Legislature(1997 - 1998)
04/09/1997 06:09 PM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 60 ADVISORY VOTE ON CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
SENATOR TAYLOR testified on behalf of the bill. DUDLEY
SHARP testified in support via teleconference.
Testimony opposed to SB 60 was heard from CATHY KAINER,
HUGH FLEISCHER, BARBARA HOOD, JAMES MCCOMAS, SUSI GREGG
FOWLER, CHARLES CAMPBELL, BARBARA BRINK and JOSH FINK.
Information was provided by MARGOT KNUTH. SENATOR
ADAMS MOVED Amendment #1. COCHAIR SHARP and SENATOR
TORGERSON objected. Amendment #1 FAILED by a 6 to 1
vote. SENATOR ADAMS MOVED Amendment #2. SENATOR
TORGERSON objected. Amendment #2 FAILED by a 6 to 1
vote. SENATOR TORGERSON MOVED SB 60 from committee
with individual recommendations and a previous fiscal
note from the Division of Elections (3.0). COCHAIR
SHARP and SENATOR ADAMS objected. SB 60 was REPORTED
OUT by a 6 to 1 vote, with a previous fiscal note from
the Division of Elections (3.0).
SENATE BILL NO. 60
"An Act providing for an advisory vote on the issue of
capital punishment."
SENATOR ROBIN TAYLOR, Sponsor of SB 60, addressed the
committee. He stated the bill was intended to seek the
advise of Alaska voters on the controversial issue of
capital punishment. Passage of the bill would not impose
the death penalty, it would place on the ballot the question
of whether the legislature should enact a capital punishment
law. SENATOR TAYLOR continued by reading his sponsor
statement.
SENATOR ADAMS commented that the sponsor knew his position
on the death penalty. It did not deter crime, it killed
innocent people, and discriminated against minorities and
the poor. He drew attention to Amendment #1 which was
before members, commenting that voters should know the cost,
similar to the Frank Initiative. He invited individuals who
would be testifying to comment on the amendment. SENATOR
TAYLOR responded briefly, commenting that the death penalty
was a warning and a deterrent to a class of offenders that
would offend again. He added that there was no protection
for corrections officers who guard people who have committed
multiple homicides. He opposed the Frank Initiative
approach, as it's only purpose was to kill the bill. He
said there was no known basis for determining cost, but
suggested Mr. Sharp, available via teleconference, could
speak to it.
COCHAIR SHARP called for teleconference testimony, asking
witnesses to summarize their comments rather than getting in
a long debate over the pros and cons of the bill.
DUDLEY SHARP, Vice President, Justice for All, Houston,
Texas, testified next. He brought up the issue of financial
analysis, having reviewed the fiscal note. Texas, the
leading executioner in the nation, had daily costs of
incarceration of death row prisoners at $54 per day because
most of the inmates work. He referred to capital cost for a
death house in the fiscal note and commented that Texas did
not even build one, they just converted a room into an
execution facility. He supported having two defense
attorneys for each case as advised in the fiscal note. An
additional item not taken into consideration was where the
fiscal note speculates an average of ten years between
sentence and execution. He stated that it totally negated
the efforts made at the state and federal level to restrict
abuse of the writ of habeas corpus. He rebutted an earlier
statement that there was no evidence that the death penalty
deterred crime. He stated that the moral decision was
whether to save or sacrifice innocent lives. MR. SHARP
summarized that the fiscal note needed additional work, the
death penalty would save innocent lives, deter crime and
provide additional punishment for an additional crime of
murder.
The following individuals testified from Anchorage via
teleconference.
CATHY KAINER spoke in opposition to the bill. She stated
the death penalty cost more than life imprisonment and cited
sources. She believed the sponsor was asking the public to
vote on their opinion on a subject on which they have very
little knowledge, particularly the cost. She stated the
death penalty experiment was failing in all 38 states that
have it and that states without the death penalty generally
had lower murder rates. Texas and Florida, the two states
with the highest number of executions, had some of the
highest murder rates in the country. A 1995 national poll
of police chiefs revealed that they did not believe the
death penalty was effective in fighting crime.
HUGH FLEISCHER testified in opposition to SB 60. He stated
the bill was an abdication of the responsibility of the
legislature by putting it before the public for a vote. He
believed the costs must be provided, citing a figure of $50
million.
BARBARA HOOD opposed SB 60. She encouraged the committee to
insure that any debate on the death penalty be an informed
debate, but the legislation did nothing to insure that. She
gave an example from a New York poll that showed 57 percent
of respondents believed the death penalty would deter crime,
yet a study of executions over the past century found that
murders rose in the months following an execution. She
stated that it didn't cost less to execute. Many states
spend six times more to execute than to keep them in prison
for life.
COCHAIR SHARP invited testimony from those present in Juneau
next.
JAMES MCCOMAS, President, Alaskans Against the Death Penalty
(AADP), Anchorage, testified that there were five reasons to
vote no on an advisory vote. First, there was no reason to
have the death penalty, it wouldn't be cheaper, deter crime
or make it safer. Second, the results of an advisory vote
would represent public misinformation because Alaskans
didn't know much about the issue. He cited statistics to
support his statement. Third, it was the legislature's
responsibility to stop bad public policy and not put every
controversial issue before a public advisory vote. Fourth,
an advisory vote meant politics, not policy, would determine
whether or not we have the death penalty. Fifth, a vote
could only establish popularity of the issue, it couldn't
change any of the facts, costs or effect on crime. MR.
MCCOMAS added that in territorial days, 75 percent of those
executed were Native Alaskans or African-Americans, even
though they only committed 25 percent of the murders. He
summarized that it would be applied to the poor, it would
result in mistaken convictions and widen the gap between
diversities thereby polarizing society. In response to a
question from SENATOR ADAMS, he believed disclosure of the
cost was important.
SUSI GREGG FOWLER of Juneau stated that fear was a motivator
for people to support an idea like the death penalty. The
legislature was in a position to give people accurate
information. The real cost was in human energy and
resources in defining sides. MS. FOWLER testified that
recently members of her husband's family were murdered in
another state. She wanted the killer caught, but did not
want a death penalty because it would not bring healing or
restore the lost lives. She did not want people to kill for
her.
End SFC-97 #91, Side 1, Begin Side 2
CHARLES CAMPBELL of Juneau testified that he was past
director of Corrections and had 45 years in that field. He
stated there was overwhelming consensus that there was no
proof that the death penalty had a deterrent effect. It may
have an opposite effect according to the 1969 study of New
York previously mentioned which postulated that publicized
executions were inclined to incite persons predisposed to
violent crime. MR. CAMPBELL believed the death penalty was
destructive to families of victims because it delayed
closure by an average of eleven years. He urged a no vote.
SENATOR ADAMS inquired if MR. CAMPBELL knew why the American
Bar Association was asking for the termination of executions
in the United States. MR. CAMPBELL responded that there
were four reasons cited as to why the death penalty was not
working. One had to do with unmistakable racial bias,
another was failure of the defendants to have adequate
representation. There was additional discussion about other
options that could be provided on an advisory vote.
The presence of COCHAIR PEARCE was noted.
BARBARA BRINK, Acting Public Defender, Department of
Administration, testified next regarding the fiscal note she
submitted that detailed what would be anticipated. She also
spoke to the use of an advisory ballot to ascertain majority
opinion. She expressed concern with allowing a policy vote
by the general public because majority opinion did not
necessarily make good public policy, citing slavery and
school segregation as examples. In addition, an advisory
vote could create a more difficult position politically
because the legislature could determine the death penalty
was not good for the state. She urged the legislature not
to encourage the public set to criminal policy and called
this the most complicated criminal justice issue any state
could grapple with.
MS. BRINK continued her testimony with an explanation about
the fiscal note. She said that it dealt with the average
rather than the anomalous case. The Department of Law
predicted ten cases per year. She concluded her remarks by
saying the fiscal note was rather conservative and stating
her opinion that the public be informed of the fiscal
impact. She believed it would cost a lot of money for very
little in return and urged that it not be proposed to the
public as if it were a viable alternative.
COCHAIR SHARP inquired who requested the fiscal note. MS.
BRINK responded that it originated from the Department of
Administration. There was brief discussion about the
indeterminate nature of the fiscal note.
SENATOR ADAMS asked for examples of the average cost of
execution in other states. MS. BRINK responded that the
cost in North Carolina was $2.16 million per execution above
the cost of life imprisonment. In California, it was $90
million annually, $78 million of which was the trial level
cost. Florida had 18 executions between 1973 and 1988 for a
cost of $3.2 million each. Texas was estimated at $2.3
million, about three times the cost of life imprisonment.
SENATOR DONLEY questioned the cost comparisons and MS. BRINK
acknowledged that each state counts costs differently.
JOSH FINK, AADP, testified against the bill. He made the
point that it was a complex and multi-faceted issue that
should be decided by the legislature because Alaska was a
representative democracy, not a direct democracy. An
advisory vote was a bad idea because it would be based on
fear, anger and misinformation thereby hamstringing the
legislature and limiting options. He pointed out that there
had been numerous issues facing the state for years but they
had not been put to an advisory vote. SENATOR PHILLIPS
noted that there had been advisory votes on a few issues
such as a unicameral legislature, the capital move and
longevity bonus annuities.
MARGOT KNUTH, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law,
was available for questions. She noted that there had been
no loss of lives in Alaska institutions in response to an
earlier comment.
SENATOR TAYLOR made a few statements regarding the
testimony. He was disturbed by comments regarding racial
bias in the system and said it was a myth. He cited studies
that supported his statement. SENATOR ADAMS rebutted his
comments, stating that documentation showed that in
territorial Alaska 75 percent of those executed were Alaska
Natives. SENATOR TAYLOR did not dispute the numbers but
commented that it was only three or four people. He
reiterated his point that all the legislation was asking for
was an advisory opinion.
COCHAIR SHARP announced that after a brief recess, COCHAIR
PEARCE would reconvene the meeting and take up the operating
budget close-outs, after which he would continue with SB 60
and other scheduled bills.
Recess at 7:19 P.M.
Reconvene at 7:30 P.M.
SENATE BILL NO. 60
"An Act providing for an advisory vote on the issue of
capital punishment."
A small portion of the meeting was not recorded because of
technical error. The following was taken from log notes.
SENATOR ADAMS moved Amendment #1 and offered an explanation
that the amendment would include costs of implementing a
death penalty along with the advisory vote.
SENATOR TORGERSON objected. There was brief discussion.
A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION to adopt Amendment
IN FAVOR: Adams
OPPOSED: Parnell, Donley, Phillips, Torgerson, Pearce, Sharp
Amendment #1 FAILED by a vote of 1 to 6.
End of log notes.
SENATOR ADAMS MOVED Amendment #2. SENATOR TORGERSON
objected. SENATOR ADAMS explained that the amendment would
give voters a choice of alternatives besides a death
penalty.
A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION to adopt Amendment
IN FAVOR: Adams
OPPOSED: Torgerson, Parnell, Phillips, Donley, Pearce, Sharp
Amendment #2 FAILED by a 6 to 1 vote.
SENATOR PHILLIPS expressed his problem with people's opinion
that they didn't trust the people of the state to be smart
enough to make a decision with an advisory vote. He had
more faith in the people of Alaska and believed they were
intelligent enough to make the right choice. Additional
discussion followed regarding constituent polls on the death
penalty.
SENATOR TORGERSON MOVED SB 60 from committee with individual
recommendations and a previous fiscal note from the Division
of Elections (3.0). COCHAIR SHARP and SENATOR ADAMS
objected. SENATOR ADAMS spoke to his objection. There was
discussion about including costs on the proposition and in
educational pamphlets. SENATOR PARNELL stated that there
was no way to write a ballot proposition that contained all
the costs involved.
A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION.
IN FAVOR: Torgerson, Donley, Phillips, Parnell, Pearce,
Sharp
OPPOSED: Adams
SB 60 was REPORTED OUT by a 6 to 1 vote, with a previous
fiscal note from the Division of Elections (3.0).
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|