03/24/1997 01:15 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
March 24, 1997
1:15 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Joe Green, Chairman
Representative Con Bunde, Vice Chairman
Representative Brian Porter
Representative Jeannette James
Representative Norman Rokeberg
Representative Eric Croft
Representative Ethan Berkowitz
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 95
"An Act relating to motor vehicle registration, licensing, and
insurance; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
* HOUSE BILL NO. 131
"An Act providing for an advisory vote on the issue of capital
punishment."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 10
"An Act requiring mediation in a civil action against an architect,
engineer, or land surveyor; amending Rule 100, Alaska Rules of
Civil Procedure; and providing for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD; CSHB 10(L&C) MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE
3/21/97
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 95
SHORT TITLE: MOTOR VEHICLE INSURANCE & LICENSING
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) GREEN, Bunde, Rokeberg, Cowdery
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/29/97 168 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/29/97 168 (H) TRANSPORTATION, JUDICIARY
02/05/97 252 (H) COSPONSOR(S): BUNDE
02/10/97 297 (H) COSPONSOR(S): ROKEBERG
02/19/97 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
02/19/97 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
02/21/97 429 (H) COSPONSOR(S): COWDERY
02/26/97 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
02/27/97 504 (H) TRA RPT CS(TRA) 3DP 4NR
02/27/97 505 (H) DP: KOOKESH, COWDERY, WILLIAMS
02/27/97 505 (H) NR: HUDSON, ELTON, SANDERS, MASEK
02/27/97 505 (H) FISCAL NOTE (DPS)
02/27/97 505 (H) REFERRED TO JUDICIARY
03/05/97 548 (H) FIN REFERRAL ADDED
03/21/97 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/24/97 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 131
SHORT TITLE: ADVISORY VOTE ON CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) SANDERS, Rokeberg, Kohring
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/13/97 332 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/13/97 333 (H) JUDICIARY, FINANCE
03/12/97 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/24/97 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
KRISTY TIBBLES, Legislative Secretary
to Representative Joe Green
Capitol Building, Room 118
Juneau, Alaska 99811
Telephone: (907) 465-4931
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments on behalf of Representative
Joe Green, Prime Sponsor of HB 95
JUANITA HENSLEY, Chief
Driver Services
Division of Motor Vehicles
Department of Public Safety
P.O. Box 20020
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0020
Telephone: (907) 465-5860
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 95
JOHN GEORGE, Representative
National Association of Independent Insurers
3328 Fritz Cove Road
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 789-3328
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 95
MICHAEL LESSMEIER, Representative
State Farm Insurance
One Sealaska Building, Suite 303
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-5912
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 95
JOSEPH YOUNG
Address not provided
Anchorage, Alaska
Telephone: (907) 349-8720
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 95
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY SANDERS
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 414
Juneau, Alaska 99811
Telephone: (907) 465-4945
POSITION STATEMENT: Prime Sponsor HB 131
GAYLEN ATWATER
HC 72-7190
Delta Junction, Alaska 99737
Telephone: (907) 822-3151
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 131
GERRY KNASIAK
119 Austin, Number 611
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Telephone: (907) 247-7893
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 131
CHARLOTTE BASHAM
P.O. Box 25078
Ester, Alaska 99725
Telephone: (907) 479-2006
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 131
SCOTT CALDER
P.O. Box 75011
Fairbanks, Alaska 99707
Telephone: (907)474-0174
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 131
CHRISTINE REICHMAN
P.O. Box 2405
Valdez, Alaska 99686
Telephone: (907) 835-5525
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 131
VIRGINIA WARD
High School student
P.O. Box 877455
Wasilla, Alaska 99687
Telephone: (907) 373-6394
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 131
LIZ BENSON
High School student
P.O. Box 874835
Wasilla, Alaska 99687
Telephone: (907) 376-6967
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 131
REVEREND JUDITH MCQUISTON
P.O. Box 730
Barrow, Alaska 99723
Telephone: (907) 852-6568
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 131
GEORGE FREEMAN
1152 P Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 274-8497
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 131
REVEREND RICHARD KOCH
2612 East Northern Lights
Anchorage, Alaska 99508
Telephone: (907) 272-2822
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 131
CLAUDIA KNIEFEL
8451 Miles Court
Anchorage, Alaska 99504
Telephone: (907) 337-6560
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 131
LISA FITZPATRICK
2822 Iliamna Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99517
Telephone: (907) 248-1206
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 131
REVEREND JAY OLSON KETCHUM
3820 Delwood Place
Anchorage, Alaska 99504
Telephone: (907) 338-4569
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 131
REVEREND DALE KELLEY
355 Donna Drive, Number 19
Anchorage, Alaska 99504
Telephone: (907) 333-5254
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 131
SIDNEY BILLINGSLEA
604 West 22nd Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 277-9119
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 131
SUSAN ORLANSKY
2708 West 64th Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99502
Telephone: (907) 248-1141
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 131
BARBARA HOOD
2413 Lord Baranof Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99517
Telephone: (907) 248-7374
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 131
HUGH FLEISCHER
1227 West 9th, Number 300
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 278-3635
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 131
FRED DEWEY
Law Office of Ashton & Dewey
1101 West 7th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 276-3299
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 131
ROBERT CROSMAN
7123 Henderson Loop
Anchorage, Alaska 99507
Telephone: (907) 344-3577
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 131
BARBARA BRINK, Acting Public Defender
Department of Administration
900 West 5th Avenue, Suite 200
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907)264-4414
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 131
REVEREND DENNIS HOLWAY
United Methodist Church
3300 West Northern Lights
Anchorage, Alaska 99517
Telephone: (907) 243-3963
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 131
MAURI LONG
510 L Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 277-5400
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 131
REVEREND ARTHUR CURTIS
Unitarian Universalist Fellowship
1605 Sitka, Number 203
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 272-7360
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 131
BLAIR MCCUNE
2524 East 17th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 276-6104
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 131
RICHARD REICHMAN
P.O. Box 2405
Valdez, Alaska 99686
Telephone: (907) 835-5525
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 131
JED WHITTAKER
Address not provided
Telephone not provided
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 131
VICKI OTTE, President
Alaska Native Justice Center
670 Fireweed Lane
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Telephone: (907) 265-5971
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 131
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 97-45, SIDE A
Number 001
The House Judiciary Standing Committee was called to order by
Chairman Joe Green at 1:15 p.m. Members present at the call to
order were Representatives Con Bunde, Brian Porter, Jeannette
James, Eric Croft, Ethan Berkowitz and Chairman Joe Green.
Representative Norman Rokeberg arrived at 1:18 p.m.
HB 95 - MOTOR VEHICLE INSURANCE & LICENSING
CHAIRMAN JOE GREEN, Prime Sponsor of HB 95, invited his Legislative
Secretary, Kristy Tibbles, to present comments on HB 95, "An Act
relating to motor vehicle registration, licensing, and insurance;
and providing for an effective date."
Number 067
KRISTY TIBBLES, Legislative Secretary to Representative Joe Green,
explained that HB 95 would allow the Department of Public Safety to
create and maintain an insured motorist identification data base
for the purpose of verifying compliance with the Alaska mandatory
motor vehicle insurance provisions. She explained that the program
would cross index drivers licenses and vehicle registrations with
insurance policy records provided monthly by all insurance
companies doing business in the state of Alaska. Ms. Tibbles
stated that with the data base, a statewide list of uninsured
motorists would be generated and warning letters would be mailed
requiring motorists to provide proof of insurance, or to obtain
insurance.
MS. TIBBLES further stated that the data base would be available to
peace officers which would allow them to electronically verify that
a person had valid auto insurance. She advised members that the
Department of Public Safety would contract with a third party agent
to establish the insured motorist identification data base, and
would provide confidentiality of those records. Ms. Tibbles stated
that a provision of the bill prohibited public disclosure of
information in the data base.
MS. TIBBLES advised members that the cost to maintain the data base
would be covered by a surcharge placed on all vehicle
registrations. She noted that the uninsured motorist data base had
had a significant impact on the insured motorist population in the
state of Utah since its implementation in 1995. Ms. Tibbles
pointed out that the statistical data demonstrated that Utah's
uninsured motorists populations had been reduced by 43 percent.
MS. TIBBLES advised members that the Division of Motor Vehicles
supported the proposed legislation because it would provide them
with a tool to identify uninsured motorists. She noted that the
Alaska Peace Officers Association was also supportive of HB 95.
Number 221
REPRESENTATIVE ERIC CROFT asked if the state did not presently have
authority to require motor vehicle insurance.
MS. TIBBLES advised members that presently the state only required
proof of insurance within 15 days after being involved in a motor
vehicle accident.
REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER asked if the method of reporting would
include the submission of information that the policy written met
the minimum coverage requirements.
MS. TIBBLES stated that to her understanding, that would be
correct.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER noted that a list of items that would be
included in the report were reflected on the bottom of page 1, and
continued on page 2; however, he did not see any specific mention
of a particular policy meeting minimum standards.
CHAIRMAN GREEN advised members that current law required minimum
auto insurance coverage, and the concern expressed by
Representative Porter would be addressed during the hearing.
Number 360
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES noted that after reviewing the fiscal note, it
appeared as though the cost of the program was more than what the
state expected to receive in revenues. She stated that the revenue
was based on a fee of $1 per vehicle registration, and felt that
charge could be raised to $2.
MS. TIBBLES advised members that a work draft committee substitute,
Version "K" had been crafted which raised the fee to $2.
CHAIRMAN GREEN entertained a motion to adopt draft CSHB 95(JUD),
Version "K" as the committee's working document.
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE moved to adopt CSHB 95(JUD), Version "K",
dated 3/22/97. There being no objection, CSHB 95(JUD) Version "K"
was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE stated with the raise in the fee from $1 to
$2, it was his understanding it would make the revenue neutral.
CHAIRMAN GREEN stated that that would be correct.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked if the Utah experience displayed a
reduction in insurance rates.
MS. TIBBLES advised members that it did decrease 43 percent.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE noted that some insurance companies had
expressed opposition to HB 95 and asked what their reasons were.
MS. TIBBLES advised members that she thought insurance companies
opposed the bill because it required them to report information on
a monthly basis, and they were also concerned with the
confidentiality of their insurance records. She pointed out that
the bill required a third party contractor, and the insurance
companies were concerned with the third party having access to that
information; however, a disclosure section was included in the
bill.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE assumed insurance companies may have expressed
the same concern in Utah, and asked if their concerns had been met.
MS. TIBBLES advised members the Utah bill had been enacted, but
could not respond to what concerns had been expressed by the
insurance companies. She stated that insurance companies in Utah
were reporting information. Ms. Tibbles pointed out that other
states that had implemented the program had done so just recently,
so was hard to tell what their success rate had been.
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked that Juanita Hensley with the Division of
Motor Vehicles address the committee.
JUANITA HENSLEY, Chief, Driver Services, Division of Motor
Vehicles, Department of Public Safety, advised members they were in
support of HB 95 because they felt it provided a means of
accomplishing an efficiency measure for the division. Ms. Hensley
pointed out that the division currently suspended the drivers
license of anyone who was not insured at the point of being
involved in a motor vehicle accident if damages were in excess of
$501.
MS. HENSLEY stated that of those who were involved in a motor
vehicle accident during the past year, approximately 13 percent
were uninsured.
MS. HENSLEY stated with respect to having a repealer clause, the
department would suggest it be until at least the year 2003, or
possible 2005. She stated that going through the procurement
process and requesting bids from third party contractors to set up
a third party data base was quite time consuming. Ms. Hensley
advised members that the division would like to have the program
implemented for three full years in order to determine whether it
was working or not.
MS. HENSLEY advised members she would like to offer an amendment to
Section 13, page 6, that would allow for a police officer to
verify, electronically, whether a person was covered by auto
insurance at the time a person was involved in a motor vehicle
crash, or cited for a moving violation. Ms. Hensley pointed out
that there was no language in Title 28 that would allow a police
officer to cite a person if not insured, and felt that issue should
be addressed. She noted that the only provision in current law
that provided for a penalty was after an accident had occurred,
then the division could suspend the individual's drivers license.
Ms. Hensley advised members that the division could request the
troopers, or the district attorney to file a misdemeanor or felony
charge against the individual if they signed their vehicle
registration form claiming they had auto insurance coverage when,
in fact, they did not.
MS. HENSLEY advised members that the states of Colorado, Louisiana,
Michigan and Arkansas had similar legislation pending. She pointed
out that the state of Connecticut used a third party vendor just
like the state of Utah, and the states of Oregon, New York, Nevada
and Florida had data base requirements. Ms. Hensley did not know
the percentage of reduced uninsured motorists in those states, or
whether it had decreased premiums.
Number 990
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES advised members that she was under the
impression that the state of Alaska did not have a mandatory auto
insurance law except if an accident had occurred. She asked Ms.
Hensley to explain what the current law provided for.
MS. HENSLEY advised members that current law states that if an
individual is involved in a motor vehicle accident, with $500
damage or more, the individual is required to submit proof to the
division within 15 days of the accident that the vehicle was
insured. Ms. Hensley pointed out that the law also required that
at the time of registration the person must self-certify that the
vehicle met the limits of liability under AS 28.22. She expressed
that a person could do that; however, there was no mechanism to
assure that an individual was maintaining auto insurance, nor was
there a means to verify that a person had insurance at the time the
vehicle is registered with the division.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if auto insurance was mandatory, would
it be available to everyone in the state, such as an individual
with a prior driving record. She was concerned whether a person
could be denied insurance, for what ever reason, and felt there
should be some type of insurance pool available in order to comply
with the law.
Number 1182
MS. HENSLEY could not speak specifically to that; however, advised
members there was a provision in Alaska Statute that allows an
individual to be placed in a pool and insurance companies would be
required to insure those people. She reiterated that the state, at
the present time, had no means to verify whether an individual had
auto insurance or not, and the proposed legislation would allow for
electronic verification of insurance at the time an individual
registered his/her vehicle. Ms. Hensley pointed out that if the
division could not verify insurance coverage through the data base,
they would refuse to register the vehicle until the person could
show proof of insurance.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES advised members that she could understand the
concern of the insurance companies with respect to the reporting
requirements. She noted; however, that if a policy were cancelled,
the division would not be aware of that until the next reporting
date.
CHAIRMAN GREEN pointed out that the proposed legislation addressed
that situation.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that the current law was weak and felt
it should be made perfectly clear that auto insurance was mandatory
in the state of Alaska.
MS. HENSLEY advised members that the limits of liability insurance
in Alaska were fairly low compared to other states.
Number 1425
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE noted that 13 percent of Alaskans were assumed
to not carry auto insurance and the present time, and he felt that
percentage would decrease if the proposed legislation were enacted.
He stated that there had been testimony that reflected insurance
rates had decreased because of such a law, and asked the reason for
the decrease in insurance premiums.
MS. HENSLEY could not answer that question, although would find out
and report back to him.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated that he was concerned that if the
proposed legislation were enacted it would have an effect on public
safety enforcement, as well as the Department of Corrections.
MS. HENSLEY did not see how it would impact public safety or
corrections. She stated that presently 13 percent of individuals
involved in motor vehicle accidents were not insured and she was
responsible for suspending the drivers license of those
individuals. Ms. Hensley pointed out that if HB 95 were enacted,
there would be fewer suspensions and more people would be insured.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ felt they would be faced with the same
problem the state currently had regarding the overall crime rate.
He noted that even though the overall crime rate had declined, the
state was arresting more people which increased the rate of
incarceration. Representative Berkowitz stated that it would
involve a cost component because it would be easier for a charge to
be made immediately because of the electronic verification process,
and ultimately it would result in a court proceeding and jail time.
Number 1638
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked if the law was basically where it was
eight or 10 years ago regarding financial responsibility.
MS. HENSLEY advised members the division was not administering the
financial responsibility law at all, with the exception of
requiring an individual to file and show proof of SR 22 insurance
after their license had been suspended. She noted that the program
was eliminated the previous year through budget cuts, and the
Division of Motor Vehicles lost four positions that administered
that program.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated that there was a mandatory insurance
law that required an individual to indicate they have insurance at
the time they register their vehicle, and asked if the law required
a person to maintain that coverage.
MS. HENSLEY advised members that the law required a person to show
proof of insurance after the fact; 15 days after being involved in
a motor vehicle accident.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated that assuming a person would be
concerned about falsifying a record and they did, in fact, have
insurance at the time they so stated on their registration form,
and then immediately cancelled their insurance, there was not a
law, to his knowledge, that would require the person to maintain
their insurance.
MS. HENSLEY stated that that would be correct.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked what type of information would be
reported by the officer.
MS. HENSLEY advised members that was a grey area that she pointed
out because she felt it needed to be addressed.
Number 1754
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to the present requirement for
insurance certification and proof after the fact, that there would
be $50,000 cap for any one individual injured.
MS. HENSLEY advised members that it was $25,000 for a single
injury, $50,000 for a single death, and $100,000 for multiple.
Number 1804
JOHN GEORGE, representing the National Association of Independent
Insurers (NAII), advised members that NAII was a trade organization
of property and casualty insurance companies who represent
approximately 50 percent of all automobile insurance written in the
state of Alaska with Allstate being the largest company and a
number of other companies.
MR. GEORGE advised members that the NAII wished the solution to
uninsured drivers was as simple as the bill purported it to be. He
stated that there were a number of things that really concerned the
auto insurance industry, as well as some real misstatements of
fact.
MR. GEORGE stated that according to the Division of Motor vehicles,
the state had a 13 percent uninsured rate. He noted that if
members were to look across the nation, most states would be very
happy if only 13 percent of their driving population was uninsured.
He was not sure what the rate was in Utah, although he would be
interested in finding out and would bet it was not below 13
percent. Mr. George pointed out that the state of Utah did not
actually audit the program, but the contractor audits their own
program and it was their figures that would reflect a reduction in
the number of uninsured motorists. Mr. George pointed out that the
proposed legislation reflects that the state "may" audit the
contractor, and the NAII would like to see an audit required, if
enacted into law.
MR. GEORGE advised members that the NAII felt the numbers coming
out of Utah were questionable for a number of reasons. He stated
that it was his understanding that the vendor in that state was a
sole source vendor who came up with the idea and presented it to
the state of Utah. That vendor got the sole source contract, and
also reported the data, which appeared somewhat "fishy" to the
NAII.
MR. GEORGE advised members that the USAA, a member company of the
NAII, reported that it cost them approximately $6 per policy to
gather the data and report it to the third party contractor in
Utah. He noted that that was in addition to the fee that would be
charged to the person when they registered their vehicle, and under
HB 95 that would result in $8 per vehicle. Mr. George expressed
that he had three vehicles so that would amount to approximately
$25 that he would have to pay to make sure the 13 percent would get
caught. He stated that there were many people in the state of
Alaska who refuse to buy insurance, and would find a way around it.
MR. GEORGE pointed out that the NAII had found that the most
significant number of people who did not have auto insurance was
because of the cost of insurance. He stated that raising the cost
of insurance would not help those people at all. Mr. George
advised members he did not know how to help those people, although
there was an assigned risk plan where everyone who could afford
insurance could get insurance. He added that insurance was
mandated and therefore, the insurance industry had been put upon to
provide that insurance. Mr. George explained that there was a pool
that all companies that write auto insurance had to participate in,
and even if the courts failed to revoke someone's license, if an
individual has a drivers license they would be entitled to buy
insurance.
MR. GEORGE expressed that there would be people who could not
afford insurance, and if caught, they would be without the means to
transport themselves to work, day care, et cetera. He stated that
that was a social problem and did not know how that could be
addressed. Mr. George agreed that those people should have
insurance, noting that when they registered their vehicle they
swore under penalty of perjury that they had insurance and would
maintain it. He noted that there were not a lot of people getting
prosecuted for perjury who could be put in jail, but the state did
not because it does not make sense and was not cost effective.
MR. GEORGE advised members that the issue of confidentiality of
insurance records was very important to insurance companies. He
noted that insurance companies have information on policy
expiration dates and if a competing insurance company acquired, in
some manner, a list of those names and expiration dates, the
competing company could solicit those people to hopefully write
some of those policies. Mr. George agreed that the bill provided
for confidentiality, as did the state of Utah; however, he could
certify to committee members that USAA received a letter in their
mail one day that was a complete data base of a competitor sent in
error. Confidentiality sounded good in theory, but in practice it
had not worked in Utah.
Number 2052
MR. GEORGE pointed out that there were people who like to break
into computers, for one reason or another, and insurance companies
had spent a great deal of time and effort attempting to keep their
records secure. He stressed the fact that the insurance company
would not have a handle on the third party contractor.
MR. GEORGE stated with respect to the $2 charge per vehicle
registration, and the $6 cost the insurance companies would realize
because of the need to report the information, was what he termed
a tax. Mr. George advised members if they were going to pass HB 95
it should include a strong enforcement and penalty provision in
order to get rid of the uninsured motorist.
MR. GEORGE advised members that the NAII was in support of the idea
that if people were going to sign their vehicle registration under
penalty of perjury that they had insurance that they better have
insurance. He noted that the NAII did not believe HB 95 was a way
of accomplishing that. Mr. George reiterated that the 13 percent
figure was just not all that bad, but actually a fairly low
percentage.
MR. GEORGE pointed out that in some rural areas there were a lot of
people that did not even register their vehicles, did not have
drivers licenses or license plates, yet drive with impunity. He
felt if the greater population was going to be enforced, it should
include everyone in the state.
Number 2160
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if what Mr. George was saying was that it
would be better not to charge people a small amount in an attempt
to reduce the number of uninsured motorists, and allow the
uninsured motorist to go.
MR. GEORGE noted that when purchasing uninsured motorist coverage,
you would be essentially buying liability coverage for the other
person, and if the uninsured motorist was liable for damages, it
was his understanding the individual's uninsured motorist insurance
would pay for the damages caused by an individual who did not have
liability insurance.
MR. GEORGE pointed out that if the reason 13 percent did not carry
insurance was because of the cost, tacking on an additional cost
would not resolve that problem.
CHAIRMAN GREEN pointed out that the additional costs, through fees
of $2 and $6 would amount to approximately the same as registering
three cars, or equivalent, possibly, to one tank of gas.
MR. GEORGE advised members if an individual was not presently able
to afford insurance, the additional costs would not make it more
affordable. He noted, however, that those people might be able to
afford insurance if they gave something else up, and maybe that was
what they were being asked to do.
CHAIRMAN GREEN stated that when he was young and just out of school
working in the oil patch, he asked the head of the insurance
department in that company how much insurance he should carry, and
the response he got was, "You need the most insurance when you can
least afford it." Chairman Green was suggesting the same sort of
thing. He pointed out that it was a privilege to drive and people
should have to cover their own responsibilities.
MR. GEORGE expressed that the other side of that would be to do
something drastic like no-fault insurance where a person buys
insurance to cover themselves only, and if a person did not buy it,
they could not collect. He noted that that was an idea that had
been considered in Alaska a number of years ago, unsuccessfully;
however, with that type of insurance a person would not care if
others had insurance because they were insuring themselves.
Number 2392
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT referred to the cost figures whereby the state
of Alaska could impose a fee of $2 that would allow for contracting
with an outside agency, create a data base, update that data base,
with the police department having access to that data base readily,
and the insurance company claims it would cost them $6 per policy
because of reporting requirements.
MR. GEORGE stated that the $6 number was given him by USAA as their
average cost for reporting requirements. He expressed that the
insurance companies had the data captured; however, it was a matter
of sorting out what data they would report, which would be to make
sure they have the right name, the right policy number, the VIN
number, the expiration date. It would be extremely important to
report accurate information; people have multiple cars, vehicles
are bought and sold, et cetera.
CHAIRMAN GREEN felt Mr. George may want to verify the $6 cost to
insurance companies because it did appear somewhat
disproportionate.
TAPE 97-45, SIDE B
Number 000
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated if someone was driving without
insurance they would actually be driving without a valid license,
and would also be guilty of unsworn falsification, at the very
least, which were two misdemeanors. He was curious as to how Mr.
George arrived at the conclusion that there was no teeth in the
law.
MR. GEORGE responded that the fact that there were numerous people
driving with a suspended license, not being prosecuted for perjury,
and essentially doing it with some immunity, that the problem was
not being solved. He felt if there was significant enforcement,
that would be the deterrent and people would stop driving with
suspended licenses; however, that did not seem to be the case. Mr.
George noted that 13 percent of the driving population swear that
they have insurance and would maintain it, but they do not. Mr.
George stated that if there was teeth in the law there was a means
to get to that 13 percent, but the state had not.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ expressed that, "it was not that the dog
did not have teeth, it's just that we've got it on too tight of a
leash." He felt sure that Dean Guaneli, Chief Assistant Attorney
General, would state that if there were adequate resources, the
Department of Law would go after those offenders, and
Representative Porter would state that the police departments, if
they had adequate resources, would also pursue individuals
operating a motor vehicle illegally. Representative Berkowitz
pointed out that it was not a question of "lack of teeth" in the
law, but a lack of enforcement because of the lack of funds.
MR. GEORGE felt that was an outstanding point; however, expressed
that he did not see a lot of money being funded under HB 95 for
enforcement purposes. He asked what was being done that was
different in enforcement with HB 95, than what was being done
without it.
CHAIRMAN GREEN advised members that he had intended on moving on to
HB 131 relating to the advisory vote on the death penalty at 2:00;
however, because they got a late start, he would extend that until
2:15. He would take several more questions before moving on to
that bill.
Number 129
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Mr. George if the firms he
represented would consider that the state of Alaska required
mandatory auto liability insurance.
MR. GEORGE advised members that the law was clear on the issue of
mandatory auto insurance, and the insurance companies he
represented were clearly mandated to participate in the assigned
risk plan to make insurance available to anyone that seeks
insurance, so yes, they would say it was mandatory.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if it was not true that financial
institutions who provide financing for automobiles require the
borrower to have insurance and the insurance companies report to
the financing institution.
MR. GEORGE agreed that there were vehicles that were financed and
insurance is required by the financial institution, but generally
insurance companies, through the agent, provide a certificate of
insurance verifying insurance coverage.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that the lender was named as
the additional insured and asked if it would not be necessary to
inform them if a policy had been cancelled.
MR. GEORGE advised members that it was generally a requirement in
the insurance certificate that says they would notify, or attempt
to notify the lender.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG felt that HB 95 was just taking that
process one step further, and believed the system should be in
place because of the relationship with financial institutions.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER advised members that he was having a
difficult time convincing himself that the state had a mandatory
insurance requirement. He referred to AS 28.22.011, which stated,
"The operator of a motor vehicle subject to registration must have
'this kind of insurance' unless"... and pointed out that the
biggest "unless" in the world was the operator had not been cited
within the preceding five years for traffic violations.
Representative Porter advised members that if someone had not had
a ticket within the last five years, they would not be required to
have insurance, was how he read the law.
MR. GEORGE pointed out that there were two laws that applied; one
was a financial responsibility law, which he thought was what
Representative Porter may have referred to. He stated that there
was also a mandatory auto insurance provision that required each
vehicle to be insured.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER expressed that it would be interesting for
the committee to know what states had what form of insurance
requirements. He asked if Mr. George would have that information
available.
MR. GEORGE responded that between himself and the Division of Motor
Vehicles, they could provide that information.
Number 334
MICHAEL LESSMEIER, representing State Farm Insurance, pointed out
that Alaska had a mandatory insurance requirement of $50,000 per
person, $100,000 per instant and $25,000, and felt Ms. Hensley
might have referred to the old law, which was a complicated area
and easy to do.
MR. LESSMEIER advised members that he had submitted a copy of
testimony he had provided in 1983 and encouraged members to read it
because the problem being discussed was not a new problem. He
stated that the very policy issues the insurance industry was
concerned about in 1983 when deciding what form of mandatory
insurance to adopt, were raised again by HB 95.
MR. LESSMEIER explained that in 1983 and 1984 the state adopted a
form of mandatory insurance that at that time had two points of
proof. He noted that it was debated in many committees, the issue
of what would be required of insurers every time there was a
cancellation to notify the state. Mr. Lessmeier recalled that one
of the companies he represented sent out approximately 2000
cancellation notices every month; however, only canceled a few
policies. Rather than get involved in a huge paper war, what the
legislature chose to do in 1984 was to adopt a more simplified form
of mandatory insurance that required proof of insurance at two
points.
MR. LESSMEIER expressed that the two points were random, of which
one required certification of insurance when registering a motor
vehicle. He pointed out that the reason the legislature did that
was because it was an inexpensive way of doing it, and no one could
really tell when they would be cited, nor could anyone tell when
they might be involved in an automobile accident, which was the
other point of proof. That was adopted in 1984 and that scheme had
worked relatively well over the years except that it had been
changed.
MR. LESSMEIER pointed out that one of the points of proof had been
removed, and also one of the enforcement mechanisms that had been
in existence since statehood had been taken away, which was the
Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Act. That Act stated that if
an individual's vehicle was hit by someone and that person was not
financially responsible, the individual who was hit could go to the
Division of Motor Vehicles and the person's license would either be
suspended or would not be given back until adequate arrangements
were made to pay the individual whose vehicle was damaged. That
was one of the reasons he felt everyone was frustrated in terms of
what was happening.
MR. LESSMEIER pointed out that the question members would have to
decide was if the benefit they hoped to achieve, was worth the
cost. He expressed that there was also a third part to the
previous program that mandated offers of uninsured and under-
insured motorist coverage, which was the recognition of the fact
that no matter what the state did, or how much money would be spent
on enforcement, there would always be a certain percentage of
people who could not afford that insurance, they would not purchase
it, and the state could spend a significant amount of dollars, and
would still not affect that portion of the uninsured population.
MR. LESSMEIER also expressed that the same idea outlined in HB 95
had come up in approximately 15 other states, and it was his belief
that only one state had adopted it.
MR. LESSMEIER felt if members wished to accomplish what was
provided in HB 95, it would be necessary to establish a mechanism
to determine if the program was working. He noted that was one of
the reasons why State Farm suggested, in a letter to Representative
Green, that an independent audit provision be included in the
proposed legislation.
MR. LESSMEIER stated that it would also be necessary to consider
the enforcement aspect of the proposed legislation. He advised
members if the program were to pass without enforcement, it would
not do any good. Mr. Lessmeier advised members that right now the
state could require public safety officials to check for proof of
insurance when they pull someone over for a moving violation.
MR. LESSMEIER advised members that he felt the proposed legislation
was an attempt to solve what was a difficult problem; however, felt
that philosophically it was the wrong approach, and thought the
legislature ought to consider the available tools that currently
existed.
CHAIRMAN GREEN pointed out that time was running out and one other
person had signed up to testify and asked that Mr. Lessmeier come
back and present comments when the bill is once again before the
committee.
Number 651
JOSEPH YOUNG, retired and speaking on his own behalf, testified in
favor of HB 95. He stated that of the nine people who had crashed
into his car, or his wife's car, six were not insured. He felt
that current law did not work because there was no real
consequence. Mr. Young did not agree with the idea that just
because people would violate the law that it should be given up.
MR. YOUNG advised members that he got his first car at age 17 and
working a job that paid $200 per month. He stated that he had
insurance for that car and had carried insurance on every car that
he had driven since because he felt it was one's responsibility to
do so.
MR. YOUNG advised members that the last accident where someone
crashed into him he did not report because the individual did not
have insurance, and given the number of incidents he had reported
in the prior two years, if he reported that one, he would have had
to pay the deductible and his insurance rates would have increased.
MR. YOUNG stated that with the last incident he reported to the
police, the driver of the other vehicle lied to the officer by
stating that he had insurance, when in fact, he did not. He
advised members he was in favor of HB 95 and felt the 13 percent
figure was too high.
CHAIRMAN GREEN closed testimony on HB 95 until brought before the
committee at a later date.
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.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 249
CHAIRMAN GREEN adjourned the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting at 3:40 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|