Legislature(1995 - 1996)
02/07/1996 01:30 PM Senate JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
February 7, 1996
1:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Robin Taylor, Chairman
Senator Lyda Green, Vice-Chairman
Senator Mike Miller
Senator Al Adams
Senator Johnny Ellis
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 127(JUD)
"An Act relating to penalties for certain offenses committed
against a peace officer, fire fighter, correctional employee,
emergency medical technician, paramedic, ambulance attendant, or
other emergency responders."
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 31
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
relating to voter ratification of legislative approval of
amendments of the Alaska Statehood Act affecting an interest of the
State of Alaska under that Act.
SENATE BILL NO. 242
"An Act relating to sentencing for felony offenses."
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR SENATE BILL NO. 52
"An Act authorizing capital punishment, classifying murder in the
first degree as a capital felony, and establishing sentencing
procedures for capital felonies; authorizing an advisory vote on
instituting capital punishment; and providing for an effective
date."
PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION
CSHB 127 (Jud) - See Judiciary minutes dated 1/31/96.
SJR 31 - See Judiciary minutes dated 2/5/96.
SB 52 - No previous Senate action.
SB 242 - No previous Senate action.
WITNESS REGISTER
Anne Carpeneti
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, AK 99811-0300
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on SB 242
Ken Erickson
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified for sponsor of SB 242
Jim McConus
Alaskans Against the Death Penalty
P.O. Box 202296
Anchorage, AK 99520
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed to CSSSSB 52
Diane Shriner
Division of Elections
PO Box 110015
Juneau, AK 99811-0015
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided fiscal information on CSSSSB 52
Charles Rohrbacher
Amnesty International
109 Troy Ave.
Juneau, AK 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed to CSSSSB 52
Charles Campbell
3020 Douglas Highway
Juneau, AK 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed to CSSSSB 52
Liz Dodd
AkCLU
100 Parks St.
Juneau, AK 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed to CSSSSB 52
Frank Smith
Barrow, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed to CSSSSB 52
Kevin McCoy
1113 N Street
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed to CSSSSB 52
Scott Sterling
Testified from the Mat-Su
teleconference site
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed to CSSSSB 52
Gina Tabachki
6.9 Mile Chena Hot Springs Rd.
Fairbanks, AK 99701
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed to CSSSSB 52
Mr. David Seid
Ketchikan, AK 99901
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed to CSSSSB 52
Ms. Christine Reichman
Valdez, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed to CSSSSB 52
The Honorable Victor Carlson
Bethel, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed to CSSSSB 52
Mr. John Gallant
Kenai, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed to CSSSSB 52
Mr. Jerome Adams
Fairbanks, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed to CSSSSB 52
Barbara Hood
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed to CSSSSB 52
Brant McGee
Alaska Public Defender Agency
900 W. 5th Ave. Ste. 525
Anchorage, AK 99501-2090
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed to CSSSSB 52
Mr. Bob Kintzele
Kenai, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed to CSSSSB 52
Mr. Arthur Couch
Kenai, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports CSSSSB 52
Mr. Robert Crossman
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed to CSSSSB 52
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 96-6, SIDE A
Number 001
HB 127 120-DAY JAIL: ASSAULT ON OFFICERS
CHAIRMAN ROBIN TAYLOR called the Judiciary Committee meeting to
order at 1:30 p.m. The committee took up CSHB 127 (Jud).
SENATOR ADAMS explained the following changes made in the proposed
Senate Judiciary committee substitute: on page 2, lines 29-30 were
changed to read, "who knowingly directed the conduct constituting
the offense at..."; and on page 3, line 4, the 120 day mandatory
minimum sentence was decreased to 60 days. These changes were made
with the approval of the sponsor.
SENATOR ADAMS moved and asked unanimous consent that the SCSCSHB
127 (Jud) be adopted in lieu of the original bill. There being no
objection, the motion carried.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked Bruce Campbell, aide to Representative Kelly,
sponsor of the measure, whether Representative Kelly was in
agreement with the changes made in the Senate Judiciary committee
substitute. MR. CAMPBELL stated the sponsor supports this version.
SENATOR TAYLOR explained the sentence was shortened to a mandatory
60 day prison sentence, and if an aggravated factor applies, the
minimum mandatory sentence is doubled.
SENATOR GREEN moved SCSCSHB 127 (Jud) from committee with
individual recommendations. There being no objection, the motion
carried.
SJR 31 VOTER APPROVAL:AK STATEHOOD ACT AMENDMENT
The next order of business was SJR 31. SENATOR GREEN moved to
adopt the committee substitute. SENATOR ADAMS objected to the
motion, and asked for an explanation of changes made in the
committee substitute.
SENATOR TAYLOR discussed the changes. On page 1, line 9, the
original legislation provided that a law, enacted by the
legislature, giving the approval of the state to an amendment to
the statehood compact, would require the legislature to vote
affirmatively on any change to the compact through a piece of
legislation. That legislation would then go to the public for
ratification at a general election. The committee substitute
allows the public to vote on the issue itself, without being
preempted by the Legislature. This would give the public the
chance to voice its opinion before the legislature takes formal
action. This legislation would only have effect upon the statehood
compact and would not provide the legislature with an expanded
opportunity to send referendums to the public.
Number 165
SENATOR ADAMS asked if the proposed legislation would affect AS
01.01.011, regarding oil revenue distribution. SENATOR TAYLOR
replied it would not. SENATOR ADAMS if the legislature could still
pass legislation according to AS 01.10.011. SENATOR TAYLOR stated
the legislature could, until this resolution was approved by a vote
of the people. At that time, the Constitution would be amended and
provide that future changes made to the statehood compact would
require voter approval prior to legislative action. It does not
impact the 1976 decision, but would impact future decisions.
SENATOR ADAMS removed his objection to adoption of the Senate
Judiciary committee substitute, therefore the motion carried.
SENATOR GREEN moved CSSJR 31 (Jud) out of committee with individual
recommendations. SENATOR ELLIS objected. A roll call vote was
taken with Senators Adams and Ellis voting "nay," and Senators
Taylor and Green voting "yea." The motion failed.
Number 198
SB 242 USE OF FIREARM IN COMMISSION OF FELONY
KEN ERICKSON, aide to Senator Pearce, read a sponsor statement to
committee members. SB 242 increases the penalty a criminal
receives for committing a felony with a firearm. Currently
Alaska's felony sentencing statutes give judges sentencing
guidelines for specific crimes. This bill increases some of the
presumptive sentence guidelines for crimes committed with guns.
Inmates would still get time-off for good behavior. The bill does
not affect misdemeanors, and would only effect acts committed after
the effective date. SB 242 sends the message that offenses
committed with firearms will carry a longer mandatory jail
sentence.
Number 236
SENATOR ADAMS asked if the sentencing commission has had a chance
to review SB 242. MR. ERICKSON replied the commission has not
reviewed the bill yet. SENATOR ADAMS asked if the Departments of
Law or Corrections had submitted position papers. SENATOR TAYLOR
notified committee members a fiscal note has been received from the
Department of Law, the fiscal note from the Department of
Corrections will be prepared by Monday, and the Department of Law
has sent a representative to testify.
ANNE CARPENETI, representing the Department of Law, informed
committee members the department has not had sufficient time to
analyze SB 242 to take a position on the measure. She noted the
sentencing increases are not guidelines, but are presumptive terms
which the court must follow.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if SB 242 upgrades the current law that
governs the use of a firearm in the commission of a crime. MS.
CARPENETI responded that under current law, specific offenses, such
as sexual assault in the first degree or sexual abuse of a minor,
carry presumptive sentences for first offenses, and the sentence is
lengthened if a firearm is used. SB 242 increases the presumptive
term for the first offense.
SENATOR ADAMS questioned whether a person with a concealed weapon
permit would receive a lesser sentence than a person without a
permit. MS. CARPENETI clarified that the bill addresses a firearm
used in the commission of an offense, therefore if no offense was
committed, the issue of a permit would be moot. SENATOR TAYLOR
felt the permit issue would probably not make a difference under
this sentencing structure if an offense was committed.
Number 300
JOHN SALEMI, representing the Public Defender Agency, discussed two
issues. Mr. Erickson stated that SB 242 would send a strong
message about the seriousness of committing a crime with a firearm:
he does not believe those messages are received by people whose
behaviors are often anti-social and irrational. Many people who
engage in criminal conduct do not think through the consequences,
or may be under the influence of alcohol or drugs. He felt the
analogy to the deterrent effect of stronger DWI laws to be
inaccurate. Presumptive sentencing in itself has been an
enhancement in the overall sentencing scheme in the State of
Alaska, yet it appears to have a disproportionate impact on rural
Alaska, especially Native Alaskans. He noted the sentencing
commission has not been in existence for three years. He added the
Public Defender Agency has proposed a zero fiscal impact with
respect to SB 242, only because it cannot quantify what the impact
will be. In his experience, when sentences are increased for a
particular crime, individuals exercise their right to trial as
opposed to entering a no contest or guilty plea.
SENATOR TAYLOR announced the committee would take SB 242 under
consideration and would reschedule it in the near future. Senator
Miller arrived at 1:55 p.m.
SENATOR GREEN moved CSSJR 31 out of committee with individual
recommendations. SENATOR ADAMS objected. A roll call vote was
taken with Senators Adams and Ellis voting "nay," and Senators
Taylor, Green and Miller voting "yea." CSSJR 31 moved from
committee with individual recommendations.
SENATOR ADAMS repeated his concern that the measure would not have
the necessary votes to pass on the Senate floor.
SB 52 CAPITAL PUNISHMENT FOR MURDER
SENATOR GREEN moved adoption of the committee substitute (9-LS0524-
F) for SSSB 52. SENATOR ADAMS objected. He requested the term
"capital punishment" be substituted with the term "death penalty"
in the title to ensure the public understands what the issue is
about. He also felt that rather than offer an advisory vote which
would limit the answer to yes or no, the question be rephrased to
offer a second option.
Number 422
SENATOR ELLIS asked why the committee substitute dramatically
changes the sponsor substitute. SENATOR TAYLOR replied the
difficulty of attempting to address and pass legislation this year
pertaining to capital punishment, given the complexity of other
issues before the committee and considering time constraints, is
unrealistic. He added that by giving the public the opportunity to
vote on the issue now, the legislature will know whether or not to
proceed with it. He stated he sincerely believes that most people
understand the term "capital punishment" to be a death penalty, and
that term was used only because it was the term used by legislative
drafters.
Number 447
SENATOR ADAMS felt the term is a technical change which could be
made easily; and he requested a second option be contained in the
advisory vote. He also requested a fiscal note from the Department
of Corrections. He commented the State of California estimates
each execution to cost $15 million, and the cost varies with other
death penalty states. SENATOR TAYLOR stated a fiscal note would be
requested upon adoption of the committee substitute.
SENATOR ADAMS maintained his objection to adoption of the committee
substitute. A roll call vote was taken with Senators Miller,
Taylor and Green voting "yea," and Senators Adams and Ellis voting
"nay." The motion carried.
SENATOR TAYLOR announced to teleconference sites that copies of the
committee substitute were distributed to those sites, and asked
witnesses to direct their testimony to CSSSSB 52 (Jud).
JIM MCCONUS, President of Alaskans Against the Death Penalty
(AADP), testified in opposition to the measure. AADP began with 12
members in Anchorage two years ago; its current membership is over
650. AADP believes it is time for the legislature to take the
responsible act of getting to the merits of the death penalty
debate. He questioned why the advisory vote maneuver has been
offered twice in three years on the day of the hearing. He
expressed frustration that discussion about the merits of the death
penalty is avoided. He made the following points. After a century
of study and debate, there remains not one legitimate public policy
which can be cited in support of the death penalty. It wastes
millions of scarce dollars; it does not reduce murder rates, murder
rates tend to be higher in states with a death penalty; its
application is heavily effected by race and wealth; and innocent
lives are lost because fatal mistakes are made. Supporters of the
advisory vote will be able to affirm their desire for the death
penalty without accepting the political accountability of casting
a vote on its merits. He questioned why advisory votes are not
used for other issues the legislature needs to address, such as
tort reform, which the public is not fully informed about.
MR. MCCONUS reviewed a chart before committee members. In 1993,
1,000 registered voters across the United States were interviewed.
Most people favored life without parole and restitution (44%) over
the death penalty. CSSSSB 52 (Jud) asks the voters the question
"Do you favor the death penalty as another sentencing mechanism?"
When phrased that way, the response rate has been 70 to 80 percent.
By eliciting that response, a perceived public mandate will be put
in motion, which is erroneous, since whenever any other alternative
is offered, the mandate for the death penalty drops. If voters are
asked whether or not they want the kind of sentence already imposed
by Alaska courts for aggravated murders (life without parole and
restitution) the death penalty loses every time. This question
will not find out what the public thinks but will create a public
mandate based on misconceptions. He cited statistics from polls in
other states which all favored life in prison to the death penalty.
If people are asked what should be done with people convicted of
first degree murder, most people favor the sentence already imposed
by Alaska courts. Passage of CSSSSB 52 (Jud) will prevent
legislative deliberation and responsibility in the future.
Number 542
FRANK SMITH testified from Barrow in opposition to CSSSSB 52 (Jud).
The same arguments have been made repeatedly to the legislature.
No first degree murderers are released within a short time period
and reoffend. The advisory vote, as posed, will only elicit
responses which proponents expect, to obtain the desired result.
The sentencing structure needs to be examined but making it harsher
is not the solution. Too many misconceptions exist, and innocent
lives can be lost.
DIANE SHRINER, representing the Division of Elections, spoke to the
cost of placing an advisory vote on the November ballot. The
figure of $2.2 thousand includes the cost of providing information
in the official election pamphlet, as required by AS 15.58. The
programming cost for counting votes cast on the measure is also
included. Only four measures can be printed on a single ballot
card. If the measure requires an additional ballot card, the cost
would increase by $53.4 thousand. The official election pamphlet
would include the ballot, the Legislative Affairs explanation of
the measure, and a statement in support and in opposition of the
measure.
KEVIN MCCOY, testifying from Anchorage, felt this bill asks Alaskan
voters to make a decision in a vacuum. The voters are not being
informed of what this change will do to the state's burden of proof
requirements in a criminal case, nor are they being told what the
current sentencing structure is. A death penalty conviction makes
it harder to convict those who truly have committed first degree
murder. To demonstrate that current sentencing laws work, he named
several infamous cases. For example, Louis Hastings killed six
people in McCarthy; he was sentenced to 630 years in jail and will
be eligible for parole after 210 years. Most citizens think
murderers are released from prison in seven years.
SCOTT STERLING, an attorney, testified in opposition to CSSSSB 52
(Jud) for the following reasons. It is hypocritical to punish
heinous crimes by means of a heinous crime. Research throughout
history does not confirm the claim that capital punishment is an
effective general deterrent. Once inflicted, the death penalty's
irreversibility prevents correction of those instances in which the
criminal justice system convicts the wrong person. Research shows
the death penalty is not applied in proportion to the seriousness
of the crime. Death is imposed on a randomly selected subset of
people convicted of capital offenses. Prosecutorial discretion, in
charging and plea bargaining, virtually assures this randomness.
The death penalty is far more frequently imposed on minorities than
on whites. As a class, paroled murderers show lower recidivism
rates for their crimes than do most classes of felons. This is
tied to the sociological fact that most murders occur on a one-time
or a crime of passion basis.
Number 539
GINA TABACHKI testified from Fairbanks in opposition to CSSSSB 52
(Jud). She finds an advisory vote to be unreasonable and an
abdication of legislative responsibility. She urged Senators to
review the merits of the capital punishment bill rather than rely
on measures like an advisory vote. She expressed her frustration
that she had prepared testimony on the merits of the death penalty
in response to SSSB 52, which was the measure scheduled. She
questioned if the committee substitute was a deliberate attempt to
avoid discussion on the merits of the issue. She felt it is unfair
to citizens who try to use the existing process to express views.
DAVID SEID, a public defender from Ketchikan, opposed CSSSSB
52(Jud), and agreed with Ms. Tabachki's testimony. He was informed
and believed he would be addressing the merits of capital
punishment. He also agreed with Mr. McConus' and Mr. McCoy's
views. He urged the committee to remove the bill, and bring
forward debate on the merits of capital punishment.
Number 502
CHRISTINE REICHMAN testified from Valdez in opposition to CSSSSB 52
(Jud). She agreed with all previous witnesses.
JUSTICE VIC CARLSON, retired 4th Judicial District Superior Court
Judge, testified from Bethel. He expressed concern about putting
a vote before the people without a full educational package. One
of the issues that has not already been addressed is how the death
penalty shifts the balance of power between the prosecution and the
person on trial. When a person is on trial and may be facing
capital punishment, the district attorney can offer to remove the
capital punishment penalty which almost forces the defendant to
accept the plea agreement of life imprisonment even if he/she did
not commit the crime. He believes it is the responsibility of the
legislature to engage in this discussion and educational process,
and not just pass the issue to the public who cannot be expected to
review it in depth.
BOB KINTZELE, a legal investigator from Kenai, worked on death
penalty cases in California which involved Alaska citizens and
assured committee members the costs of such cases are extreme. He
compared the capital punishment advisory vote to the capital move
vote. He believes the public will need to know the costs
associated with capital punishment. He estimated each case would
cost $3-$5 million at a minimum.
CHARLES ROHRBACHER, made the following comments on behalf of
Amnesty International. Amnesty International works worldwide,
without condition, for the release of all prisoners of conscience,
for the fair and speedy trial of all prisoners, regardless of
charge, and against all forms of torture and inhumane treatment of
any prisoners, and for the abolition of the death penalty. He
stated Amnesty International opposes any step, including an
advisory vote, that advances the reinstatement of the death penalty
in Alaska. The death penalty is morally wrong. No vote by a
majority, anywhere, changes that fact. The death penalty is a
human rights violation. CSSSSB 52 (Jud) contains no death penalty
alternatives and does not inform voters of the potential cost of
the death penalty versus life imprisonment. He provided committee
members with a booklet, "Don't Kill for Us." Amnesty International
believes the death penalty sends the wrong message. It involves
the state in condoning cold, calculated taking of life. It
legitimizes murder as a problem solving method. All western
countries, except for the United States, have abolished the death
penalty. It does not protect society, but has a brutalizing effect
showing that life is cheap. It redirects the attention from the
victim to the perpetrator. Countries that the U.S. has been highly
critical of for human rights violations, such as El Salvador and
South Africa, have in the last ten years either abolished or
overturned their death penalties. Amnesty International focusses
on people suffering from the arbitrary actions of government. Of
major concern is that innocent people may be executed. There are
23 known innocent people who have been executed since 1923. Thomas
Jefferson did not believe in having a death penalty until it was
possible to demonstrate the infallibility of human judgments.
Number 414
JOHN GALLANT, representing Amnesty International from Soldotna,
read quotes from Camus and discussed his opposition to the measure
based on religious tenets. He commented that in Alaska, religion
is very dominant. He shared figures from a document compiled by
Alaskans Against the Death Penalty (Jan., 1994). The cost of
instituting the death penalty in Alaska will exceed $21 million in
the first four years. Those figures were calculated using
departmental fiscal notes. The figures are based on an average of
six death penalty cases, however an average of 25 first degree
murder cases are litigated per year. The cost of an execution is
three times the amount it would cost to imprison a person in a
single cell at the highest security level for 40 years. He added
the critical issue is the taking of human life, not the cost.
Number 372
BARBARA HOOD, an Anchorage businesswoman and Amnesty International
member, testified in opposition to the death penalty, and the
advisory ballot because it forces voters into a deceptive choice.
She noted the following myths about the death penalty:
1. the death penalty is less costly - studies show the death
penalty is consistently more expensive;
2. the death penalty deters crime - no study can determine
this to be true;
3. law enforcement agencies support the death penalty - in
a 1995 poll of chiefs of police nationwide, two-thirds felt the
death penalty is not an effective law enforcement tool;
4. victims' families demand the death penalty - some are the
most ardent opponents to execution because they believe it to be a
horrible memorial to a loved one;
5. race is not a factor - studies show race plays a
significant role in who is executed - in Territorial Alaska, 75
percent of those executed were Alaska Natives or other minorities;
6. the death penalty is not arbitrary - last year the State
of Texas executed a man after they discovered he had not committed
the murder for which he was convicted;
7. no innocent lives are lost - our legal institutions are
not perfect, just as human beings are not perfect.
The advisory ballot will do nothing to change these misperceptions
about the death penalty.
WALTER [indisc.] read a statement for Charlotte Bashom, who
represented the Central Alaska Friends Conference, a statewide
conference of Quaker churches. [Because of poor transmission, that
statement was not transcribed but is available in written form
through the Senate Judiciary Committee.]
Number 291
CHARLES CAMPBELL, past Director of the Division of Corrections,
with 45 years of experience in the field of Corrections, stated he
is unable to address the issue adequately in the time period
provided. He stated the legislature is in the position to do an
enormously good deed for the people of the state, by deciding to
embark on a truly serious, objective, legitimate, authentic inquiry
into what the death penalty is all about. He has absolutely no
doubt whatsoever that the conclusion would be that to reintroduce
the death penalty would be to go back on the wisdom of the
territorial legislators and would be a devastating mistake. It
would not serve the best interests of the state, would not reduce
crime, and would bring about a great deal of capriciousness and
unfairness. He would look forward to participating in a serious
inquiry on the merits of the death penalty.
JEROME ADAMS testified from Fairbanks in opposition to the death
penalty for three reasons: innocent people are convicted; life is
more important and more valuable than any state right; and
economically it is illogical. He expressed concern that the public
has not been adequately informed about this bill, and that more
attention has been given to wolf control than the death penalty.
ROBERT CROSSMAN, testified for the Anchorage Friends Meeting of the
Quakers, in opposition to the death penalty. He agreed with
previous arguments about the practical and public policy objections
against the proposed bill. He believes that murder is wrong, and
that taking human life is murder. The committee substitute is an
attempt to evade responsibility for these objections. This bill
provides the public with a one-sided issue, unsupported by fact,
and gives the perception that by supporting the death penalty one
will be taking a positive step toward the reduction of crime, when
the opposite is true.
Number 224
LIZ DODD, a state and national board member of the Alaska Chapter
of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), opposed this revised
approach to achieving state executions, just as the ACLU would not
have supported a state initiative in 1964 in Arkansas to enforce
segregation of schools. Tyranny by majority is tyranny
nonetheless. It is a disservice to our democracy to put before the
people a referendum that misleads by omission. In states with a
death penalty, retribution is paid for out of the prevention fund.
Executing people after they commit crimes will be done instead of
stopping people before they commit the crimes. Trading retribution
for prevention is not an exchange the people of Alaska would
support if informed. The proposed language would not fully inform
citizens of how this shifting of corrections funds will concretely
harm them. Crime must be stopped at its origins. Every profile of
every killer illuminates one factor: that person was the victim of
neglect, abuse or brutality. The need to curb brutality and abuse
in our culture is at the nucleus of crime prevention. Finally,
everyone in this state has been victimized by some state error,
whether because of human error or computer error. Capital
punishment inevitably involves mistakes that once made, can never
be corrected. Corrections are not made during the appeals process
since appeals are expensive and are being curtailed. Executions
are happening now at a fast pace, with limited appeals. One rule
of government is that mistakes happen. The death penalty will only
curtail the right of all Alaskans to live their lives free of the
threat of state execution.
Number 167
ARTHUR COUCH testified from Kenai in support of CSSSSB 52. He
described a situation in which a murderer was not convicted, and
questioned how justice was served.
Number 145
BRANT MCGEE, representing himself, testified from Anchorage. His
primary concern with the death penalty is with the costs, which are
nearly exponential. The initial cost of reintroducing the death
penalty will be $4 million but within two years the cost will
double in order to process cases. The problem is that the cases do
not go away. Currently most cases are finalized within one to two
years, even with appeals. The national average for the time of
conviction to the time of execution is almost ten years, therefore
in Alaska, those cases would continue to be litigated on an ever
more complex level of appellate review during that decade long
period. If the legal system started out with six cases per year,
there would be 12 cases in the second year, 18 in the third year,
etc. At the end of ten years, before a single person has been
executed, there would be 60 extraordinarily demanding cases. More
than $50 million will be spent before the first person is executed.
Voters must be fully informed of the complete cost over a ten year
period prior to a vote on the reimposition of the death penalty.
Number 085
SENATOR TAYLOR asked Mr. McGee to provide the committee with
information on costs, especially in relation to the cost of the
recent case in Florida where two German tourists were murdered and
the convict plead out to a life imprisonment term. He discussed
Judge Carlson's comments about the frightening leverage given to
the legal system if the death penalty is imposed. In summary, he
stated he was dismayed by the idea that it is more morally
appropriate to sentence a person to life in prison and felt that
sentence to be more torturous than the death penalty.
Due to time constraints, no further testimony was taken. SENATOR
TAYLOR asked that witnesses send written comments to the committee
for distribution. The meeting was adjourned at 3:05 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|