Legislature(1995 - 1996)
04/29/1996 02:00 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 29, 1996
2:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Brian Porter, Chairman
Representative Joe Green, Vice Chairman
Representative Con Bunde
Representative Al Vezey
Representative Cynthia Toohey
Representative David Finkelstein
Representative Bettye Davis
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 31(FIN)
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
relating to voter approval of amendments of the Alaska Statehood
Act affecting an interest of the State of Alaska under that Act.
- PASSED CSSJR 31(FIN) OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 264(JUD)
"An Act limiting the authority of courts to suspend the imposition
of sentence in criminal cases."
- PASSED CSSB 264(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR SENATE BILL NO. 52(JUD)
"An Act providing for an advisory vote on the issue of capital
punishment."
- PASSED CSSSSB 52(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SJR 31
SHORT TITLE: AK STATEHOOD ACT AMENDMENTS
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) PEARCE, Taylor, R.Phillips, Green, Miller,
Torgerson, Leman, Kelly, Sharp, Halford
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
12/29/95 2054 (S) PREFILE RELEASED - 12/29/95
01/08/96 2054 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/08/96 2054 (S) JUD, FIN
02/02/96 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
02/05/96 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
02/05/96 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
02/07/96 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
02/07/96 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
02/07/96 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
02/13/96 2403 (S) JUD RPT CS 3DP 2DNP SAME TITLE
02/13/96 2403 (S) FISCAL NOTE TO CS (GOV)
02/13/96 2403 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE TO CS (GOV)
02/22/96 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
02/22/96 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/13/96 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/14/96 2734 (S) FIN RPT CS 5DP 2NR NEW TITLE
03/14/96 2734 (S) PREVIOUS FN (GOV)
03/14/96 2734 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FN (GOV)
03/18/96 (S) RLS AT 12:20 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
03/18/96 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
04/22/96 3414 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR & 2NR 4/22/96
04/22/96 3427 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
04/22/96 3428 (S) FIN CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
04/22/96 3428 (S) ADVANCE TO THIRD READING FAILED Y12 N8
04/22/96 3428 (S) THIRD READING 4/23 CALENDAR
04/22/96 3428 (S) COSPONSOR: TAYLOR
04/23/96 3476 (S) HELD TO 4/24/96 CALENDAR
04/24/96 3537 (S) HELD TO 4/25/96 CALENDAR
04/25/96 3570 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSJR 31(FIN)
04/25/96 3571 (S) PASSED Y20 N-
04/25/96 3580 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/26/96 4032 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
04/26/96 4032 (H) JUDICIARY
04/29/96 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: SB 264
SHORT TITLE: LIMIT SUSPENDED IMPOSITION OF SENTENCE
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) HALFORD, Taylor, Green, Donley, Kelly, Leman
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/07/96 2324 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/07/96 2324 (S) JUD, FIN
04/12/96 (S) JUD AT 4:05 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
04/12/96 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/15/96 3239 (S) JUD RPT CS 3DP 1NR SAME TITLE
04/15/96 3239 (S) INDETERMINATE FN TO CS (COURT)
04/22/96 3433 (S) FIN REFERRAL WAIVED
04/24/96 (S) RLS AT 10:30 AM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
04/24/96 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
04/24/96 3491 (S) RULES TO CAL & 1 NR 4/24/96
04/24/96 3525 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
04/24/96 3525 (S) JUD CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
04/24/96 3525 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN CONSENT
04/24/96 3525 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 264(JUD)
04/24/96 3525 (S) PASSED Y20 N-
04/24/96 3539 (S) COSPONSOR: KELLY
04/24/96 3525 (S) Rieger NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION
04/25/96 3574 (S) RECON TAKEN UP - IN THIRD READING
04/25/96 3575 (S) COSPONSOR(S): LEMAN
04/25/96 3575 (S) PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y19 N1
04/25/96 3581 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/26/96 4034 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
04/26/96 4034 (H) JUDICIARY
04/29/96 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: SB 52
SHORT TITLE: ADVISORY VOTE ON CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) TAYLOR, Pearce; REPRESENTATIVE(S) Rokeberg,
Kohring
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
03/29/96 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
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 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/15/96 3784 (H) CROSS SPONSOR(S): ROKEBERG
04/17/96 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/22/96 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
WITNESS REGISTER
STEPHANIE SZYMANSKI, Administrative Assistant
to Senator Drue Pearce
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 111
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4993
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave sponsor statement for CSSJR 31(FIN).
KELLY HUBER, Legislative Assistant
to Senator Rick Halford
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 508
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4958
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave sponsor statement for CSSB 264(JUD).
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General
Criminal Division
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
Telephone: (907) 465-3428
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSSB 264(JUD).
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 96-59, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIRMAN BRIAN PORTER called the House Judiciary Committee meeting
to order at 2:00 p.m. Members present at the call to order were
Representatives Green, Bunde, Vezey, Davis and Finkelstein.
CSSJR 31(FIN) - AK STATEHOOD ACT AMENDMENTS
Number 075
CHAIRMAN PORTER announced the first order of business would be
CSSJR 31(FIN), "Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the
State of Alaska relating to voter approval of amendments of the
Alaska Statehood Act affecting an interest of the State of Alaska
under that Act," sponsored by Senator Drue Pearce
Number 122
STEPHANIE SZYMANSKI, Administrative Assistant to Senator Pearce,
came before the committee. She explained Senator Pearce has been
closely associated with the efforts of the legislature in
attempting to get Congress to open the Arctic National Wildlife
refuge (ANWR) for responsible oil and gas exploration and
development. As part of that debate a question has come forward,
which they are attempting to answer by this constitutional
amendment. When Congress passed the statehood compact and the
people of the state of Alaska voted to accept statehood, there was
an open question of what has to happen for Alaska to accept any
amendment to the statehood compact. Obviously, there has to be
some action taken to accept the amendment whether it is at the
legislative level, by law or by taking to a vote of the people,
since it took a vote of the people to accept this statehood
compact. A previous legislature, back in the early 1970s attempted
to answer the question by passing a law AS 01.10.110, which reads,
"No amendment which affects an interest of the state under the
Alaska Statehood Action is effective as to the state unless
approved by law enacted by the legislature or the people of the
state."
MS. SZYMANSKI explained that the 1976 legislature did attempt to
answer the question; however, it has been mentioned by legislators
and people of the state concerned that we should have never have
just let the legislature alone accept the change to the compact,
instead it should always go to the vote of the people. She said
SJR 31 proposes to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot,
this November, which would add language to our constitution a
requirement that in order to accept a change of the statehood
compact, that act would only become effective after the legislature
passed a resolution putting a question on the ballot, a majority of
the registered voters in Alaska voted in the affirmative. SJR 31
is intended to lay out a clear method which will direct future
legislatures as to the proper method to make any decision
concerning the change to the statehood compact.
Number 302
CHAIRMAN PORTER said, "Would it be correct that the question under
this bill if it were law, that we could ask would be specifically
the issue that was discussed in the sponsor statement. For
example, the 90 percent return to Alaska versus the 50/50 at ANWR.
Would we be able to put that specific question as relates only to
ANWR on the ballot as opposed to having to change the entire 90
percent to 50/50 statewide?"
MS. SZYMANSKI explained it is the intent of the sponsor that this
November, the question would be to amend the constitution requiring
that later if you would like to amend the statehood compact, that
would go before the people on that issue or any other issue. It is
not the sponsor's intent that language of that nature be added this
November.
Number 378
CHAIRMAN PORTER said he understands that, but his question is, "If
ultimately that question were formed in a resolution to go on to
the ballot in a few years, could we frame it so that it would only
apply to ANWR - the geographic boundaries of ANWR as opposed to
having to change the 90 percent relation - the 90 percent return in
other areas of the state?"
MS. SZYMANSKI said "yes." She said she believes that there is a
resolution in the Senate, sponsored by Senator Adams, that deals
with that specifically.
Number 432
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE made a motion to move CSSJR 31(FIN) out of
the House Judiciary Committee with individual recommendations.
REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY objected to the motion. He said he speaks
in objection to this proposed constitutional amendment because a
ballot initiative is not a good forum for debate for political
intercourse. It is up or down, it is worded one way, it passes, it
fails. Representative Vezey said he believes that if you're going
to change a contract between two parties that there is a
negotiation process that must occur and the ballot initiative does
not allow that process to occur. He said he thinks that the
elected officials of the state of Alaska are perfectly capable of
responding to the wish and will of the people of the state of
Alaska and their best interest without putting a measure directly
to them for a vote. He said he doesn't support the resolution
although he doesn't have an objection to it being moved out of
committee.
Number 523
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID FINKELSTEIN indicated he also has mixed
feelings, but he thinks the reason the resolution is necessary is
because the concept is that you have to have a change in the
constitution if it is changed in the statehood compact as that is
where it incorporated into state law. He said you can't have a
constitutional amendment without a vote of the people.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said he understands the concern and it is a
well taken point, but this is multiple step process. First, we
have to have the resolution from the legislature and that would
certainly be an area that (indisc.) debate in the process and the
negotiating. Once you have arrived at the negotiating, it is his
view that this would simply be a ratification of whatever was
achieved at the legislative level. If it were something of less
magnitude than changing the statehood compact, he would say, "Just
let us do it." When it gets to that level, perhaps the public
needs to be more directly involved.
Number 622
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY withdrew his objection.
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if there was any other objection to moving
the bill. Hearing none, CSSJR 31(FIN) was moved out of the House
Judiciary Committee.
CSSB 264(JUD) - LIMIT SUSPENDED IMPOSITION OF SENTENCE
CHAIRMAN PORTER announced the next order of business would be CSSB
264(JUD), "An Act limiting the authority of courts to suspend the
imposition of sentence in criminal cases."
KELLY HUBER, Legislative Assistant, to Senator Rick Halford, came
forward to address the committee. She said SB 264 limits the
authority of courts to suspend the imposition of sentence. This
bill deals directly with AS 11.41. which are crimes against a
person on a first time conviction. Ms. Huber said in the Senate
Judiciary Committee regarding the first time conviction where they
removed "misdemeanors" for the first time. It would only be felony
convictions on the first time. The misdemeanors were put in for a
second felony. So if it is a misdemeanor and it is a second
offense, the SIS (suspension of imposition of sentence) would take
effect or if it was a felony for the second time. She stated it is
a very straight forward bill and deals with AS 11.41.
Number 736
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked that the Department of Law state
their position for the record.
Number 780
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division
Department of Law, came before the committee. She said the
committee aide had just raised a question which she needs to
familiarize herself with, which is that sexual abuse of a minor in
the fourth degree may be a misdemeanor. She said she had thought
Ms. Huber was correct when she said all the misdemeanors had been
removed from the first time..... Ms. Carpeneti said there is a
misdemeanor which is sexual abuse of a minor in the fourth degree.
She explained the change was made in the Senate Judiciary Committee
and there wasn't a hearing on the changes. She informed the
committee members that assault in the fourth degree is 230,
reckless endangerment is 240 and those are both A misdemeanors.
Custodial interference is 330. She said those are removed from the
prohibition of a SIS for the first conviction. Ms. Carpeneti noted
the Department of Law doesn't have a problem with the bill.
Number 868
CHAIRMAN PORTER said for the record, "SIS is to law enforcement are
not what you want to hear coming out of the sentencing judge and it
has been, in the past, on some accessions a defendant who is
convicted gets an SIS and then the next time they get before the
court they get what we call an `SSIS' - serious suspension of
imposition of sentencing." Chairman Porter said what the bill
provides is that people who have harmed others should not be
considered for an SIS.
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if there was further testimony. There being
none, he asked what the wish of the committee was.
Number 989
REPRESENTATIVE CYNTHIA TOOHEY made a motion to move CSSB 264(JUD)
out of committee with zero fiscal notes and individual
recommendations.
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if there was an objection. Hearing none,
CSSB 264(JUD) moved out of the House Judiciary Committee.
CSSSSB 52(JUD) - ADVISORY VOTE ON CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
Number 1030
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE made a motion to bring up, for
reconsideration, the committee's failure to adopt SB 52.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN referred to the 24-hour rule on noticing
a bill to be heard and questioned how the meeting was noticed.
CHAIRMAN PORTER said in anticipating that something like this was
a possibility, he checked with Legislative Legal. This kind of
thing has occurred repeatedly and to their knowledge, there is no
rule that precludes a motion to rescind from being considered any
time the committee is actively open for business.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said he wouldn't disagree with that. He
said if that motion was successful, the next motion is the one that
(indisc.) assume we would have to know the (indisc.).
CHAIRMAN PORTER indicated Legislative Legal informed him that the
motion to rescind automatically brings that motion back before the
committee. Even without the 24-hour rule, it is not a requirement
to notice it.
Number 1119
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said in the sense of good government and
open meetings, it seems to him that the committee ought to notice
the bill because at the previous hearing on the measure, the room
was completely full and there was a lot of testimony via
teleconference. He said many people in the state would be very
interested and the committee should give a 24-hour notice.
CHAIRMAN PORTER said he believes the rules provide that once the
motion is made he doesn't have any basis for not acting on it. It
does bring the other motion before the committee. Chairman Porter
said he acknowledges that is an option that the committee could
consider, but he doesn't think the motion is a great surprise to
the public. He said he read about it in two papers and really
doesn't think it is great surprise.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said the principle behind this is to let
people know what is going on with government. This would become
the 24-second rule.
CHAIRMAN PORTER indicated he was told that the motion would not be
a violation of the rules.
Number 1209
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said Representative Finkelstein's point is
well taken and he wouldn't make an attempt to circumvent good
government or previous notification. He said if he had thought
that this would have been open for additional testimony, he would
be supporting Representative Finkelstein's position of noticing the
bill, but he doesn't anticipate there will be additional testimony.
Representative Bunde said he doesn't see a great purpose is served
by waiting 24 hours.
CHAIRMAN PORTER said during the public hearing, everyone wishing
testify did testify. He said he will presume there is an objection
to the motion to rescind and asked for a roll call vote on the
motion to rescind. He noted a "yes" vote will bring the vote on
moving SB 52 back before the committee.
Number 1239
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Bunde, Vezey, Green
and Porter voted in favor of the motion. Representatives Toohey,
B. Davis and Finkelstein voted against the motion. So SB 52 was
back before the House Judiciary Committee.
CHAIRMAN PORTER said the motion in front of the committee is the
motion to move, with individual recommendations, SB 52.
REPRESENTATIVE BETTYE DAVIS objected.
Number 1320
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN appealed to Representative Bunde to hold
off on the motion until the following day or until another meeting
is held. He said he feels like there is a public process issue
that would be better served so that people are aware that there is
a decision to be made regarding the bill to be up for
reconsideration.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE stated the scheduling of meetings is the
chairman's prerogative. He said he would restate his previous
comments that there wouldn't be additional testimony taken and he
doesn't see the public process being inhibited.
Number 1357
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY said she would like to state her reasons for
opposing the bill. She referred to putting a referendum or an
advisory vote the ballot saying every child shall have a pony, and
questioned what the outcome of that would be. The outcome would be
of cost. Nobody is telling you what the pony will cost to feed,
where it will be housed, how the veterinarian bill will be paid
that comes with this pony. Representative Toohey said to put a
question like this on the ballot is absolutely irresponsible
because everybody is going to say, "Yes, I believe in the death
penalty." But when it costs anywhere from $5 million to $15
million for the appeals of these death penalties, this state can't
afford that. She said she thinks this is the wrong approach and
she is totally opposed to having this advisory vote.
Number 1417
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN concurred with Representative Toohey's
comments. He said another example is if you favor increasing the
dividends to $1,500 from what they currently are, how will people
vote on that. He said these issues are more complicated. You'd
have to say, "Would you favor increasing the dividend to $1,500 or
making the following cuts in education or making the following
changes..." Representative Finkelstein said that is not what this
is. This has one alternative there as it doesn't explain the
implications of the alternative and is doesn't present the other
alternatives as well.
Number 1455
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said he is very much still opposed to the
death penalty. He said Representatives Toohey and Finkelstein have
indicated at least one of the reasons why he is opposed to it. The
cost differential is, in itself, enough to veto it if people are
aware of it. Representative Green said it has been shown in other
states that it is not a deterrent to violent crime. There is
always the possibility of executing the wrong person. He said he
has very strong moral opposition to this. He indicated he has
heard that there is an opportunity that juries may not find
somebody on trial guilty if the prosecution is seeking the death
penalty because of a deep seeded moral objection to that. So it is
possible that a guilty person may go free. He said he is torn
between that and the fact that he swore an oath that he would, to
the best of his ability, represent the people in District 10.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said he did a survey of those people in
District 10 and found it was very similar to the state survey. He
said the question was, "Do you support the death penalty?" In
District 10, 66 percent of the people said, "Yes." Representative
Green said those people were then asked the question, "Are you
aware that it is two and a half times more expensive to put someone
on death row with all the appeals that are available as it is to
incarcerate that person for life without possibility of parole?"
He said 11 percent changed their mind. That still left 55 percent
of District 10 in favor of the death penalty and 25 percent very
opposed to the death penalty. If you add that 11 percent, it would
make it 36 percent. There was about 8 percent of the people who
just didn't want to make the decision.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said his problem is that being torn between
his moral values and his very justifiable reasons opposing the
death penalty and his obligation to support the views of his
constituents, he feels that voting against moving the bill from
committee is in effect a veto. Representative Green said he is
opposed to putting anybody to death, other than in self defense or
in the defense of another person or as an act of war to defend your
country. He said he certainly separates the advisory vote on
whether or not there should be a death penalty with a jury that the
person would be tried by, whether or not he would be tried under
the death penalty, and then the opportunity for appeal as opposed
to putting to death an unborn child who has no opportunity to
appeal. He said while he doesn't like death of any kind, he
certainly sees that there is a difference there. Representative
Green stated that if this bill does pass out of the House Judiciary
Committee, he will vote "No" on the House floor and will try to
educate people that he does not like the death penalty. He said he
would suggest that anyone, including the governor, who is ever put
in this position of a veto would seriously consider what the will
of the people is since we live in a democracy.
Number 1709
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY explained that what the committee is voting on
is an advisory vote as to whether it should go before the people.
He said that is the main reason he is unequivocally supporting it.
The committee has heard testimony that the opponents of the death
penalty are not well financed and they have difficulty advertising
their side of the picture to the public. By putting this on the
ballot, it will become part of the debate that is the electorial
process. It will give this subject a forum on talk radio, the
press, etc. He said he believes we are doing society a favor by
bringing this out in the public forum, largely at public expense,
for discussion. Representative Vezey said people who are working
to oppose the implementation of the death penalty simply don't have
the resources to spread their message out to the public.
Representative Vezey said for that reason, he is going to support
the bill in committee and on the floor.
Number 1766
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said his concerns were echoed earlier and he
would like the entire House to have an opportunity to vote on this
issue. He explained that in his mind, there is a vast difference
between a vote in the committee and on the House floor and the
institution of a death penalty. He said there is certainly concern
about innocent people being subjected to the death penalty, but it
always comes back to him that virtually 100 percent of the victims
are innocent while the percentage may not always be as great for
the perpetrators.
Number 1822
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said she believes that the committee shouldn't
be taking the bill up at this time. She said she will definitely
vote against it. Sometimes the committee members have to make a
hard decision as to how they will vote based on what constituents
might have said or what the members think is in the best interest
of the state. She referred to her colleague that said he is going
to base his vote strictly on the fact that he did a survey the
results were that 55 percent said they'd support it. She said that
it is not necessarily a reason to vote to move the bill from the
committee. Representative Davis said, "I know if it gets on the
ballot, it is an advisory vote, but what I see is happening here
this is an election year, they know they couldn't get the bill
through so we come out with an advisory vote putting something on
the ballot to make people think that they're gunna get something
that they're not gunna get in the first place. What all seven of
us know here - that's not gunna happen. And so what we're doing is
fooling the public and regardless of how we look at it, that's all
it amount to - that we are doing this because it is an election
year and we want to fool the public that we are doing their
business." Representative Davis stated that as an elected
official, the legislature has to make those kinds of choices also.
Every time someone says they want something, it might not be in the
best interest to have it. She said she knows there are the votes
to move the bill from committee so she isn't going to try to stop
anybody from changing their minds because she doesn't have the
power to do that. She said the bill is wrong and if it is brought
to the floor for a vote, she hopes there are the votes to vote it
down. Representative Davis it is a waste of time to bring it to
the floor.
Number 1966
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said he doesn't think the committee is
going to solve the problems society has with violence by using more
violence. He discussed a comment made regarding and advisory vote
during an Anchorage caucus.
Number 2016
CHAIRMAN PORTER said he was asked when they were hearing both of
the bills against the implementation of the death penalty why he
would vote for SB 52 and not HB 481. He said he is currently
opposed to the death penalty because he recognizes, having been in
the business, that there are so many dollars that are going to be
available to be spent for criminal justice. There is debate but
not much disagreement that there is a heck of a lot of cost
associated with the death penalty from the beginning to the
execution of sentence. He said it is usually about ten years and
it costs more than it does to put people away for the rest of their
lives. He said he thinks that is the reason that the death penalty
cannot show itself as any kind of a deterrent. By the time it is
put into effect, most everyone except perhaps the family of the
victims, have forgotten what the crime was. Chairman Porter said
it may be time to look at a public vote based on the fact that
Congress has passed a bill that limits the amount of appeals at the
federal level that people on death row have. Hopefully, the
constitutionality of those provisions will be determined within the
next year and by that time, we could take a look at whether or not
there is some applicability to those principles at a state level.
He said maybe we could get down to a point of not spending twice as
much money and have a provision that has a chance of being
effective and being a deterrent and actually doing what it is that
those kinds of severe sentences are supposed to do which is to be
a ultimate deterrent to crime.
Number 2161
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked for a roll call vote in moving CSSSSB 52(JUD)
out of committee. Representatives Toohey, Davis and Finkelstein
voted against moving the bill. Representatives Vezey, Green, Bunde
and Porter voted in favor of moving the bill. So CSSSSB 52(JUD)
moved out of the House Judiciary Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
CHAIRMAN PORTER adjourned the House Judiciary Committee meeting at
2:37 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|