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