Legislature(1997 - 1998)
03/10/1997 01:39 PM Senate JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
March 10, 1997
1:39 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Robin Taylor, Chair
Senator Drue Pearce, Vice-chair
Senator Mike Miller
Senator Sean Parnell
Senator Johnny Ellis
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 17
Relating to challenging the environmental and economic integrity of
Alaska timber as Christmas decor for the United States Capitol.
PASSED SJR 17 FROM COMMITTEE WITH INDIVIDUAL RECOMMENDATIONS
SENATE BILL NO. 60
"An Act providing for an advisory vote on the issue of capital
punishment."
PASSED SB 60 FROM COMMITTEE WITH INDIVIDUAL RECOMMENDATIONS
PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION
SJR 17 - No previous Senate committee action.
SB 60 - No previous Senate committee action.
WITNESS REGISTER
Charles Campbell
3020 Douglas Highway
Juneau, AK 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed to SB 60
Dean Guaneli
Assistant Attorney General
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, AK 99811-0300
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed to SB 60
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 97-19, SIDE A
Number 000
CHAIRMAN ROBIN TAYLOR called the Judiciary Committee meeting to
order at 1:39 p.m. Senators Taylor, Miller and Parnell were
present. The first order of business before the committee was SJR
17.
SJR 17 NO ALASKA CHRISTMAS TREES FOR FED CAPITAL
MR. JOE AMBROSE , staff to Senator Taylor, sponsor of SJR 17, read
the following sponsor statement into the record.
SJR 17 was introduced to call national attention to the callousness
of the Clinton Administration in asking the people of Southeast
Alaska to provide Christmas trees from the Tongass National Forest
to decorate the federal capital.
This resolution recognizes that what would normally be an honor is
instead an affront to the working people of Southern Southeast,
thousands of whom have been made jobless by the anti-timber
policies of the Clinton Administration.
To further compound this insult, the Clinton/Gore Administration is
asking school kids, Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, timber-dependent
communities and their elected leaders to pay the cost of
participating in what can only be termed an insensitive farce.
This is the same administration that ignored the efforts of the
Alaska congressional delegation and the Alaska State Legislature to
protect the livelihoods of the workers, families and towns of the
Tongass.
This is the same administration whose policies led to the closure
of the region's two pulp mills and largest saw mill, costing
thousands of jobs.
The three US Forest Service supervisors of the Tongass National
Forest say the opportunity to provide trees to decorate the
nation's capitol is "a great moment for Alaska."
SJR 17 makes it clear the Twentieth Alaska State Legislature
considers this "opportunity" to be insensitive, callous and
insulting. It calls upon President Clinton and Vice President Gore
to find another source for its 1998 Christmas decorations.
Number 051
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR noted the federal legislation that resulted in the
Ketchikan Pulp Corporation (KPC) closure, as well as the Sitka pulp
mill and Wrangell sawmill, contained two options; one allowed a
modest amount of logging to continue. President Clinton chose the
other option which prevents families from continuing to work in the
timber industry, and by doing so, expended $110 million of taxpayer
dollars sent to Southeast Alaska in the form of economic disaster
relief. Since SJR 17 was filed, the U.S. Government has settled
the KPC's claim for wrongful breach of the 50-year contract for
$140 million, $25 million in timber stumpage credits, and $5
million in additional credits; therefore the total cost of the
closure, caused by the Clinton Administration has been $280
million. Another pending lawsuit out of Sitka may cost U.S.
taxpayers $500 million. None of that money will benefit the
timber-dependent families who lost their jobs. Chair Taylor noted
a similar resolution passed the House that morning by a vote of 34
to 5.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR noted Senator Ellis' arrival.
Number 110
SENATOR MILLER moved SJR 17 out of committee with individual
recommendations. There being no objection, the motion carried.
SB 60 ADVISORY VOTE ON CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
JOE AMBROSE , staff to Senator Taylor, sponsor of the measure, read
the following sponsor statement into the record.
Senate Bill 60 is intended to seek the advice of the voters of
Alaska on the controversial issue of capital punishment.
Passage of SB 60 will not impose the death penalty in Alaska. It
simply places on the ballot the question: "Shall the Alaska State
Legislature enact a law providing for capital punishment for murder
in the first degree and establishing procedures for the imposition
of capital punishment that are consistent with the United States
Constitution as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court?"
For years opinion poll after opinion poll have reflected the desire
of the people of Alaska to have the death penalty available as an
option in this state. SB 60 seeks to employ the ultimate poll,
that of the ballot box, in a non-binding vote.
Given the option of a death penalty or life in prison without
parole, 550 Alaskans polled statewide in March, 1996, favored the
death penalty by a 62% margin, with 35% choosing life without
parole. It is especially significant that only 5% of the
respondents said they were undecided.
Support for the death penalty crossed all demographic lines,
including location, gender, age, party affiliation, employment
status and length of time in the community.
There are those who argue that the people of Alaska are somehow
unqualified to render advice on this issue. They argue that the
ballot question itself is too "simplistic."
Alaska has one of the youngest, best educated and well-read
populations in the nation. Judging from the campaign already being
mounted against SB 60, the organized groups opposed to capital
punishment will most certainly conduct a vigorous campaign when
this issue reaches the ballot. Alaskans will cast votes based on
information, not emotion.
Issues such as the cost and effectiveness of capital punishment
will be part of any campaign on the ballot question and will need
to be explored at length if the voters advise the 21st Alaska State
Legislature to pursue this issue.
For now, we are talking about placing an advisory vote on the
ballot, at a cost of approximately $3,000.
MR. AMBROSE suggested, although several fiscal notes have been
submitted to the committee, the only valid one is from the Division
of Elections. It contains the cost of placing the question on the
ballot. If the issue is approved and passed by the Twenty-first
Alaska Legislature, the other fiscal notes may reflect the costs of
establishing a death penalty.
Number 165
MR. CHARLES CAMPBELL discussed his 47-year background in criminal
justice matters. While serving as the Director of Corrections he
became deeply concerned about the death penalty while researching
and drafting a position paper on the subject for DHSS in 1981.
After investigating the death penalty thoroughly he became, and
continues to be, adamantly opposed to it and believes it to be a
deplorable, indefensible relic of the Dark Ages. Rather than
requesting advice from constituents, constituents deserve
legislators' considered wisdom and advice to them. The majority of
the voters of the State hold their views based on serious
misinformation, especially in regard to current sentences for first
degree murder and the costs and deterrent factor of the death
penalty.
MR. CAMPBELL stated the death penalty does not deter those who are
most likely to commit violent crimes and one of the most
comprehensive studies shows the death penalty is more likely to
incite, rather than deter, crime. It is the most expensive and
least cost-effective of criminal sanctions; has the potential for
hampering law enforcement and criminal prosecution; is destructive
to the families of murder victims and requires them to remain in a
state of bitterness and uncertainty during long years of appeals;
and is racially and culturally biased with the potential to arouse
divisive, bitter, and destructive conflict among the people of
Alaska. More than 3,000 people are on death row in the United
States today and another 200 people are sentenced to death each
year. There is no way the number executed each year will approach
that number. Correctional systems nationwide have a ticking time
bomb created by the exorbitant cost of providing additional
manpower and special confinement required by death row inmates.
Since 1976, 300,000 willful homicides have been prosecuted;
approximately 360 people have been executed during that period.
The one murderer in 1,000 who was executed was, most likely, not
the most deserving. Death penalty cases are not necessarily chosen
on the basis of how heinous and terrible the crime is; rather by
how expediently the prosecution might go forward, or for political,
financial and/or defense considerations. The argument of "just
desserts" is not valid.
MR. CAMPBELL continued. With very few obscure exceptions, no other
country in the western world tolerates the death penalty. The
Territorial Legislature of Alaska abolished the death penalty
almost 40 years ago and Alaska now has extremely tough criminal
sanctions. The typical sentence for aggravated first degree murder
is 99 years without parole. Studies show that 75 to 80 percent of
Americans do not oppose the death penalty, but national studies
show that when given the option of life without parole, the 75-80
percent majority is reduced to a minority.
MR. CAMPBELL discussed comparative data regarding death penalty
laws and crime rates in other states. He also referred to the
costs associated with the death penalty, and criticized the ballot
question contained in SB 60 because it is an unfair question to
present to seriously misinformed voters. He noted death penalty
opponents do not have adequate resources to mount a campaign to
fully inform voters. Mr. Campbell expressed concern that SB 60 is
part of a strategy to seduce legislators who are troubled by this
issue into making what appears to be an easy vote, and that this
bill is designed to get the "camel's nose under the tent."
Number 319
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR commented he believes the State of Florida was
correct in executing Ted Bunde and that the State of Washington
adopted the death penalty after releasing a murderer to a work
program, he then murdered three more people. Senator Taylor
discussed the Adam Walsh case, and noted the murderer had been
released by the State of Texas after murdering his mother and
father, he then went on to kill another 35 to 40 people before
being apprehended.
MR. CAMPBELL responded he could not agree more that legislation to
prevent such people from being released is important, but he does
not agree execution is the answer. He noted the State of Florida
was also influenced by the fact that there was a 90 percent chance
that James Adams was innocent, yet he was executed. Other studies
show that 23 people who were executed were innocent. He said moral
outrage is justified toward murderers, but people must think
carefully about their responses to that outrage.
Number 358
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked Mr. Campbell to provide the committee with a
copy of the report he cited about the 23 innocent people who were
executed, and noted a judge in Michigan has done a full review of
those cases and discounted the report. MR. CAMPBELL said the
information was in the Stanford Law Review and offered to provide
a copy to the committee. Mr. Campbell added there is no indication
the death penalty is an effective deterrent against crime and a
recent national survey of chiefs of police revealed they consider
the death penalty the least effective of all criminal sanctions.
He repeated there are other ways to prevent people like Ted Bunde
from being released from prison.
Number 385
SENATOR MILLER said, assuming the death penalty is abolished in the
United States, and the 200-per-year new death row inmates get life
sentences instead, those prisoners will be putting stress on the
prison system in different ways. MR. CAMPBELL noted 46 or 47
people were executed in 1996. The addition of that number of
prisoners in the system is insignificant. Prisoners serving life
sentences without parole are typically easy to manage and usually
accept a job to pay restitution. Death row prisoners, however, are
a huge administrative problem. They require 24-hour supervision
because of the likelihood of suicide, and many of those prisoners
appeal their cases.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked the percentage of death row inmates who had
murdered previously. MR. CAMPBELL did not have that data, but
suspected a fairly significant number had. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR
believed that 9 to 15 percent were previously convicted for murder,
released, and murdered again. MR. CAMPBELL thought most people
sentenced to death have previous violent crime records.
Number 420
DEAN GUANELI , Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law,
testified in opposition to capital punishment for four reasons.
First, capital punishment has a disproportionate impact on
minorities. Nationwide, non-whites are executed at a higher rate
than whites. Even in Alaska's territorial days, natives and
minorities were executed at a much higher rate.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked Mr. Guaneli if he has any evidence to
indicate there is a proportionally higher rate of executions within
a given ethnic group, compared to the number of murders within that
group.
MR. GUANELI said studies have been conducted that compare how
capital punishment is imposed against minorities depending on the
ethnicity of the victim. Those studies indicate when a racial mix
between the defendant and the victim exists, the death penalty is
imposed at a higher rate.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR read the following excerpt from an article by
Dudley Sharp, written in the Texas Exchange (March 10, 1997):
"A crucial point is that capital murders and non-capital murders
are two distinct categories. Whites are, overwhelmingly, the
primary victims in violent crimes relevant to capital cases. When
combining that fact with the level of aggravation of the murder and
the criminal background of the murderer, there is no race-of-the-
victim effect showing a juror or prosecutor preference to white
victims in capital cases. A reading of the appellate record finds
that this fact was established conclusively by the federal courts
in 1983, 1985, and 1987 in McClesky v. Georgia and was reinforced
by Smith College professors Rothman and Powers in their extensive
1994 study."
Chair Taylor explained Mr. Sharp's article was in response to the
American Bar Association's resolution calling for a moratorium on
death penalty executions. Mr. Sharp noted, in his research, he
could find no studies that verify racial disparity. Chair Taylor
asked Mr. Guaneli to provide information to back up his statement.
MR. GUANELI agreed to do so.
MR. GUANELI said the second reason the Department of Law opposes
capital punishment is because the criminal justice system is not
perfect, and as Mr. Campbell indicated, innocent people have been
executed. Once an execution takes place, there is no push for a
thorough investigation of the case. With the advent of DNA testing
techniques, it has been discovered that a number of people
convicted of crimes, primarily rape, were later determined to be
innocent after evidence underwent DNA testing.
Number 489
SENATOR MILLER commented those same techniques can now be used to
provide conclusive evidence of guilt or innocence prior to
conviction. MR. GUANELI responded DNA techniques, when such
evidence exists, provide a much higher confidence in the result,
but the cases he referred to involve people convicted years ago on
eyewitness accounts, and years later a piece of evidence tested for
DNA proved them innocent. Those situations make for less
confidence in cases where no DNA evidence exists.
MR. GUANELI stated the third reason for opposition to capital
punishment is that a death penalty would tend to skew the case law
that prosecutors have to work with. Death penalty cases are
treated differently by the courts and the rulings on evidence and
procedure are scrutinized much more carefully. The rulings that
come out of death penalty cases tend to get applied in all other
cases in the criminal justice system, creating difficulties in
obtaining convictions in other types of cases.
MR. GUANELI explained the fourth reason for opposition is the cost.
An execution is expensive to carry out, and the entire legal
process is lengthy. The fiscal notes that accompany the bill have
been consistent in cost for many years, through several
Administrations.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR again quoted Mr. Sharp's article:
`The ABA and others cry "racism!" when there is no evidence of
racism in the implementation of the death penalty since Furman v.
Georgia in 1972. In those cases where the race/ethnicity of the
murderer is known, 56 percent of those executed since 1977 have
been white, 38 percent black. Yet, blacks have committed 47
percent of the murders, whites 38 percent. Furthermore, whites are
executed 15 months quicker than blacks. In fact, since 1929 white
murderers have been more likely to be executed than black
murderers.'
Chair Taylor stated, if the figures in the article are accurate, an
inverse discrimination exists in relation to the death penalty.
MR. GUANELI replied he was not prepared to dispute particular
numbers or the article but would provide the committee with
statistics at a later date.
MR. GUANELI concluded by saying, "Even if we overlook the
objections to the death penalty, then at least shouldn't capital
punishment stop murders from occuring? As Mr. Campbell indicates,
it doesn't. Studies show there is no deterrence to murder. First-
degree murder in Alaska is treated severely. First-degree
murderers in Alaska receive sentences, on average, exceeding 70
years in Alaska. The kinds of cases that you mentioned in response
to Mr. Campbell's testimony, the kinds of really horrible cases
where someone has committed a murder in one state, then released
and committed another murder - that doesn't happen in Alaska. With
average sentences of 70 years, someone's going to serve 40 or 50
years. They're going to be released in their 60s or 70s, after a
point in time when they are a danger to the public but before a
point in time when they start running up big medical bills for the
Department of Corrections. Those kinds of things, I do not
believe, at least in our experiences, would happen in Alaska with
the kinds of sentences that murderers receive, and I would
reiterate Mr. Campbell's point that the decision of the Territorial
Legislature to do away with capital punishment in Alaska was the
correct one.
In terms of the advisory vote on this matter, I think that asking
a single question only tends to deprive the voters of additional
choices that they might respond to. I'm not saying that voters are
not intelligent or not capable of making decisions based on
adequate information, but what I am saying is I guess I have to
disagree with my friend, Mr. Ambrose, who said that voters will
vote based on information, not emotion. I think there's a tendency
for voters to vote on information, to vote based on their
recollection of the kinds of really outrageous cases that you
mentioned. Alaska has had its Ted Bundes. His name was Robert
Hanson - he killed a number of prostitutes in Anchorage several
years ago. He's now serving a multiple 99-year sentence. We have
had our really outrageous murders of little children, where sexual
offenses were involved. Kirby Anthony is one name that springs to
mind - again, someone serving multiple 99-year sentences. These
people will never see the light of day but the advisory vote may
very well be taken as a mandate by the Legislature when, in fact,
I don't believe the voters can adequately consider the kind of
information that we've been discussing today - the kind of
information where there is some dispute over numbers involving the
fair application of the death penalty, the effectiveness of the
death penalty, the cost of the death penalty. I think those
matters are something that the Legislature is particularly equipped
to deal with through the give and take of testimony like this.
That concludes my testimony."
Number 575
SENATOR PARNELL commented the debate on SB 60 is whether or not to
have an advisory vote - not whether or not to establish capital
punishment. He said the opposition he has heard to an advisory
vote is that asking a single question deprives voters of the
information they need to make an intelligent choice. He asked Mr.
Guaneli if the Administration has proposed language for an advisory
vote, or additional items to be added to existing language. MR.
GUANELI replied voters do not have the same level of information
available to the Legislature, and the vote could tend to be swayed
by the most recent headline in the Anchorage Daily News about the
most recent murder that may have occurred. It's a matter of
whether the vote is based on information or emotion and with this
particular issue, he believes votes tend to be based on emotion.
He said the Department of Law will consider providing amended
language to the vote, but is not prepared to do so at this time.
TAPE 97-19, SIDE B
SENATOR PEARCE asked where prisoners with multiple 99-year
sentences are serving their sentences. MR. GUANELI answered most
are housed at either Spring Creek or in Arizona. SENATOR PEARCE
said legislators have been lead to believe those same prisoners are
the ones who have caused many internal problems in the prison
system, and the cost of incarceration for those prisoners is higher
than average. She questioned Mr. Campbell's assumption that
prisoners with life sentences are easier to manage and are our
model prisoners. Senator Pearce commented that although capital
punishment is an emotional issue, the emotional impact on a victim
and victim's family must be considered too. She agreed the
electorate responds to headlines, but questioned whether that is
wrong.
MR. GUANELI replied if people vote in response to headlines, then
the editors of newspapers tend to set public policy, and hard
decisions need more in-depth review than what is provided in
headlines.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said he does not know of any group of offenders,
anywhere in the world, whose cases receive the same exhaustive
scrutiny that death row cases receive in the United States. New
federal laws reduce some of the scrutiny but still require 17 major
steps, and the appeals and reviews take, on average, 11 years. He
questioned whether those cases would receive such an extensive
review but for the death penalty. Prisoners with life sentences
most likely do not receive that same level of scrutiny, so those
prisoners who may be innocent will be kept in a jail cell for life.
He asked what the criminal justice system should do when an
aggrieved family member of a victim takes revenge when the offender
is released.
MR. GUANELI repeated since the average first degree murder sentence
in Alaska is 70 years, the likelihood of vigilantism by the
victim's family after decades have passed is remote.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR thanked Mr. Guaneli for the discussion. MR.
GUANELI affirmed that the Department of Law is opposed to an
advisory vote.
SENATOR MILLER moved SB 60 out of committee with individual
recommendations. Senator Ellis objected. The motion carried with
Senators Pearce, Miller, Parnell, and Taylor voting "yea," and
Senator Ellis voting "nay."
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR adjourned the meeting at 2:35 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|