Legislature(1993 - 1994)

11/16/1993 09:00 AM Senate JUD

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
           JOINT SENATE AND HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE                          
                       November 16, 1993                                       
                           9:00 a.m.                                           
  SENATE MEMBERS PRESENT                                                       
 Senator Robin Taylor, Chairman                                                
 Senator Rick Halford, Vice-Chairman                                           
 Senator Dave Donley                                                           
 Senator Suzanne Little                                                        
  SENATE MEMBERS ABSENT                                                        
 Senator George Jacko                                                          
  HOUSE MEMBERS PRESENT                                                        
 Representative Brian Porter, Chairman                                         
 Representative Jeannette James, Vice-Chairman                                 
 Representative Gail Phillips                                                  
 Representative Pete Kott                                                      
 Representative Joe Green                                                      
 Representative Jim Nordlund                                                   
 Representative Cliff Davidson (participated                                   
  via teleconference from Kodiak)                                              
  HOUSE MEMBERS ABSENT                                                         
 Representative John Davies                                                    
  OTHERS PRESENT                                                               
 Representative Con Bunde                                                      
 Representative Ed Willis                                                      
 Representative Jerry Sanders                                                  
  COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                           
 HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 43                                                 
 Proposed an amendment to the Constitution of the State of                     
 Alaska relating to penal administration.                                      
 HOUSE BILL NO. 162                                                            
 "An act authorizing capital punishment, classifying murder in                 
 the first degree as a capital felony, and establishing                        
 sentencing procedures for capital felonies, authorizing an                    
 advisory vote on instituting capital punishment; amending                     
 Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure 32, 32.1, and 32.3 and                     
 Alaska Rules of Appellate Procedure 204, 209, 210, and 212;                   
 and providing for an effective date."                                         
 SENATE BILL NO. 127                                                           
 "An act authorizing capital punishment, classifying murder in                 
 the first degree as a capital felony, and establishing                        
 sentencing procedures for capital felonies; authorizing an                    
 advisory vote on instituting capital punishment; and providing                
 for an effective date."                                                       
  PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION                                             
 HJR 43 - No previous action to record.                                        
 HB 162 - No previous action to record.                                        
 SB 127 - No previous action to record.                                        
  WITNESS REGISTER                                                             
 Deborah Ivy, Attorney                                                         
 Victims for Justice                                                           
 1007 W. Third, #400                                                           
 Anchorage, Alaska 99801                                                       
   POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HJR 43.                                       
 Linda Akers, Deputy Director                                                  
 of Crime Strike for the NRA                                                   
 2600 N. Central Street                                                        
 Phoenix, Arizona 85025                                                        
   POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HJR 43.                                       
 William F. Dewey, Attorney                                                    
 1150 P Street                                                                 
 Anchorage, Alaska 99501                                                       
   POSITION STATEMENT: Proposed changes to HJR 43.                             
 Elizabeth Bellinghiri, Staff                                                  
 Representative Jerry Sanders                                                  
 State Capitol                                                                 
 Juneau, AK 99801-1182                                                         
   POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 162.                                    
 Jerry Luckhaupt, Attorney                                                     
 Legislative Legal Counsel                                                     
 130 Seward Street, #401                                                       
 Juneau, Alaska 99801                                                          
   POSITION STATEMENT: Drafted HB 162 and SB 127.                              
 Edward E. McNally, District Attorney                                          
 Third Judicial District                                                       
 1031 W. 4th, Suite 520                                                        
 Anchorage, Alaska 99501-1975                                                  
   POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 162 and SB 127.                            
 John Salemi, Director                                                         
 Public Defender Agency                                                        
 900 W. 5th, Suite 200                                                         
 Anchorage, Alaska 99501-2090                                                  
   POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 162 and SB 127.                              
 Brant McGee, Director                                                         
 Office of Public Advocacy                                                     
 900 W. 5th, Suite 525                                                         
 Anchorage, Alaska 99501-2090                                                  
   POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 162 and SB 127.                              
 Sharon Nahorney                                                               
 619 E. 5th                                                                    
 Anchorage, Alaska 99501                                                       
   POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 162 and SB 127.                            
 Ted Lemaire                                                                   
 701 Birch                                                                     
 Anchorage, Alaska 99501                                                       
   POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 162 and SB 127.                         
 Donna Dinsmore Poff                                                           
 Anchorage LIO                                                                 
   POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 162 and SB 127.                            
 Jonathan Katcher, Attorney                                                    
 912 W. 6th Ave.                                                               
 Anchorage, Alaska 99501                                                       
   POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 162 and SB 127.                              
 Michelle Kerr                                                                 
 Anchorage LIO                                                                 
   POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 162 and SB 127.                            
 John Farleigh                                                                 
 1319 H Street                                                                 
 Anchorage, Alaska 99501                                                       
   POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 162 and SB 127.                              
 Randall Burns                                                                 
 American Civil Liberties Union                                                
 P.O. Box 201844                                                               
 Anchorage, Alaska 66520                                                       
   POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 162 and SB 127.                              
 Hugh Fleischer, Attorney                                                      
 1401 W. 11th Ave.                                                             
 Anchorage, Alaska 99501                                                       
   POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed to HB 162 and SB 127.                           
 Terry Burrell                                                                 
 3716 Wesley Ave.                                                              
 Anchorage, Alaska 99508                                                       
   POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 162 and SB 127.                            
 John Havelock                                                                 
 former Alaska Attorney General                                                
 604 W. 4th Ave., Suite 21                                                     
 Anchorage, AK 99501                                                           
   POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 162 and SB 127.                              
 Marie Josie Jones                                                             
 9499 Brayton Drive, Lot 41                                                    
 Anchorage, AK 99507                                                           
   POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 162 and SB 127.                              
 Allan Barnes                                                                  
 UAA Justice Center                                                            
 3211 Providence Drive                                                         
 Anchorage, Alaska 99508                                                       
   POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 162 and SB 127.                         
 Diane Schenker                                                                
 Department of Corrections                                                     
 2200 E. 42nd Ave.                                                             
 Anchorage, Alaska 99508                                                       
   POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed fiscal note for Corrections.                  
 Kathy Kainer                                                                  
 311 Melody Place, Apt. A                                                      
 Anchorage, Alaska 99504                                                       
   POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 162 and SB 127.                              
 Jack Keane                                                                    
 2152 Dawson Street                                                            
 Anchorage Alaska 99503                                                        
   POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 162 and SB 127.                              
 Lisa Rieger, Attorney                                                         
 UAA Justice Center                                                            
 3211 Providence Drive                                                         
 Anchorage, Alaska 99508                                                       
   POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 162 and SB 127.                              
 Frank Cahill                                                                  
 2303 Tulik Drive                                                              
 Anchorage, Alaska 99517                                                       
   POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 162 and SB 127.                              
 Arthur E. Curtis                                                              
 605 Sitka, # 203                                                              
 Anchorage, Alaska 99501                                                       
   POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 162 and SB 127.                              
 Dr. David Dolese                                                              
 2517 Foraker Drive                                                            
 Anchorage, Alaska 99517                                                       
   POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 162 and SB 127.                              
 Ron Dailey                                                                    
 7841 Port Orford Drive                                                        
 Anchorage, AK 99516                                                           
   POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 162 and SB 127.                              
 Charles E. McKee                                                              
 1800 DeBarr Road, # 63                                                        
 Anchorage, Alaska 99504                                                       
   POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 162 and SB 127.                              
 Constance Griffity                                                            
 Sitka, Alaska                                                                 
   POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 162 and SB 127.                              
 Liz Dodd                                                                      
 100 Parks Street                                                              
 Juneau, Alaska 99801                                                          
   POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 162 and SB 127.                              
 Ron Reed                                                                      
 112 Behrends Ave.                                                             
 Juneau, Alaska 99801                                                          
   POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 162 and SB 127.                              
 Bill Glude                                                                    
 Box 22316                                                                     
 Juneau, Alaska 99802                                                          
   POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 162 and SB 127.                              
 Amy Paige                                                                     
 592 Satter Street                                                             
 Juneau, Alaska 99801                                                          
   POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 162 and SB 127.                              
 David Richards                                                                
 393 Bering                                                                    
 Soldotna, Alaska 99669                                                        
   POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 162 and SB 127.                              
 WRITTEN TESTIMONY RECEIVED FROM THESE PEOPLE:                                 
 John Shaffer                                                                  
 303 Kimsham                                                                   
 Sitka, Alaska 99835                                                           
 Kevin F. McGee                                                                
 1113 N Street                                                                 
 Anchorage, Alaska 99501                                                       
 Mary Geddes                                                                   
 2544 Forest Park Drive, # 2                                                   
 Anchorage, AK 99517                                                           
 Matthew Nicolai                                                               
 601 W. 5th Ave., Suite 200                                                    
 Anchorage, AK 99501                                                           
  ACTION NARRATIVE                                                             
 TAPE 93-59, SIDE A                                                            
 Number 001                                                                    
  CHAIRMAN ROBIN TAYLOR  called the Joint Senate and House                     
 Judiciary Committee to order and invited  REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN                
 PORTER    to begin the meeting.                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER recognized committee members from the                   
 House Judiciary Committee present: VICE-CHAIR JEANNETTE JAMES,                
 testifying via teleconference from Kodiak.  He introduced both                
 his legislative aide, ERIC MUSSER, and the House Judiciary                    
 Counsel, DANIELLE ROPER.                                                      
 SENATOR TAYLOR also reported a quorum of the Senate Judiciary                 
 Committee with the appearance of SENATOR DAVE DONLEY and                      
 SENATOR SUZANNE LITTLE.                                                       
 ADMINISTRATION) by the House Judiciary Committee to the                       
 agenda.  He explained that HB 162, (CAPITAL PUNISHMENT FOR                    
 MURDER), along with the companion bill in the Senate, SB 127,                 
 (CAPITAL PUNISHMENT FOR MURDER) would be considered later by                  
 SENATOR TAYLOR.                                                               
 At this time, REPRESENTATIVE PORTER welcomed REPRESENTATIVES                  
 CON BUNDE and ED WILLIS, and announced the committee was now                  
 connected by teleconference to Barrow, Ketchikan, Kodiak, and                 
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER gave a historical review of HJR 43,                     
 credited SENATOR DONLEY for his involvement in the bill, and                  
 expressed his desire to see the bill passed this session.  He                 
 introduced JANICE LIENHART, who has worked for Victims for                    
 Justice on the bill.  Additionally, REPRESENTATIVE PORTER                     
 presented the two parts of the bill as proposed constitutional                
 amendments, and he described the manner in which the                          
 amendments would be confirmed in the legislative process and                  
 by a vote of the public.                                                      
 Number 051                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER continued with an explanation of the                    
 bill as it dealt with Section 12 of Article I in relation to                  
 his previous experience in law enforcement.  He reviewed the                  
 provisions of Section 12 as explained in the Constitution to                  
 be the "reformation of the offender."  REPRESENTATIVE PORTER                  
 expressed his disagreement with this concept both presently                   
 and from his past work in law enforcement and urged the                       
 reconstruction of the constitutional provision to read as                     
 follows: "Penal Administration shall be based upon the                        
 following, in the order provided.  First, the need for                        
 protecting the public, community condemnation of the offender,                
 and the principal of reformation."  REPRESENTATIVE PORTER                     
 didn't propose the removal of reformation from the amendment,                 
 but thought it was time everyone else was given equal, if not                 
 first consideration.                                                          
 Secondly, REPRESENTATIVE PORTER indicated the need for a                      
 provision to include, within the Constitution, rights for the                 
 victims of crime, and he explained the need to balance the                    
 rights of people as described in the Bill of Rights in the                    
 U.S. Constitution.  He criticized the Constitution of the                     
 State of Alaska, how it most benefitted the defendants in                     
 criminal justice suits, and how the legislation would increase                
 the fundamental rights for victims by placing the provisions                  
 of HJR 43 in the Alaskan Constitution.                                        
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER continued to assure the continuance of                  
 rights that presently exist for criminal defendants, but he                   
 said HJR 43 would present more balanced rights to victims than                
 have not existed previously.                                                  
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER concluded his presentation and called                   
 on the first person to testify, DEBORAH IVY, representing                     
 Victims for Justice.  In addition, he explained MS. IVY would                 
 then introduce LINDA AKERS, a Deputy Director for Crime                       
 Strike, and a former U.S. Attorney for Arizona.                               
 Number 096                                                                    
 SENATOR TAYLOR noted for the record the appearance of SENATOR                 
 HALFORD, Senate President.                                                    
 MS. IVY introduced herself to the Joint Judiciary Committee                   
 as a victim's rights advocate, a life-long Alaskan resident,                  
 and a law partner in the firm of DELANEY, WILES, HAYS,                        
 REITMAN, & BRUBAKER, INC. in Anchorage.  She described the                    
 organization of Victims for Justice in Anchorage as being led                 
 by JANICE LIENHART and her sister to assist crime victims                     
 throughout the State of Alaska, and she further described her                 
 reasons for being involved in the organization.                               
 MS. IVY thanked REPRESENTATIVE PORTER, and the members of the                 
 joint judiciary committee, for the opportunity to address the                 
 legislators, and to commend them for taking the lead in                       
 passing a resolution to provide constitutional rights to crime                
 victims, and she stressed the importance of their step.  She                  
 reiterated her commitment to assisting the committee members                  
 to pass the resolution on victim's constitutional rights, and                 
 she reviewed some concepts on the background of constitutional                
 rights for victims, beginning with the work of a presidential                 
 task force on victims of crime in 1981 & 1982 under PRESIDENT                 
 RONALD REAGAN.                                                                
 As a result of this work, it was suggested the Sixth Amendment                
 to the U.S. Constitution be expanded to include  "the victim                  
 in every criminal prosecution shall have the right to be                      
 present and be heard at all critical stages of the judicial                   
 proceedings."  MS. IVY continued to explain the work done by                  
 local victims rights leaders in other states to implement                     
 victim's constitutional rights by amending their state                        
 constitutions, and thereafter to pursue amending the U. S.                    
 Number 152                                                                    
 MS. IVY described to date the provision by fourteen states for                
 victim's rights by changing their constitutions, with twelve                  
 more states presently seeking to amend their constitutions.                   
 In addition, she described previous flagrant disregard for the                
 statutory rights of crime victims in these states.  She quoted                
 the findings of the presidential task force as asserting the                  
 statutory rights were, and are, subservient to the offender's                 
 constitutional rights and would not be changed until the                      
 victims were given equal consideration.                                       
 MS. IVY continued to explain why this "basic law" should be                   
 in the Alaska State Constitution to prevent victims from                      
 becoming second class citizens in the process, and she                        
 discussed the relevance of the experience of victim's rights                  
 in the State of Michigan to the Alaskan Constitution.  MS. IVY                
 explained how victims can become brutalized by a lack of                      
 victim's rights and cited an Alaskan case, Raven v. State, to               
 prove her argument for amending the Alaskan Constitution.                     
 Number 209                                                                    
 MS. IVY described the pervasiveness of crime throughout the                   
 State of Alaska, and she examined the protection for the                      
 offender through numerous provisions.  She enumerated these                   
 protections as given in statute and interpreted "due process"                 
 to give expanded protection to the offenders.  MS. IVY also                   
 explained she did not proposed to remove these protection for                 
 the offenders, but to change the status quo where presently                   
 the victim is "victimized" by both the offender and the                       
 judicial system.                                                              
 Number 258                                                                    
 MS. IVY requested the proposed amendment be placed before the                 
 voters in the next general election, and she explained why she                
 thought the voters would vote "yes."  She concluded by sharing                
 a quote from THOMAS JEFFERSON, since she thought it was                       
 particularly relevant.                                                        
 At the conclusion of her testimony, REPRESENTATIVE PORTER                     
 reviewed the process from there and decided to invite MS. IVY                 
 to introduce LINDA AKERS.  MS. AKERS was introduced as the                    
 Deputy Director for Crime Strike, an arm of the National Rifle                
 Association, working primarily in the area of victims rights                  
 advocacy to establish rights for crime victims and to combat                  
 crime through legislative reform.  MS. IVY reviewed her                       
 background of service as a U. S. Attorney, as a member of the                 
 U. S. Attorney General's advisory committee to assist the                     
 attorney general in formulating national policies within the                  
 U. S. Department of Justice, as well as other relevant                        
 positions in the justice system.                                              
 Number 307                                                                    
 MS. AKERS commended the legislators for taking the step                       
 forward to provide for the rights of victims as well as for                   
 the accused.  She thanked the chairmen and members of both the                
 Senate and House Judiciary Committees.                                        
 MS. AKERS testified as to her position with the National Rifle                
 Association to provide criminal justice reform, with her main                 
 emphasis on victim's advocacy.  She described her vantage view                
 of the impact of laws on the victims in relationship to the                   
 accused and the victims.  She described a time when victims                   
 she observed had no rights, but were merely used as evidence                  
 in a case.                                                                    
 MS. AKERS enumerated the grievances as perceived in victim's                  
 rights - no rights at all for victims in Alaska and for all                   
 but a few states in the United States.  She narrated lengthy                  
 scenarios in which victims were further victimized by the                     
 judicial system.                                                              
 Number 354                                                                    
 MS. AKERS explained how the courts could balance the rights                   
 of the victim against the rights of the accused, and why the                  
 changes should be made by inclusion in the constitution rather                
 than by statue.  She outlined the problems of amending by                     
 statute using the premise of "fundamental law."  She took on                  
 the arguments by those opposed to victim's rights, giving her                 
 answers from personal experience.  MS. AKERS explained how the                
 changes would add to the responsibilities of the prosecutor,                  
 but stressed that no right of the victim would come at the                    
 expense of the defendant in the proposed amendment to the                     
 constitution.  She took on the problem of cost, explaining why                
 there would only be a minimal rise in cost.                                   
 Number 404                                                                    
 MS. AKERS explained the tremendous cost of crime to the victim                
 and to society, and gave her opinion the government's most                    
 important function should be the protection of life, liberty,                 
 and property of people.  She gave some background information                 
 on experience in Arizona with the passage of a victim's Bill                  
 of Rights in 1990 in a ballot initiative, and a subsequent set                
 of laws written to implement the constitutional amendment in                  
 1992.  She traced the evolvement of the victim's rights law                   
 in the Arizona Courts and gave extensive examples of cases to                 
 show the balance in the law.                                                  
 Number 450                                                                    
 MS. AKERS explained the opponents of victim's rights in                       
 Arizona had raised the same "predictions of doom" as those                    
 heard in Alaska, but she declared these predictions have not                  
 come true.  She also explained how the victims have become a                  
 part of the criminal justice system to the advantage of                       
 everyone in Arizona, and how the sanctity of the constitution                 
 could also be preserved in Alaska.                                            
 MS. AKERS enumerated the plus side of the constitutional                      
 amendment which would provide the victims with basic rights                   
 to respect, protection, participation, justice, healing, and                  
 finality to their ordeal.  She described how obstacles to the                 
 victims would be minimized in terms of getting their rights                   
 established.  She concluded her remarks with a success story                  
 from Arizona and answered questions from the audience.                        
 Number 499                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER thanked MS. AKERS for her extensive                     
 coverage of the manner in which the constitutional amendment                  
 works in Arizona.  He then read the specific victim's rights                  
 in HJR 43 to be considered for inclusion in the Alaska                        
 Constitution.  He claimed the legislation would not change any                
 of the statutory rights presently provided.                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER then opened the meeting to questions,                   
 and called on SENATOR DONLEY, who described the differences                   
 between HJR 43 and SJR 2 (RIGHTS OF VICTIMS OF CRIMES).                       
 TAPE 93-59, SIDE B                                                            
 Number 001                                                                    
 SENATOR DONLEY spoke to possible interpretation when new                      
 material is introduced in the constitution.  REPRESENTATIVE                   
 PORTER explained the phrase in question was recognized by the                 
 Alaska Supreme Court.  SENATOR DONLEY explained victims were                  
 not treated in the same manner as the public.  There ensued                   
 a discussion among the legislators and MS. IVY, who asked for                 
 a clear delineation to prevent problems with interpretation.                  
 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN questioned a point by MS. AKERS about the                
 placement of the provision in the Alaska State Constitution                   
 as to whether it could be over ridden by any other condition.                 
 MS. AKERS explained it would give the victim's rights parity                  
 and equality within the fundamental document, whereas statutes                
 can be subject to change, be amended, and be interpreted when                 
 inconsistent with a constitutional provision.  She also                       
 interpreted a constitutional provision as always given                        
 precedence over a statute.                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN than asked if there was any benefit to                   
 certain wording of the proposed amendment to prevent liberal                  
 interpretation by the courts, and MS. AKERS said the more                     
 specific the rights, the less chance it would be open to                      
 Number 063                                                                    
 MS. AKERS continued to explain the enumeration of specific                    
 victim's rights on which to be relied by the victims and the                  
 courts as was done in Arizona.                                                
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER next called on REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE, who                
 asked about the opposition to the victim's rights amendment.                  
 MS. AKERS explained there was opposition from those who didn't                
 want anything done to the rights of the defendant, from those                 
 who complained about cost, and prosecutors, who were concerned                
 about various aspects.  She gave examples of these oppositions                
 from her assignment in Arizona.                                               
 Number 129                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked if it would be considered a greater                
 burden by the defense attorneys, and MS. AKERS replied the                    
 defense attorney would still have all of the rights that                      
 accrued to the defendant as established by judicial principles                
 and court interpretations.  She pointed out the differences                   
 between the defense attorney and the role of the prosecutor.                  
 Number 160                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES expressed her distress that there has                    
 been unfair treatment of the victims, and that they should                    
 have already been protected under the constitution.  She                      
 agreed with the quote from THOMAS JEFFERSON, and urged the                    
 "pushing forward" of the legislation.  REPRESENTATIVE PORTER                  
 agreed with her distress.                                                     
 In his turn, SENATOR DONLEY explained his feelings that the                   
 rights of the defendant were well protected, the costs were                   
 negligible, and the classic traditional criminal law theory                   
 had not done a good job in protecting the rights of the                       
 victims.  He suggested the bureaucracy as a huge opponent                     
 because the implementation of the rules create new jobs and                   
 new steps to follow - which they don't like.                                  
 SENATOR DONLEY also disagreed there should be any impact on                   
 the defendants, but said there would be the question of the                   
 impact on sentencing.  He referred to a previous case                         
 concerning a victim's impact on sentencing, and he asked MS.                  
 AKERS if she knew of such legislation.                                        
 Number 207                                                                    
 MS. AKERS said the case was overturned and the victims were                   
 allowed to talk about the impact of the capital crime on them                 
 at the sentencing phase.                                                      
 SENATOR DONLEY thought it was important to differentiate                      
 between the guilt phase and the sentencing of the defendant.                  
 He reminded the committee the victim did not get a chance to                  
 testify until guilt had been assigned and not prejudicial to                  
 the guilt of the defendant.                                                   
 who said SENATOR DONLEY had partially answered her question,                  
 but she wanted to know what had held up passage of the bill                   
 in the past.  REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he would ask someone                 
 to testify on this.                                                           
 SENATOR TAYLOR explained he had sat on three sides of the                     
 issue, one being as a public defender during his time in                      
 private practice, his service of six years on the district                    
 court bench, and now, to look at the issue from the                           
 legislative perspective.  He was in agreement with SENATOR                    
 DONLEY 'S description of the stages to decide on guilt and                    
 moving on to what is an appropriate sentence - an entirely                    
 different forum.  SENATOR TAYLOR explained it was at this                     
 point the additional attention from the victim would be                       
 Number 263                                                                    
 SENATOR TAYLOR described how, in earlier years, defendants                    
 might plead to a Class A misdemeanor and end up in his                        
 district court without the benefit of the superior court with                 
 pre-sentencing reports from those involved with the defendant.                
 He also described how he tried, when he was a judge, to                       
 contact the victim, which he felt gave him a broader depth of                 
 the offense.  SENATOR TAYLOR thought it enabled him to provide                
 a rehabilitative factor in the sentencing of the defendant.                   
 SENATOR TAYLOR discussed with REPRESENTATIVE PORTER the                       
 advantage of slowing down the repeat offender, and how                        
 important he thought the legislation was to structuring                       
 Number 305                                                                    
 MS. AKERS used the recent DENNY trial in Los Angeles, in which                
 the victim had forgiven his assailants, to explain the use of                 
 the victim's impact statement.  SENATOR TAYLOR agreed that                    
 many people resolve their feelings as a victim by forgiveness,                
 and MS. AKERS explained it was important that the victim have                 
 the right to participate and be heard.                                        
 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked MS. AKERS if there was any relation                
 to civil cases, and she had no evidence from Arizona that made                
 it easier to sue in such a case.                                              
 Number 359                                                                    
 SENATOR DONLEY asked MS. AKERS for some additional information                
 on principles not directly in the victim's rights area, and                   
 she explained his request dealt mainly with appellate                         
 decisions as to the purpose of sentencing.  She thought his                   
 proposed language should be kept in mind during the                           
 implementation of the legislative language.                                   
 Number 422                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER next invited WILLIAM F. DEWEY, a                        
 criminal defense attorney from Anchorage, to testify on the                   
 proposed legislation.  MR. DEWEY criticized the previous                      
 testimony for discussing the criminals and criminal defendants                
 as if they were already convicted, and their rights as being                
 different from those of a citizen.  Based on his experience,                  
 he thought the proposed legislation was cosmetic, and he gave                 
 some examples from his cases.                                                 
 MR. DEWEY said all of the victim's rights mentioned in the                    
 proposed legislation were currently in statute, but he                        
 explained the statutes were flawed and should be known to the                 
 legislators.  He said the establishment of liability to the                   
 victim is there at the time of the criminal offense, and many                 
 criminals in this state have the means to pay their victim for                
 the crime they have committed.                                                
 MR. DEWEY said the present Victims Crime Act puts the lawyer,                 
 at the time of conviction, at a disadvantage to obtain police                 
 reports, witness statements, the kinds of information                         
 necessary to further litigate the rest of the action - to                     
 present a restitution argument to a judge.  He claimed those                  
 are not available to a crime victim now.  MR. DEWEY said laws                 
 should be formulated to allow crime victims the ability to get                
 restitution.  He reviewed a second provision in the act that                  
 absolves the Department of Law and prosecutors from liability                 
 for not doing what they are required to do under the act.                     
 Number 485                                                                    
 MR. DEWEY said the results were, when the lawyer was not given                
 the information by the prosecutor, to increase the expenses                   
 to the attorney representing the victim.  He claimed there was                
 no definition, except for a broad policy sense, in the Victims                
 Crime Act as to what damages are available to victims.  He                    
 gave some case histories to support restitution.  MR. DEWEY                   
 suggested the committee focus on the real victim's needs and                  
 work towards that end.  He reviewed his reasons as to why the                 
 present act would not work and what is needed to put some                     
 teeth in the law to make it work.                                             
 Number 499                                                                    
 When asked to summarize, MR. DEWEY reviewed his solutions to                  
 meaningful legislation to which a civil litigant is entitled.                 
 SENATOR DONLEY said that in 1987 he testified in support of                   
 a bill containing all of MR. DEWEY'S suggestions, but it was                  
 opposed by the Department of Law, the Governor's office, and                  
 the Court System.                                                             
 TAPE 93-60, SIDE A                                                            
 Number 001                                                                    
 SENATOR DONLEY claimed his legislation was killed by the                      
 bureaucracy and described an ingrained opposition to the                      
 proposals in HJR 43.                                                          
 There was some general conversation among the legislators, and                
 MR. DEWEY resumed his criticism saying all of the provisions                  
 were in statute now.  He suggested the committee challenge the                
 court system on the efficiency of the system and move forward                 
 to deal with the suggestions by SENATOR DONLEY.                               
 There was a review of the reasons for putting the Victims                     
 Crime Act into the Alaska Constitution by REPRESENTATIVE                      
 PORTER, mainly to protect the provisions in case the statutory                
 rights come into conflict with the constitutional rights of                   
 the defendants.                                                               
 In answer to a question from SENATOR TAYLOR on what he would                  
 like to see in the bill, MR. DEWEY listed a definition of                     
 restitution in the constitutional provision written to have                   
 some meaning.  He said restitution presently has no meaning                   
 to a crime victim who wants to go to court to ask for                         
 restitution of non-specific damages, and he explained why the                 
 present definition did not work.                                              
 Number 062                                                                    
 MR. DEWEY gave some suggested language that would protect the                 
 right of the victim to collect additional civil damages.                      
 SENATOR DONLEY clarified the language by explaining that                      
 victims of crime have greater rights than other people in                     
 civil court, because the previous Victims Rights Act provided                 
 fewer exemptions from the collection of restitution from                      
 people who committed the crime.  He explained how there was                   
 a more limited scope in present proceedings.  MR. DEWEY                       
 explained how the view could be changed to make restitution                   
 SENATOR DONLEY concluded with a follow-up as to whether it                    
 would be appropriate to include victims in Section 1.                         
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER and SENATOR TAYLOR discussed the role                   
 of the victim in the decision making stages and whether it                    
 belonged in Section 24, to keep the victim apprised of all                    
 Number 118                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER relinquished the committee chair to                     
 SENATOR TAYLOR, who announced the hearing on HB 162 (CAPITAL                  
 MURDER).  SENATOR TAYLOR explained there would be a balance                   
 of testimony on both sides of the issue.                                      
 (There was a pause in the proceedings.)                                       
 Number 346                                                                    
 SENATOR TAYLOR called the meeting back to order and gave some                 
 background information when he co-sponsored a similar bill six                
 years ago.  He said this was the first hearing to be held in                  
 ten years on this issue.  He further said he hoped the debate                 
 would reach the floor in both houses for a vote, and he thinks                
 there should be a point in time when the death penalty should                 
 be used at the discretion of the jury.                                        
 SENATOR TAYLOR spoke about the differences in the two bills,                  
 but felt there could be some modifications in both.  He then                  
 invited REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS to give an overview of his                     
 bill, HB 162.                                                                 
 REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS thanked those present who came to                      
 discuss capital punishment, saying it has needed to be                        
 addressed for many years.  He claimed the will of the people                  
 has been thwarted in past attempts to institute the death                     
 Number 404                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS explained the bill seeks the death                     
 penalty in cases of First Degree murder with aggravating                      
 circumstances.  He further explained that if the legislation                  
 is passed by the legislature, it would go the public for an                   
 advisory vote.  REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS claimed the people of                  
 Alaska have been in favor of the death penalty by 75 to 85%                   
 in the different polls.  He feels the death penalty would be                  
 a deterrent and was supported by the will of the people.  He                  
 then turned the remainder of the overview over to his aide,                   
 ELIZABETH BELLINGHIRI.                                                        
 MS. BELLINGHIRI suggested that rather than giving a sectional                 
 analysis, she would defer to JERRY LUCKHAUPT, the attorney who                
 drafted both capital punishment bills.  REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS                
 checked to be sure MR. LUCKHAUPT would point out the                          
 differences in the two bills.                                                 
 REPRESENTATIVE PETER KOTT asked to question MS. BELLINGHIRI                   
 as to his understanding the only difference in the two bills                  
 was the prosecutorial discretion in the House version as to                   
 the treatment of the offenders and the impact on the fiscal                   
 Number 454                                                                    
 MS. BELLINGHIRI noted the fiscal notes were similar as                        
 presented by the Department of Law despite the text change to                 
 reflect the prosecutorial discretion.  She said the fiscal                    
 note for SB 127 should be approximately four times greater                    
 than for HB 162 based on figures from the Department of Law.                  
 She reviewed their analysis of the statistical manner on which                
 they based their costs and explained why the fiscal impacts                   
 were not really similar.  The Department of Law decided to                    
 change their fiscal note for the Senate version to make it a                  
 more accurate reflection.                                                     
 MS. BELLINGHIRI explained what she called a "brief difference"                
 in the two bills, and she further explained the use of the                    
 prosecutorial discretion to preserve the integrity of the                     
 system.  She said the discretion provision was to be used in                  
 heinous situations where death was a possible sentence,                       
 otherwise, she explained the two bills were the same.  Without                
 prosecutorial discretion, MS. BELLINGHIRI said the legislation                
 opened the doors to litigation.                                               
 Number 499                                                                    
 SENATOR TAYLOR asked MR. LUCKHAUPT, Legislative Counsel for                   
 Legal Services, to testify on the two bills.                                  
 MR. LUCKHAUPT began by noting both bills were drafted by him                  
 in similar fashion but were based on different versions of                    
 death penalty bills from the Fifteenth and Sixteenth                          
 Legislature.  He explained SB 127 was from a bill co-sponsored                
 by SENATOR TAYLOR from the Fifteenth Legislature that actually                
 passed the Senate that year, but did not proceed from there.                  
 He also explained the bills had been updated over the years                   
 to reflect the U. S. Supreme Court Cases on the death penalty                 
 MR. LUCKHAUPT said the death penalty issue is one of the most                 
 litigated issues to be found, but the direction from the                      
 supreme court has made the bills easier to draft, such as to                  
 narrow the discretion of the jury to the particularized nature                
 of the crime and the particularized characteristics of the                    
 defendant.  The narrowing of this focus permits the imposition                
 of the death penalty.                                                         
 MR. LUCKHAUPT then reviewed the differences such as "findings"                
 in HB 162, but not in SB 127.  He said these findings are for                 
 the legislature to decide whether or not to use.                              
 MR. LUCKHAUPT gave a comprehensive sectional analysis of both                 
 TAPE 93-60, SIDE B                                                            
 Number 001                                                                    
 This tape began with SENATOR DONLEY asking questions about the                
 aggravators.  MR. LUCKHAUPT answered that in order to impose                  
 the death penalty on someone convicted of First Degree murder,                
 at least one of the statutory aggravating factors, given later                
 in the bill, must be present.  SENATOR TAYLOR asked if they                   
 were specific to this death penalty, and MR. LUCKHAUPT said                   
 they had been added in 1992.                                                  
 MR. LUCKHAUPT continued with the sectional analysis and                       
 expanded on some of the points which would provide for a                      
 bifurcated trial and some options.                                            
 Number 125                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked MR. LUCKHAUPT if the burden of                    
 proof for the jury in finding the aggravating factor must be                  
 unanimous and beyond a reasonable doubt.  Once that is found,                 
 if they balance that and any other aggravating factors against                
 any mitigating factors they have found to a preponderance of                  
 the evidence, which is a lower standard.                                      
 MR. LUCKHAUPT quoted the supreme court as saying that once the                
 aggravating factor is found beyond a reasonable doubt the case                
 is then eligible for the death penalty, and the mitigating                    
 factors end up being a way to determine whether or not the                    
 death penalty should be imposed.  There was a general                         
 discussion of mitigating and aggravating factors and the                      
 problems of proof.                                                            
 Number 375                                                                    
 SENATOR HALFORD spoke about the Court of Appeals as being                     
 totally a legislative creation and questioned whether the                     
 legislature could define the Court of Appeals by statute.  He                 
 said the Court of Appeals is not constitutional nor is it                     
 constitutionally protected.                                                   
 MR. LUCKHAUPT said the bill had changed the jurisdiction of                   
 the Court of Appeals by not allowing them to hear capital                     
 offenses.  In answer to a question by SENATOR HALFORD, MR.                    
 LUCKHAUPT argued it was not a rule change.                                    
 SENATOR HALFORD asked if the legislature, by simple majority,                 
 could repeal the existence of the Court of Appeals, which was                 
 created by simple majority.  MR. LUCKHAUPT believed they                      
 Number 414                                                                    
 SENATOR TAYLOR asked MR. LUCKHAUPT to be available for                        
 questions after lunch.                                                        
 (The committee recessed for lunch.)                                           
 SENATOR TAYLOR reconvened the meeting in the midst of                         
 questions to MR. LUCKHAUPT by SENATOR HALFORD on the standards                
 for the use of the aggravator and the mitigator.                              
 MR. LUCKHAUPT explained the court would rule on the relevancy                 
 of the mitigating factor.  SENATOR HALFORD continued to                       
 question MR. LUCKHAUPT closely on the use of the mitigating                   
 factors and where they are found.  MR. LUCKHAUPT said the                     
 court could not limit the number of mitigators that go to the                 
 jury, so there is no way to list them - but the judge must                    
 allow any relevant mitigating evidence to go to the jury.                     
 If the list can not be constitutionally contained, SENATOR                    
 HALFORD asked if there were any parameters, and MR. LUCKHAUPT                 
 quoted from supreme court decisions that would allow any one                  
 juror to hang the process.  SENATOR HALFORD wanted to know to                 
 what extent the legislature can make the statute work, because                
 he was concerned the legislature would be creating something                  
 that cannot ever be used.                                                     
 SENATOR TAYLOR expressed interest in a more complete answer                   
 to the use of mitigating factors as used by the other thirty                  
 seven states that have a death penalty statute on their books.                
 Number 499                                                                    
 SENATOR DONLEY asked to add a caveat to the question asking                   
 how many of those state have parallel provisions in their                     
 MR. LUCKHAUPT began his explanation by discussing the balance                 
 of reformation with the protection of the public, and he                      
 repeated testimony from the constitutional convention.  He                    
 said some of the Western states had comparable language, but                  
 it was difficult to find a state that makes a perfect match.                  
 He also explained HB 162 and SB 127 were based on the Georgia                 
 system, which is used the most in the thirty seven states that                
 allow capital punishment.  He reviewed similar systems from                   
 other states.                                                                 
 MR. LUCKHAUPT said when the death penalty was struck down in                  
 1968 by the U. S. Supreme Court, they struck down a series of                 
 state laws that required mandatory imposition of the death                    
 penalty for various crimes.  States, such as Georgia, adopted                 
 a system approved by the supreme court in the early 1970's.                   
 TAPE 93-61, SIDE A                                                            
 Number 001                                                                    
 This tape picks up the question and answer session by SENATOR                 
 TAYLOR and SENATOR HALFORD with MR. LUCKHAUPT, who was                        
 explaining additional aspects of the death penalty, including                 
 the length of time served by people on death row.  He reviewed                
 the number of appeals that could be made in Alaska, even with                 
 the new legislation.                                                          
 MR. LUCKHAUPT said the lack of prosecutorial resources could                  
 hamper the use of the death penalty in Alaska, and he reviewed                
 the problems involved in prosecuting a death penalty case. He                 
 offered to do some additional research on the constitutional                  
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER presented two understandings and asked                  
 MR. LUCKHAUPT to comment.  MR. LUCKHAUPT explained the voir                   
 dire procedure where, before the trial, the two sides talk to                 
 the jury to determine what they know about the case and their                 
 feelings about the death penalty.  He also explained the role                 
 of the judge and new juries in this action.                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked if there was anything in the bills                
 that would alleviate the concerns people have at the lapsed                   
 time between conviction and the execution sentence.                           
 MR. LUCKHAUPT talked about the limitation on the Court of                     
 Appeals in the bills and the provision for direct appeal to                   
 the Alaska Supreme Court, which can remove about a year from                  
 the appellate process.  He described proposals in the federal                 
 system to streamline the Federal habeas corpus procedures, but                
 he said it did not impact the bills.  MR. LUCKHAUPT didn't                    
 hold out much hope for speedy trials.                                         
 Number 093                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked for some understanding on the                      
 procedure.  For instance, what if the defendant pleads guilty,                
 would there still be a long drawn out process.  MR. LUCKHAUPT                 
 explained, under SB 127, if the defendant pleads guilty to                    
 first degree murder, the death penalty phase of the sentencing                
 proceedings would begin.  Under HB 162, if the prosecutor has                 
 not elected to seek the death penalty, even if the defendant                  
 pleads guilty, there would be no death penalty phase.  If the                 
 prosecutor elects to seek the death penalty, or if the                        
 defendant pleads guilty without a plea bargain as to a life                   
 sentence, then the death penalty phase would begin.                           
 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN read from HB 162 and asked about the                     
 jury.  MR. LUCKHAUPT explained the role of the jury in the                    
 sentencing phase of the trial, or in the case of the judge                    
 hearing the case, a jury would have to be convened to hear the                
 sentencing phase.  They continued to discuss these provisions                 
 at some length.                                                               
 Number 190                                                                    
 SENATOR DONLEY returned to constitutional issues and directed                 
 MR. LUCKHAUPT to page 9 of a memorandum from JACK CHENOWETH,                  
 an attorney from Legislative Legal Counsel, for his opinion                   
 on the test for constitutionality under Article 1, Section 12,                
 and asked if he shared the same opinion as MR. CHENOWETH.                     
 MR. LUCKHAUPT expressed no problem with MR. CHENOWETH'S                       
 conclusion or his reasoning and explained there would be no                   
 way to predict what the Alaska Supreme Court would do under                   
 a challenge.  He cited the Raven Case as an example in Alaska               
 and summarized conclusions from other states.                                 
 SENATOR DONLEY asked MR. LUCKHAUPT on what he based his                       
 analysis of the law and gave an example from a previous                       
 meeting on the "rule of evidence" where the courts refused to                 
 recognize "legislative intent."  SENATOR DONLEY wanted to know                
 if his analysis was based on what a neutral tribunal would do                 
 or take into consideration the unique characteristics of                      
 MR. LUCKHAUPT explained that all of the considerations were                   
 factored into his decision, and he noted the inclination of                   
 the Alaska Supreme Court to utilize the state constitution to                 
 justify or strike down various actions of the legislature or                  
 the executive branch.  As a general rule, supreme courts in                   
 other states have not been too active in the enforcement of                   
 their own constitutions, but Alaska has been different.  He                   
 thought the Alaska Supreme Court has acted in a liberal manner                
 in defendant's rights but felt there has been a change in the                 
 supreme court over the last few years, which he also felt has                 
 mirrored the changing perception about crime by residents.                    
 Number 276                                                                    
 SENATOR DONLEY again expressed his concerns about how the laws                
 could be made constitutional, and he referred to several                      
 points of concern in both MR. CHENOWETH'S and MR. LUCKHAUPT'S                 
 memorandums.  SENATOR TAYLOR assured him there would be more                  
 hearing on the death penalty bills.                                           
 SENATOR TAYLOR brought the questioning to a close to allow                    
 more time to hear from others, beginning with EDWARD MCNALLY,                 
 District Attorney for the Third Judicial District in Anchorage                
 and DEAN GUANELI, Chief of the Legal Services Section of the                  
 Criminal Division, on the teleconference line from Juneau.                    
 MR. MCNALLY expressed his appreciation at being able to                       
 participate in the discussion and acknowledged those who had                  
 championed the battle for capital punishment.  He began by                    
 conveying the support of GOVERNOR WALTER HICKEL for the                       
 efforts of the committee and the governor's promise to sign                   
 any legislation that would ensure that "cop killers, and                      
 others guilty of vicious and heinous murders in Alaska will                   
 face the full range of constitutionally approved penalties."                  
 MR. MCNALLY also brought the personal thanks of ATTORNEY                      
 GENERAL CHARLIE COLE, who regrets that he was unable to                       
 participate in person.  He explained that both the governor                   
 and the attorney general had made the death penalty and the                   
 battle against violent crime a top priority.                                  
 Number 333                                                                    
 MR. MCNALLY proposed questions to be asked of those who oppose                
 the death penalty, and he began with some background material,                
 including "the death penalty is in effect in Alaska, today for                
 R.D. CHEELEY.  PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON is working to add forty                 
 seven new categories to the laws that will be effect in the                   
 State of Alaska through the Federal Court System."                            
 MR. MCNALLY noted the trial would take place in Portland,                     
 Oregon, and he asked the participants where they would prefer                 
 to see the case heard.                                                        
 MR. MCNALLY then focused on the governor's concern for "cop                   
 killers" and the change in attitude of the offender towards                   
 the police.  He said today the police are the first ones shot                 
 and targeted by criminals armed with a staggering array of                    
 weapons.  He reminded the committee of the weapons shown in                   
 a previous meeting, and he presented a case history of a                      
 heinous crime against a police officer by a juvenile with one                 
 of these weapons.                                                             
 Number 408                                                                    
 MR. MCNALLY presented some background information on the                      
 sentencing procedures in Alaska and in other states where they                
 have capital punishment.  He asked why the prosecutors in the                 
 State of Alaska do not have the same tools as the prosecutors                 
 on the federal level, with the full array of penalties on the                 
 books.  MR. MCNALLY urged a response from opponents of capital                
 When talking about costs, MR. MCNALLY gave a perspective on                   
 the cost of not having a death penalty.  He thought there were                
 many cases that could be "disposed of" short of a trial, thus                 
 saving on cost.  He offered the statistic of 30,000 policemen                 
 and women being killed in this country since it was founded,                  
 twenty six of whom were killed here in Alaska.  He said these                 
 figures don't take into account the wounded, the disabled, and                
 the suffering of the families of the officers.                                
 Number 462                                                                    
 MR. MCNALLY said the Alaskan Troopers and cops deserve all the                
 protection the law passed by the legislature can offer, and                   
 criminals need to understand that in Alaska, if you shoot a                   
 cop, you will be severely punished .... possibly with their                   
 life.  He returned to fiscal notes and budget considerations                  
 and observed that the cost of the fiscal notes are unknown and                
 resource determinations are made every day when they are                      
 screening 1,400 felony cases a year.  MR. MCNALLY urged the                   
 legislators not to make fiscal notes an obstacle to the                       
 proposed legislation.                                                         
 MR. MCNALLY said the death penalty was warranted in Alaska for                
 two principal reasons: first, because it can deter certain                    
 crimes involving premeditation and calculation, and second,                   
 society has the right to exact a just and proportionate                       
 punishment for reprehensible offenses.  He gave two examples                  
 to prove his case for the death penalty.                                      
 TAPE 93-61, SIDE B                                                            
 Number 001                                                                    
 MR. MCNALLY gave the following statement: "a criminal justice                 
 system that is limited like ours, only to lesser sanctions,                   
 is lacking in adequate deterrents and fails to meet our                       
 community standards, and their need to exact a just and                       
 proportionate punishment for the gravest offenses."                           
 MR. MCNALLY enumerated the reasons given for criminal                         
 behavior, but he rejected those in favor of designating                       
 criminal behavior as a choice between good and evil.                          
 MR. MCNALLY concluded by describing the memorial placed in                    
 Washington D. C. to the slain police men and women of the                     
 United States, as well as the memorial at the State Trooper's                 
 Headquarters in Anchorage with the names of the twenty six                    
 officers attached to a statute of an Alaskan law enforcement                  
 officer.  He offered his services as well as those of DEAN                    
 GUANELI in Juneau to answer questions on the fiscal notes.                    
 Number 067                                                                    
 SENATOR TAYLOR thanked MR. MCNALLY for his presentation, but                  
 he requested the deferment of questions to allow persons on                   
 the other side of the issue to testify.  He then called on                    
 JOHN SALEMI, Director of the Public Defender Agency, and BRANT                
 MCGEE, Director for the Office of Public Advocacy to testify.                 
 MR. SALEMI spoke to the issue he thinks binds all persons in                  
 the room together, which is our perception that we need to do                 
 something in this nation, in this state, and in this community                
 to enhance the public safety of law abiding citizens.  He                     
 suggested that people were attending the meeting to support                   
 the bills because they are frightened and frustrated by crime,                
 and they wanted solutions.                                                    
 Number 102                                                                    
 MR. SALEMI would not characterize himself as someone who was                  
 trying to defeat an enactment of the death penalty, but as a                  
 person just as concerned as the participants in the meeting                   
 over public safety issues.  He explained he planned to present                
 some information so the public could make an informed decision                
 about how to use the finite resources that we have in this                    
 state to fight crime, to provide rehabilitation, and to                       
 prevent further victimization of the populace.                                
 MR. SALEMI spoke to the perception that capital punishment                    
 deters crime, which he classified as logical and rational.                    
 He quoted REPRESENTATIVE SANDER'S view that the death penalty                 
 would deter criminals, and he described a "stack of studies"                  
 which indicates that capital punishment does not have a                       
 deterrent effect.  He asked the participants to look at more                  
 obvious evidence, which he said was thirty seven large-scale                  
 experiments - the states that have the death penalty, some for                
 many years.                                                                   
 MR. SALEMI explained there were no statistics from the thirty                 
 seven states that gave evidence the death penalty had deterred                
 violent crime or homicides.  "In fact," he said, "much of the                 
 evidence suggests just the opposite, there is no significant                  
 MR. SALEMI acknowledged that society is apparently becoming                   
 increasingly dangerous, but those tools employed are not                      
 working to fight crime.  He listed capital punishment as one                  
 of those failed experiments.  He explained that if the death                  
 penalty is removed as a deterrent to crime, it leaves only one                
 other strong or compelling use, which is to re-affirm the                     
 values of society - possibly a moral judgement.                               
 Number 158                                                                    
 MR. SALEMI discussed the down side in using capital punishment                
 to achieve retribution, the first being the expense, and he                   
 respectfully disagreed with MR. MCNALLY on the resource                       
 decisions, and drew on the experience of other jurisdictions                  
 to speculate that it would be enormously expensive to employ                  
 capital punishment in this state.  He quoted the prevailing                   
 belief that it is just the cost of law enforcement, the cost                  
 of justly punishing people.                                                   
 MR. SALEMI enumerated a list of what he considered the crimes                 
 that really affect individuals on a large scale basis: drug                   
 trafficking, burglaries, auto theft, property damage, sexual                  
 abuse, and more.  He explained the money that would go towards                
 processing the death penalty cases would be detracting from                   
 efforts of law enforcement in addressing the crimes that                      
 affect all of us on a very regular basis.                                     
 MR. SALEMI described the justice system as being frail, the                   
 probability capital punishment would be instituted in the                     
 state, and that innocent people would be executed.  He said                   
 no matter how many resources are spent on the legal process,                  
 mistakes will be made, and he reviewed all the procedures that                
 might go wrong on all levels of a death penalty case.  MR.                    
 SALEMI said these cases can be documented.                                    
 Number 274                                                                    
 MR. SALEMI explained that both he and MR. MCGEE would need                    
 larger budgets to process capital punishment cases.  He listed                
 what he considered better uses for the money, and he suggested                
 using it for the education of people on crimes and deterrents.                
 He offered each member of the committee packets of information                
 on studies about capital punishment.  He concluded by urging                  
 people to go beyond the emotional components and look at the                  
 practical effect of sound public policy.                                      
 Number 346                                                                    
 MR. MCGEE described his agency, the Office of Public Advocacy,                
 as small, expending about $6.4 million in public funds in the                 
 representation of about 10 thousand citizens in the state,                    
 with primary responsibility to abused and neglected children,                 
 incapacitated persons, and indigent criminal defendants when                  
 the court has determined the Public Defender Agency has a                     
 conflict of interest.                                                         
 MR. MCGEE said among his primary responsibilities is cost                     
 control, because nearly two thirds of the cases, for which he                 
 is responsible, are performed by private contractors and court                
 appointed professionals throughout the state.  He said he had                 
 become a student on the costs of the death penalty over the                   
 past few years because it has been considered before.                         
 MR. MCGEE expressed pleasure at being able to share his                       
 personal research information, and he referred to a New York                  
 study in 1982 which determined the average cost for each death                
 penalty case at $1.8 million.  He extrapolated that to $2.5                   
 million per case in 1996 dollars, and he said it did not point                
 to the real costs in every case.                                              
 Number 380                                                                    
 MR. MCGEE reviewed expenditures in California of $593 thousand                
 for trial costs alone, with one case in which they expended                   
 over $5 million, and in one county, California contracted with                
 six private defense counsels to represent three separate                      
 criminal defendants at $450 thousand per defendant per trial.                 
 In 1988 California is spending over $90 million a year on                     
 capital cases, and since capital punishment was instituted 11                 
 years ago the costs have amounted to about $750 million.  He                  
 said California just executed their first person earlier this                 
 MR. MCGEE explained the prosecution failure rate is quite high                
 on the number of people actually executed as opposed to those                 
 for whom the death penalty is pursued.  The trial costs alone                 
 in California is about $6 million before the person is put on                 
 death row.  He further explained in Florida the cost is $3.2                  
 million per execution.                                                        
 MR. MCGEE presented the combined fiscal notes for the Alaska                  
 Court System, the Department of Law, the Public Defender                      
 Agency, and the Office of Public Advocacy which would total                   
 over $21 million in the first four years from the enactment                   
 of the death penalty.  He claimed the figure would likely                     
 double during the first ten years, and it would be at least                   
 eight to ten years before the first Alaskan defendant is                      
 executed, which would mean Alaska would spend at least $40 to                 
 $50 million before the first Alaskan defendant is executed.                   
 Number 414                                                                    
 MR. MCGEE stressed the importance of the impact on the scarce                 
 resources in the state in relation to the experiences in other                
 states, and he quoted California as devoting half the time of                 
 their supreme court to death penalty cases.  Currently none                   
 of the Alaskan Supreme Court time is used on death penalty                    
 cases, but MR. MCGEE contended there would be tens of                         
 thousands of Alaskans, who are trying to get into District                    
 Courts, Small Claims Court, Superior Court, and the Alaska                    
 Supreme Court who would have to wait their turn in line.  He                  
 further contended there would be a dramatic slowing of the                    
 process of both criminal justice in other cases and civil                     
 justice in all cases, if the legislature enacts a law that                    
 mandates the expenditure of vast public resources on just a                   
 few cases.                                                                    
 MR. MCGEE disagreed with MR. MCNALLY as to the extent of the                  
 costs, and he encouraged legislators to become informed on the                
 vastly expensive undertaking that should go forward only with                 
 very good reasons.  In his own agency, MR. MCGEE described how                
 his representation of other individuals within his statutory                  
 mandate would suffer if he had death penalty cases, since they                
 would be the highest priority cases in every office in which                  
 they are housed.  He offered to respond to any specific                       
 questions and to share his research information on other                      
 aspects of the death penalty.                                                 
 Number 461                                                                    
 SENATOR TAYLOR thanked both MR. SALEMI and MR. MCGEE, praised                 
 their professional presentations, and assured them they would                 
 be involved in additional debate.                                             
 Next, SENATOR TAYLOR invited SHARON NAHORNEY, who testified                   
 as a member of a family of victims of violence.  She thought                  
 it was important to keep the death penalty issue before the                   
 legislature, because they will realize it is a just law, and                  
 a "must have" law for the State of Alaska to maintain a safe                  
 and sane society.                                                             
 MS. NAHORNEY suggested that money could be saved by not                       
 providing law libraries and law degrees for prisoners to                      
 create more appeals that come back through the court system.                  
 She ask them to consider how to calculate the cash value of                   
 avoiding murders and the value of the life of a loved one.                    
 MS. NAHORNEY thought the capital punishment bill was necessary                
 to protect our community, and she felt the death penalty can                  
 be a key anti-weapon and a major deterrent.  She cited seven                  
 and a half years as the average life sentence for murder                      
 across the nation, putting them out to walk among us.  She                    
 didn't think this time period was enough, that crime was                      
 repetitive and seasoned criminals come out to re-offend.  She                 
 gave some histories to defend her statements.                                 
 Number 499                                                                    
 MS. NAHORNEY described the new breed of criminals raised on                   
 crack and more prone to violence, bring about an increase in                  
 homicides.  She reviewed the statistics of those favoring the                 
 death penalty, the problems in rehabilitation, and the release                
 of criminals due to prison overcrowding.  She recommended more                
 prisons if there is not to be a death penalty, and she blamed                 
 the courts for being too concerned with the rights of the                     
 prisoners rather than the rights of society.  She said a                      
 constitutional amendment must be passed to give victims equal                 
 rights to perpetrators.                                                       
 MS. NAHORNEY reviewed a series of studies on the low number                   
 of criminals committed for their crimes, the rise in crime                    
 rates, and the lack of protection for society.                                
 TAPE 93-62, SIDE A                                                            
 Number 001                                                                    
 Testimony continued from tape 3 on the "Gillmore Effect" where                
 publicized harsh punishments appear to contribute to lower                    
 rates of violent crime, while unpublicized harsh punishments                  
 have no affect on the rate of violent crime.                                  
 MS. NAHORNEY believes that had a death penalty been in effect                 
 in 1985 when her family was murdered, it would have been a                    
 sufficient deterrent to the murderers to have prevented the                   
 Number 071                                                                    
 TED LEMAIRE, the grandfather of a victim, MANDY LEMAIRE,                      
 testified he left the lower forty-eight to escape rising crime                
 rates, and he encouraged the legislature to look at anti-crime                
 legislation.  Despite the fact that his eleven-year-old                       
 granddaughter was kidnapped, sexually assaulted, and murdered,                
 he remains opposed to the death penalty.  He has accepted her                 
 MR. LEMAIRE considers the real problem to be crime.  He                       
 advocates dealing with crime, but not through the death                       
 penalty.  He believes crime will affect all people at some                    
 point in their lives.                                                         
 Number 131                                                                    
 MR. LEMAIRE continued, saying the death penalty will not deter                
 a criminal, nothing will deter a criminal.  In his grand-                     
 daughter's case, he said the criminal had stalked several                     
 other girls before killing his granddaughter.  He explained                   
 the difference between us and the criminal is that we can be                  
 deterred by a host of things and the criminal cannot.                         
 MR. LEMAIRE referenced an occurrence several months ago of a                  
 confrontation between a gunman and police officers at Tudor                   
 and Muldoon in Anchorage where the gunman could not be                        
 deterred.  He noted the gunman in the incident was a repeat                   
 offender and said criminals lack the ability to see how the                   
 principles of right and wrong apply to him.  MR. LEMAIRE                      
 claimed the law must be consistently practiced and applied to                 
 be a deterrent, something which has never been done.                          
 Number 248                                                                    
 MR. LEMAIRE summarizes by saying he has seen the public                       
 defender and public advocacy people at work and said he was                   
 offended by their operation.  He claimed they had money to                    
 burn and that their budgets should be cut.  He said the                       
 biggest problem with the use of the death penalty was the                     
 legal hassles that are generated, and attorneys who over                      
 utilize the appeals process should be penalized.                              
 Number 305                                                                    
 SENATOR TAYLOR requested information on people wishing to                     
 testify and asked for show of hands for those unable to                       
 testify in Juneau.  He stated he was willing to stay as long                  
 as it takes for everyone who wishes to testify to do so.                      
 DONNA DINSMORE POFF said she was testifying on behalf of her                  
 son who was murdered.  She contacted thirty-four legislators                  
 regarding her son and was disappointed that she only received                 
 responses from two legislators, REPRESENTATIVES GRUSSENDORF                   
 and SANDERS.  She said it takes too long for justice to be                    
 Number 387                                                                    
 SENATOR TAYLOR assured MS. POFF that all her comments from                    
 both days of testimony will be in the record.                                 
 MS. POFF summarized by saying she never wants anyone to forget                
 her son and urged the committee to expedite the passing of                    
 these bills.                                                                  
 Number 428                                                                    
 JONATHAN KATCHER testified the cost of the death penalty is                   
 not intended to be a reflection of what the lives of the                      
 victims are worth, but will take away funds and resources from                
 prosecuting crime.  He thinks that implementing the death                     
 penalty would prolong the pain of crime victims and their                     
 families because of the greater degree of scrutiny with which                 
 the courts would examine these cases.                                         
 Number 468                                                                    
 MR. KATCHER said he found it ironic that the same legislature                 
 that is contemplating giving juries the power to dispense a                   
 sentence of capital punishment is also contemplating taking                   
 away the power of juries to award compensation in cases in                    
 civil court.                                                                  
 MR. KATCHER described a person and a crime that would fall                    
 under the guidelines of this legislation.  He stated that                     
 person is now heavily involved as an advocate in the Native                   
 sobriety movement and is now doing positive things for this                   
 community and this legislature, because it's saving money by                  
 getting to the heart of the Native sobriety issue.  He urged                  
 the legislature to resist the emotional element in the passage                
 of the death penalty.                                                         
 Number 535                                                                    
 SENATOR TAYLOR called the next witness, MICHELLE KERR, who                    
 said she couldn't believe that the death penalty wouldn't                     
 deter someone from committing a crime.  She said she couldn't                 
 think of a better argument for the death penalty than when                    
 someone from prison conspires and succeeds in killing someone                 
 else.  She also agreed with the concept of "an eye for an                     
 SENATOR TAYLOR thanks the previous witness and called the next                
 witness, JOHN FARLEIGH who stated he was at one time on a jury                
 for a murder trial.  He said that murder is a horrible thing                  
 and deserves to be punished as harshly as possible, but that                  
 real life cases are not as "cut-and-dried" as they are on                     
 Perry Mason.                                                                  
 Tape 93-62, SIDE B                                                            
 Number 001                                                                    
 MR. FARLEIGH summarized by saying it would be hard for a jury                 
 to decide whether or not to use the death penalty for fear                    
 that an innocent person would accidentally be sentenced to                    
 death.  He thinks it would have been much harder for the jury                 
 on which he served to come to a decision had the death penalty                
 been an available sentencing option.  He concluded saying the                 
 death penalty is a permanent decision and the potential for                   
 executing someone wrongly exists.  He commented that if                       
 someone who is sentenced to serve jail time is later found to                 
 be innocent, then at least that person can be let out of jail.                
 Number 059                                                                    
 SENATOR TAYLOR thanked MR. FARLEIGH again for his testimony                   
 from the point of view of the juror and thanked him for giving                
 his time and energy to the American jury system.                              
 the next witness was RANDALL BURNS, representing the Alaska                   
 Civil Liberties Union, who stated the ACLU is opposed to the                  
 death penalty and believes that capital punishment is                         
 inconsistent with our fundamental values.  He said the ACLU                   
 is not soft on crime, but believes that any state that would                  
 authorize the killing of another is committing an immoral act.                
 He says it is an issue of respect for human life.                             
 MR. BURNS said it teaches the permissibility of using violence                
 to solve social problems, that capital punishment is really                   
 murder by the government.                                                     
 Number 105                                                                    
 MR. BURNS continued by saying the facts simply do not support                 
 the idea that the death penalty would be a deterrent to                       
 possible violent criminals.  Most people think they will be                   
 able to avoid detection in committing a crime, and the death                  
 penalty simply is not going to stop that mind set.                            
 MR. BURNS raised the issue of fairness, because death row                     
 inmates are disproportionately composed of African-Americans.                 
 He thought that in Alaska, Alaska Natives would possibly make                 
 up a large number of the inmates on death row.                                
 MR. BURNS commented that in the trial courts of this nation                   
 at this time the killing of a white person is treated much                    
 more severely than the killing of a black person.  Of the 168                 
 persons executed between January 1977 and April 1992, only                    
 twenty-nine have been convicted of killing a non-white person,                
 and only one of these twenty-nine persons was white himself.                  
 MR. BURNS stated that as utilized in our justice system, the                  
 death penalty is reserved for murderers, regardless of their                  
 race, who kill a white person.  When discretion is used in                    
 sentencing a person, it has always been used in this country                  
 to mark for death the poor, the friendless, the uneducated,                   
 and members of racial minorities, thus discretion becomes                     
 injustice.   Also, he said you cannot correct a mistaken                      
 conviction once the state has taken that person's life.                       
 MR. BURNS offered a list of examples of persons who have been                 
 on death row who were later found to have been innocent of the                
 crimes for which they were sentenced and were later released                  
 from prison.                                                                  
 Number 165                                                                    
 SENATOR TAYLOR requests that MR. BURNS submit a copy of the                   
 list to the committee.                                                        
 MR. BURNS suggested the legislators make alterations to                       
 existing laws in order to clarify for the public that life                    
 imprisonment without the possibility of parole exists in this                 
 state and can be used by prosecutors.                                         
 MR. BURNS said he understands no person convicted in Alaska                   
 of first degree murder is eligible for parole for at least                    
 thirty-three years.  He urged the legislature to adopt                        
 specific language offering life without parole in Alaska and                  
 ending the idea that we should be bringing the death penalty                  
 to the state.                                                                 
 Number 198                                                                    
 MR. BURNS said in regards to the death penalty assuaging the                  
 grief suffered by the family of the victim, that most families                
 of victims say that no penalty can substitute for the loss of                 
 a loved one.  He quoted from a report entitled "Sentencing for                
 Life" which was submitted to the committee.                                   
 MR. BURNS offered another report, "Millions Misspent: What                    
 Politicians Don't Say About the High Cost of the Death                        
 Penalty," which he submitted to the committee along with a                    
 brochure on a poll which found that only 41% of the population                
 would support the death penalty if there were provisions in                   
 law for first degree murderers to be sentenced to life in                     
 prison with no possibility of parole.                                         
 Number 238                                                                    
 SENATOR TAYLOR calls the next witness, HUGH FLEISCHER, an                     
 Anchorage attorney, who said there were no guarantees                         
 whatsoever in this legislation that the only people sentenced                 
 to death would be those who are without a doubt guilty of a                   
 heinous crime.  He recalled the second person to be executed                  
 in the U.S. after the death penalty was reinstated in 1979 was                
 JOHN SPEKALINK, whose case was mismanaged by the defense,                     
 since there were strong indications that he had acted in self-                
 defense when he committed the murder for which he was accused.                
 In addition, there were comments from one of the defense                      
 attorneys stating that he did not feel qualified enough to                    
 defend MR. SPEKALINK.                                                         
 Number 289                                                                    
 MR. FLEISCHER said there are flaws in the system, and it is                   
 important that the state do everything possible to help                       
 victims of crime, but it should also insure that our state                    
 does not make an innocent person a victim of this process.                    
 Number 337                                                                    
 SENATOR TAYLOR thanked MR. FLEISCHER for testifying and called                
 the next witness, TERRY BURRELL, who described to the                         
 committee her neighborhood community council meeting where                    
 everyone agreed that it should be a priority to stop the                      
 increasing rate of crime and to protect the neighborhoods.                    
 She supported SB 162 or a combination of the Senate and House                 
 bills relating to the subject, whichever could be implemented.                
 She also would like to see a limit on the number of appeals                   
 available to defendants.                                                      
 MS. BURRELL asked the legislature to please pass a capital                    
 punishment law, effective January 1, 1995.  She believes that                 
 lethal injection or hanging would be a deterrent and agrees                   
 with Ed McNally's testimony.  She has not been a victim of                    
 crime, but thinks the death penalty is needed.  MS. BURRELL                   
 urged the committee to ignore the testimony of the ACLU.                      
 Number 376                                                                    
 SENATOR TAYLOR thanked MS. BURRELL for testifying and call on                 
 JOHN HAVELOCK, who apologized to the committee for not being                  
 able to hear previous testimony in order to avoid repeating                   
 anything already said.  He thought that if capital punishment                 
 was an option in sentencing, there would be more defendants                   
 pleading guilty on lesser charges in order to avoid the risk                  
 of being punished with the death penalty.  He questioned                      
 whether this would be a desirable thing to do and thought that                
 it would be adding to the power of prosecutors.  MR. HAVELOCK                 
 doesn't like the trend of the past thirty years of taking more                
 discretion away from judges and giving it to prosecutors.                     
 Number 422                                                                    
 MR. HAVELOCK continued by saying he thought this bill is a                    
 part of that trend, and in addition, the death penalty is not                 
 a good idea under the particular circumstances of the                         
 administration of justice.  He is not opposed to the death                    
 penalty for moral reasons, but thinks that in Alaska it would                 
 be a particularly "lousy idea."                                               
 MR. HAVELOCK also considered that under the Constitution of                   
 the State of Alaska this bill would be unconstitutional.  His                 
 advice, if the death penalty is really needed, would be to                    
 amend the Constitution of the State of Alaska.  He believes                   
 that the death penalty would cause problems in the multi-                     
 racial population of the state, since figures show that                       
 minorities would probably be unduly affected by such a law.                   
 Number 470                                                                    
 MR. HAVELOCK also declared it would add to the increased                      
 divisions between ethnic groups.  He commented on the fact                    
 that during the time he has been attending the committee                      
 meeting he has seen no blacks, and perhaps one Native.  He                    
 once again asserts that the effect of the death penalty would                 
 be to increase interracial hostility.  MR. HAVELOCK continued                 
 his analysis of the constitutionality of capital punishment                   
 in the state.                                                                 
 Number 537                                                                    
 MR. HAVELOCK totally agreed with the need to do more for                      
 victim's rights, and he agreed with the option of sentencing                  
 first degree murderers to life imprisonment without chance of                 
 SENATOR DONLEY asked about the constitutionality of having the                
 death penalty available for any charge of aggravated first                    
 degree murder, and if MR. HAVELOCK doesn't think it is rather                 
 a large leap from a sentence of twenty years to one of death.                 
 Number 568                                                                    
 MR. HAVELOCK responded he wasn't particularly bothered by the                 
 difference between the possibility of a twenty year sentence                  
 and one of death.  It does remind him of how much he is                       
 bothered to see the cost of the justice system going up and                   
 up and up.  His theory was that every time one part of the                    
 criminal justice system gets a little more money, you have to                 
 give money to the other parts of the criminal justice system,                 
 but he thinks each part should get a little less money.  It                   
 seemed to MR. HAVELOCK that the essence of fairness for                       
 defendants is in the balance of funds within the Court System,                
 not the total sum of the defender's budget.                                   
 Number 599                                                                    
 SENATOR HALFORD reminded people the legislature does not set                  
 the budget for the Public Defender Agency, but that the Court                 
 System sets their budget; the legislature only supplements the                
 Public Defender Agency's budget.                                              
 SENATOR TAYLOR asked MR. HAVELOCK to look over the legal                      
 opinion by JACK CHENOWETH regarding the bill.                                 
 An UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER noted that there was also a question                  
 of constitutionality regarding Section 12 and asked MR.                       
 HAVELOCK to review HJR 43 in relation to amending Section 12.                 
 SENATOR TAYLOR thanked MR. HAVELOCK once again for his                        
 testimony and called the next witness, MARIE JOSEPH, who                      
 stated she was not a victim, but she felt that many victims                   
 are not seeing justice done.  She thought it was time to pass                 
 a capital punishment law, and the legislature could pass laws                 
 that would make capital punishment more cost effective.  (It                  
 appears that TAPE 4 ended before MS. JOSEPH was finished                      
 TAPE 93-63, SIDE A                                                            
 Number 001                                                                    
 (It is obvious that TAPE 5 was not started until part way                     
 through this witness' testimony.)                                             
 ALAN BARNES from the University of Alaska, Anchorage said the                 
 Justice Center would offer to answer those questions                          
 objectively.  He said he was familiar with the SPEKALINK                      
 situation and also with the NELSON/POGENY case.                               
 SENATOR TAYLOR called the next witness, DIANE SCHENKER, from                  
 the Department of Corrections, who had several points she                     
 wanted the committee members to consider.  The first one would                
 be to add the term "probation officer" to the list of other                   
 terms used to describe peace officers, or simply use the term                 
 "peace officer" consistently to describe all these positions.                 
 She said another option would be to use the term "correctional                
 Secondly, MS. SCHENKER asked the committee to consider not                    
 using hanging as an option in carrying out a sentence of                      
 capital punishment.  She said it is difficult and more                        
 expensive than other types of execution.                                      
 Number 053                                                                    
 MS. SCHENKER also informed the committee that the fiscal note                 
 had been dramatically revised from the previous year, because                 
 the department made the erroneous assumption that had these                   
 people not been sentenced to death, they simply would not have                
 existed in the system.  In fact, had they not been sentenced                  
 to death they most certainly would still have had a fiscal                    
 impact on the system.  The fiscal note has been revised to                    
 show that impact.  MS. SCHENKER claimed there is no space in                  
 the correctional system for the next person sentenced to                      
 ninety-nine years in prison, and in fact the prison system is                 
 130 persons over capacity.                                                    
 MS. SCHENKER said, with or without this bill, more space for                  
 prisoners will need to be either contracted or built.  She                    
 stated that there would be no difference in the housing of                    
 inmates on death row and the housing of other comparably                      
 classified inmates - other than the last twenty-four hours                    
 before the execution.                                                         
 SENATOR DONLEY asked MS. SCHENKER to clarify where she got her                
 information on how death row prisoners are housed.                            
 Number 092                                                                    
 MS. SCHENKER told SENATOR DONLEY that she had talked to                       
 officials in the State of Washington and to persons who have                  
 worked on death row in both Washington and California.                        
 SENATOR DONLEY answered that he was more concerned with the                   
 safety of other prisoners and correctional officers if                        
 criminals, sentenced to capital punishment, were housed with                  
 the general prison population.  He asked MS. SCHENKER if it                   
 wouldn't be preferable to house persons on death row separate                 
 from other prisoners.                                                         
 MS. SCHENKER noted that all prisoners, regardless of the                      
 reason for incarceration, are segregated at the beginning of                  
 their stay.  She said the incentive for prisoners to behave                   
 is in their having access to television, telephones, etc.                     
 MS. SCHENKER was asked if the agencies coordinated their work                 
 on fiscal notes, and she responded that a meeting had been                    
 scheduled for all agencies to get together following the                      
 committee meeting.  She said she had talked briefly with the                  
 Office of Management and Budget regarding her fiscal note, and                
 though it was agreed her fiscal note did not clash with anyone                
 else's, that was as far as the discussion went.  She commented                
 that a lot of assumptions must be made in order to prepare a                  
 fiscal note for this legislation, and it therefore may be                     
 rather arbitrary.                                                             
 Number 145                                                                    
 SENATOR TAYLOR thanked MS. SCHENKER and called the next                       
 witness, CATHY KAINER, who testified she has personal                         
 knowledge of the financial cost of the death penalty, having                  
 worked in Texas while the death penalty was used.  She                        
 believed capital punishment cases tie up the justice system,                  
 causing delays at all levels.  She said the effect the death                  
 penalty had on the judicial system was the best argument for                  
 abolishing the death penalty.                                                 
 MS. KAINER thought resources could be better used in the                      
 prevention crime, rather than spending millions of dollars                    
 trying to put a few people to death.  She stated that by                      
 instituting capital punishment, we are moving backwards from                  
 the rest of the world.  Most countries in the world are moving                
 towards abolishing the death penalty.  MS. KAINER listed a                    
 number of countries and the dates on which they abolished the                 
 death penalty in those countries.  She said  we needed to ask                 
 ourselves how other criminal justice systems work, since other                
 countries don't seem to be suffering from the same high rate                  
 of crime as the United States.                                                
 Number 199                                                                    
 SENATOR TAYLOR thanked MS. KAINER for her patience and called                 
 the next witness, JACK KEANE, who stated he has always been                   
 opposed to the death penalty, particularly in Alaska, which                   
 he has always considered to be ahead of the other states in                   
 modern, clear, scientific thinking.  MR. KEANE quoted from the                
 constitution, "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,                   
 we hold those rights to be inalienable."  He said somehow or                  
 other we've ended up with a supreme court that says, "Well,                   
 in these special cases we can sort of skip that provision."                   
 MR. KEANE said he believes that capital punishment is                         
 unconstitutional, and hopes the State of Alaska won't join                    
 Texas and South Africa in instituting a death penalty.  He                    
 questioned whether it would be practical, considering we may                  
 only have one execution every one to two years, and whether                   
 it would really make a difference in terms of protecting the                  
 citizens of the state from violent criminals.                                 
 Number 276                                                                    
 MR. KEANE did not think the justice system in Alaska works                    
 well enough to entrust it with the death penalty.  He claimed                 
 he has seen things go wrong in the system, and it shouldn't                   
 have the power to impose the death penalty.                                   
 SENATOR TAYLOR thanked MR. KEANE for his patience in waiting                  
 to testify and called the next witness, LISA RIEGER from the                  
 UAA Justice Center, who announced to the committee she was                    
 speaking from the point of view of an attorney who has tried                  
 a death penalty case.  She said the process of trial and                      
 sentencing in death penalty cases is extremely costly, and she                
 was not sure that anything would be gained by having the death                
 Number 334                                                                    
 SENATOR TAYLOR thanked MS. RIEGER and called the next witness,                
 FRANK CAHILL, who told the committee that he opposed the death                
 penalty.  He said he thinks there is a significant chance of                  
 convicting the wrong person, and he feels it is uncivilized.                  
 MR. CAHILL suggested we don't cut of people's hands to stop                   
 them from snatching purses, etc.  He advocated, as MR. BURNS                  
 does, life sentences without possibility of parole.  MR.                      
 CAHILL'S final reason for opposing the death penalty was                      
 because he thinks there is a chance that capital punishment                   
 would be applied unfairly, and he doesn't want to be part of                  
 a system that treats anybody unfairly.                                        
 Number 383                                                                    
 SENATOR TAYLOR called the next witness.                                       
 ARTHUR E. CURTIS testified it would be a shame to pass a law                  
 instituting capital punishment.  He stated that the statistics                
 show very clearly that capital punishment is not a deterrent.                 
 He said that all the faults of the judicial system are                        
 magnified when you get to the level of capital punishment, and                
 that capital punishment cases put too much sustained pressure                 
 on everyone involved in the case: the jury, the prosecutors,                  
 and the justices.                                                             
 MR. CURTIS told the committee that it would also be a huge                    
 expense to the system.  He thinks that passing a capital                      
 punishment law would only constitute a symbolic resolution of                 
 the problem of violent crime, and would not address the real                  
 causes and solutions.                                                         
 Number 435                                                                    
 MR. CURTIS offered a suggestion to the committee as part of                   
 the solution to the problem of violent crime, which would be                  
 to spend more money on drug rehabilitation centers.  He                       
 thought it was pathetic that our society is looking for a                     
 violent solution to violence.                                                 
 SENATOR TAYLOR called the next witness, DAVID DOLESE, who read                
 a written statement to the committee regarding an experience                  
 he had shortly before the end of World War II in which the                    
 army division of which he was a part surrounded and liberated                 
 a German concentration camp in Austria.  He said  that the                    
 terrible things he saw in the concentration camp convinced him                
 that when governments decide to execute their own people,                     
 mankind's dark and evil side emerges in a fearful manner.                     
 DR. DOLESE continued reading his statement, describing how he                 
 thought a justice system should function.  He said that                       
 execution does not have to be used to reach the goal of                       
 protecting law-abiding citizens from violent criminals.  He                   
 suggested that capital punishment smacks of vengeance and                     
 should not be part of an ideal government's actions - that                    
 government should be above such emotional responses.                          
 Number 511                                                                    
 DR. DOLESE compared legalized execution as being on the same                  
 path as the torture and extra-judicial executions that occur                  
 in other countries.  He urged the committee to not debase                     
 themselves by embracing this easy way out.                                    
 SENATOR TAYLOR asks DR. DOLESE if he was also opposed to the                  
 war crimes trials that occurred after WWII and the results of                 
 those trials.                                                                 
 DR. DOLESE replies that he was not opposed to the trials being                
 held or to the executions at the time they occurred.                          
 SENATOR TAYLOR thanked DR. DOLESE for his testimony and called                
 the next witness, RON DAILEY, who stated he was speaking in                   
 opposition to the death penalty legislation.  He agreed with                  
 most of the reasons given by previous witnesses, but would                    
 confine his testimony to the moral question of whether we                     
 should use our courts to carry out executions?  MR. DAILEY                    
 also thought it is a most uncivilized act.  He claimed he was                 
 not soft on crime, but believed that if someone commits a                     
 murder, that person should be put in prison for the rest of                   
 their life without the possibility of parole.  He said since                  
 that view is more stringent than the current laws, he cannot                  
 be considered soft on crime.                                                  
 Number 559                                                                    
 SENATOR TAYLOR thanked MR. DAILEY for his testimony and for                   
 being patient in waiting to testify.  He then called the next                 
 witness, CHARLES E.MCKEE, who said he has studied what the                    
 Bible says regarding capital punishment, and he quoted several                
 passages from the Bible.  He noted the legislation before the                 
 committee related to the judicial and financial aspects of                    
 capital punishment.  He also explained that both Christianity                 
 and commerce are a part of common law.                                        
 SENATOR TAYLOR acknowledged that MR. MCKEE was discussing                     
 interesting debates, but asked MR. MCKEE to stay on the topic.                
 Number 633                                                                    
 MR. MCKEE asked SENATOR TAYLOR to allow him to make his point                 
 and accused the people around him of diverting his attention                  
 from the subject matter.  He then mentioned a report which he                 
 was willing to hand out to the committee of what OPEC has done                
 to our society.                                                               
 SENATOR TAYLOR advised MR. MCKEE this hearing was not about                   
 CHARLES MCKEE says he has an interest in resolving heinous                    
 crimes in our society because there has been an attempted                     
 murder on his life.  He mentions that a U.S. marshall tried                   
 to instigate an attack him on October 18th after he found an                  
 indictment on JUDGE HOLMES.  MR. MCKEE described numerous                     
 attacks on his person.                                                        
 Number 685                                                                    
 SENATOR TAYLOR acknowledged that MR. MCKEE probably has some                  
 great points on other subjects and that he would enjoy                        
 listening to them sometime, but if MR. MCKEE wouldn't stick                   
 to the legislation before the committee, he would leave.                      
 MR. MCKEE continued his previous testimony, saying he opposed                 
 the legislation regarding capital punishment primarily because                
 it recognized the monetary system in operation in the U.S.                    
 Number 723                                                                    
 SENATOR TAYLOR thanks MR. MCKEE for his testimony and asks if                 
 there was anyone one on the teleconference network who would                  
 like to testify.                                                              
 TAPE 93-63, SIDE B                                                            
 Number 001                                                                    
 Next to testify was CONSTANCE GRIFFITY, who agreed with much                  
 of the testimony expressed by others opposed to the death                     
 penalty.  She has been a member of the ACLU for fifty years,                  
 has studied the issue of the death penalty, and believes it                   
 has been used disproportionately to punish minorities.  She                   
 was concerned that this would also happen if the death penalty                
 was implemented in Alaska.  She agreed the money would be                     
 better spent controlling the causes of violence.  She believed                
 the death penalty itself is by definition premeditated murder.                
 She expressed a hope that the committee would consider all                    
 that has been said today regarding whether the death penalty                  
 really does serve our needs.  She said HJR 43 makes sense to                  
 her; she does not believe victims should have to wait years                   
 and years and years for restitution.                                          
 Number 047                                                                    
 SENATOR TAYLOR thanked MS. GRIFFITY for her testimony and                     
 asked if there was anyone else on-line who would like to                      
 LIZ DODD testified she was opposed to the death penalty for                   
 a number of reasons.  She thought by implementing a death                     
 penalty, Alaska would be repeating the mistakes of other                      
 states.  She said capital punishment would be a drain on                      
 public resources with no measurable deterrent effect.  She                    
 claimed not all families of victims of violent crimes were in                 
 favor of capital punishment, and Alaska's justice policies                    
 should be driven by prevention of crime, not by retribution.                  
 MS. DODD cited a passage from the Alaska Constitution                         
 supporting her belief that capital punishment was                             
 unconstitutional.  She said lives built on child abuse and                    
 neglect, alcohol and drug abuse, domestic and culturalized                    
 violence are lives which all too often end in tragedy.  She                   
 said the state needs to address violence where it begins in                   
 people's lives, rather than adding on one more violent ending.                
 Number 080                                                                    
 LIZ DODD observed that support for the death penalty assumes                  
 that the justice system in Alaska is working without                          
 discrimination, and the state is somehow above error.  The                    
 death penalty is uncorrectable in situations in which an error                
 occurs.  MS. DODD noted the titles of two books in which the                  
 committee might be interested: In Spite of Innocence and Dead              
 Man Watching.                                                                
 SENATOR TAYLOR thanked MS. DODD for testifying and called the                 
 next witness, RON REED, who expressed his concern that                        
 implementing the death penalty in Alaska would do nothing but                 
 polarize the state, increase the cost of our criminal justice                 
 system, and sooner or later culminate in the judicial murder                  
 of someone wrongly convicted of a crime.  He said past                        
 experience with the death penalty in other states found an                    
 increase in violent crime during the time in which capital                    
 punishment was used.                                                          
 MR. REED said violence begats more violence, innocent people                  
 would undoubtedly be executed, and the composition of inmates                 
 on death row would probably be made up of a disproportionate                  
 number of Alaska's Native people and other people of color.                   
 Finally, the state would incur the high cost associated with                  
 the implementation and maintenance of a death penalty.                        
 Number 148                                                                    
 SENATOR TAYLOR thanked MR. REED for his testimony and                         
 requested anyone who read from written statements to please                   
 give a copy to the committee for their files.  SENATOR TAYLOR                 
 called the next witness.                                                      
 BILL GLUDE said he was speaking in opposition to the death                    
 penalty and was horrified the possibility of implementing a                   
 death penalty in Alaska was being considered.  He appraised                   
 the death penalty as being premeditated and the deliberate                    
 killing of Alaskan citizens by our state government.  He does                 
 not believe the problem of violent crime can possibly be                      
 solved by committing more murder in the name of the state.                    
 MR. GLUDE stated that people who commit violent crime are not                 
 thinking clearly about the consequences, don't care about the                 
 consequences, or are intoxicated, and therefore would not be                  
 deterred by the possibility of being sentenced to death.  He                  
 concludes by asking the committee members to consider how each                
 of them would feel if anyone were to be wrongly executed as                   
 a result of their actions on this legislation.  He commented                  
 there are no easy solutions.                                                  
 Number 188                                                                    
 SENATOR TAYLOR thanked MR. GLUDE for his testimony and asked                  
 if there were any more people in Juneau who wished to testify.                
 AMY PAIGE stated for the committee that she was opposed to                    
 capital punishment on moral and religious grounds and believes                
 it is no different from the crimes it seeks to punish.  She                   
 said it was morally wrong for the state to enact laws based                   
 on revenge for wrongs committed.                                              
 MS. PAIGE said since the laws of our country state we must                    
 regard all people as equal to one another, there was no                       
 justification for the distinctions set forth in the                           
 legislation before the committee that would recommend the                     
 death penalty based on who the victim of the crime was.  She                  
 said this aspect of the legislation was unconstitutional.                     
 Number 210                                                                    
 SENATOR TAYLOR thanked MS. PAIGE for her testimony and called                 
 for witnesses from Soldotna.                                                  
 DAVID RICHARDS informed the committee that he is definitely                   
 in favor of the death penalty.  He based his conviction on                    
 moral and religious grounds because he feels that death is                    
 proper justice for a person who willingly murders another                     
 MR. RICHARDS did not think that deterrent should be an issue,                 
 but that capital punishment was a matter of proper justice.                   
 He was in favor of putting an advisory vote relating to the                   
 implementation of capital punishment on the ballot so that the                
 people of the State of Alaska can vote on the issue.                          
 SENATOR TAYLOR thanked MR. RICHARDS for his testimony and                     
 noted for the record that written testimony was received from                 
 SENATOR TAYLOR also noted for the record that three members                   
 of the House and one member of the Senate stayed for this                     
 meeting until 6:07 p. m.                                                      
 As there was no one else waiting to testify, SENATOR TAYLOR                   
 thanked all the participants for their testimony, their                       
 patience, and adjourned the meeting.                                          

Document Name Date/Time Subjects