SENATE BILL 52 "An Act authorizing capital punishment, classifying murder in the first degree as a capital felony, and establishing sentencing procedures for capital felonies; authorizing an advisory vote on instituting capital punishment; and providing for an effective date." BRANT MCGEE, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF PUBLIC ADVOCACY, ANCHORAGE, spoke in opposition to the proposed legislation. He pointed out that costs do not appear to be attached to the proposal. Mr. McGee stressed that implementing the death penalty would be "astronomically" costly and that execution would be many times more expensive than life in prison without parole. The legislation will impose indirect costs on every citizen who attempts to bring their case before an impartial tribunal. Mr. McGee continued, the defense and prosecution costs estimated for the first four years would alone amount to $18 million dollars. He urged the Committee to consider the costs associated on any bill associated with the death penalty. Representative Martin agreed that voters should be informed regarding the costs involved. V. BONNIE LEMBO, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, ANCHORAGE, opposed the legislation as passage would seriously increase the work load for all prosecuting attorneys and it would become more difficult to obtain the cooperation of witnesses. If a person knows that when they cooperate with the government as a witness, and that someone they care about could face execution, they are more hesitant to provide the needed information. Ms. Lembo continued, it will be more difficult to obtain convictions in homicide cases. The standard of proof being "beyond a reasonable doubt" would remain legally the same. Both practically and humanly, a person would be more reticent to loath someone to death unless they are convinced without a "shadow of a doubt". Ms. Lembo concluded, she feared that there would be court case capital rulings which will make it more difficult to obtain a court conviction in other kinds of criminal cases, and judges will become more careful in capital cases. In a judgement call, judges will tend to error in favor of the defense when a human life is at stake. She informed members that there is little scrutiny on appeals or curatorial attacks in other case convictions when sentencing to life without parole. Ms. Lembo pointed out that the bill as written does not have a fiscal note attached. This is a very complex matter and will involve increased expenses for the defense agencies, the Department of Corrections and the Court System. She stressed that each agency should be required to provide a meaningful fiscal note. Representative Martin requested a faxed copy of Ms. Lembo's testimony. REX LAMONT, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), PRIVATE PRACTIONER- CRIMINAL DEFENSE, ANCHORAGE, spoke in opposition to the death penalty. He addressed the impact to the poor and the minorities. Our criminal justice system continues to have a number of fallacies in adequately representing the poor. Currently, the Legislature is unable to fully fund the public defender and public advocacy agencies. He urged the Committee not to pass the proposed legislation. AVERIL LERMAN, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), ANCHORAGE, spoke against the proposed legislation. She provided Committee members with a brief history of the death penalty in the State of Alaska. There were three hangings in Fairbanks between 1900 - 1957. Three hanging also took place in Juneau during a ten year period. The history of Alaska has shown that an ill advised vote by "uninformed" people will not reflect the way those same people will feel ten years later. At that time it would be too late for the decision to be reversed. HUGH FLEISCHER, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), ANCHORAGE, spoke against passage of SB 52. He had read an article written in February, 1995, by a well known attorney/prosecutor in New York, Robert Martinthaw. Mr. Martinthaw spoke about the death penalty and how it hinders the fight against crime. To date, 350 people have been wrongfully accused and convicted of murder. SUSAN ORLANSKY, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), ATTORNEY IN PRIVATE PRACTICE, ANCHORAGE, spoke in opposition to SB 52. She stressed that an advisory vote on the death penalty would not be a good idea. When people vote on ballot questions, they vote on limited information and emotion. Legislators are chosen representatives for the people, and are responsible to analysis information regarding voters concerns. She pointed out that we like to think that we live in a civilized society, although, no other modern western civilized country supports the intentional killing of other human beings by the state. Ms. Orlansky urged Committee members to take a stance to support the dignity and sanctity of human life and vote against the bill. Representative Martin agreed. SENATOR ROBIN TAYLOR questioned what the fear was in allowing Alaskans to express an opinion at the poll. He suggested that the question was a simple one, and that Alaskans should be given the opportunity to voice their opinion. He emphasized that voters should not be kept from expressing their opinions because of someone else's personal, philosophical or theological points of view. Senator Taylor referenced a poll that had been provided to the Senate Judicial Committee. Representative Martin asked who had requested the poll. Senator Taylor replied that the pollster provided the poll independently and then sent the result to him on his own. The poll had not been requested. This was a statewide poll taken involving an interview of 500 people. Senator Taylor interjected that the people of Alaska have not been heard from on the issue. Representative Martin questioned the costs involved with the proposed legislation. Senator Taylor responded that there was no way to project the costs. He suggested, an attempt to ascertain the savings associated with the change, would be equal to the cost of the trial. He concluded that the only cost incurred with passage of the legislation would be the cost in placing the measure on the ballot, which would amount to $2 thousand dollars. Representative Martin asked how many people would be eligible for the death sentence at this time, it the bill should pass. Senator Taylor explained that the November vote would only be an advisory vote to the Legislature as to whether or not to implement the action. No one already with a conviction and judgement would be subject to the sentencing. He reiterated that there would be no retroactivity to the death penalty. Representative Martin inquired why this legislation had been proposed as a bill instead of a resolution. Senator Taylor stated that it was a bill in order to accomplish the full purpose of implementing a death penalty within the State of Alaska. Representative Martin asked if Senator Taylor would object if the legislation was changed to a resolution. Senator Taylor noted that he would not support that motion. Representative Therriault agreed that resolutions were usually incorporated for motions as proposed. He asked if putting the question on the ballot would be subject to a veto. Senator Taylor replied that he did not know. Representative Therriault voiced concern with the finality of execution given the number of mistaken cases. Senator Taylor agreed that mistakes happen but he believed that the United States has the finest judicial system in the world. He added, people are killed all the time in accidents. People do not expect perfection out of any institutions within this country. Representative Kohring voiced his support of the legislation and noted that he wanted to cross-sponsor the bill. Representative Navarre countered Representative Kohring, speaking in support of the current judicial system. He acknowledged that SB 158 would be much worse for the criminal victims throughout the State. Representative Navarre emphasized that innocent people will die because of mistakes or because the judicial system is weighted in favor of the wealthy. He agreed that the legal system in this country is the best in the world, and that is because a person has the presumption of innocence, a right to an attorney and the right to an appeal process. In most cases, it will be the poor that the State will have to pay for the prosecution and the defensive all the way to the Supreme Court. He maintained that the status quo would be more financially sound. (Tape Change, HFC 96-160, Side 2). Senator Taylor responded that living in a correctional facility for the "rest of ones natural life" was a death sentence. He could not understand a philosophical belief system which could think that would be a more humane treatment than to execute that person. He emphasized that both sentences result in the termination of that person's life; although, one would take longer than the other. Senator Taylor stated that it becomes a choice whether that person deserves the right to continue to utilize services and receive benefits. He elaborated that those benefits and services should be made available to other productive members in society. Representative Navarre pointed out that there have been cases in which "new" evidence was brought forth and innocent people were set free. Many people are beat by the system and he concluded that the death penalty has no ability for recourse. JAMES MCCOMAS, PRESIDENT, ALASKANS AGAINST THE DEATH PENALTY, ANCHORAGE, spoke against SB 158. He pleaded that the Committee consider the voice of rural Alaska. He noted the late hour of the meeting and the fact that the Legislative Information Offices (LIO) across the State had closed except in Anchorage. Mr. McComas stressed that information from rural Alaska is critical because 75% of the people executed have been and will continue to be Native. He interjected that 25% of the people executed were white even though white people committed 75% of the crimes. Every Native organization has strongly denounced the proposed legislation. Mr. McComas addressed Senator Taylor's intent. He stressed that the sponsor was playing a political game and that peoples lives are at stake. He thought that it was Senator Taylor's intention to have the Governor veto the legislation. Mr. McComas believed if Senator Taylor really had wanted to know what people thought, he would have proposed the idea as a resolution. The legislation's intent would be to force a veto in order that it could be campaigned against in the fall election. Mr. McComas objected to "politics" being played with issues of life and death. He continued, there should not be an advisory vote until the public is adequately educated regarding the concern. The volunteers for Alaskans Against the Death Penalty is a volunteer organization and can not afford such an undertaking. Legislators have the responsibility to debating important issues. Mr. McComas noted that there has been no debate on the death penalty within either Body of the Legislature. He informed Committee members that most people (voters) think that it would cost more to house a criminal for life in prison than the death penalty. That is a misconception! He advised that there are thirty-seven states with the death penalty in tact, and for the sponsor to insinuate that "we do not know the costs" is a lie. The attorney general's estimate for each execution will cost the State $5 million dollars. Mr. McComas pointed out that $5 million dollars is one half of the Department of Law's budget for an entire year. States that are going bankrupt because of enforcing the death penalty. It costs too much money. Mr. McComas continued, popular opinion is totally wrong. People were asked how long someone convicted of murder would be sentenced. He noted that 78% of Alaskans believed it would be 20 years or less; those people are afraid of a crime risk repeat which could not happen. Under the Alaska Statutes, anyone convicted of a first degree murder must serve twenty years without "good time" and without parole. No one is released. The average first degree murder sentence, according to the Department of Law, is 80-90 years. In those cases that could be death eligible, parole is restricted. Mr. McComas summarized, there is no public safety risk which the death penalty can address. He continued, the question proposed in SB 52 is slanted and inaccurate. Mr. McComas spoke to the "tolerance" that has existed in the State of Alaska. If the death penalty is ratified, the values of tolerance will decimate. He spoke to the mean spirited intent of the legislation's sponsor. He urged Committee members to further consider the death penalty. Capital punishment has been struck from the law of every western industrialized nation except America. It has been struck from the law of the Soviet Union and Africa. Yet, in the land of liberty, a sponsor schemes to provide a gubernatorial veto for the purpose of campaigning to create the false appearance of an uninformed public mandate in order that they can resume for first time in 46 years, which Alaskans are worthy of life. In defense of Representative Martin being cut off by Representative Mulder, Representative Navarre stressed that it is the Legislature's responsibility to provide adequate understanding of such complex issues as being presented. JOYCE BAMBERGER, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), SELF, COMMISSIONER, ALASKA HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, ANCHORAGE, spoke against the proposed legislation. She compared the Legislature's intent not to place the North Star Oil lease legislation out for public vote, whereas, at the same time considering a vote on placing human resources out for public opinion. The duty of legislators is to protect life. KIM MCGEE, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), ANCHORAGE FRIENDS COMMUNITY - QUAKERS, ANCHORAGE, stated that Quakers have always been against the death penalty and are against the bill. Quakers uphold the sanctity of all life. "That of God" exists in each person. She concluded that the State can not emulate the person lost by taking another persons life. MICHAEL LEMAN, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), BUSINESSMAN, ANCHORAGE, spoke in opposition to the proposed legislation. He believed that the proposal was being fuelled by a misconception regarding the length of prison sentences. The death penalty will not save money. He summarized that the death penalty is "racist"; capital punishment means if you don't have the "capital", you get the "punishment". ANNE WILKAS, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), ASSISTANT PUBLIC DEFENDER, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, ANCHORAGE, voiced opposition to SB 52. She advised that voters are ignorant regarding the issue and that the House Finance Committee members are responsible for weighing the monetary conditions of the legislation. Voters do not have that information available to them. No agency affected by the death penalty, supports the death penalty. Ms. Wilkas spoke to the moral costs wrapped up in the death penalty. There does exist a racial disparity impact. Innocent people will be killed. She explained that there are strong moral implications of the death penalty bill. The decision should be made by people who are educated and informed. She urged Committee members to vote no on the death penalty. KATHY HARRIS, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), ANCHORAGE, spoke against the proposed legislation. She pointed out that almost all religious affiliations oppose the death penalty and noted that all the testimony had been against passage of the bill. KEVIN MCCOY, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), ANCHORAGE, testified against of SB 52. He suggested that the legislation should require careful study; matters this important should not be rushed through the last couple of nights. He reiterated the high costs associated with implementing the death penalty. CHARLES CAMPBELL, PREVIOUS DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, SELF, JUNEAU, spoke against the proposed legislation. He corrected Senator Taylor's misconception of life in a prison cell as "death". He agreed that it is not much of a life, but an overwhelming majority of "lifers" make a "life" for themselves somehow in it. They often have jobs at industries within the prison and are capable of sending money home to their families or try to cover restitution costs associated with their crime. Mr. Campbell pointed out that the Legislature is more informed than voters regarding the issues. The death penalty is far more costly than life in imprisonment. He stressed that it is not fair to put the question to the voters, when legislators know they will be voting on misinformation. He stated that would be inappropriately using the electorate. In response to Representative Martin's question, Mr. Campbell indicated that there are about three thousand people on death row today. Death row continues to grow; there is no way that the number of persons added could be executed. The average time between the death sentence and the execution is nine years. (Tape Change, HFC 96-161, Side 1) BARBARA BRINK, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ANCHORAGE testified via the teleconference network in opposition to SB 52. She stressed that the death penalty is a complicated issue. She agreed that there is a costly appeal process. She emphasized that there is a separate sentencing trial. She noted that the cost of maintaining an inmate on death roll is greater than keeping an inmate in the general population. She noted that in the state of California it costs $15 million dollars per execution. She gave examples of costs in other states. She maintained that the cost will be significant enough to require taxes. She asked what programs will be reduced to pay for the cost of the death penalty. BARBARA HOOD, ANCHORAGE testified via the teleconference network in opposition to SB 52. She maintained that there is no constituency for the legislation. She emphasized that vengeance is a terrible trait. She alleged that the power to take human life is a power no government should have. JOHN SALEMI, DIRECTOR, PUBLIC DEFENDER AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION testified via the teleconference network in opposition to SB 52. He emphasized that the death penalty is not a simple issue. He acknowledged citizens are concerned regarding crime in their communities. He maintained that the perception of a yes vote on the death penalty is that public safety will be helped. He argued that studies demonstrate that the death penalty does not lessen crime. He noted that the cost of defending seven death penalty cases would be approximately $1.5 million dollars. He questioned where the funding will come from. He emphasized that the money could be better spent on other public safety items. He stressed that 38 other states have shown that there is no savings and that the death penalty does not deter crime. He noted that rural committees have not been heard from on the legislation. He observed that rural communities will be the most affected. REBECCA DAVIS, FAIRBANKS testified via the teleconference network in opposition to SB 52. She maintained that many innocent people have been executed in the United States. She alleged that more innocent people, particularly minorities, will be kill. She emphasized the fiscal cost. SCOTT DAVIS, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, FAIRBANKS testified via the teleconference network in opposition to SB 52. He maintained that it is inconsistent to be anti-abortion and pro-death penalty. He emphasized that the death does not deter crime. DEAN GUANELI, CHIEF ASSISTANT ATTORNEY, DEPARTMENT OF LAW testified in opposition to SB 52. He noted that the Administration opposes SB 52 because it is too expensive. He estimated that the cost per trial would be $3.5 million dollars or greater. He stressed that the death penalty skews the case law related to criminal prosecution. He noted that capital punishment is not reversible. He observed that capital punishment has a discriminatory impact on minority members. He added that capital punishment does not deter crime. The death penalty was repealed in 1957. Mr Guaneli stressed that the Legislature is the proper forum for discussion of the issue. He observed that an advisory vote is a snap shot of public opinion in one point in time. He maintained that the advisory vote is likely to be affect by the most recent news headline. He emphasized that it is a complicated issue that should not be resolved by a yes or no vote. He noted that the legislation would need to be amended to include a reference to the Alaska State Constitution. In response to a question by Representative Brown, Mr. Guaneli observed that the cost of instituting capital punishment is difficult. He noted that the costs are spread over a number of years. Trial and investigation costs occur early. Appeals at the state and federal level would be extended to a number of years. Representative Parnell noted that the Department of Law's fiscal note reflects the belief that an affirmative advisory vote would result in the institution of the death penalty. RACHEL KING, ALASKANS AGAINST THE DEATH PENALTY spoke in opposition to SB 52. She noted that the addition of the fiscal notes reflect a cost of $5.0 million dollars before the first execution takes place. She observed that it has been difficult to testify in regards to the legislation. She gave examples of hearings in Senate Judiciary where individuals were unable to testify. She recounted experiences as a public defender in Ketchikan. She stated that she had a client convicted that she knew was innocent. The person's conviction was later reversed. She observed that as a public defender in Kotzebue she had an annual caseload of 225 cases. She alleged that the justice system in rural Alaska will be overwhelmed. She observed that since 1970, 59 innocent people have been released from death row. Representative Kohring spoke in support of SB 52. He MOVED to report CSSB 52 (JUD) out of Committee with individual recommendations and with the accompanying fiscal notes. Representative Martin OBJECTED. He MOVED to TABLE CSSB 52 (JUD). Representative Kohring OBJECTED. A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION to Table SB 52. IN FAVOR: Martin, Navarre, Therriault, Brown OPPOSED: Mulder, Parnell, Grussendorf, Kelly, Kohring, Hanley Co-Chair Foster was absent for the vote. The MOTION FAILED (4-6). Representative Martin maintained that the advisory vote should be established through a resolution. Co-Chair Hanley explained that the legislation was in order. A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION to report CSSB 52 (JUD) from Committee. IN FAVOR: Mulder, Parnell, Grussendorf, Kelly, Kohring, Hanley OPPOSED: Navarre, Therriault, Brown, Martin Co-Chair Foster was absent from the vote. The MOTION PASSED (6-4). Representative Martin MOVED to RESCIND the Committee's action in reporting CSSB 52 (JUD) out of Committee. Representative Kohring OBJECTED. He spoke in support of capital punishment. He WITHDREW his objection. A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION to move CSSB 52 (JUD) out of Committee. IN FAVOR: Parnell, Grussendorf, Kelly, Kohring, Hanley OPPOSED: Navarre, Therriault, Brown, Martin Co-Chair Foster and Representative Mulder were absent for the vote. The MOTION FAILED (5-4). CSSB 54 (JUD) FAILED to pass from Committee. SENATE BILL NO. 191 An Act relating to election campaigns, election campaign financing, the oversight and regulation of election campaigns by the Alaska Public Offices Commission, the activities of lobbyists that relate to election campaigns, and the definitions of offenses of campaign misconduct; and providing for an effective date." (Tape Change, HFC 96-161, Side 2)