for the very same offenses which white people
committed. Other states are struggling with this discriminatory
application of the death penalty.
MS. CARPENETI thought that the strongest reason to oppose the death
penalty, at least for her personally, it that it's wrong. The
United States is a violent society. Our leaders are trying to make
laws to criminalize and eliminate violence from our society. To
have laws which require that a violent end for a violent act are
imposed, seems like the wrong message for our leaders to be sending
to the people of the state. Finally, even if they are willing to
spend the money that is necessary to impose the death penalty, if
they are willing to jeopardize the case law in Alaska, if they are
willing to take the risk of discriminatory application of the death
penalty, and they are willing to send the message that for murder
they will end the life of another person, it comes down to the
point of applying capital punishment when it doesn't work. There
is no evidence that capital punishment deters the killing of other
people. In fact, the evidence indicates that at least during the
time of an execution, incidences of violence increase. There is
absolutely no indication that it works. It's for these reasons
that the Department of Law opposes the death penalty.
MS. CARPENETI offered that they also oppose the submission of this
issue to the voters as well on the basis that capital punishment is
a very difficult issue, the underpinnings, the reasons for it, the
reasons against it are difficult. This is where representatives
should make reasoned decisions based on the evidence presented in
light of this issue. The voters aren't allowed to discuss or
determine other possibilities. There is the fear that a yes vote
could appear as a mandate to the legislature, when the voters
haven't been given a chance to vote on all the alternatives
available. In Alaska, they get long sentences for people convicted
for murder in the first degree. The department doesn't see a
reason to impose the death penalty.
Number 2422
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY said she understood all of Ms. Carpeneti's
comments although she doesn't agree with all of them, but pointed
out that there was only one fiscal note from the Department of
Corrections. She noted this fiscal note was not very much. If
they are going to educate people about the expense of this
legislation, she needs to have a rational that says no, "this is
going to cost $3 million or $5 million or $10 million per person
that is given the sentence of death." She said she needed this
information and the public needed this information. This is where
she would vote no on this issue, because she didn't believe they
have the money or the resources now or in the future to spend on
the appeals associated with this practice. It was determined that
she did not have a Department of Law fiscal note in her packet.
TAPE 96-52, SIDE B
Number 000
MS. CARPENETI answered a question posed by Representative Bunde
which was inaudible. She believed that in light of the 99 years
mandatory sentence for murder in the first degree, good time does
not apply. She would double check on this issue and would let
Representative Bunde know if this was incorrect.
Number 052
JOE AUSTIN, retired Police Officer, Anchorage Police Department,
testified against SB 52 and HB 481 by teleconference from
Anchorage. He worked homicide for approximately eight years.
During this period he investigated all types of homicides from
contract murders, domestic violence murders, and serial murders.
He felt as though he was familiar with the psychological make-up of
these perpetrators. He was not testifying to debate the moral
issues of this question, but to present testimony from a practical
standpoint.
MR. OSTEN stated that during the 80's he testified against the
death penalty issue then. He brought forward the same issues then
as he does now. In the early 80's he was the chief investigator on
a contract murder and after successfully convicting the
perpetrators he talked to some of the jurors afterwards. A
substantial number of them would have voted not guilty if they had
been required to decide for the death penalty if it was in place at
that time. Other than the costs associated with the death penalty,
it puts a higher burden of proof on the police and prosecution.
MR. OSTEN specifically noted the case where Herbie Anthony killed
his three year old niece, his nine year old niece and his aunt.
Had Mr. Osten been the husband of this family he would probably
have wanted to see Anthony murdered himself, but Mr. Anthony is
currently serving three 99 year sentences plus some time for sexual
assault and kidnapping. Mr. Anthony will not be eligible for parol
until he serves approximately 119 years in prison. He noted that
no one has to worry about Mr. Anthony.
MR. OSTEN said he'd rather see the money spent on the death penalty
used for research into the criminal minds of these murderers and
for ways to deter them. The FBI Behavioral Science Unit does a
tremendous job of profiling sexual murderers and such. Alaska
could apply this same technology to finding out what makes these
criminals tick.
MR. OSTEN noted that he didn't want to take the chance that some of
these evil persons could go free under the expectation that they
should be put to death under a capital punishment provision. If
someone like this does go free, there is no way to try them again.
Number 166
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE observed that Mr. Osten had an interesting
point of view. As Mr. Osten pointed out in the Anthony case, this
person was sentenced to death. He will die in jail.
Representative Bunde asked Mr. Osten if he thought that juries
don't mind the death penalty as long as it's a prolonged death.
MR. OSTEN answered that he didn't think this was the issue as much
as it was the fact that the prosecution and the police will be held
to a higher burden of proof. In the abstract we can say "yes, I'm
in favor of the death penalty," but take that same person and put
them on a jury where they have to determine whether or not to
execute someone. He said that if anyone has seen jurors after
deliberating on a serious case, it is an emotionally draining
experience. He didn't want to take a chance of an individual
getting off because participants in a jury are concerned about
having to sentence someone to death.
Number 215
MARGARET THOMAS testified on SB 52 by teleconference from Nome.
What struck her initially about this issue was the irony that
witnesses are presently participating in a democratic process by
testifying to this capital punishment issue and those of them who
oppose the death penalty are asking that this issue not be sent to
the vote of the people. It's also interesting that Senator Taylor
stated the reason why the proponents of the death penalty are
trying to get SB 52 through is because they have been unsuccessful
through legislative channels in previous years time and again when
reasoned debate has taken place, it has been voted down. She said
to educate the voters is completely unrealistic in light of
budgetary constraints, especially since the issue is so complex.
Number 320
CHRIS HAIGH testified on SB 52 by teleconference from Fairbanks.
Mr. Haigh stated that he's always been proud to be an Alaskan
especially because they don't have the death penalty. He noted
that the justice system is not perfect and they make mistakes, but
the death penalty is irrevocable. He also made the argument that
the breadth of information available to the general public is
limited as compared to the legislature. They won't be able to make
informed decisions on this issue.
CHARLES CAMPBELL, Former Director of Corrections testified on
SB 52. He became director in 1979 and he's had a variety of other
jobs in corrections for the past 45 years. In regards to SB 52 he
stated that the first test of a piece of legislation is whether it
serves a useful purpose. The cost of putting an advisory vote on
the ballot is minimal, but he asked why spend five dollars on a
proposal which serves no purpose. There are reliable polls which
indicate that 75 to 80 percent of Alaskans approve of the death
penalty when the question is put to them when offering no other
options. He stated that they already knew what this vote would be.
He also mentioned rival surveys which inform them that the opinions
of most folks in Alaska about the death penalty are based on
misinformation and therefore not only would an advisory vote serve
no purpose, but it would be unfair and cloud the issue. In the
long run it would most certainly not be in the best interest of the
state.
MR. CAMPBELL stated that the question which SB 52 proposes to put
to the voters is the kind of question the legislature should
address in a careful, unprejudiced way. This could be accomplished
through the legislative research staffs and unhurried hearings of
testimony from citizens, but also people of expertise who can offer
guidance as to what reinstitution would mean for Alaska. What will
it costs? How will the costs of the death penalty with prosecution
and execution compare with a sentence of life in prison? Will they
ever be able to defeat the requirements of Greg v. Georgia which
provides for the super due process which runs up the costs of
prosecution? Do Alaska laws and sentencing practices result in
first degree murderers being released in just a few years or do
they serve much longer? Would the death penalty result in fewer
first degree murders? This is a crucial question. Do the
prosecutors in Alaska favor their idea of the death penalty being
back on the books? What do the top law enforcement people feel
about the death penalty? How is law enforcement impacted?
MR. CAMPBELL stated that they knew how the Department of Law and
Corrections felt about this issue, but wondered how the past
administration department heads felt about this issue. He felt it
would be a good thing to research this. What about other states
which use the death penalty? Florida and Texas have executed a lot
of people. Are they happy with the results? Have the murder rates
in those states gone down? What has the financial impact been? Do
they see any hope in the cost going down or by appeals being
limited? Canada abolished the death penalty in 1976. What has
happened to the murder rate there? Alaska abolished the death
penalty in 1957. Has Alaska seen a bad result from this?
MR. CAMPBELL asked about the matter of racial bias and the
incredible unfairness in representation. He asked about innocent
people being executed. What is really most fair and helpful in the
long term of families of murder victims? Mr. Campbell stated that
he didn't understand the rational of putting a ballot question to
the voters of Alaska when first of all they know what the results
will be and secondly, the average voter doesn't have crucial
information on the information which might well affect their answer
to the questions. He asked again what the purpose of this bill
served.
MR. CAMPBELL recommended that SB 52 and HB 481 be laid aside for
the time being at least. He guessed that for an expenditure that
would not be greater than the cost of an advisory vote on the
ballot this legislature could put together a comprehensive package
of objective, factual information about the death penalty which
would be extremely useful in helping the members of the body make
wise decisions about it. Information in this form could be made
available to the public as well, through the news media and other
means. After enough time for the information to be disseminated
and for the information to sink in, an advisory vote on the ballot
with the question crafted somewhat more helpfully would be fine
with him.
MR. CAMPBELL said he understood the emotional dimensions of this
issue because of the love people have for their children, because
of the justified, moral outrage that people feel. Every year that
passes brings them more evidence as to how poorly the death penalty
serves the interests of the states where it is used or where there
are efforts to use it. Once the people of this state fully
understand all of the facts and implications of this matter, they
will not support the death penalty.
Number 694
AVERIL LERMAN testified on SB 52 by teleconference from Anchorage.
She stated that she had submitted written testimony on the advisory
vote. She hoped they could look at it briefly. She stated that
she is a mother of two children, a career person and somewhat of an
historian. For the past two years she has been researching the
history of the territorial death penalty in Alaska from 1900 to
1957. She did this largely in response to the continued efforts to
re-institute the death penalty in Alaska. As Mr. Campbell noted,
the necessity of making an informed decision about this critical
subject is very important. She thought that to research why Alaska
got rid of the death penalty in the first place would be a place to
start in light of the possible reinstatement of it.
MS. LERMAN stated that her research was sponsored and funded in
part by the Alaska Humanities Forum, the National Endowment for the
Humanities and the Alaska Native Justice Center. She spent a lot
of time in libraries researching archived documents and she also
interviewed more than 50 people who participated in the capital
punishment system which was in place in Alaska, including former
U.S. attorneys, the men who served as executioners in the old
federal jail in Juneau, men who served as guards, children of some
of the last men executed, etc.
MS. LERMAN said that until recently she felt as though the death
penalty was a good idea. Like most people she has never been
exposed to a death penalty and she had no basis for an informed
opinion about it. She said there was something about it which
seemed sort of fair, "an eye for an eye." It was only after
exposure to the information on race, poverty, powerlessness and the
potential for official corruption that her conception of the
profound wrongness of this concept in terms of government and
public policy became fixed.
MS. LERMAN gave examples of the limited use of the death penalty
when it was in place in Alaska, although homicide continued to be
widespread. She implored the committee to take seriously their
responsibility to the public.
Number 895
SYBIL SKELTON testified on SB 52 by teleconference from Fairbanks.
When she found out that other states with the death penalty had the
same rate of violence as other states, she changed her mind because
she realized that capital punishment was not a deterrent. Ms.
Skelton referred to a study she had recently read about violence
and young people. The study pointed out that young people have no
money, they're destitute and they see murder all the time. They
see things in society which they want to get. They are left out.
Number 970
JIM SYKES, testified on SB 52. He stated that legislation should
have a purpose. What problem does this legislation address? He
felt as though it can be documented, scientifically, factual and
otherwise that other states who have the death penalty have higher
rates of murder than states who do not. It's either inconclusive
or it's better not to have a death penalty if looking at the
statistics. People have said that if someone makes a mistake with
handing down the death penalty, it's not reversible. This is
another good reason to not re-institute the death penalty.
MR. SYKES pointed out that there were a few issues raised which he
wished to rebut. As to the question of putting this advisory to
the people, to let them decide. He would gladly hope that the
legislature as a body would be able to develop a process to jerk a
bill out of committee that needs to be dealt with by an anonymous
vote on the floor, to keep a committee chair from sitting on a
piece of legislation which needs to be dealt with. This isn't the
case here. These bills are widely heard in many committees and the
opposition to them is overwhelming. To say that the process is not
working and as Senator Taylor suggested, they can't pass this issue
in the legislature because they don't have the votes. He felt the
democratic process is working. This is why he recommended that
putting this issue to a vote without education is not a wise idea.
The argument that they're denying the public their democratic right
to vote is not there.
MR. SYKES also addressed the issue of complexity. He noted that
during the last election the Alaskans Against the Death Penalty
shared a booth with their organization at the fair. He asked some
people who came by, let's think about this for a minute. You want
to deny people accused their appeals, if they're accused of murder,
you want them murdered very quickly. What if each of you had a
close one who was accused of murder. You don't know whether they
did it or not, but someone close to you who you care dearly about,
a wife, a brother. Wouldn't you want the maximum amount of appeals
to be exhausted before a decision was made. He felt that when
people are actually faced with having to make these personal
decisions, it is a lot different than having to make an abstract
decision of "oh yeah, they committed murder. Toast them."
MR. SYKES stated that the issue of minorities in jail in this state
and others presently way outnumber their participation in the
general population. "What is there to believe that people won't be
unfairly convicted due to racial bias, or as our own history
exemplifies people who are white are generally not going to be
convicted of murder," or at least executed for it. This is our
history. It's not a simplistic question. It can't honestly be
said that the facts are out there to be decided upon. The facts
should be laid on the table. "Let's talk about the FBI statistics.
Let's talk about the expense. Let's talk about the fact that
mistakes have been made and will continue to be made in our kind of
society." Capital punishment cannot be reversed once instituted.
MR. SYKES said that what sealed it for him was the question that
isn't life in prison the same as the death penalty. No, it is not.
Personally he felt that if someone has murdered and they're not put
to death, they have to face the relatives of the victim and in some
cases murderers do feel remorse. These people can be quite
productive in convincing others not to murder. There are
productive things that even a murderer can do in prison.
Number 1253
BRANT MCGEE, Head, Office of Public Advocacy testified by
teleconference from Anchorage on SB 52 and HB 481. He was asked to
estimate the cost of this program to this agency. By the end of
four years the Office of Public Advocacy, Department of Law, and
the Public Defender Agency alone will spend $18 million in public
dollars to process capital punishment cases. These cases will
continue to escalate dramatically in future years as these cases
accumulate. By the end of ten years the state of Alaska will have
spend more than $50 million to process death penalty cases just
among these three agencies. This does not include the cost of the
court system which will slow down other important criminal and
civil cases in order to take care of this load. Nor does it count
the cost to corrections, or the Alaska State Troopers who will have
dozens of officers involved in long term cases.
MR. MCGEE noted that from the experience of other states the cost
of enacting the death penalty are simply enormous. In 1992 a Texas
study revealed that their death penalty cases cost an average of
$2.3 million, Florida in 1988 was $3.2 million dollars per case.
In 1982, New York did a projected cost of $1.8 million for the
first trial, in the first level of appeals. In a more detailed Los
Angeles County capital punishment examination is that it cost $1.9
million for each case processed for the trial alone.
MR. MCGEE poised the question, why does this cost this much? They
discovered that there were four times as many pre-trial motions in
capital cases. Jury selection took six times as long and the court
days devoted to capital cases were six and a half times what
another first degree, non-capital cases involved. In other words,
the anticipated costs for a capital punishment case is between
three to five times what it costs to incarcerate an individual for
the rest of their natural lives.
MR. MCGEE offered that the United States is now averaging nine
years and eight months from the time a person is convicted of a
capital crime to a time of their execution. This time could be
significantly shortened if appeals were knocked off.
Number 1470
SUZIE GREGG FOWLER testified on SB 52. She stated that she had
served on a murder one jury about 14 years ago. It was a painful,
gut-wrenching experience and she would never want to repeat it, but
she assumed that if she came to find the accused guilty she would
know that he wasn't like her. Ms. Fowler noted that people are
able to say they would put people to death because they believe
they are not made of the same fabric. In the trial she
participated in she was with this suspect day after day, she
watched his mother, his friends and she knew at the same time that
she voted to convict. She stated that he was human, not a monster
and the experience was humbling and scary to see that they were
more alike than they were different, she and this suspect.
MS. FOWLER stated, "did I want him off the streets? You bet.
Could I have said, 'kill him.' No. I couldn't." Last week her
family was honored to host a representative from Amnesty
International, Daniel Georges-Abeyie. Mr. Georges-Abeyie speaks
for the death penalty abolition from his background as a professor
and consultant in the criminal justice field. He speaks too as
someone who has lost three brothers to murder. She listened to him
and Marietta Yegar who lost a daughter to murder, she is humbled in
another way by the humanity she shares with them. "When I hear
Daniel speak about justice with mercy and Marietta speak about
forgiveness and reconciliation, a part of the fabric of humanity
that has been breached and ripped by all the hatred and terrorism
and murder in the world is mended, is made richer and stronger."
She asked the committee not to vote for legislation which moves the
state towards sanctioned violence.
Number 1645
MARY GEDDES testified by teleconference from Anchorage on HB 481
and SB 52. She asked the committee to not support either of these
two bills. Ms. Geddes urged the committee to investigate whether
or not the question as proposed in the SB 52 was the type likely to
promote reasoned, intelligent voting among the people of Alaska.
As to the cost of enactment at $2 to $8 million dollars, this
referendum is completely silent. She also questioned the fact that
other options are silent on this referendum as well. Does it note
how effective capital punishment is? She asked them most
particularly as to whether or not this question will promote
reasoned intelligent voting among the population and that it was
likely to punish in disproportionate numbers Alaskan Natives.
Number 1830
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE noted that Ms. Geddes was concerned about
Alaska Natives who don't speak English as a first language, he
asked if she would allow these same Natives to vote on a
subsistence resolution or "is it just on capital punishment that
you don't trust their judgment?"
MS. GEDDES noted that she was present to talk to the capital
punishment legislation. Under the various federal and state voting
rights acts there has to be special protections undertaken where
there are populations most likely to be affected by bills, hence
the question about whether or not they've taken into account the
non-English speaking population at the polls. She suggested that
this type of question doesn't promote any type of intelligent
discussions in their communities. She asked the legislature to do
so and "let's ask you to do the job that we elected you to do which
is to consider whether or not that this is an appropriate and
effective way of dealing with this matter."
Number 1955
CHARLES ROHRBACHER testified on SB 52 as a member of Amnesty
International. He pointed out that Amnesty International won the
Nobel Peace prize in 1977 and their mandate is based on the United
Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. There are
fundamental human rights that limit what a state can do to any
individual. The organization looks at violations of human rights,
including torture, murder that include not one or two victims, but
tens, hundreds, thousands and hundreds of thousands of people.
They support the current human rights trials going on at the Haigh,
and vigorous prosection of people who kill in the name of state
either legally or extra-judicially. They are opposed among other
things to the imposition of the death penalty in all cases and
under all circumstances, for example, major human rights violators.
Even though they have worked for the prosecution of these human
rights violators, Amnesty goes to the U.N. and urges that the
people being tried for war crimes in the former Yugoslavia for
example, be given the maximum sentence, but not be put to death.
MR. ROHRBACHER stated that Amnesty opposes any step towards the
advance of the death penalty, including this referendum. They
don't see it as an issue of democratic majorities who are informed
or not. The death penalty is morally wrong. It is in violation of
the fundamental right that every human being has to their life and
the security of their life.
MR. ROHRBACHER said that for himself, personally, the strongest
argument against the death penalty is the possibility of executing
innocent people. He shared the story of a case he worked on in San
Francisco of an individual who was acquitted after being sentenced
to death. He then touched lightly on the history of the death
penalty. Thomas Jefferson argued that he would never support the
death penalty until it was possible to demonstrate the
infallibility of human judgment. The possibility of convicting an
innocent individual is too high a price to pay for the death
penalty.
Number 2275
MICHAEL LEMAY testified by teleconference from Anchorage on SB 52
and HB 481. He stated he was a New Hampshireman by birth and proud
to be an Alaskan by choice. Mr. Lemay said he was opposed to the
advisory ballot because it asks the wrong question. An affirmative
vote from the Judicial Committee could result in fiscal insanity.
He referred to Mr. McGee's testimony. Attorney General, Bruce
Botelho estimates the cost of capital punishment for an individual
could cost as much as $5 million dollars. This far exceeds the
cost of permanent incarceration. He also noted Alaska's 99 year
sentencing for some categories of murder.
MR. LEMAY noted that the Republican lead legislature's main goal is
to reduce the budget by $250 million dollars in cuts within the
next five years. In addition, they propose to protect the
permanent fund and dividend programs and to impose no income tax.
These are admirable goals. When facing these financial choices,
Alaska cannot afford a death penalty statute. Mr. Lemay proposed
that if the legislature insists on asking this advisory question,
that they add the following twelve words to the end of a particular
section, "with all intended costs to be paid for out of
legislator's salaries."
TAPE 96-53, SIDE A
Number 000
GEORGE PARTLOW testified on SB 52 and HB 481. Mr. Partlow stated
that he was proud to be an Alaskan and noted that the constitution
of the United States constitution was hanging on the Judiciary
Committee room walls. It's representative the there is a
democratic republic in this country, in which decisions are not
ordinarily presented to an individual voter, but representatives
are elected to make decisions for the populace. He expects that
these elected individuals will make informed decisions and not
expect the average citizen to do a great deal of homework when they
don't have a staff available to research an issue.
MR. PARTLOW alluded to a comment made by Representative Bunde that
the voters could make a decision on this issue much the same way a
jury does. Mr. Partlow argued that his service on a jury once was
not part-time, he was asked to sit in the court room and listen to
a great deal of evidence, not all of it earthshaking, much of it
boring, but he took the whole thing quite seriously. He found it
difficult to compare this experience with the attitude of an
average newspaper reader in Anchorage voting on this proposition.
MR. PARTLOW noted that he teaches a kindergarten church class. He
added that these children see a lot of violence on television. He
thought this issue added to the violence in society and did not
subtract from it. He also referred to Senator Taylor's comments
about feeling good about seeing candle light vigils outside prisons
for death row inmates, but didn't mention at the same time the wild
beer blasts of people who are present to celebrate the "toasting"
of the victims.
Number 353
SUSAN ORLANSKY testified by teleconference from Anchorage on SB 52
and HB 481. She spoke against both bills. She made an argument
more directly towards SB 52. She asked herself how she would vote
on this referendum. She made the argument that this is not how
important policy should be set and noted that was what the
representatives are elected for. Representatives have staff, they
take testimony and have time to collect data. The average voter
does not have this advantage. Most of them vote emotionally. She
also mentioned the 99 year sentences which already exist in Alaska.
She also mentioned that the death penalty is racially
discriminatory, that it does not deter and that it cannot be
infallibly administered because it's administered by people.
People are not infallible. The death penalty is fundamentally
wrong.
Number 599
AMY PAIGE testified on SB 52 and HB 481. She opposed both the
bills. Ms. Paige felt it was unfair to offer the voters a
seemingly simple solution to what is truly a complex social issue.
The legislature is not asking the voters for simple solutions to
the complex budgetary and other social policy issues, because they
know considerable debate by the people who work to become informed
about these matters would be more likely to arrive at decisions
which reflect reasoned and sound understanding based on facts.
She asked the representatives to go back to their constituents and
engage in a dialogue which opens people to the full meaning of the
judicial and correctional system and how they can best deal with
these types of crimes. She also noted the protection of human and
civil rights of individuals. A majority vote cannot be allowed to
deprive people of the full protection of these rights as provided
in the constitution.
Number 700
ANNE WILKAS, Assistant Public Defender, testified by teleconference
from Anchorage on SB 52 and HB 481. She said she currently defends
people who have been charged with murder in the first degree. She
said she speaks from both her professional position and as a public
defender, as well as a citizen of community. She coaches Junior
Nordic League in Anchorage. One of her students asked her what the
worst thing that you ever represented somebody doing. Ms. Wilkas
responded, "killing somebody." This student wondered why somebody
would have to serve 99 years for this type of crime. Ms. Wilkas
said she is in the same position. She has posed the question of
why to both sponsors of this legislation. She said she still
hasn't heard a sound reason from Senator Taylor as to why they want
to send the issue of death penalty to the people. Ms. Wilkas also
mentioned the heavy work load this would create on the existing
system. She also made the argument that putting someone to death
is a immoral and said they shouldn't sanction this concept.
Number 902
ROBERT WOLFE testified on SB 52 and HB 481. He stated that he was
the father of four children and a Sunday school teacher of fifth
graders. Yesterday, they raised these two bills in this class
then. He wished the committee members could have been in this
class. These are morally and complicated issues. Mr. Wolf said he
was discouraged at first to see the initial reactions of his
students, which was rather flip. Children this age have a macabre,
grotesque fascination with death, but then they talked about the
issue. They talked about what god would want, about sin,
accountability for sin, how we earn what we reap; how brokenness is
healed and redemption, the potential for forgiveness and what can
be done to try to bring this about. They talked about doing unto
others. He felt the students were more informed after the talk and
he urged them to discuss this issue with their parents.
Number 1073
LYNN SIMLER, Executive Director, ACLU, testified by teleconference
from Anchorage on SB 52. She said that she and the ACLU oppose the
advisory ballot. She questioned the public voting without being
completely informed, without the benefit of full disclosure,
failure to include provisions for increased funding with an already
overtaxed public defenders, the lack of the super due process
information and also to consider that innocent convictions come not
only because of racial bias, but because of the process of plea
bargaining. Ms. Stimler noted that she was a first generation
American. Her parents came to this country from Nazi Germany.
Their families were killed in the Nazi death camps. If this type
of vote had been proposed in Germany in 1939 it would have been
supported by the majority, not just for Jews, but for many other
people who were killed there.
MS. STIMLER reminded the jury what Justice Marshall said in
conjunction with the 1972 case, Furman v. Georgia. "Capital
punishment is imposed discriminatorily against certain identifiable
classes of people. There is evidence that innocent people have
been executed before their innocence can be proved. The death
penalty reeks havoc with our entire criminal justice system."
Number 1221
DOUG MERTZ testified on SB 52. He gathered that the idea of
submitting reinstitution of the death penalty to the public for an
advisory vote is to derive a body of information which will tell
the legislature what the public actually thinks about this issue.
To do this, it has to be done right. It has to be done in such a
way that the information that results is not saleable as somehow
being inaccurate or skewed because of the way it was submitted.
Not only do the people need to be told what the proposal is, but
also what the present law is, what the actual sentences are under
the present law, and what the financial implications of what both
the present law and the proposal are. If this is not done, the
results will be open to attack and will be attacked as being
skewed. The truth is that they will end up with a result which is
not truly useful.
Number 1330
CAROL GRAY testified by teleconference from Anchorage on SB 52 and
HB 481. She spoke against both bills. She noted the cost
constraints related to this concept as well as, the opinions by
former Justices Blackman and Powell who concluded that after many
years capital punishment was imposed in a discriminatory and
arbitrary manner. It is impossible to implement fairly. Capital
punishment has no deterrent effect. In states that have the death
penalty, the murder rate is no lower than states without it. In
states that have abolished the death penalty there has been no rise
in the murder rate. She noted one study that linked a rise in
murder rates after an execution takes place. She thought it was
interesting that the sponsor of HB 481 said this legislation was
proposed as a deterrent.
Number 1420
BARBARA BRINK, Deputy Director, Alaska Public Defender Agency
testified by teleconference from Anchorage on SB 52 and HB 481.
The Public Defender's office opposes both of these bills, in
particular their concerned about the advisory ballot which does not
provide Alaskans with the information they need about the death
penalty to make a reasoned decision. Representative Bunde likened
this process to a jury reaching a decision on an issue, except that
they wouldn't be making a decision based on all the evidence. She
also noted the cost issue and gave some additional figures. She
also noted the added time constraints added to death penalty
trials. Ms. Brink mentioned the chance of condemning an innocent
person and the super due process standard.
Number 1612
JERRY SHRINER, Special Assistant, Department of Corrections
testified on SB 52 and HB 481. The department is opposed to both
these bills. The department is fundamentally opposed for matters
of policy and philosophy. They simply do not believe that
executing people for whatever the crime is defensible morally and
philosophically.
MR. SHRINER wanted to emphasis two points. The first, is that
there is no evidence whatsoever that he is aware of that capital
punishment or the threat of it deters people from crime. He also
noted all other forms of punishments don't work very well as a
deterrent either. The other point he wanted to make is that he is
constantly amazed at the level of misinformation and ignorance with
regard to the types of sentences which currently exist. There have
been focus groups run in this state in connection with the
intermediate sanctions task force which operated a few years ago.
They found quite clearly that when a group of people drawn from the
community were given the sentences and the options for sentencing,
that people tended to chose other alternatives rather than long
prison terms. If they were given a range of options of other
things which might be done, these people all came up with
alternative sanctions. All he was saying by this, was that he
didn't believe people understood what is currently being done with
offenders, for example, 99 year sentences without parole for
serious crimes.
Number 1760
CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that what he was about to say was not an
indication of his preference on these two bills, but he felt as
though there was one thing that worked, absolute sanctions, coupled
with the perception of apprehension. He felt as though this was a
deterrent. He closed the public hearing and stated that they would
take these bills up first thing on Wednesday.
ADJOURNMENT
CHAIRMAN PORTER adjourned the meeting at 3:55 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|