Legislature(1993 - 1994)
11/16/1993 09:00 AM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
JOINT SENATE AND HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
November 16, 1993
9:00 a.m.
SENATE MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Robin Taylor, Chairman
Senator Rick Halford, Vice-Chairman
Senator Dave Donley
Senator Suzanne Little
SENATE MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator George Jacko
HOUSE MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Brian Porter, Chairman
Representative Jeannette James, Vice-Chairman
Representative Gail Phillips
Representative Pete Kott
Representative Joe Green
Representative Jim Nordlund
Representative Cliff Davidson (participated
via teleconference from Kodiak)
HOUSE MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative John Davies
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Con Bunde
Representative Ed Willis
Representative Jerry Sanders
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HJR 43: Proposed an amendment to the Constitution of the
State of Alaska relating to penal administration.
HB 162: "An act authorizing capital punishment,
classifying murder in the first degree as a
capital felony, and establishing sentencing
procedures for capital felonies, authorizing an
advisory vote on instituting capital punishment;
amending Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure 32,
32.1, and 32.3 and Alaska Rules of Appellate
Procedure 204, 209, 210, and 212; and providing
for an effective date."
SB 127: "An act authorizing capital punishment,
classifying murder in the first degree as a
capital felony, and establishing sentencing
procedures for capital felonies; authorizing an
advisory vote on instituting capital punishment;
and providing for an effective date."
PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION
HJR 43 - No previous action to record.
HB 162 - No previous action to record.
SB 127 - No previous action to record.
PREVIOUS FLOOR ACTION
BILL: HJR 43
SHORT TITLE: PRINCIPLES OF PENAL ADMINISTRATION
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) PORTER,Phillips,Barnes
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
04/24/93 1496 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
04/24/93 1496 (H) JUDICIARY
04/25/93 (H) RLS AT 01:00 PM SPEAKER'S
CHAMBER
BILL: HB 162
SHORT TITLE: CAPITAL PUNISHMENT FOR MURDER
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) SANDERS,Olberg,Bunde,Kott,
Vezey,James
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/18/93 380 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
02/18/93 380 (H) JUDICIARY, FINANCE
02/22/93 421 (H) COSPONSOR(S): BUNDE
02/24/93 445 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KOTT
03/01/93 495 (H) COSPONSOR(S): VEZEY
03/02/93 510 (H) COSPONSOR(S): JAMES
BILL: SB 127
SHORT TITLE: CAPITAL PUNISHMENT FOR MURDER
BILL VERSION:
SPONSOR(S): JUDICIARY
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/19/93 416 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
02/19/93 416 (S) JUDICIARY, FINANCE
03/18/93 (S) JUD AT 01:00 PM
WITNESS REGISTER
DEBORAH IVY, Attorney
Victims for Justice
1007 W. Third, #400
Anchorage, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HJR 43.
LINDA AKERS, Deputy Director
of Crime Strike for the NRA
2600 N. Central Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85025
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HJR 43.
WILLIAM F. DEWEY, Attorney
1150 P Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Proposed changes to HJR 43.
ELIZABETH BELLINGHIRI, Staff
Representative Jerry Sanders
State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 162.
JERRY LUCKHAUPT, Attorney
Legislative Legal Counsel
130 Seward Street, #401
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Drafted HB 162 and SB 127.
EDWARD E. MCNALLY, District Attorney
Third Judicial District
1031 W. 4th, Suite 520
Anchorage, Alaska 99501-1975
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 162 and SB 127.
JOHN SALEMI, Director
Public Defender Agency
900 W. 5th, Suite 200
Anchorage, Alaska 99501-2090
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 162 and SB 127.
BRANT MCGEE, Director
Office of Public Advocacy
900 W. 5th, Suite 525
Anchorage, Alaska 99501-2090
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 162 and SB 127.
SHARON NAHORNEY
619 E. 5th
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 162 and SB 127.
TED LEMAIRE
701 Birch
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 162 and SB 127.
DONNA DINSMORE POFF
Anchorage LIO
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 162 and SB 127.
JONATHAN KATCHER, Attorney
912 W. 6th Ave.
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 162 and SB 127.
MICHELLE KERR
Anchorage LIO
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 162 and SB 127.
JOHN FARLEIGH
1319 H Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 162 and SB 127.
RANDALL BURNS
American Civil Liberties Union
P.O. Box 201844
Anchorage, Alaska 66520
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 162 and SB 127.
HUGH FLEISCHER, Attorney
1401 W. 11th Ave.
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed to HB 162 and SB 127.
TERRY BURRELL
3716 Wesley Ave.
Anchorage, Alaska 99508
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 162 and SB 127.
JOHN HAVELOCK
604 W. 4th Ave., Suite 21
Anchorage, AK 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 162 and SB 127.
MARIE JOSIE JONES
9499 Brayton Drive, Lot 41
Anchorage, AK 99507
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 162 and SB 127.
ALLAN BARNES
UAA Justice Center
3211 Providence Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99508
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 162 and SB 127.
DIANE SCHENKER
Department of Corrections
2200 E. 42nd Ave.
Anchorage, Alaska 99508
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed fiscal note for Corrections.
KATHY KAINER
311 Melody Place, Apt. A
Anchorage, Alaska 99504
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 162 and SB 127.
JACK KEANE
2152 Dawson Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 162 and SB 127.
LISA RIEGER, Attorney
UAA Justice Center
3211 Providence Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99508
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 162 and SB 127.
FRANK CAHILL
2303 Tulik Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99517
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 162 and SB 127.
ARTHUR E. CURTIS
605 Sitka, # 203
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 162 and SB 127.
DR. DAVID DOLESE
2517 Foraker Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99517
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 162 and SB 127.
RON DAILEY
7841 Port Orford Drive
Anchorage, AK 99516
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 162 and SB 127.
CHARLES E. MCKEE
1800 DeBarr Road, # 63
Anchorage, Alaska 99504
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 162 and SB 127.
CONSTANCE GRIFFITY
Sitka, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 162 and SB 127.
LIZ DODD
100 Parks Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 162 and SB 127.
RON REED
112 Behrends Ave.
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 162 and SB 127.
BILL GLUDE
P.O. Box 22316
Juneau, Alaska 99802
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 162 and SB 127.
AMY PAIGE
592 Satter Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 162 and SB 127.
DAVID RICHARDS
393 Bering
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 162 and SB 127.
WRITTEN TESTIMONY RECEIVED FROM THESE PEOPLE:
JOHN SHAFFER
303 Kimsham
Sitka, Alaska 99835
KEVIN F. MCGEE
1113 N Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
MARY GEDDES
2544 Forest Park Drive, # 2
Anchorage, AK 99517
MATTHEW NICOLAI
601 W. 5th Ave., Suite 200
Anchorage, AK 99501
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 93-59, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIRMAN ROBIN TAYLOR called the Joint Senate and House
Judiciary Committee to order and invited REPRESENTATIVE
BRIAN PORTER to begin the meeting.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER, CHAIR, HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE,
recognized committee members present from the House
Judiciary Committee: VICE-CHAIR JEANNETTE JAMES, MAJORITY
LEADER GAIL PHILLIPS, REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN,
REPRESENTATIVE JIM NORDLUND, and REPRESENTATIVE CLIFF
DAVIDSON testifying via teleconference from Kodiak. He
introduced both his legislative aide, ERIC MUSSER, and the
House Judiciary Counsel, DANIELLE ROPER.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR also reported a quorum of the Senate
Judiciary Committee with the appearance of SENATOR DAVE
DONLEY and SENATOR SUZANNE LITTLE.
CHAIRMAN PORTER introduced HJR 43 (PRINCIPLES OF PENAL
ADMINISTRATION) by the House Judiciary Committee to the
agenda. He explained that HB 162 (CAPITAL PUNISHMENT FOR
MURDER), along with the companion bill in the Senate, SB 127
(CAPITAL PUNISHMENT FOR MURDER) would be considered later by
SENATOR TAYLOR.
At that time, CHAIRMAN PORTER welcomed REPRESENTATIVES CON
BUNDE and ED WILLIS, and announced the committee was now
connected by teleconference to Barrow, Ketchikan, Kodiak,
and Kotzebue.
Number 030
CHAIRMAN PORTER gave a historical review of HJR 43, credited
SENATOR DONLEY for his involvement in the bill, and
expressed his desire to see the bill passed this session.
He introduced JANICE LIENHART, who has worked for Victims
for Justice on the bill. Additionally, CHAIRMAN PORTER
presented the two parts of the bill as proposed
constitutional amendments, and he described the manner in
which the amendments would be confirmed in the legislative
process and by a vote of the public.
Number 051
CHAIRMAN PORTER continued with an explanation of the bill as
it dealt with Section 12 of Article I in relation to his
previous experience in law enforcement. He reviewed the
provisions of Section 12 as explained in the Constitution to
be the "reformation of the offender." CHAIRMAN PORTER
expressed his disagreement with this concept both presently
and from his past work in law enforcement and urged the
reconstruction of the constitutional provision to read as
follows: "Penal Administration shall be based upon the
following, in the order provided. First, the need for
protecting the public, community condemnation of the
offender, and the principal of reformation." CHAIRMAN
PORTER didn't propose the removal of reformation from the
amendment, but thought it was time everyone else was given
equal, if not first, consideration.
Secondly, CHAIRMAN PORTER indicated the need for a provision
to include, within the Constitution, rights for the victims
of crime, and he explained the need to balance the rights of
people as described in the Bill of Rights in the U.S.
Constitution. He criticized the Constitution of the State
of Alaska, how it most benefitted the defendants in criminal
justice suits, and how the legislation would increase the
fundamental rights for victims by placing the provisions of
HJR 43 in the Alaskan Constitution.
CHAIRMAN PORTER continued to assure the continuance of
rights that presently exist for criminal defendants, but he
said HJR 43 would present more balanced rights to victims
than have not existed previously.
CHAIRMAN PORTER concluded his presentation and called on the
first person to testify, DEBORAH IVY, representing Victims
for Justice. In addition, he explained MS. IVY would then
introduce LINDA AKERS, a Deputy Director for Crime Strike,
and a former U.S. Attorney for Arizona.
Number 096
SENATOR TAYLOR noted for the record the appearance of
SENATOR HALFORD, Senate President.
MS. IVY introduced herself to the Joint Judiciary Committee
as a victim's rights advocate, a life-long Alaskan resident,
and a law partner in the firm of DELANEY, WILES, HAYS,
REITMAN, & BRUBAKER, INC. in Anchorage. She described the
organization of Victims for Justice in Anchorage as being
led by JANICE LIENHART and her sister to assist crime
victims throughout the State of Alaska, and she further
described her reasons for being involved in the
organization.
MS. IVY thanked CHAIRMAN PORTER, and the members of the
Joint Judiciary Committee, for the opportunity to address
the legislators, and to commend them for taking the lead in
passing a resolution to provide constitutional rights to
crime victims, and she stressed the importance of their
step. She reiterated her commitment to assisting the
committee members to pass the resolution on victim's
constitutional rights, and she reviewed some concepts on the
background of constitutional rights for victims, beginning
with the work of a presidential task force on victims of
crime in 1981 & 1982 under PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN.
As a result of this work, it was suggested the Sixth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution be expanded to include
"the victim in every criminal prosecution shall have the
right to be present and be heard at all critical stages of
the judicial proceedings." MS. IVY continued to explain the
work done by local victims rights leaders in other states to
implement victim's constitutional rights by amending their
state constitutions, and thereafter to pursue amending the
U.S. Constitution.
Number 152
MS. IVY described to date the provision by fourteen states
for victim's rights by changing their constitutions, with
twelve more states presently seeking to amend their
constitutions. In addition, she described previous flagrant
disregard for the statutory rights of crime victims in these
states. She quoted the findings of the presidential task
force as asserting the statutory rights were, and are,
subservient to the offender's constitutional rights and
would not be changed until the victims were given equal
consideration.
MS. IVY continued to explain why this "basic law" should be
in the Alaska State Constitution to prevent victims from
becoming second class citizens in the process, and she
discussed the relevance of the experience of victim's rights
in the State of Michigan to the Alaskan Constitution. MS.
IVY explained how victims can become brutalized by a lack of
victim's rights and cited an Alaskan case, Raven v. State,
to prove her argument for amending the Alaskan Constitution.
Number 209
MS. IVY described the pervasiveness of crime throughout the
State of Alaska, and she examined the protection for the
offender through numerous provisions. She enumerated these
protections as given in statute and interpreted "due
process" to give expanded protection to the offenders. MS.
IVY also explained she did not propose to remove these
protections for the offenders, but to change the status quo
where presently the victim is "victimized" by both the
offender and the judicial system.
Number 258
MS. IVY requested that the proposed amendment be placed
before the voters in the next general election, and she
explained why she thought the voters would vote "yes." She
concluded by sharing a quote from THOMAS JEFFERSON, since
she thought it was particularly relevant.
At the conclusion of her testimony, CHAIRMAN PORTER reviewed
the process from there and decided to invite MS. IVY to
introduce LINDA AKERS. MS. AKERS was introduced as the
Deputy Director for Crime Strike, an arm of the National
Rifle Association, working primarily in the area of victims
rights advocacy to establish rights for crime victims and to
combat crime through legislative reform.
MS. IVY reviewed her background of service as a U.S.
Attorney, as a member of the U.S. Attorney General's
advisory committee to assist the attorney general in
formulating national policies within the U.S. Department of
Justice, as well as other relevant positions in the justice
system.
Number 307
MS. AKERS commended the legislators for taking the step
forward to provide for the rights of victims as well as for
the accused. She thanked the chairmen and members of both
the Senate and House Judiciary Committees.
MS. AKERS testified as to her position with the National
Rifle Association to provide criminal justice reform, with
her main emphasis on victim's advocacy. She described her
vantage view of the impact of laws on the victims in
relationship to the accused and the victims. She described
a time when victims she observed had no rights, but were
merely used as evidence in a case.
MS. AKERS enumerated the grievances as perceived in victim's
rights - no rights at all for victims in Alaska and for all
but a few states in the United States. She narrated lengthy
scenarios in which victims were further victimized by the
judicial system.
Number 354
MS. AKERS explained how the courts could balance the rights
of the victim against the rights of the accused, and why the
changes should be made by inclusion in the constitution
rather than by statue. She outlined the problems of
amending by statute using the premise of "fundamental law."
She took on the arguments by those opposed to victim's
rights, giving her answers from personal experience. MS.
AKERS explained how the changes would add to the
responsibilities of the prosecutor, but stressed that no
right of the victim would come at the expense of the
defendant in the proposed amendment to the constitution.
She took on the problem of cost, explaining why there would
only be a minimal rise in cost.
Number 404
MS. AKERS explained the tremendous cost of crime to the
victim and to society, and gave her opinion that the
government's most important function should be the
protection of life, liberty, and property of people. She
gave some background information on experience in Arizona
with the passage of a victim's Bill of Rights in 1990 in a
ballot initiative, and a subsequent set of laws written to
implement the constitutional amendment in 1992. She traced
the evolvement of the victim's rights law in the Arizona
Courts and gave extensive examples of cases to show the
balance in the law.
Number 450
MS. AKERS explained the opponents of victim's rights in
Arizona had raised the same "predictions of doom" as those
heard in Alaska, but she declared these predictions have not
come true. She also explained how the victims have become a
part of the criminal justice system to the advantage of
everyone in Arizona, and how the sanctity of the
constitution could also be preserved in Alaska.
MS. AKERS enumerated the plus side of the constitutional
amendment which would provide the victims with basic rights
to respect, protection, participation, justice, healing, and
finality to their ordeal. She described how obstacles to
the victims would be minimized in terms of getting their
rights established. She concluded her remarks with a
success story from Arizona and answered questions from the
audience.
Number 499
CHAIRMAN PORTER thanked MS. AKERS for her extensive coverage
of the manner in which the constitutional amendment works in
Arizona. He then read the specific victim's rights in HJR
43 to be considered for inclusion in the Alaska
Constitution. He claimed the legislation would not change
any of the statutory rights presently provided.
CHAIRMAN PORTER then opened the meeting to questions, and
called on SENATOR DONLEY, who described the differences
between HJR 43 and SJR 2 (RIGHTS OF VICTIMS OF CRIMES).
TAPE 93-59, SIDE B
Number 001
SENATOR DONLEY spoke to possible interpretation when new
material is introduced in the constitution.
CHAIRMAN PORTER explained the phrase in question was
recognized by the Alaska Supreme Court.
SENATOR DONLEY explained victims were not treated in the
same manner as the public.
There ensued a discussion among the legislators and MS. IVY,
who asked for a clear delineation to prevent problems with
interpretation.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN questioned a point by MS. AKERS about
the placement of the provision in the Alaska State
Constitution as to whether it could be overridden by any
other condition.
MS. AKERS explained it would give the victim's rights parity
and equality within the fundamental document, whereas
statutes can be subject to change, be amended, and be
interpreted when inconsistent with a constitutional
provision. She also interpreted a constitutional provision
as always given precedence over a statute.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN than asked if there was any benefit to
certain wording of the proposed amendment to prevent liberal
interpretation by the courts.
MS. AKERS said the more specific the rights, the less chance
it would be open to interpretation.
Number 063
MS. AKERS continued to explain the enumeration of specific
victim's rights on which to be relied by the victims and the
courts as was done in Arizona.
CHAIRMAN PORTER next called on REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE, who
asked about the opposition to the victim's rights amendment.
Number 100
MS. AKERS explained there was opposition from those who
didn't want anything done to the rights of the defendant,
from those who complained about cost, and prosecutors, who
were concerned about various aspects. She gave examples of
these oppositions from her assignment in Arizona.
Number 129
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked if it would be considered a
greater burden by the defense attorneys.
MS. AKERS replied the defense attorney would still have all
of the rights that accrued to the defendant as established
by judicial principles and court interpretations. She
pointed out the differences between the defense attorney and
the role of the prosecutor.
Number 160
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES expressed her distress that there has
been unfair treatment of the victims, and they should have
already been protected under the constitution. She agreed
with the quote from THOMAS JEFFERSON, and urged the "pushing
forward" of the legislation.
CHAIRMAN PORTER agreed with her distress.
In his turn, SENATOR DONLEY explained his feelings that the
rights of the defendant were well protected, the costs were
negligible, and the classic traditional criminal law theory
had not done a good job in protecting the rights of the
victims. He suggested the bureaucracy as a huge opponent
because the implementation of the rules create new jobs and
new steps to follow - which they don't like.
SENATOR DONLEY also disagreed there should be any impact on
the defendants, but said there would be the question of the
impact on sentencing. He referred to a previous case
concerning a victim's impact on sentencing, and he asked MS.
AKERS if she knew of such legislation.
MS. AKERS said the case was overturned and the victims were
allowed to talk about the impact of the capital crime on
them at the sentencing phase.
SENATOR DONLEY thought it was important to differentiate
between the guilt phase and the sentencing of the defendant.
He reminded the committee the victim did not get a chance to
testify until guilt had been assigned and not prejudicial to
the guilt of the defendant.
Next CHAIRMAN PORTER called on REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS who
said SENATOR DONLEY had partially answered her question, but
she wanted to know what had held up passage of the bill in
the past.
CHAIRMAN PORTER said he would ask someone to testify on
this.
SENATOR TAYLOR explained he had sat on three sides of the
issue, one being as a public defender during his time in
private practice, his service of six years on the district
court bench, and now, to look at the issue from the
legislative perspective. He was in agreement with SENATOR
DONLEY 'S description of the stages to decide on guilt and
moving on to what is an appropriate sentence - an entirely
different forum. SENATOR TAYLOR explained it was at this
point the additional attention from the victim would be
important.
Number 263
SENATOR TAYLOR described how, in earlier years, defendants
might plead to a Class A misdemeanor and end up in his
district court without the benefit of the superior court
with pre-sentencing reports from those involved with the
defendant. He also described how he tried, when he was a
judge, to contact the victim, which he felt gave him a
broader depth of the offense. SENATOR TAYLOR thought it
enabled him to provide a rehabilitative factor in the
sentencing of the defendant.
SENATOR TAYLOR discussed with CHAIRMAN PORTER the advantage
of slowing down the repeat offender, and how important he
thought the legislation was to structuring sentencing.
Number 305
MS. AKERS used the recent DENNY trial in Los Angeles, in
which the victim had forgiven his assailants, to explain the
use of the victim's impact statement.
SENATOR TAYLOR agreed that many people resolve their
feelings as a victim by forgiveness.
MS. AKERS explained it was important that the victim have
the right to participate and be heard.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked MS. AKERS if there was any
relation to civil cases, and she had no evidence from
Arizona that made it easier to sue in such a case.
SENATOR DONLEY asked MS. AKERS for some additional
information on principles not directly in the victim's
rights area. MS. AKERS explained his request dealt mainly
with appellate decisions as to the purpose of sentencing.
She thought his proposed language should be kept in mind
during the implementation of the legislative language.
Number 422
CHAIRMAN PORTER next invited WILLIAM F. DEWEY, a criminal
defense attorney from Anchorage, to testify on the proposed
legislation.
MR. DEWEY criticized the previous testimony for discussing
the criminals and criminal defendants as if they were
already convicted, and their rights as being different from
those of a citizen. Based on his experience, he thought the
proposed legislation was cosmetic, and he gave some examples
from his cases.
MR. DEWEY said all of the victim's rights mentioned in the
proposed legislation were currently in statute, but he
explained the statutes were flawed and should be known to
the legislators. He said the establishment of liability to
the victim is there at the time of the criminal offense, and
many criminals in this state have the means to pay their
victim for the crime they have committed.
MR. DEWEY said the present Victims Crime Act puts the
lawyer, at the time of conviction, at a disadvantage to
obtain police reports, witness statements, the kinds of
information necessary to further litigate the rest of the
action - to present a restitution argument to a judge. He
claimed those are not available to a crime victim now. MR.
DEWEY said laws should be formulated to allow crime victims
the ability to get restitution. He reviewed a second
provision in the act that absolves the Department of Law and
prosecutors from liability for not doing what they are
required to do under the act.
Number 485
MR. DEWEY said the results were, when the lawyer was not
given the information by the prosecutor, to increase the
expenses to the attorney representing the victim. He
claimed there was no definition, except for a broad policy
sense, in the Victims Crime Act as to what damages are
available to victims. He gave some case histories to
support restitution. MR. DEWEY suggested the committee
focus on the real victim's needs and work towards that end.
He reviewed his reasons as to why the present act would not
work and what is needed to put some teeth in the law to make
it work.
When asked to summarize, MR. DEWEY reviewed his solutions to
meaningful legislation to which a civil litigant is
entitled.
SENATOR DONLEY said that in 1987 he testified in support of
a bill containing all of MR. DEWEY'S suggestions, but it was
opposed by the Department of Law, the Governor's Office, and
the court system.
TAPE 93-60, SIDE A
Number 001
SENATOR DONLEY claimed his legislation was killed by the
bureaucracy and described an ingrained opposition to the
proposals in HJR 43.
There was some general conversation among the legislators,
and MR. DEWEY resumed his criticism saying all of the
provisions were in statute now. He suggested the committee
challenge the court system on the efficiency of the system
and move forward to deal with the suggestions by SENATOR
DONLEY.
There was a review of the reasons for putting the Victims
Crime Act into the Alaska Constitution by CHAIRMAN PORTER,
mainly to protect the provisions in case the statutory
rights come into conflict with the constitutional rights of
the defendants.
In answer to a question from SENATOR TAYLOR on what he would
like to see in the bill, MR. DEWEY listed a definition of
restitution in the constitutional provision written to have
some meaning. He said restitution presently has no meaning
to a crime victim who wants to go to court to ask for
restitution of nonspecific damages, and he explained why the
present definition did not work.
Number 062
MR. DEWEY gave some suggested language that would protect
the right of the victim to collect additional civil damages.
SENATOR DONLEY clarified the language by explaining that
victims of crime have greater rights than other people in
civil court, because the previous Victims Rights Act
provided fewer exemptions from the collection of restitution
from people who committed the crime. He explained how there
was a more limited scope in present proceedings.
MR. DEWEY explained how the view could be changed to make
restitution simpler.
SENATOR DONLEY concluded with a follow-up as to whether it
would be appropriate to include victims in Section 1.
CHAIRMAN PORTER and SENATOR TAYLOR discussed the role of the
victim in the decision making stages and whether it belonged
in Section 24, to keep the victim apprised of all
proceedings.
HB 162 - CAPITAL PUNISHMENT FOR MURDER
SB 127 - CAPITAL PUNISHMENT FOR MURDER
Number 118
CHAIRMAN PORTER relinquished the committee chair to SENATOR
TAYLOR, who announced the hearing on HB 162 (CAPITAL
PUNISHMENT FOR MURDER) and SB 127 (CAPITAL PUNISHMENT FOR
MURDER).
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR explained there would be a balance of
testimony on both sides of the issue.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR called the meeting back to order and gave
some background information when he co-sponsored a similar
bill six years ago. He said this was the first hearing to
be held in ten years on this issue. He further said he
hoped the debate would reach the floor in both houses for a
vote, and he thought there should be a point in time when
the death penalty should be used at the discretion of the
jury.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR spoke about the differences in the two
bills, but felt there could be some modifications in both.
He then invited REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS to give an overview
of his bill, HB 162.
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS thanked those present who came to
discuss capital punishment, saying it has needed to be
addressed for many years. He claimed the will of the people
has been thwarted in past attempts to institute the death
penalty.
Number 404
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS explained the bill seeks the death
penalty in cases of first degree murder with aggravating
circumstances. He further explained that if the legislation
is passed by the legislature, it would go the public for an
advisory vote. REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS claimed the people of
Alaska have been in favor of the death penalty by 75 to 85%
in the different polls. He feels the death penalty would be
a deterrent and was supported by the will of the people. He
then turned the remainder of the overview over to his aide,
ELIZABETH BELLINGHIRI.
MS. BELLINGHIRI suggested that rather than giving a
sectional analysis, she would defer to JERRY LUCKHAUPT, the
attorney who drafted both capital punishment bills.
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS checked to be sure MR. LUCKHAUPT
would point out the differences in the two bills.
REPRESENTATIVE PETER KOTT asked to question MS. BELLINGHIRI
as to his understanding the only difference in the two bills
was the prosecutorial discretion in the House version as to
the treatment of the offenders and the impact on the fiscal
notes.
Number 454
MS. BELLINGHIRI noted the fiscal notes were similar as
presented by the Department of Law despite the text change
to reflect the prosecutorial discretion. She said the
fiscal note for SB 127 should be approximately four times
greater than for HB 162 based on figures from the Department
of Law. She reviewed their analysis of the statistical
manner on which they based their costs and explained why the
fiscal impacts were not really similar. The Department of
Law decided to change their fiscal note for the Senate
version to make it a more accurate reflection.
Number 450
MS. BELLINGHIRI explained what she called a "brief
difference" in the two bills, and she further explained the
use of the prosecutorial discretion to preserve the
integrity of the system. She said the discretion provision
was to be used in heinous situations where death was a
possible sentence, otherwise, the two bills were the same.
Without prosecutorial discretion, MS. BELLINGHIRI said the
legislation opened the doors to litigation.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked MR. LUCKHAUPT, Legislative Counsel for
Legal Services, to testify on the two bills.
MR. LUCKHAUPT began by noting both bills were drafted by him
in similar fashion but were based on different versions of
death penalty bills from the Fifteenth and Sixteenth
Legislature. He explained SB 127 was from a bill co-
sponsored by CHAIRMAN TAYLOR from the Fifteenth Legislature
that actually passed the Senate that year, but did not
proceed from there. He also explained the bills had been
updated over the years to reflect the U.S. Supreme Court
Cases on the death penalty issue.
MR. LUCKHAUPT said the death penalty issue is one of the
most litigated issues to be found, but the direction from
the supreme court has made the bills easier to draft, such
as to narrow the discretion of the jury to the
particularized nature of the crime and the particularized
characteristics of the defendant. The narrowing of this
focus permits the imposition of the death penalty.
MR. LUCKHAUPT then reviewed the differences, such as
"findings" in HB 162 but not in SB 127. He said these
findings are for the legislature to decide whether or not to
use.
MR. LUCKHAUPT gave a comprehensive sectional analysis of
both bills.
TAPE 93-60, SIDE B
Number 001
This tape began with SENATOR DONLEY asking questions about
the aggravators.
MR. LUCKHAUPT answered that in order to impose the death
penalty on someone convicted of first degree murder, at
least one of the statutory aggravating factors, given later
in the bill, must be present.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if they were specific to this death
penalty.
MR. LUCKHAUPT said they had been added in 1992.
MR. LUCKHAUPT continued with the sectional analysis and
expanded on some of the points which would provide for a
bifurcated trial and some options.
Number 125
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked MR. LUCKHAUPT if the burden of
proof for the jury in finding the aggravating factor must be
unanimous and beyond a reasonable doubt. Once that is
found, if they balance that and any other aggravating
factors against any mitigating factors they have found to a
preponderance of the evidence, which is a lower standard?
Number 135
MR. LUCKHAUPT quoted the supreme court as saying that once
the aggravating factor is found beyond a reasonable doubt
the case is then eligible for the death penalty, and the
mitigating factors end up being a way to determine whether
or not the death penalty should be imposed.
There was a general discussion of mitigating and aggravating
factors and the problems of proof.
Number 375
SENATOR HALFORD spoke about the court of appeals as being
totally a legislative creation and questioned whether the
legislature could define the court of appeals by statute.
He said the court of appeals is not constitutional nor is it
constitutionally protected.
MR. LUCKHAUPT said the bill had changed the jurisdiction of
the court of appeals by not allowing them to hear capital
offenses. In answer to a question by SENATOR HALFORD, MR.
LUCKHAUPT argued it was not a rule change.
SENATOR HALFORD asked if the legislature, by simple
majority, could repeal the existence of the court of
appeals, which was created by simple majority.
MR. LUCKHAUPT believed they could.
Number 414
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked MR. LUCKHAUPT to be available for
questions after lunch.
(The committee recessed for lunch.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR reconvened the meeting in the midst of
questions to MR. LUCKHAUPT by SENATOR HALFORD on the
standards for the use of the aggravator and the mitigator.
MR. LUCKHAUPT explained the court would rule on the
relevancy of the mitigating factor.
SENATOR HALFORD continued to question MR. LUCKHAUPT closely
on the use of the mitigating factors and where they are
found.
MR. LUCKHAUPT said the court could not limit the number of
mitigators that go to the jury, so there is no way to list
them - but the judge must allow any relevant mitigating
evidence to go to the jury.
If the list can not be constitutionally contained, SENATOR
HALFORD asked if there were any parameters.
MR. LUCKHAUPT quoted from supreme court decisions that would
allow any one juror to hang the process.
SENATOR HALFORD wanted to know to what extent the
legislature can make the statute work, because he was
concerned the legislature would be creating something that
cannot ever be used.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR expressed interest in a more complete answer
to the use of mitigating factors as used by the other
thirty-seven states that have a death penalty statute on
their books.
SENATOR DONLEY asked to add a caveat to the question asking
how many of those state have parallel provisions in their
constitution.
MR. LUCKHAUPT began his explanation by discussing the
balance of reformation with the protection of the public,
and he repeated testimony from the constitutional
convention. He said some of the Western states had
comparable language, but it was difficult to find a state
that makes a perfect match. He also explained HB 162 and SB
127 were based on the Georgia system, which is used the most
in the 37 states that allow capital punishment. He reviewed
similar systems from other states.
MR. LUCKHAUPT said when the death penalty was struck down in
1968 by the U.S. Supreme Court, they struck down a series of
state laws that required mandatory imposition of the death
penalty for various crimes. States, such as Georgia,
adopted a system approved by the supreme court in the early
1970's.
TAPE 93-61, SIDE A
Number 001
This tape picks up the question and answer session by
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR and SENATOR HALFORD with MR. LUCKHAUPT, who
was explaining additional aspects of the death penalty,
including the length of time served by people on death row.
He reviewed the number of appeals that could be made in
Alaska, even with the new legislation.
MR. LUCKHAUPT said the lack of prosecutorial resources could
hamper the use of the death penalty in Alaska, and he
reviewed the problems involved in prosecuting a death
penalty case. He offered to do some additional research on
the constitutional limits.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER presented two understandings and asked
MR. LUCKHAUPT to comment.
MR. LUCKHAUPT explained the voir dire procedure where,
before the trial, the two sides talk to the jury to
determine what they know about the case and their feelings
about the death penalty. He also explained the role of the
judge and new juries in this action.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked if there was anything in the
bills that would alleviate the concerns people have at the
lapsed time between conviction and the execution sentence.
MR. LUCKHAUPT talked about the limitation on the court of
appeals in the bills and the provision for direct appeal to
the Alaska Supreme Court, which can remove about a year from
the appellate process. He described proposals in the
federal system to streamline the federal habeas corpus
procedures, but he said it did not impact the bills. MR.
LUCKHAUPT didn't hold out much hope for speedy trials.
Number 093
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked for some understanding on the
procedure. For instance, what if the defendant pleads
guilty? Would there still be a long drawn out process?
MR. LUCKHAUPT explained, under SB 127, if the defendant
pleads guilty to first degree murder, the death penalty
phase of the sentencing proceedings would begin. Under HB
162, if the prosecutor has not elected to seek the death
penalty, even if the defendant pleads guilty, there would be
no death penalty phase. If the prosecutor elects to seek
the death penalty, or if the defendant pleads guilty without
a plea bargain as to a life sentence, then the death penalty
phase would begin.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN read from HB 162 and asked about the
jury.
MR. LUCKHAUPT explained the role of the jury in the
sentencing phase of the trial, or in the case of the judge
hearing the case, a jury would have to be convened to hear
the sentencing phase.
They continued to discuss these provisions at some length.
Number 190
SENATOR DONLEY returned to constitutional issues and
directed MR. LUCKHAUPT to page 9 of a memorandum from JACK
CHENOWETH, an attorney from Legislative Legal Counsel, for
his opinion on the test for constitutionality under Article
1, Section 12, and asked if he shared the same opinion as
MR. CHENOWETH.
MR. LUCKHAUPT expressed no problem with MR. CHENOWETH'S
conclusion or his reasoning and explained there would be no
way to predict what the Alaska Supreme Court would do under
a challenge. He cited the Raven Case as an example in
Alaska and summarized conclusions from other states.
SENATOR DONLEY asked MR. LUCKHAUPT on what he based his
analysis of the law and gave an example from a previous
meeting on the "rule of evidence" where the courts refused
to recognize "legislative intent." SENATOR DONLEY wanted to
know if his analysis was based on what a neutral tribunal
would do or take into consideration the unique
characteristics of Alaska.
MR. LUCKHAUPT explained that all of the considerations were
factored into his decision, and he noted the inclination of
the Alaska Supreme Court to utilize the state constitution
to justify or strike down various actions of the legislature
or the executive branch. As a general rule, supreme courts
in other states have not been too active in the enforcement
of their own constitutions, but Alaska has been different.
He thought the Alaska Supreme Court has acted in a liberal
manner in defendant's rights but felt there has been a
change in the supreme court over the last few years, which
he also felt has mirrored the changing perception about
crime by residents.
Number 276
SENATOR DONLEY again expressed his concerns about how the
laws could be made constitutional, and he referred to
several points of concern in both MR. CHENOWETH'S and MR.
LUCKHAUPT'S memorandums.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR assured him there would be more hearings on
the death penalty bills.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR brought the questioning to a close to allow
more time to hear from others, beginning with EDWARD
MCNALLY, District Attorney for the Third Judicial District
in Anchorage and DEAN GUANELI, Chief of the Legal Services
Section of the Criminal Division, on the teleconference line
from Juneau.
MR. MCNALLY expressed his appreciation at being able to
participate in the discussion and acknowledged those who had
championed the battle for capital punishment. He began by
conveying the support of GOVERNOR WALTER HICKEL for the
efforts of the committee and the governor's promise to sign
any legislation that would ensure that "cop killers, and
others guilty of vicious and heinous murders in Alaska, will
face the full range of constitutionally approved penalties."
MR. MCNALLY also brought the personal thanks of ATTORNEY
GENERAL CHARLIE COLE, who regretted that he was unable to
participate in person. He explained that both the governor
and the attorney general had made the death penalty and the
battle against violent crime a top priority.
Number 333
MR. MCNALLY proposed questions to be asked of those who
oppose the death penalty, and he began with some background
material, including "the death penalty is in effect in
Alaska today for R.D. CHEELEY. He said PRESIDENT BILL
CLINTON is working to add forty-seven new categories to the
laws that will be in effect in the state of Alaska through
the Federal Court System."
MR. MCNALLY noted the trial would take place in Portland,
Oregon, and he asked the participants where they would
prefer to see the case heard.
MR. MCNALLY then focused on the governor's concern for "cop
killers" and the change in attitude of the offender towards
the police. He said today the police are the first ones
shot and targeted by criminals armed with a staggering array
of weapons. He reminded the committee of the weapons shown
in a previous meeting, and he presented a case history of a
heinous crime against a police officer by a juvenile with
one of these weapons.
Number 408
MR. MCNALLY presented some background information on the
sentencing procedures in Alaska and in other states where
they have capital punishment. He asked why the prosecutors
in the state of Alaska do not have the same tools as the
prosecutors on the federal level, with the full array of
penalties on the books. MR. MCNALLY urged a response from
opponents of capital punishment.
When talking about costs, MR. MCNALLY gave a perspective on
the cost of not having a death penalty. He thought there
were many cases that could be "disposed of" short of a
trial, thus saving on cost. He offered the statistic of
30,000 policemen and women being killed in this country
since it was founded, twenty-six of whom were killed here in
Alaska. He said these figures don't take into account the
wounded, the disabled, and the suffering of the families of
the officers.
Number 462
MR. MCNALLY said the Alaskan troopers and cops deserve all
the protection the law, passed by the legislature, can
offer, and criminals need to understand that in Alaska, if
you shoot a cop, you will be severely punished .... possibly
with their life. He returned to fiscal notes and budget
considerations and observed that the cost of the fiscal
notes are unknown and resource determinations are made every
day when they are screening 1,400 felony cases a year. MR.
MCNALLY urged the legislators not to make fiscal notes an
obstacle to the proposed legislation.
MR. MCNALLY said the death penalty was warranted in Alaska
for two principal reasons: first, because it can deter
certain crimes involving premeditation and calculation; and
second, society has the right to exact a just and
proportionate punishment for reprehensible offenses. He
gave two examples to prove his case for the death penalty.
TAPE 93-61, SIDE B
Number 001
MR. MCNALLY gave the following statement: "A criminal
justice system that is limited like ours, only to lesser
sanctions, is lacking in adequate deterrents and fails to
meet our community standards, and their need to exact a just
and proportionate punishment for the gravest offenses."
MR. MCNALLY enumerated the reasons given for criminal
behavior, but he rejected those in favor of designating
criminal behavior as a choice between good and evil.
MR. MCNALLY concluded by describing the memorial placed in
Washington, D.C., to the slain police men and women of the
United States, as well as the memorial at the state
trooper's headquarters in Anchorage with the names of the
twenty-six officers attached to a statute of an Alaskan law
enforcement officer. He offered his services, as well as
those of DEAN GUANELI in Juneau, to answer questions on the
fiscal notes.
Number 067
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR thanked MR. MCNALLY for his presentation,
but requested the deferment of questions to allow persons on
the other side of the issue to testify. He then called on
JOHN SALEMI, Director of the Public Defender Agency, and
BRANT MCGEE, Director for the Office of Public Advocacy to
testify.
Number 075
MR. SALEMI spoke to the issue he thinks binds all persons in
the room together, which is our perception that we need to
do something in this nation, in this state and in this
community, to enhance the public safety of law abiding
citizens. He suggested that people were attending the
meeting to support the bills because they are frightened and
frustrated by crime, and they wanted solutions.
Number 102
MR. SALEMI would not characterize himself as someone who was
trying to defeat an enactment of the death penalty, but as a
person just as concerned as the participants in the meeting
over public safety issues. He explained he planned to
present some information so the public could make an
informed decision about how to use the finite resources that
we have in this state to fight crime, to provide
rehabilitation, and to prevent further victimization of the
populace.
MR. SALEMI spoke to the perception that capital punishment
deters crime, which he classified as logical and rational.
He quoted REPRESENTATIVE SANDER'S view that the death
penalty would deter criminals, and he described a "stack of
studies" which indicates that capital punishment does not
have a deterrent effect. He asked the participants to look
at more obvious evidence, which he said was thirty-seven
large-scale experiments which are the states that have the
death penalty, some for many years.
Number 130
MR. SALEMI explained there were no statistics from the
thirty-seven states that gave evidence the death penalty had
deterred violent crime or homicides. "In fact," he said,
"much of the evidence suggests just the opposite, there is
no significant impact."
MR. SALEMI acknowledged that society is apparently becoming
increasingly dangerous, but those tools employed are not
working to fight crime. He listed capital punishment as one
of those failed experiments. He explained that if the death
penalty is removed as a deterrent to crime, it leaves only
one other strong or compelling use, which is to reaffirm the
values of society - possibly a moral judgement.
Number 158
MR. SALEMI discussed the down-side in using capital
punishment to achieve retribution, the first being the
expense, and he respectfully disagreed with MR. MCNALLY on
the resource decisions, and drew on the experience of other
jurisdictions to speculate that it would be enormously
expensive to employ capital punishment in this state. He
quoted the prevailing belief that it is just the cost of law
enforcement, the cost of justly punishing people.
MR. SALEMI enumerated a list of what he considered the
crimes that really affect individuals on a large scale
basis: drug trafficking, burglaries, auto theft, property
damage, sexual abuse, and more. He explained the money that
would go towards processing the death penalty cases would be
detracting from efforts of law enforcement in addressing the
crimes that affect all of us on a very regular basis.
MR. SALEMI described the justice system as being frail, the
probability that capital punishment would be instituted in
the state, and that innocent people would be executed. He
said no matter how many resources are spent on the legal
process, mistakes will be made, and he reviewed all the
procedures that might go wrong on all levels of a death
penalty case. MR. SALEMI said these cases can be
documented.
Number 274
MR. SALEMI explained that both he and MR. MCGEE would need
larger budgets to process capital punishment cases. He
listed what he considered better uses for the money, and he
suggested using it for the education of people on crimes and
deterrents. He offered each member of the committee packets
of information on studies about capital punishment. He
concluded by urging people to go beyond the emotional
components and look at the practical effect of sound public
policy.
MR. MCGEE described his agency, the Office of Public
Advocacy, as small, expending about $6.4 million in public
funds in the representation of about ten thousand citizens
in the state, with primary responsibility to abused and
neglected children, incapacitated persons, and indigent
criminal defendants when the court has determined the Public
Defender Agency has a conflict of interest.
MR. MCGEE said among his primary responsibilities is cost
control, because nearly two-thirds of the cases for which he
is responsible are performed by private contractors and
court appointed professionals throughout the state. He said
he had become a student on the costs of the death penalty
over the past few years because it has been considered
before.
MR. MCGEE expressed pleasure at being able to share his
personal research information, and he referred to a New York
study in 1982 which determined the average cost for each
death penalty case at $1.8 million. He extrapolated that to
$2.5 million per case in 1996 dollars, and he said it did
not point to the real costs in every case.
Number 380
MR. MCGEE reviewed expenditures in California of $593
thousand for trial costs alone, with one case in which they
expended over $5 million, and in one county, California
contracted with six private defense counsels to represent
three separate criminal defendants at $450 thousand per
defendant per trial. In 1988 California was spending over
$90 million a year on capital cases, and since capital
punishment was instituted eleven years ago the costs have
amounted to about $750 million. He said California just
executed their first person earlier this year.
MR. MCGEE explained the prosecution failure rate is quite
high on the number of people actually executed as opposed to
those for whom the death penalty is pursued. The trial
costs alone in California is about $6 million before the
person is put on death row. He further explained in Florida
the cost is $3.2 million per execution.
MR. MCGEE presented the combined fiscal notes for the Alaska
Court System, the Department of Law, the Public Defender
Agency, and the Office of Public Advocacy, which would total
over $21 million in the first four years from the enactment
of the death penalty. He claimed the figure would likely
double during the first ten years, and it would be at least
eight to ten years before the first Alaskan defendant is
executed, which would mean Alaska would spend at least $40
to $50 million before the first Alaskan defendant is
executed.
Number 414
MR. MCGEE stressed the importance of the impact on the
scarce resources in the state in relation to the experiences
in other states, and he quoted California as devoting half
the time of their supreme court to death penalty cases.
Currently none of the Alaskan Supreme Court time is used on
death penalty cases, but MR. MCGEE contended there would be
tens of thousands of Alaskans who are trying to get into
district courts, small claims court, superior court, and the
Alaska Supreme Court who would have to wait their turn in
line. He further contended there would be a dramatic
slowing of the process of both criminal justice in other
cases and civil justice in all cases if the legislature
enacts a law that mandates the expenditure of vast public
resources on just a few cases.
Number 430
MR. MCGEE disagreed with MR. MCNALLY as to the extent of the
costs, and he encouraged legislators to become informed on
the vastly expensive undertaking that should go forward only
with very good reasons. In his own agency, MR. MCGEE
described how his representation of other individuals within
his statutory mandate would suffer if he had death penalty
cases, since they would be the highest priority cases in
every office in which they are housed. He offered to
respond to any specific questions and to share his research
information on other aspects of the death penalty.
Number 461
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR thanked both MR. SALEMI and MR. MCGEE,
praised their professional presentations, and assured them
they would be involved in additional debate.
Next, CHAIRMAN TAYLOR invited SHARON NAHORNEY, who testified
as a member of a family of victims of violence. She thought
it was important to keep the death penalty issue before the
legislature because they will realize it is a just law and a
"must have" law for the state of Alaska to maintain a safe
and sane society.
MS. NAHORNEY suggested that money could be saved by not
providing law libraries and law degrees for prisoners to
create more appeals that come back through the court system.
She asked them to consider how to calculate the cash value
of avoiding murders and the value of the life of a loved
one.
MS. NAHORNEY thought the capital punishment bill was
necessary to protect our community, and she felt the death
penalty can be a key anti-weapon and a major deterrent. She
cited seven and a half years as the average life sentence
for murder across the nation, putting them out to walk among
us. She didn't think this time period was enough, and crime
was repetitive and seasoned criminals come out to re-offend.
She gave some histories to defend her statements.
Number 499
MS. NAHORNEY described that the new breed of criminals
raised on crack and more prone to violence bring about an
increase in homicides. She reviewed the statistics of those
favoring the death penalty, the problems in rehabilitation,
and the release of criminals due to prison overcrowding.
She recommended more prisons if there is not to be a death
penalty, and she blamed the courts for being too concerned
with the rights of the prisoners rather than the rights of
society. She said a constitutional amendment must be passed
to give victims equal rights to perpetrators.
MS. NAHORNEY reviewed a series of studies on the low number
of criminals committed for their crimes, the rise in crime
rates, and the lack of protection for society.
TAPE 93-62, SIDE A
Number 001
Testimony continued from tape three on the "Gillmore Effect"
where publicized harsh punishments appear to contribute to
lower rates of violent crime, while unpublicized harsh
punishments have no affect on the rate of violent crime.
Number 030
MS. NAHORNEY believes that had a death penalty been in
effect in 1985 when her family was murdered, it would have
been a sufficient deterrent to the murderers to have
prevented the crime.
Number 071
TED LEMAIRE, the grandfather of a victim, MANDY LEMAIRE,
testified he left the Lower Forty-Eight to escape rising
crime rates, and he encouraged the legislature to look at
anti-crime legislation. Despite the fact that his eleven-
year-old granddaughter was kidnapped, sexually assaulted and
murdered, he remains opposed to the death penalty. He has
accepted her death.
MR. LEMAIRE considers the real problem to be crime. He
advocates dealing with crime, but not through the death
penalty. He believes crime will affect all people at some
point in their lives.
Number 131
MR. LEMAIRE continued, saying the death penalty will not
deter a criminal, nothing will deter a criminal. In his
grand-daughter's case, he said the criminal had stalked
several other girls before killing his granddaughter. He
explained that the difference between us and the criminal is
that we can be deterred by a host of things and the criminal
cannot.
MR. LEMAIRE referenced an occurrence several months ago of a
confrontation between a gunman and police officers at Tudor
and Muldoon in Anchorage where the gunman could not be
deterred. He noted the gunman in the incident was a repeat
offender. He said criminals lack the ability to see how the
principles of right and wrong apply to them. MR. LEMAIRE
claimed the law must be consistently practiced and applied
to be a deterrent, something which has never been done.
Number 248
MR. LEMAIRE summarized by saying he has seen the public
defender and public advocacy people at work and he was
offended by their operation. He claimed they had money to
burn and their budgets should be cut. He said the biggest
problem with the use of the death penalty was the legal
hassles that are generated, and attorneys who over-utilize
the appeals process should be penalized.
Number 305
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR requested information on people wishing to
testify and asked for show of hands for those unable to
testify in Juneau. He stated he was willing to stay as long
as it takes for everyone who wishes to testify to do so.
DONNA DINSMORE POFF said she was testifying on behalf of her
son who was murdered. She contacted thirty-four legislators
regarding her son and was disappointed that she only
received responses from two legislators, REPRESENTATIVES
GRUSSENDORF and SANDERS. She said it takes too long for
justice to be served.
Number 387
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR assured MS. POFF that all her comments from
both days of testimony will be in the record.
MS. POFF summarized by saying she never wants anyone to
forget her son and urged the committee to expedite the
passing of these bills.
Number 428
JONATHAN KATCHER testified that the cost of the death
penalty is not intended to be a reflection of what the lives
of the victims are worth, but will take away funds and
resources from prosecuting crime. He thinks that
implementing the death penalty would prolong the pain of
crime victims and their families because of the greater
degree of scrutiny with which the courts would examine these
cases.
Number 468
MR. KATCHER said he found it ironic that the same
legislature that is contemplating giving juries the power to
dispense a sentence of capital punishment is also
contemplating taking away the power of juries to award
compensation in cases in civil court.
MR. KATCHER described a person and a crime that would fall
under the guidelines of this legislation. He stated that
this person is now heavily involved as an advocate in the
Native sobriety movement and is now doing positive things
for this community and this legislature, because it's saving
money by getting to the heart of the Native sobriety issue.
He urged the legislature to resist the emotional element in
the passage of the death penalty.
Number 535
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR called the next witness, MICHELLE KERR, who
said she couldn't believe that the death penalty wouldn't
deter someone from committing a crime. She said she
couldn't think of a better argument for the death penalty
than when someone from prison conspires and succeeds in
killing someone else. She also agreed with the concept of
"an eye for an eye."
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR thanked the previous witness and called the
next witness, JOHN FARLEIGH, who stated he was at one time
on a jury for a murder trial. He said murder is a horrible
thing and deserves to be punished as harshly as possible,
but real life cases are not as "cut-and-dried" as they are
on Perry Mason.
TAPE 93-62, SIDE B
Number 001
MR. FARLEIGH summarized by saying it would be hard for a
jury to decide whether or not to use the death penalty for
fear that an innocent person would accidentally be sentenced
to death. He thinks it would have been much harder for the
jury on which he served to come to a decision had the death
penalty been an available sentencing option. He concluded
by saying the death penalty is a permanent decision and the
potential for executing someone wrongly exists. He
commented that if someone who is sentenced to serve jail
time is later found to be innocent, then at least that
person can be let out of jail.
Number 059
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR thanked MR. FARLEIGH again for his testimony
from the point of view of the juror and thanked him for
giving his time and energy to the American jury system.
The next witness was RANDALL BURNS, representing the Alaska
Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), who stated the ACLU is opposed
to the death penalty and believes that capital punishment is
inconsistent with our fundamental values. He said the ACLU
is not soft on crime, but believes that any state that would
authorize the killing of another is committing an immoral
act. He said it is an issue of respect for human life.
MR. BURNS said it teaches the permissibility of using
violence to solve social problems, and capital punishment is
really murder by the government.
Number 105
MR. BURNS continued by saying the facts simply do not
support the idea that the death penalty would be a deterrent
to possible violent criminals. Most people think they will
be able to avoid detection in committing a crime, and the
death penalty simply is not going to stop that mind set.
MR. BURNS raised the issue of fairness because death row
inmates are disproportionately composed of African-
Americans. He thought that in Alaska, Alaska Natives would
possibly make up a large number of the inmates on death
row.
MR. BURNS commented that in the trial courts of this nation
at this time the killing of a white person is treated much
more severely than the killing of a black person. Of the
168 persons executed between January 1977 and April 1992,
only twenty-nine have been convicted of killing a non-white
person, and only one of these twenty-nine persons was white
himself.
MR. BURNS stated that as utilized in our justice system, the
death penalty is reserved for murderers, regardless of their
race, who kill a white person. When discretion is used in
sentencing a person, it has always been used in this country
to mark for death the poor, the friendless, the uneducated,
and members of racial minorities, thus discretion becomes
injustice. Also, he said you cannot correct a mistaken
conviction once the state has taken that person's life.
MR. BURNS offered a list of examples of persons who have
been on death row who were later found to have been innocent
of the crimes for which they were sentenced and were later
released from prison.
Number 165
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR requested that MR. BURNS submit a copy of
the list to the committee.
MR. BURNS suggested the legislators make alterations to
existing laws in order to clarify for the public that life
imprisonment without the possibility of parole exists in
this state and can be used by prosecutors.
MR. BURNS said he understands no person convicted in Alaska
of first degree murder is eligible for parole for at least
thirty-three years. He urged the legislature to adopt
specific language offering life without parole in Alaska and
ending the idea that we should be bringing the death penalty
to the state.
Number 198
MR. BURNS said in regards to the death penalty assuaging the
grief suffered by the family of the victim, that most
families of victims say that no penalty can substitute for
the loss of a loved one. He quoted from a report entitled
"Sentencing for Life" which was submitted to the committee.
MR. BURNS offered another report, "Millions Misspent: What
Politicians Don't Say About the High Cost of the Death
Penalty," which he submitted to the committee along with a
brochure on a poll which found that only 41% of the
population would support the death penalty if there were
provisions in law for first degree murderers to be sentenced
to life in prison with no possibility of parole.
Number 238
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR called the next witness, HUGH FLEISCHER, an
Anchorage attorney, who said there were no guarantees
whatsoever in this legislation that the only people
sentenced to death would be those who are without a doubt
guilty of a heinous crime. He recalled the second person to
be executed in the U.S. after the death penalty was
reinstated in 1979 was JOHN SPEKALINK, whose case was
mismanaged by the defense, since there were strong
indications that he had acted in self-defense when he
committed the murder for which he was accused. In addition,
there were comments from one of the defense attorneys
stating that he did not feel qualified enough to defend MR.
SPEKALINK.
Number 289
MR. FLEISCHER said there are flaws in the system, and it is
important that the state do everything possible to help
victims of crime, but it should also insure that our state
does not make an innocent person a victim of this process.
Number 337
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR thanked MR. FLEISCHER for testifying and
called the next witness, TERRY BURRELL, who described to the
committee her neighborhood community council meeting where
everyone agreed that it should be a priority to stop the
increasing rate of crime and to protect the neighborhoods.
She supported SB 162 or a combination of the Senate and
House bills relating to the subject, whichever could be
implemented. She also would like to see a limit on the
number of appeals available to defendants.
MS. BURRELL asked the legislature to please pass a capital
punishment law, effective January 1, 1995. She believes
that lethal injection or hanging would be a deterrent and
agrees with ED MCNALLY'S testimony. She has not been a
victim of crime, but thinks the death penalty is needed.
MS. BURRELL urged the committee to ignore the testimony of
the ACLU.
Number 376
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR thanked MS. BURRELL for testifying and
called on JOHN HAVELOCK, who apologized to the committee for
not being able to hear previous testimony in order to avoid
repeating anything already said. He thought that if capital
punishment was an option in sentencing, there would be more
defendants pleading guilty on lesser charges in order to
avoid the risk of being punished with the death penalty. He
questioned whether this would be a desirable thing to do and
thought that it would be adding to the power of prosecutors.
MR. HAVELOCK doesn't like the trend of the past thirty years
of taking more discretion away from judges and giving it to
prosecutors.
Number 422
MR. HAVELOCK continued by saying he thought this bill is a
part of that trend, and in addition, the death penalty is
not a good idea under the particular circumstances of the
administration of justice. He is not opposed to the death
penalty for moral reasons, but thinks that in Alaska it
would be a particularly "lousy idea."
MR. HAVELOCK also considered that under the Constitution of
the State of Alaska this bill would be unconstitutional.
His advice, if the death penalty is really needed, would be
to amend the Constitution of the State of Alaska. He
believes that the death penalty would cause problems in the
multi-racial population of the state, since figures show
that minorities would probably be unduly affected by such a
law.
Number 470
MR. HAVELOCK also declared it would add to the increased
divisions between ethnic groups. He commented on the fact
that during the time he has been attending the committee
meeting he has seen no blacks, and perhaps one Native. He
once again asserts that the effect of the death penalty
would be to increase interracial hostility. MR. HAVELOCK
continued his analysis of the constitutionality of capital
punishment in the state.
Number 537
MR. HAVELOCK totally agreed with the need to do more for
victim's rights, and he agreed with the option of sentencing
first degree murderers to life imprisonment without chance
of parole.
SENATOR DONLEY asked about the constitutionality of having
the death penalty available for any charge of aggravated
first degree murder, and if MR. HAVELOCK doesn't think it is
rather a large leap from a sentence of twenty years to one
of death.
Number 568
MR. HAVELOCK responded he wasn't particularly bothered by
the difference between the possibility of a twenty year
sentence and one of death. It does remind him of how much
he is bothered to see the cost of the justice system going
up and up and up. His theory was that every time one part
of the criminal justice system gets a little more money, you
have to give money to the other parts of the criminal
justice system, but he thinks each part should get a little
less money. It seemed to him that the essence of fairness
for defendants is in the balance of funds within the court
system, not the total sum of the defender's budget.
Number 599
SENATOR HALFORD reminded people that the legislature does
not set the budget for the Public Defender Agency, but the
court system sets their budget; the legislature only
supplements the Public Defender Agency's budget.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked MR. HAVELOCK to look over the legal
opinion by JACK CHENOWETH regarding the bill.
An UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER noted that there was also a question
of constitutionality regarding Section 12 and asked MR.
HAVELOCK to review HJR 43 in relation to amending Section
12.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR thanked MR. HAVELOCK once again for his
testimony and called the next witness, MARIE JOSEPH, who
stated she was not a victim, but she felt that many victims
are not seeing justice done. She thought it was time to
pass a capital punishment law, and the legislature could
pass laws that would make capital punishment more cost
effective. (TAPE 4 ended before MS. JOSEPH was finished
testifying.)
TAPE 93-63, SIDE A
Number 001
(TAPE 5 was not started until part way through this witness'
testimony.)
ALAN BARNES from the University of Alaska, Anchorage said
the Justice Center would offer to answer those questions
objectively. He said he was familiar with the Spekalink
situation and also with the Nelson/Pogeny case.
Number 020
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR called the next witness, DIANE SCHENKER,
from the Department of Corrections, who had several points
she wanted the committee members to consider. The first one
would be to add the term "probation officer" to the list of
other terms used to describe peace officers, or simply use
the term "peace officer" consistently to describe all these
positions. She said another option would be to use the term
"correctional employees."
Secondly, MS. SCHENKER asked the committee to consider not
using hanging as an option in carrying out a sentence of
capital punishment. She said it is difficult and more
expensive than other types of execution.
Number 053
MS. SCHENKER also informed the committee that the fiscal
note had been dramatically revised from the previous year
because the department made the erroneous assumption that
had these people not been sentenced to death, they simply
would not have existed in the system. In fact, had they not
been sentenced to death, they most certainly would still
have had a fiscal impact on the system. The fiscal note has
been revised to show that impact. MS. SCHENKER claimed
there is no space in the correctional system for the next
person sentenced to ninety-nine years in prison and, in
fact, the prison system is 130 persons over capacity.
MS. SCHENKER said, with or without this bill, more space for
prisoners will need to be either contracted or built. She
stated here would be no difference in the housing of inmates
on death row and the housing of other comparably classified
inmates - other than the last twenty-four hours before the
execution.
SENATOR DONLEY asked MS. SCHENKER to clarify where she got
her information on how death row prisoners are housed.
Number 092
MS. SCHENKER told SENATOR DONLEY that she had talked to
officials in the State of Washington and to persons who have
worked on death row in both Washington and California.
Number 100
SENATOR DONLEY answered that he was more concerned with the
safety of other prisoners and correctional officers if
criminals, sentenced to capital punishment, were housed with
the general prison population. He asked MS. SCHENKER if it
wouldn't be preferable to house persons on death row
separate from other prisoners.
MS. SCHENKER noted that all prisoners, regardless of the
reason for incarceration, are segregated at the beginning of
their stay. She said the incentive for prisoners to behave
is in their having access to television, telephones, etc.
MS. SCHENKER was asked if the agencies coordinated their
work on fiscal notes, and she responded that a meeting had
been scheduled for all agencies to get together following
the committee meeting. She said she had talked briefly with
the Office of Management and Budget regarding her fiscal
note, and though it was agreed her fiscal note did not clash
with anyone else's, that was as far as the discussion went.
She commented that a lot of assumptions must be made in
order to prepare a fiscal note for this legislation, and it
therefore may be rather arbitrary.
Number 145
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR thanked MS. SCHENKER and called the next
witness, CATHY KAINER, who testified she has personal
knowledge of the financial cost of the death penalty, having
worked in Texas while the death penalty was used. She
believed capital punishment cases tie up the justice system,
causing delays at all levels. She said the effect the death
penalty had on the judicial system was the best argument for
abolishing the death penalty.
MS. KAINER thought resources could be better used in the
prevention of crime rather than spending millions of dollars
trying to put a few people to death. She stated that by
instituting capital punishment, we are moving backwards from
the rest of the world. Most countries in the world are
moving towards abolishing the death penalty. MS. KAINER
listed a number of countries and the dates on which they
abolished the death penalty in those countries. She said we
needed to ask ourselves how other criminal justice systems
work, since other countries don't seem to be suffering from
the same high rate of crime as the United States.
Number 199
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR thanked MS. KAINER for her patience and
called the next witness, JACK KEANE, who stated he has
always been opposed to the death penalty, particularly in
Alaska, which he has always considered to be ahead of the
other states in modern, clear, scientific thinking. MR.
KEANE quoted from the constitution, "Life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness, we hold those rights to be
inalienable." He said somehow or other we've ended up with
a supreme court that says, "Well, in these special cases we
can sort of skip that provision."
MR. KEANE said he believes that capital punishment is
unconstitutional, and hopes the state of Alaska won't join
Texas and South Africa in instituting a death penalty. He
questioned whether it would be practical, considering we may
only have one execution every one to two years, and whether
it would really make a difference in terms of protecting the
citizens of the state from violent criminals.
Number 276
MR. KEANE did not think the justice system in Alaska works
well enough to entrust it with the death penalty. He
claimed he has seen things go wrong in the system, and it
shouldn't have the power to impose the death penalty.
Number 300
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR thanked MR. KEANE for his patience in
waiting to testify and called the next witness, LISA RIEGER
from the UAA Justice Center, who announced to the committee
she was speaking from the point of view of an attorney who
has tried a death penalty case. She said the process of
trial and sentencing in death penalty cases is extremely
costly, and she was not sure that anything would be gained
by having the death penalty.
Number 334
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR thanked MS. RIEGER and called the next
witness, FRANK CAHILL, who told the committee that he
opposed the death penalty. He said he thinks there is a
significant chance of convicting the wrong person, and he
feels it is uncivilized. MR. CAHILL suggested we don't cut
off people's hands to stop them from snatching purses, etc.
He advocated, as MR. BURNS does, life sentences without
possibility of parole. MR. CAHILL'S final reason for
opposing the death penalty was because he thinks there is a
chance that capital punishment would be applied unfairly,
and he doesn't want to be part of a system that treats
anybody unfairly.
Number 383
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR called the next witness.
ARTHUR E. CURTIS testified it would be a shame to pass a law
instituting capital punishment. He stated that the
statistics show very clearly that capital punishment is not
a deterrent. He said that all the faults of the judicial
system are magnified when you get to the level of capital
punishment, and capital punishment cases put too much
sustained pressure on everyone involved in the case: the
jury, the prosecutors, and the justices.
MR. CURTIS told the committee that it would also be a huge
expense to the system. He thinks that passing a capital
punishment law would only constitute a symbolic resolution
of the problem of violent crime and would not address the
real causes and solutions.
MR. CURTIS offered a suggestion to the committee as part of
the solution to the problem of violent crime, which would be
to spend more money on drug rehabilitation centers. He
thought it was pathetic that our society is looking for a
violent solution to violence.
Number 435
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR called the next witness, DAVID DOLESE, who
read a written statement to the committee regarding an
experience he had shortly before the end of World War II in
which the army division of which he was a part surrounded
and liberated a German concentration camp in Austria. He
said that the terrible things he saw in the concentration
camp convinced him that when governments decide to execute
their own people, mankind's dark and evil side emerges in a
fearful manner.
DR. DOLESE continued reading his statement, describing how
he thought a justice system should function. He said that
execution does not have to be used to reach the goal of
protecting law abiding citizens from violent criminals. He
suggested that capital punishment smacks of vengeance and
should not be part of an ideal government's actions - that
government should be above such emotional responses.
Number 511
DR. DOLESE compared legalized execution as being on the same
path as the torture and extra-judicial executions that occur
in other countries. He urged the committee to not debase
themselves by embracing this easy way out.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asks DR. DOLESE if he was also opposed to
the war crimes trials that occurred after WWII and the
results of those trials.
Number 520
DR. DOLESE replied that he was not opposed to the trials
being held or to the executions at the time they occurred.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR thanked DR. DOLESE for his testimony and
called the next witness, RON DAILEY, who stated he was
speaking in opposition to the death penalty legislation. He
agreed with most of the reasons given by previous witnesses,
but said he would confine his testimony to the moral
question of whether we should use our courts to carry out
executions. MR. DAILEY also thought it is a most
uncivilized act. He claimed he was not soft on crime, but
believed that if someone commits a murder, that person
should be put in prison for the rest of their life without
the possibility of parole. He said since that view is more
stringent than the current laws, he cannot be considered
soft on crime.
Number 559
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR thanked MR. DAILEY for his testimony and for
being patient in waiting to testify. He then called the
next witness, CHARLES E.MCKEE, who said he has studied what
the Bible says regarding capital punishment, and he quoted
several passages from the Bible. He noted the legislation
before the committee related to the judicial and financial
aspects of capital punishment. He also explained that both
Christianity and commerce are a part of common law.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR acknowledged that MR. MCKEE was discussing
interesting debates, but asked MR. MCKEE to stay on the
topic.
Number 633
MR. MCKEE asked CHAIRMAN TAYLOR to allow him to make his
point and accused the people around him of diverting his
attention from the subject matter. He then mentioned a
report which he was willing to hand out to the committee of
what OPEC has done to our society.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR advised MR. MCKEE this hearing was not about
OPEC.
MR. MCKEE said he has an interest in resolving heinous
crimes in our society because there has been an attempted
murder on his life. He mentioned that a U.S. marshall tried
to instigate an attack him on October 18 after he found an
indictment on JUDGE HOLMES. MR. MCKEE described numerous
attacks on his person.
Number 685
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR acknowledged that MR. MCKEE probably has
some great points on other subjects and that he would enjoy
listening to them sometime, but if MR. MCKEE wouldn't stick
to the legislation before the committee, he would leave.
MR. MCKEE continued his previous testimony, saying he
opposed the legislation regarding capital punishment
primarily because it recognized the monetary system in
operation in the U.S.
Number 723
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR thanked MR. MCKEE for his testimony and
asked if there was anyone on the teleconference network who
would like to testify.
TAPE 93-63, SIDE B
Number 001
Next to testify was CONSTANCE GRIFFITY, who agreed with much
of the testimony expressed by others opposed to the death
penalty. She has been a member of the ACLU for fifty years,
has studied the issue of the death penalty, and believes it
has been used disproportionately to punish minorities. She
was concerned that this would also happen if the death
penalty was implemented in Alaska. She agreed that the
money would be better spent controlling the causes of
violence. She believed the death penalty itself is by
definition premeditated murder. She expressed a hope that
the committee would consider all that has been said today
regarding whether the death penalty really does serve our
needs. She said HJR 43 makes sense to her; she does not
believe victims should have to wait years and years and
years for restitution.
Number 047
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR thanked MS. GRIFFITY for her testimony and
asked if there was anyone else on-line who would like to
testify.
LIZ DODD testified she was opposed to the death penalty for
a number of reasons. She thought by implementing a death
penalty, Alaska would be repeating the mistakes of other
states. She said capital punishment would be a drain on
public resources with no measurable deterrent effect. She
claimed not all families of victims of violent crimes were
in favor of capital punishment, and Alaska's justice
policies should be driven by prevention of crime, not by
retribution.
MS. DODD cited a passage from the Alaska Constitution
supporting her belief that capital punishment was
unconstitutional. She said lives built on child abuse and
neglect, alcohol and drug abuse, domestic and culturalized
violence, are lives which all too often end in tragedy. She
said the state needs to address violence where it begins in
people's lives, rather than adding on one more violent
ending.
Number 080
MS. DODD observed that support for the death penalty assumes
that the justice system in Alaska is working without
discrimination, and the state is somehow above error. The
death penalty is uncorrectable in situations in which an
error occurs. MS. DODD noted the titles of two books in
which the committee might be interested: In Spite of
Innocence and Dead Man Watching.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR thanked MS. DODD for testifying and called
the next witness, RON REED, who expressed his concern that
implementing the death penalty in Alaska would do nothing
but polarize the state, increase the cost of our criminal
justice system, and sooner or later culminate in the
judicial murder of someone wrongly convicted of a crime. He
said past experience with the death penalty in other states
found an increase in violent crime during the time in which
capital punishment was used.
Number 130
MR. REED said violence begets more violence, innocent people
would undoubtedly be executed, and the composition of
inmates on death row would probably be made up of a
disproportionate number of Alaska's Native people and other
people of color. Finally, the state would incur the high
cost associated with the implementation and maintenance of a
death penalty.
Number 148
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR thanked MR. REED for his testimony and
requested anyone who read from written statements to please
give a copy to the committee for their files. CHAIRMAN
TAYLOR called the next witness.
BILL GLUDE said he was speaking in opposition to the death
penalty and was horrified the possibility of implementing a
death penalty in Alaska was being considered. He appraised
the death penalty as being premeditated and the deliberate
killing of Alaskan citizens by our state government. He
does not believe the problem of violent crime can possibly
be solved by committing more murder in the name of the
state.
MR. GLUDE stated that people who commit violent crime are
not thinking clearly about the consequences, don't care
about the consequences, or are intoxicated and therefore
would not be deterred by the possibility of being sentenced
to death. He concluded by asking the committee members to
consider how each of them would feel if anyone were to be
wrongly executed as a result of their actions on this
legislation. He commented that there are no easy
solutions.
Number 188
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR thanked MR. GLUDE for his testimony and
asked if there were any more people in Juneau who wished to
testify.
Number 190
AMY PAIGE stated for the committee that she was opposed to
capital punishment on moral and religious grounds and
believes it is no different from the crimes it seeks to
punish. She said it was morally wrong for the state to
enact laws based on revenge for wrongs committed.
MS. PAIGE said since the laws of our country state we must
regard all people as equal to one another, there was no
justification for the distinctions set forth in the
legislation before the committee that would recommend the
death penalty based on who the victim of the crime was. She
said this aspect of the legislation was unconstitutional.
Number 210
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR thanked MS. PAIGE for her testimony and
called for witnesses from Soldotna.
Number 212
DAVID RICHARDS informed the committee that he is definitely
in favor of the death penalty. He based his conviction on
moral and religious grounds because he feels that death is
proper justice for a person who willingly murders another
person.
MR. RICHARDS did not think that deterrent should be an
issue, but that capital punishment was a matter of proper
justice. He was in favor of putting an advisory vote
relating to the implementation of capital punishment on the
ballot so that the people of the state of Alaska can vote on
the issue.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR thanked MR. RICHARDS for his testimony and
noted for the record that written testimony was received
from JOHN SHAFFER, KEVIN MCGEE, MARY GEDDES, and MATTHEW
NICOLAI.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR also noted for the record that three members
of the House and one member of the Senate stayed for this
meeting until 6:07 p.m.
As there was no one else waiting to testify, CHAIRMAN TAYLOR
thanked all the participants for their testimony, their
patience, and adjourned the meeting.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|