Legislature(1997 - 1998)
03/24/1997 01:15 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 131 - ADVISORY VOTE ON CAPITAL PUNISHMENT Number 804 CHAIRMAN GREEN advised members they would hear comments on HB 131, "An Act providing for an advisory vote on the issue of capital punishment." He invited Representative Jerry Sanders to introduce the bill to the committee. REPRESENTATIVE JERRY SANDERS, Prime Sponsor, advised members the proposed legislation was very simple and less than 50 words. He pointed out that the question the public would respond to on the ballot was; "Shall the Alaska State Legislature enact a law providing for capital punishment for murder in the first degree, and establish procedures for the imposition of capital punishment that are consistent with the United States Constitution as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court? Yes or No." REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS advised members that passage of HB 131 would allow the question to go before the voters in the next general election as to whether or not the death penalty was wanted by the people of Alaska. He urged that members pass the proposed legislation and place the question before the people. Representative Sanders advised members that they owed it to the Alaska voters to allow them to direct the legislators as to how they perceive justice would be best served. REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS expressed that the bill was very short and simple, and should take only a few minutes. He stated that, "this is not the place or the time for philosophical debate about the death penalty." REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS advised members that the proposed legislation had nothing to do with race, cost, deterrence; nothing to do with people's religious convictions, and nothing to do with executing innocent people. He expressed that HB 131 was simply a bill to learn, once and for all, how the citizens of the state of Alaska felt about the death penalty. Representative Sanders felt if comments could be held to that point, discussion should only take a few minutes. He added that after the election everyone would know what they were dealing with. Number 936 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked how Representative Sanders chose the language for the proposed legislation. REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS advised members that they put the question as straight forward as possible, adding that the object was simplicity. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked who he was referring to when he said, "we", and asked if Legislative Legal Counsel drafted the language, or was it the way Representative Sanders thought would be the best way to frame the question. REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS advised members it was a combination, quote: "between what we thought should be done, and what we thought made it on the simplest terms, is the way we came to it." Number 982 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT noted that people were concerned about criminals being loose, and capital punishment was certainly one way to prevent a criminal from ever being loose again. He asked if Representative Sanders had an objection to providing an option to the people of locking an individual up forever, or capital punishment. Representative Croft pointed out for many of the first degree murderers convicted in the state of Alaska there was a mandatory 99 years in prison. He again asked why the question put before the people did not say, "Do you want to kill them, or do you want to lock them up forever?" REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS responded that the state already had the means and ability to lock someone up forever. He stated that the question would be, should that be expanded to add capital punishment to the list of punishment that might be available if a person was convicted of murder. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT reiterated his question and asked if Representative Sanders had an objection to putting that question to the public. REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS advised members he would object to that because he did not feel it was appropriate because those people were locked up forever currently, and was accepted now. Number 1059 CHAIRMAN GREEN noted that the issue was before the legislature the previous session in a different form, which was actually the death penalty, that was introduced by Senator Robin Taylor, rather than an advisory vote on the issue of the death penalty. He advised members that he conducted a telephone poll of District 10 to find out what the attitude was, and he posed a two-fold question. One question was, "Do you believe in the death penalty?" Two thirds of those who responded said yes to that question. The other question was, "If you were aware that it costs from two to four, as high as eight times as much to impose the death penalty than it would cost the state for life imprisonment, would they still favor the death penalty?" Chairman Green advised members that the response to that dropped 50 percent, which was a significant change in attitude. CHAIRMAN GREEN asked Representative Sanders if he had conducted any such poll, or read about such a poll that had been conducted. REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS did not believe he had; however, stated that the issue of price was infinitely debatable. He advised members that no one had ever proven to him that the death penalty was more expensive than locking people away. Representative Sanders advised members he believed the opposite, although he could not prove that either, very well. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked Representative Sanders if he ever conducted polls, and if so, when conducting other types of polls, did he present a flat-out question, or did he provide a choice. She noted that polls were very misleading because of the way a question might be asked. Representative James pointed out that although she had made it perfectly clear that she had changed her mind on capital punishment, she did support asking the question of the public because she felt that the rhetoric that would come up on both sides of the issue was during the election process so people could make their cases known. REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS advised members that the polls he had taken had asked the simple question, "Do you, or do not favor the death penalty." He noted that as stated by the Chairman, the results appeared to be about two thirds in favor. Representative Sanders pointed out that that was in his district, and they did favor the death penalty. Number 1250 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ advised members that he was also concerned that the proposed legislation could wind up being some kind of a "push poll." He stated that if someone were to prove that it was more expensive to implement the death penalty, rather than incarcerate a person for life, if that would change Representative Sanders' opinion in any way. REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS responded that he did not believe it would. He stated that part of the reason for putting the question on the ballot was the educational process, because he had heard in his four years in the legislature, many, many reasons against the death penalty. Representative Sanders did not believe the public was aware of all those reasons. He stated that if they could get the question on the ballot and make a statewide campaign out of it, and that some people's minds might be changed. Representative Sanders advised members that if the response came back 52 percent, he would not be back two years from now pushing the death penalty because that percentage was too close. He felt the percentage would be higher, and if not, Representative Sanders would be off their back. Number 1328 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES felt straight forwardness was good, and agreed with Representative Sanders that getting the issue before the public in order to get a debate going was a good idea. She stated that her district was strongly in favor of capital punishment, although she had changed her views on the issue; however, she stood firm to support the question being asked of the public because they had the right to respond to the question, without any kind of "if this", of "if that", which were things that were intended to make them say something else. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ was intrigued with Representative James' comment regarding a way to stimulate debate, and felt that an interesting way of crafting the question could involve people from both sides of the debate to sit down and write the question together. He stated that in that way, the public might have the opportunity to gauge, in a more even handed manner, what the answer should be. REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS advised members that it was his belief that if the language was varied, from its current form, that it would result in a slant on the issue one way or another. He expressed that the bill, as written, provided a very frank, open question, and once it was changed it would cause a bias one way or another. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ suggested a clause members' might wish to consider which would begin with; "Given that the state of Alaska currently incarcerates first degree murderers for life without parole", (comma), and then lead into the question as in the original bill. Representative Berkowitz pointed out that there would then be a factual predicate that people could make a decision on. He asked Representative Sanders if he would oppose an amendment such as that. REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS advised members he would be opposed to that amendment. CHAIRMAN GREEN pointed out that there were many members of the public wishing to testify via teleconference and asked that they hold their comments to two minutes. Number 1589 GAYLEN ATWATER, resident of Meier's Lake, Alaska, advised members he had lived in the state of Alaska for 41 years and was tired of seeing people commit heinous crimes. [Audio-interference]. He advised members that the appeals process would have to be cut down, and he felt one appeal would be appropriate. CHAIRMAN GREEN requested testimony from Ketchikan, Alaska. GERRY KNASIAK, resident of Ketchikan, Alaska, advised members that she felt the question that was posed in HB 131 was very, very slanted. Ms. Knasiak felt the 99 year sentence without parole was very effective in keeping people off the streets forever, and asked why the need for the death penalty. MS. KNASIAK advised members that studies had proven over and over again that the death penalty was not a deterrent, and in addition to that, there was some inherent bias, with respect to class and to race, that would have a negative impact on the very poor, and certainly on minorities. MS. KNASIAK expressed that the bill, in its present form, raised the issue for a straight yes, or no, and did not lend itself to open debate. Ms. Knasiak felt, unequivocally, no; murder, is murder, no matter who did it, whether an individual or the state. CHAIRMAN GREEN moved on to Fairbanks, Alaska. Chairman Green suggested that people who had to leave the teleconference sites fax their testimony to the committee if possible. CHARLOTTE BASHAM, resident of Ester, Alaska, advised members she was opposed to HB 131, and urged that members not pass it out of committee. Ms. Basham felt strongly that legislators already had a sense of how Alaskans felt about the issue of the death penalty. She noted that there had been a number of hearings in the past two, to three years, and she felt the sentiment had been overwhelmingly against a death penalty bill. MS. BASHAM advised members that she was proud to live in a state that valued human life and recognized that the death penalty was both prohibitively expensive, and morally wrong. She noted that any movement in the direction of instituting the death penalty was unnecessary. Ms. Basham pointed out that the state already had the option of a life sentence without parole for the most serious crimes committed in the state of Alaska. She expressed that a life sentence allowed the state to protect society, but at the same time, protect the state from killing someone who might later be discovered to be innocent. MS. BASHAM pointed out that at a time when the legislature was pushing forward with a fierce budget cutting agenda, she did not see how legislators could support a bill that could end up costing the state millions of dollars to implement. Number 1977 SCOTT CALDER, resident of Fairbanks, Alaska, provided the following statement. "I find myself in agreement with the previous speaker it is ironic that efforts to oppose policies favoring assisted suicide euthanasia and other supposed relief in suffering are not so readily available in favor of policies to execute criminals without an advisory vote. I do not understand why it would be the case that citizens are not consulted on other equally important issues. By occupying public opinion with the task of deciding which members of society to sacrifice, public discussion about already existing human rights abuses by the state of Alaska against its citizens may become paralyzed. In my judgment, there are yet unaddressed problems well known to the Twentieth Alaska Legislature which -- which could -- which cloud the existing judicial administration in Alaska. I think we need 20 votes, not only one advisory vote. I believe it is inflammatory to ask the question of citizens about capital punishment at this time, prior to honestly addressing reasons for distrusting the present government." MR. CALDER continued, "If it's the desire to eradicate heinous criminals, then individual liberties to protect oneself are the answers. Honestly evaluating and supporting good judgments of individual citizens, not killing bad people, will help relieve the suffering of people who deserve help. I don't think -- I don't think this is really a good direction to move in either. You know, maybe at some time if it can be demonstrated that efficacy and trustworthiness of the existing judicial system and executive agencies to be, you know, shown to be in better shape, then -- then I think maybe we can talk about something as drastic as killing people off because we believe there's something wrong with them. There's problems in the way that -- that cases, not just murder cases, but other cases are evaluated and it seems to me that there's a kind of a public opinion sort of move here which would, you know, interfere with clearing up those problems; get a lot of people distracted on to this perennial issue. That's it." Number 2075 CHRISTINE REICHMAN, housewife from Valdez, Alaska, advised members she was opposed to HB 131 and disagreed with those who said it was not a philosophical issue. She stated that the bill would not be presented if legislators did not want the death sentence. Ms. Reichman felt it was immoral because she thought murder was so terrible that she did not want the state committing murder on her behalf. Ms. Reichman advised members that she did not doubt that enough fear could be whipped up among Alaskans to make people believe the death penalty was needed. MS. REICHMAN stated that the death penalty was state violence, and barbaric, and the people of Alaska should be proud it did not exist in this state. She wished members could consider committing themselves to nonviolence, and realize that the safety of the public did not depend on killing the people one was afraid of. Ms. Reichman stated that the public's safety depended on choosing to cherish all life. Number 2138 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that he did support capital punishment and did not think it was a matter of moral, or immoral choice, and took exception to the implication that that belief was immoral of itself. He noted that everyone could enjoy their own moralistic framework and judgment about what was moral or immoral. Representative Rokeberg stated that the strict statement that capital punishment was immoral did not square with his Judeo- Christian background. VIRGINIA WARD, Wasilla High School student, advised members she disagreed with the statement of Ms. Basham who stated she was proud to be in a state that valued human rights. Ms. Ward expressed that the state was not valuing the rights of victims because the person who just committed the crime of murder was sitting comfortably in jail. Ms. Ward asked whether the death penalty would apply to crimes other than 1st degree murder. Number 2283 REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS stated that the advisory vote question did not provide for any other crime, although those issues would always be open to debate if the advisory vote were to come back positive. He advised members that there were crimes, other than murder, that he believed were worthy of the death penalty. MS. WARD advised members that she was in favor of the death penalty. TAPE 97-46, SIDE A Number 000 LIZ BENSON, Wasilla High School student, asked members if there was anything included in the bill that would prevent abuse or manipulation of the death penalty. She also questioned whether HB 131 would have anything to do with criminals being put on death row for 30 years before being killed, and her third question was how could one be sure the death row prisoner would not break out or be on the street again. Ms. Benson wondered why people were worried about executing an innocent person after they had been found guilty by the courts. REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS responded that the answer to Ms. Benson's first two questions would be no. As to the question relating to the possibility of escape, Representative Sanders stated that you could not be assured that the prisoner would not escape, which brought to mind another issue he wanted to relate to the committee. Representative Sanders advised members that there was a gentleman housed at the Lemon Creek Correctional Center who was transferred from the Spring Creek Correctional Center because he had a plan to escape. Representative Sanders pointed out that that individual, Robert Hanson, approximately 10 to 12 years ago, killed 21 young women, according to a statement made by the individual. Only 17 graves were found, so the individual was charged with killing 17 young women. Representative Sanders wanted the committee to understand that under current conditions, the state had an unwritten contract with that individual who killed 17 women. He had been locked away and the state would spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to protect his life, liberty and pursuit of happiness within a jail cell. Representative Sanders stated that if he had escaped, or if he should escape, and kill 17 more people, the state had promised that it would not execute him, but lock him away again, as he was, and give him the opportunity to escape again. Representative Sanders pointed out that if HB 131 should pass and result in a death penalty bill that would pass, that if the state never killed anyone, the state would at least not have a contract to hold him, almost harmless, he's just locked up all his life. Representative Sanders expressed if anyone of the deceased women's fathers made a move on the individual, the father would be locked up as well. Number 278 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT responded to Ms. Benson's final question regarding concern about the death penalty when an individual had been found guilty at trial. He explained that the simple answer was that sometimes mistakes were made. REVEREND JUDITH MCQUISTON advised members she was an ordained Presbyterian Pastor, in Barrow, Alaska, and had also served as a police chaplin and a prison chaplin. Ms. McQuiston expressed that through research, the death penalty was imposed on people of color disproportionately and her own journey and struggles with the with the Christian Faith purely in the light of the scriptures that speak of justice and reconciliation. Reverend McQuiston found it interesting that we are discussing the issue of the death penalty during this week when the Saviour was murdered also. She noted that statistically it had been found that the death penalty devalues life. Ms. McQuiston advised members that the fact was, innocent people had been killed through use of the death penalty because it had been found later that an error was made. Ms. McQuiston stated that juries and judges did the best they could, but one could not always be positive. REVEREND MCQUISTON pointed out the that the General Assembly of Presbyterian Church, United States of America, had issued a position opposing the death penalty, as well as various other groups who had presented the same opposition. Ms. McQuiston concluded by stating that it was her belief that the death penalty would not make the state's streets safer. CHAIRMAN GREEN expressed that there were yet 21 people who had signed up to testify via teleconference from Anchorage, Alaska, as well as four who wished to testify in Juneau, Alaska. He stated to the folks in Anchorage that he would stay until everyone had had a chance to testify, unless they wanted to participate during the next hearing on HB 131, as it would be before the committee again. JAMES MCCOMAS, Alaskans Against the Death Penalty, stated from the audience that he had flown from Anchorage to Juneau in order to testify on the bill, and requested that he be able to address members at the present hearing. He advised members that he would speak on behalf of 5000 individual and organizationally affiliated members. CHAIRMAN GREEN expressed that if Mr. McComas wished to provide his testimony prior to taking testimony from Anchorage, he would be limited to the same time constraint as they were. MR. MCCOMAS agreed to wait; however, he did not want to lose anymore committee members. He stated that he had been sitting in the meeting for an hour and 10 minutes while the committee discussed insurance, and two committee members had since departed. CHAIRMAN GREEN pointed out that the other bill was also scheduled to be heard, and he had shortened discussion on that bill in order to receive testimony on HB 131. MR. MCCOMAS advised members that he would not be able to respond to the sponsor's testimony in two minutes, so he agreed to wait with his remarks. Number 596 GEORGE FREEMAN, resident of Anchorage, advised members he had been asked to present to the committee, a letter written by former Superior Court Judge Rowland. He stated that it was his privilege to provide Judge Rowland's statement because he served as one of his law clerks during a long and distinguished career on the Superior Court bench. Mr. Freeman expressed that he would like to read the Judge Rowland's entire; however, he was prepared to read portions of the letter. CHAIRMAN GREEN asked that Mr. Freeman read portions of the letter and fax the entire letter, which he would provide to committee members. MR. FREEMAN read the following into the record: "Judge Rowland was the presiding judge in the Third Judicial District for a number of years. He was a judge for 19 years, here in Anchorage; he was a prosecutor for a number of years. He is one of the most respected jurists in the history of this state. I'll just read portions of the letter, and hopefully, I'll be able to do this in two minutes." The following was a written statement prepared by Judge Rowland, and portions of it were read into the record by Mr. George Freeman. "Dear Committee Members: I wish to submit this letter in opposition to any steps the legislature might take to reinstate the death penalty in Alaska. I'm sorry I could not be present personally at the committee hearing, but when the hearing date was changed I was precluded from attending by a previous commitment to be with my daughter during surgery in New Jersey. I am a private citizen, connected in no way with any groups taking a stand on this matter, pro or con. I served on the Superior Court bench in Anchorage for 19 years and recently retired. "In the first instance, I believe the reimplementation of the death penalty at this time, in this place, is morally wrong." (Mr. Freeman was reminded of his two-minute limit by the teleconference operator in Anchorage.) He continued: "Judge Rowland thinks the death penalty is morally wrong, ladies and gentlemen. And [laughter from the audience.] ... I don't think it's very amusing. I would just like to read this conclusion, and then I'll submit the letter to you. "You must think this through on our behalf. I do not -- I don't think a public opinion poll, or referendum is going to help you much to make the right decision, and may even interfere and trap you into the wrong one. I don't envy you. If executions are carried out in our names, each of us will have a very real part in the killing. I hope you will not put my hand on the lever. It will not rest easy on my conscience, or the conscience of many others." CHAIRMAN GREEN expressed to Mr. Freeman that it was necessary to allow other individuals time to testify and asked that he fax Judge Rowland's letter to the House Judiciary Committee. Number 804 REVEREND RICHARD KOCH, First Congregational Church of Anchorage, advised members he was opposed to the death penalty. He went on to say that just because he was opposed to the death penalty did not mean he was soft on crime. Reverend Koch advised members he believed in tough sentencing with stringent rules on the eligibility for parole. He stated with respect to life sentences, it was his belief that "life meant life". REVEREND KOCH stated that although striving to perfect the state's judicial system, everyone was human and prone to occasional errors. He advised members that the death penalty was legalized in the nation over twenty years ago, and during that time period, 23 innocent people had been executed; their innocence discovered too late to save them. Reverend Koch pointed out that 48 other inmates who faced the death penalty had been found innocent before they were executed. He expressed that one mistake was one too many for him. Reverend Koch advised members that they could not bring back the life of an innocent person; however, could pull them out of a life sentence. REVEREND KOCH expressed that the first murder in the scriptures was what would not be called a premeditated, first degree event. "Cain killed Abel, God, in turn, did not kill Cain, but marked him for life; in essence, a life sentence." REVEREND KOCH's final statement was that he was also opposed to the death penalty on economic grounds, and questioned the reason or purpose of spending the millions of dollars it would take to kill someone, when they could be kept in prison for life at less expense. He asked what programs would be necessary to cut in order that the state could kill people; education, infrastructure or other areas of law enforcement. Reverend Koch stated, quote: "Like expanding waves caused by a rock thrown in a pond, the death penalty will overcome all of us adversely, and taint us morally, economically and spiritually." REVEREND KOCH thanked the committee's consideration of the points he put forth, and for their willingness to hear public testimony. Number 913 CLAUDIA KNIEFEL, member of the First Congregational Church, Anchorage, Alaska, advised members she agreed with Reverend Koch wholeheartedly, and felt the death penalty was a moral issue, and morally wrong. Ms. Kniefel expressed that there were too many chances of making a mistake, and too many better ways of spending money. MS. KNIEFEL expressed that she had been intimately involved with the community school program and had seen that type of program as a community building program and would rather see the state's money spent in that manner. LISA FITZPATRICK, resident of Anchorage, advised members that she was opposed to the death penalty. She stated that rather than addressing her specific reasons for opposing the death penalty, she would speak to why it should not be a matter for an advisory vote. MS. FITZPATRICK provided the following statement: "The death penalty, if it's to be voted on in the state, is an issue that should be decided by the legislature. The idea of putting an issue of such gravity out for an advisory vote, to me, would be abdication of the legislature's responsibility, and contrary to the very core of our government. Ours is a representative form of government. We elect our legislature and we assign it the responsibility of making good laws. This is your responsibility and it's your duty, and we can't expect that the general public will be able to engage in the same kind of informed decision making; it doesn't have the resources, it doesn't have the access and it doesn't have the time. The bill itself, on its face, provides none of the necessary information. I hear that a vote -- an advisory vote on the death penalty will only invite an inflammatory reaction. It will be a vote based on emotions, fear, anger, reaction. And you will have nothing to do if the votes came back favoring the death penalty. Politically, I see that you've tied your own hands of your ability to then engage in thoughtful, reasoned decision making would be hamstrung by a vote, likely to be a perceived mandate from the people. And that's how this decision making is squarely contrary to our form of government. "The legislature makes laws on every other kind of subject; trust, to subsistence, to the laws that send people to prison in the first instance, to me is irresponsible to take an issue of such gravity, one where we talk about taking human life, and putting that out to an advisory vote. "I personally oppose the death penalty, and there's a number of reasons, but I thought that the fate of a bill that would sanction the most violent of acts that a society can give in the killing of a human being could rest in the hands of an advisory vote on the part of an uninformed public, and not the legislature, is repugnant to our very form of government. And I urge you not to let this bill out of committee. Number 1092 REVEREND JAY KETCHUM, Ordained Minister, Presbyterian Church USA, and presently a minister in Immanuel Presbyterian Church in Anchorage, Alaska, advised members she wished to go on record as being opposed to the death penalty in Alaska. She pointed out that the Presbyterian Church USA stood, with approximately 40 other religious organizations, including Roman Catholic, the American Jewish Committee, National Council and Church of the [Indisc.] of the USA, the Alaska Christian Conference and more, opposed to the death penalty on the grounds that scripture mandates that we not kill, that we not return evil for evil. REVEREND KETCHUM expressed that she would briefly outline for members, the latest statements from [indisc.] on its stand on the death penalty. "Whereas, your 171st General Assembly declares that capital punishment cannot be condoned by an interpretation of the bible based upon the revelation of [indisc.] of Christ. And the use of the death penalty tends to brutalize the society that condones it. The 177th General Assembly called for the abolishment of the death penalty. The 168th [indisc.] itself against the death penalty. The 189th General Assembly, called upon members to work to prevent executions of persons under sentence of death, to work against efforts to reinstate death penalty statutes, and to work for alternatives to have [indisc.]. And we believe that the government's use of death as an instrument of justice places the state in the role of God, who we believe alone is sovereign. The use of the death penalty in a represented democracy places citizens in a roll of executioner, and Christians cannot isolate themselves from corporate responsibility, including responsibility for every execution, as well as for every victim. Therefore, the 197th General Assembly, reaffirms the positions of the former General Assemblies and the church declares its continuing opposition to capital punishment." REVEREND KETCHUM expressed personally, that as a resident in the state of Alaska, the kind of society in which she wanted to live, was one that did not murder in the name of justice. She believed, and worked for in the state of Alaska, the development of a society that needed to raise and rise up and meet the challenge of promoting justice, and putting the state's efforts and resources into more effective, creative and preventative policies and procedures. REVEREND DALE KELLY, Executive Director, Alaskans Against the Death Penalty, advised members that Alaskans Against the Death Penalty was a broad based coalition of citizens and groups from every walk of life, every ethnic and racial group, and every political party across the state, who were united in the stand that the death penalty would bankrupt the state of Alaska, both financially and morally. She pointed out that the untold millions that it would cost to execute only a few individuals would rob from the thousands of innocent citizens, the public funds slated for the people and the people's children's future. Reverend Kelly expressed that she knew that the legislature was struggling to cut the cost of government as it was. REVEREND KELLY stated that the people would surely live to regret the day if they elect to dismantle the wisdom of those who shaped the very statehood of Alaska. She expressed that in 1959, when Alaska became the 49th state, the state founders said, in essence; "Never again will the citizens of Alaska spill the blood of her people in retaliatory violence for capital crime. Instead, we [indisc.] the law, the provisions for sentencing to life without parole for those persons who remain a threat, and should never again be free to offend." REVEREND KELLY continued to state; "My friends, Alaska is the great land, a young land that intends on building a great legacy, hopefully on principals of compassionate justice for all of its citizens. I urge us to work together to teach our children that returning violence for violence is not the answer. Our children, and especially our teenagers, need the kind of leadership in government that each one of you can give to them. The kind of leadership that sets the highest moral standard possible. And ladies and gentlemen of this committee, I respectfully urge you to take hold of the reins of courageous leadership, and help to shape the future of our state in a positive, life giving way that all of us can be proud of. If you truly believe that the death penalty is wrong, and I know that most of you do; if you truly believe that our great state does not need to place this terrible burden on the backs of our people, then you are the ones who can stop it." Number 1375 SIDNEY BILLINGSLEA testified via teleconference from Anchorage, Alaska. She advised members she did not represent any organization, although was born and raised in Alaska. Ms. Billingslea expressed that she was glad she lived in a place that did not support killing people in her name. She stated that she believed that state representatives, elected by the voters of the state, were elected to make educated and carefully considered decisions on laws that govern the people of Alaska. Ms. Billingslea believed that asking the general voting public to make an uninformed, or ill-informed decision on whether or not legislators should enact the death penalty in Alaska, shirked part of their obligations to study the death penalty carefully, and to determine whether or not it was in the best interest of the state of Alaska. MS. BILLINGSLEA advised members that the advisory vote, drafted as it currently was, which was a "yes" or "no" question, reduced the question of life or death of a citizen to a popularity contest based on which side of the ad campaign was the most effective at election time. Ms. Billingslea felt that the death penalty was a chilling act, and HB 131 was a chilling bill, and felt it was inappropriate if what legislators were really seeking was to be educated by the voting public. Number 1375 SUSAN ORLANSKY, resident of Anchorage, Alaska advised members she was opposed to HB 131. She expressed that when she first heard of the idea of an advisory vote she was not sure how she felt. Ms. Orlansky advised members that in any democracy, the idea of letting the public voice an opinion was always attractive; however, the more she considered the issue, the more she had to conclude that an advisory vote on the death penalty was a bad idea. MS. ORLANSKY stated that when people vote on ballot questions, too many vote on limited information, misinformation and emotion. She stated that the advisory vote would not tell anything about what was good policy for Alaska. Ms. Orlansky advised members that the reason the people elect legislators was that the world was now too complicated to convene a town meeting, where everyone would go and understand the issues, and then vote. Now there were state representatives who had staff and time to study the issues and make policies based on facts and data, not just emotion. MS. ORLANSKY pointed out that when the legislature wanted to revise the criminal code and sentencing structure in the early 1980s, the legislature did not ask for a popular vote, rather, it established a Sentencing Commission with members ranging from judges, police officers, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and other citizens who studied the issues over a two or three year period. The legislature then held hearings on the recommendations of that Commission and, consequently, adopted a revised criminal code sentencing structure, largely based on what the Sentencing Commission had recommended. MS. ORLANSKY advised members that something as complex as choosing to kill, in the name of the state, required no less thoughtful consideration in determining how to enact laws that would take away liberties, but not life. Ms. Orlansky pointed out that she would predict that a similar commission charged to study the issue of the death penalty would recommend against it because the members would be aware of the data that the death penalty did not deter, would be expensive to administer, was applied in a discriminatory fashion, and sometimes imposed upon innocent people. MS. ORLANSKY expressed that there was no way that people who vote on an advisory ballot would have all the relevant information. She stated that members had heard the statistics and the testimony, and knew that the death penalty did not deter, that it did discriminate, and that it could not be perfectly applied. Ms. Orlansky stated that there was no point in calling for a "yes" or "no" vote, when the underlying proposition made no good sense to those who had studied the facts. BARBARA HOOD advised members that she was a 30 year resident of Alaska, and had grown up in Fairbanks, Alaska. She expressed that she currently owned a business in Anchorage and appreciated the opportunity to testify on the proposed legislation before the committee. MS. HOOD advised members she strongly opposed the death penalty, and urged the committee to vote against the bill. She saw the bill as simply one step down a sordid road towards more violence and more killing. Ms. Hood expressed to members that she was opposed to an advisory ballot on the death penalty because nothing learned on such a ballot would change the fact that it was wrong to take a life. She stated that killing was wrong, no matter how popular it might be, and she pointed out that members had heard that it was a moral issue, and she strongly urged the committee to consider it as a moral issue. "What kind of people do we want to be?" That was the question before the legislature. MS. HOOD continued to state that she was opposed to the advisory ballot because it was biased in favor of death, not life. She further stated that she was opposed to the advisory ballot because it did nothing to ensure an informed public debate on an emotionally volatile issue, and would virtually ensure that voters would respond to the many false myths that surround the death penalty. MS. HOOD pointed out that myth number one was that the death penalty was less costly even though studies of states who had implemented it had consistently shown that was not the case. Myth number two was that it would deter crime. Again, no study had ever been able demonstrate that capital punishment had any deterrent force greater than a long prison sentence. Ms. Hood stated that myth number three was that law enforcement was crying out for the death penalty. She advised members that in a 1995 poll of Chiefs of Police throughout the country, two thirds believed that the death penalty was not an effective law enforcement tool, and drained resources from more effective measures, such as putting more police officers out on the street. Myth number four was that victim's families were demanding the death penalty. Ms. Hood pointed out that many families of victims were some of the most ardent opponents of capital punishment because they believed that execution was a horrible memorial to someone they loved. MS. HOOD expressed that Marie Beens [Ph], the founder of a group called "Murder Victim Families Reconciliation", had said, "I have the need to understand why we are so good at passing on violence, and so bad at passing on love." MS. HOOD noted that she did have much more to say, although because of the time, she asked that members vote the proposed legislation down, and have the courage to be leaders on the issue of the death penalty. HUGH FLEISCHER, resident of Anchorage, advised members he had lived in the state of Alaska for 26 years, and strongly urged that members vote against the advisory ballot, HB 131. Mr. Fleischer referred to a person by the name of Jim Madock [Ph], who was a major proponent of the death penalty and ran for governor in the state of Texas, which was a big death penalty state. Mr. Fleischer advised members that Mr. Madock bragged about the fact that the Attorney General in the state of Texas had executed 32 people in the course of his tenure as attorney general in the state of Texas. Mr. Fleischer pointed out that two years ago, Mr. Madock had been quoted on a national radio program, as stating: "But the fact is that the primary evidence that crime has stopped is on only the specific individual who gets the death penalty. And that it could be also carried out by just locking him up forever without the possibility of parole." MR. FLEISCHER expressed to members that that went directly to the question of how fair the ballot process was. It seemed to him that the alternative, clearly, should be to lock them up without the possibility of parole, which was exactly what should be on the ballot, as opposed to the proposition as currently being stated. Mr. Fleischer stated that given the fact that Representative Sanders was not willing to do that, it seemed to him that the most important and reasonable thing for members to do would be to vote against HB 131, and asked that members do vote against the bill. FRED DEWEY, Attorney at Law, Law Office of Ashton and Dewey, advised members that most of what he was going say had already been expressed by others, and he, also opposed the ballot measure committee members were considering. Mr. Dewey noted that he would like to focus on the language of the bill to point out how unfair it was. MR. DEWEY advised members that consistent with the United States Constitution, as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court, very few people would go into the ballot box and know that consistency with the United States Supreme Court included that the Supreme Court of the United States did not consider it a violation of constitutional rights to execute an innocent person. Mr. Dewey stated that the Supreme Court of the United States considered that successive Habeas Corpus Petitions did not necessarily mean that a person was entitled to justice. He provided an example of an innocent person who had already filed a Habeas Corpus Petition, that even though new evidence had been brought forward that would prove his innocence, procedural finality in the words of Justice, Harry Blackmun require their execution even if they were innocent. MR. DEWEY advised members that very few people, who go into the ballot box, know that people could be executed even though they were mentally retarded. He stated that many of the kinds of things that people would not know were within the language consistent with the United States Constitution, as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court. Mr. Dewey pointed out that the ballot question posed on HB 131 was a complicated question, and involved complicated policy decisions. He expressed that it would involve an enormous quantity of money to administer a death penalty, and was the kind of policy decision that should be debated at length with people who were willing to listen, adding that it was the legislature's responsibility to listen to the people. MR. DEWEY noted that the issue of the death penalty was not the kind of thing that would lend itself to sound bites on television in 30 second commercials, although should it, it would prejudice the public by being played on by both sides and the legislature would not have a reasoned decision, but what they would have was innocent people being put to death. MR. DEWEY explained that the 43 people who had been released from death row, were released under a different regime than what currently existed as a result of a ruling of the United States Supreme Court. Mr. Dewey felt strongly that that should be taken into account when placing that kind of language into a ballot question. ROBERT CROSMAN advised members he was an Alaskan of 12 years and member of the Anchorage Monthly Meeting of Friends, the Quakers. He read into the record, a short message from his religious group. "We, Friends of Anchorage Monthly Meeting, affirm our unwavering opposition to capital punishment, which has been a deeply felt testimony of Friends since the establishment of our religious society in the Seventh Century. Where the sanctity of life has been violated, we must comfort those who have suffered, but not repeat that violation. True security lies in our reverence for human life, and our recognition of the Godliness in us all, whatever we may have done. Thank you very much." BARBARA BRINK, Acting Director of the Alaska Public Defender Agency, Department of Administration, urged that the committee not abdicate their responsibilities as the state's elected officials, to educate themselves about the death penalty. She expressed that there were reams of materials about capital punishment with a real life laboratory of 38 states to provide information as to how the death penalty worked and what it costs. Ms. Brink advised members that it was a very complicated issue, and in particular to the state of Alaska because of the unique geographical and cultural conditions that were not replicated in any other state. MS. BRINK was thankful that state representatives had never previously abdicated their responsibilities on other complicated issues of criminal justice. She advised members that she enjoyed coming before the House Judiciary Committee, and other committees, on numerous criminal bills every session. Ms. Brink pointed out that the legislature had never before decided to let the public decide whether something should be a crime, or what the punishment for that crime should be. She pointed out that she would not start with a bill, such as HB 131, because it was one of the most complicated criminal justice issues of all time. MS. BRINK stated that just because capital punishment [indisc.] enjoys popular opinion, certainly did not make it right. She noted that if members asked the public if they wanted to eliminate taxes she felt the majority of the citizens would vote to repeal the federal income tax. MS. BRINK stated that the majority of voters, at one time or another, thought slavery was a good idea. Ms. Brink advised members that they were, simply, making their own jobs more difficult. She stated that legislators would create more political pressure for themselves, because once they had the opportunity to study the idea of capital punishment, and do the research, members would understand why the death penalty would not be good public policy for the state of Alaska. Ms. Brink further stated that legislators would then be placed in a position of having to explain, repeatedly, to an uninformed electorate whom they asked for an uninformed opinion. MS. BRINK pointed out that legislators would also have to explain to the public that the cost of reinstating the death penalty in the state of Alaska would prevent the state from providing for prevention work; prevent additional community policing, victim compensation, alcohol and drug treatment, jail space, juvenile facilities. She stated that all those would be gone because all the money would have to go towards funding the death penalty. MS. BRINK explained that they were not only talking about an appellate process, but that capital trials were inherently more expensive. Other states had estimated five times the cost for a capital trial. Ms. Brink pointed out that every state that had conducted a study had shown that it cost millions and millions more to execute just one person, than to keep them in prison for life. Ms. Brink expressed that she would be happy to provide those studies to the committee. CHAIRMAN GREEN stated that the committee would appreciate receiving the studies referred to by Ms. Brink. MS. BRINK stated that she would provide the studies, and in summary, she pointed out that the death penalty was a criminal justice idea that cost a lot and accomplished nothing. She asked that members, please, not present that option to the public, as if it were viable. Number 2010 DENNIS HOLWAY advised members he had served as the United Methodist Minister in Alaska for the past 20 years. Reverend Holway pointed out that he was not generally known as a social activist, yet he felt compelled to speak against the death penalty. Reverend Holway advised members that capital punishment did not generally rally the clergy around a common voice, yet within the general conference of his own denomination, which represented some 8.5 million members, it was clearly made known that they oppose capital punishment and urge its elimination from all criminal codes. REVEREND HOLWAY expressed that he opposed the death penalty and believed Jesus would oppose capital punishment because of its bias towards the poor and the uneducated. Reverend Holway stated that Jesus would stand against the inequity of a criminal system that imposed capital punishment disproportionately on people of color, especially African-American and Alaskan Natives. REVEREND HOLWAY stated that secondly, he believed Jesus would be incensed by anyone who murdered another human being; however Reverend Holway did not believe Jesus would advocate any form of irreversible retaliation, such as capital punishment. He advised members that Jesus consistently took the high road, and believed he would be present to offer healing words to a murder victim's family, as well as to the convicted murderer, and his or her family. REVEREND HOLWAY stated in addition, that he believed Jesus would advocate for restitution and life long rehabilitation, rather than retribution. Jesus would understand how a murder victim's family would feel that capital punishment would in no way compensate for their tremendous loss, and that restitution, not retribution could become one small way to restore a sense of healing, a sense of dignity and a sense of equilibrium to both the victim's family and to the perpetrator. REVEREND HOLWAY stated that in the long run, he believed that the use of the death penalty, by the state of Alaska, would increase the acceptance of revenge in our society, and give official sanction to crimes of violence. He advised members that instead of putting energy into capital punishment, Reverend Holway was convinced the state should give attention to the improvement of the total criminal justice system, and to the elimination of social conditions which bring crime and cause disorder, rather than foster a false confidence into the effectiveness of the death penalty. REVEREND HOLWAY pointed out that many believed that a fully informed public debate on the death penalty was necessary and appropriate, but unfortunately, an advisory proposal, such as the one being proposed, would not accomplish such a goal. Number 2111 MAURI LONG, resident of the state, advised members although she was not born in Alaska, she had grown up in the state and wished to live here the rest of her life. She pointed out that it would a real sad thing for her to say that the state had passed a law that resulted in capital punishment. Ms. Long felt that the proposal in HB 131 was a travesty because it would allow the uneducated public to make a decision that the legislature was having a difficult time dealing with. MS. LONG pointed out that this was not the first year that the death penalty was being considered by the legislature. Yet, she expressed, that two to three minutes to talk about such an issue was not an appropriate amount of time, or attention necessary for such a huge and important issue. Ms. Long asked that members defeat HB 131, and take seriously the issue of capital punishment; hear the public, hear the experts and look at what had happened in other states and other countries, and make a decision based on that. Number 2198 ARTHUR CURTIS, Minister of the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship, Anchorage, advised members he had been there since 1989. Reverend Curtis advised members that he would endorse everything that Reverend Holway presented in his testimony. Reverend Curtis pointed out that the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship had gone on record a number of years ago against the death penalty. He expressed that they also believed very strongly in democracy, and would not carry that principal of democracy to the point of asking the public to state their opinion on an issue as complicated as an advisory vote on the death penalty; one in which emotions could be so easily involved. Reverend Curtis hoped that members would reconsider the legislature's intention of putting the idea of capital punishment to a vote. BLAIR MCCUNE, resident of Anchorage, pointed out that the cost of implementing the death penalty had been discussed in earlier testimony, and he pointed out that a number of years ago a vote was put to the people about moving the capital to Willow, Alaska. The next year a proposition was put before the voters that indicated the cost for the capital move, which was the Frank Initiative, and the public then decided against moving the capital, when initially they had voted for the move. MR. MCCUNE felt that equal protection of the law was very important when talking about the death penalty. He stated that as it stood, it appeared that the death penalty would be imposed on every first degree murder case, which was not the way the death penalty worked in any state in the union. Mr. McCune advised members that there was a very complicated set of aggravating factors that a jury would have to go through prior to imposing the death penalty. MR. MCCUNE pointed out that the American Bar Association had requested that the death penalty be suspended in the United States because it had not been applied equally. He stated that if the committee did not have the information of the American Bar Association, that he felt that was something that should be taken into account. MR. MCCUNE pointed out that the proposed bill provided that the procedures for the imposition of capital punishment would have to be consistent with the United States Constitution, as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court. He stated that it would be obvious that the question would have to pass muster under the Alaska Constitution as interpreted by the Alaska Supreme Court, as well. Number 2355 RICHARD REICHMAN, resident of Valdez, advised members he opposed the death penalty, and would be against it if it were not more expensive, and would be against it even if it was good for the environment. Mr. Reichman stated that he felt the death penalty was wrong, thought it brutalized society, encouraged vengeance and thought that asking the people to vote on the death penalty, when they have an irrational fear of crime, was simply wrong and unfair. MR. REICHMAN expressed that he thought the death penalty was a destabilized, not a civilized event, and generally brutalizing to society. Mr. Reichman urged that the committee put an end to the discussion of reinstating the death penalty in the state of Alaska, and stand up for the dignity of all human life. CHAIRMAN GREEN advised members that concluded testimony from the people signed up on teleconference, and asked if those in Juneau would like to present their testimony now, or come back when the bill would be considered again by the House Judiciary Committee. MR. MCCOMAS advised members that if the committee was going to reconvene on the issue the following Wednesday, that he would be available to present his testimony during that meeting. Number 2425 JED WHITTAKER expressed his appreciation of Chairman Green and Representative Croft for bearing with the public, adding that he wished the other members of the majority would have been available to hear all the public testimony. CHAIRMAN GREEN apologized; however, explained that the other members had other committee meetings they needed to attend. MR. WHITTAKER stated that money played too large a role in the political process. He noted that it was pretty much the perception that money buys politicians, and the politicians that could raise the most money were the ones that got elected. Mr. Whittaker advised members that, therefore, the people who could raise the most money on the death penalty, pro or con, would be the ones that would prevail. He advised members that that was absolutely wrong, because what they were doing was placing a value of money on the whole question of life. MR. WHITTAKER stated that ethically, the legislature could vote on the death penalty and asked why members did not exercise their ethics and vote on it in the legislature. He stated that the majority had a veto proof legislature, and as Lord Acton [Ph] once said, "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." TAPE 97-46, SIDE B Number 000 MR. WHITTAKER suggested that the majority members speak up in closed caucus that members should be addressing the question of conscience, what was right and proper, and not go along with the whole question of power for the sake of power. Mr. Whittaker stated that he realized that the question of the death penalty was a very complicated one; however, regarding the question of money, he stated that if the oil industry, who seemed to dominate who gets elected to the legislature, decided that they could use the question of life or death to divide, conquer and try to set up who would get elected, would be wrong. Mr. Whittaker stated that he believed there was something larger going on, and that there were some ethical standards that needed to be addressed. He advised members of the majority that just because they were in power did not mean that the power they were exercising was right. Mr. Whittaker advised members that legislators ought to be looking at the broader picture of what was good for the community, as a whole, and get beyond the question of power. VICKI OTTE, President of the Alaska Native Justice Center, advised members that she was Alaska Native, born and raised in rural Alaska. She expressed that while growing up, she had to carry water, use the honey bucket and the out-house, which was still the case in rural Alaska. MS. OTTE advised members that she was the Chair of her Native Corporation and Village Board, and she had been for 15 years, and she quite frequently went back to rural Alaska. She stated that there had not been a lot of change in rural Alaska since she was very young. Ms. Otte urged that members consider spending the money that it would cost to put someone to death towards areas that were so desperately needed in the state. MS. OTTE advised members that she was a Co-host to a Justice Call- In show in Anchorage, Alaska, KNBA. She pointed out that they had dealt with a number of issues such as, what does a person do if arrested and charged with a crime, and also how one felt about the death penalty. Ms. Otte stated that she had found that many people who were listening to the show did not know what the issues were, that they did not understand. She expressed that education was so very important and she felt that if HB 131 were to go somewhere, it would be necessary to educate the people in order that they understood all sides of the issue prior to making a decision. MS. OTTE advised members that between 1991 and 1993, she had the opportunity to go back to McGrath, Alaska, her childhood home, and while there she got to know a young man very well, who was a close friend of her family. Ms. Otte advised members that that young man staged his death and disappeared into the wilds of Alaska. She expressed that what was most unfortunate, was that he had murdered one of Ms. Otte's relatives. Ms. Otte advised members that had been very hard for her family to deal with. She stated that she talks with her relatives in the area of Ruby, Alaska, and had asked people how they felt about the death penalty when considering what happened in their family. Ms. Otte advised members that the response she had gotten was that it was not the Native way, was not a person's decision to make that someone else should die, even if they had committed a terrible crime, such as killing her relative. Ms. Otte advised members that comments were that it was in God's hands, and God should make those decisions. MS. OTTE stated that the Alaska Native Justice Center passed a resolution in 1994 which opposed the reinstatement of the death penalty in the state of Alaska. She pointed out that the Center had a 24 member board of directors comprised of Native leaders from across the state, members of law enforcement, members of the Alaska Bar Association and a Special Agent of the FBI. Ms. Otte advised members that the Center presented the resolution to the Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN) Convention in 1994, and was unanimously passed to oppose the reinstatement of the death penalty. She noted that the Alaska Inter-Tribal Council had also endorsed the resolution opposing reinstatement of the death penalty. MS. OTTE reiterated that it was necessary that people be fully educated prior to putting an issue such as HB 131 before the public for a vote. CHAIRMAN GREEN thanked members of the public for being so diligent, and expressed that HB 131 would be heard again on the following Wednesday.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|