Debating Death

(2/25/09) The introduction of HB9, an act to bring back the death penalty in Alaska, has touched off one of the most contentious social debates in public policy. 

Rep. Mike Chenault's legislation would legalize capitol punishment by lethal injection in Alaska for the first time since the territorial government abolished the death penalty in 1957.

On Monday, while the House Judiciary Committee held their first public hearing on Chenault's proposed legislation, we were holding another public hearing on the death penalty 900 miles away on my radio show.

At the same time Rep. Lyndsey Holmes was questioning an assistant attorney general in Juneau about the law's content, Pete was sounding off on Anchorage's KENI by saying it was time to pass the law and start thinning the herd.

In fact, for three straight hours I heard testimony from the likes of Barbara, Joe, Jim, and many more, all with strong opinions on all sides of the debate. 

There was an appeal for law and order by embracing old testament justice; an eye for an eye. There was an appeal for fiscal sense by those who worried about the cost associated with the death penalty. And there were appeals to the collective conscience by those who raised the questions of compassion and how two wrongs can possibly make a right. 

What's fascinating is that policy makers are divided along much the same lines as my callers.

You have some lawmakers that strongly support the concept of capitol punishment and feel the benefit far out weigh any cost. You have some lawmakers who support the death penalty but their support is tempered by the cost involved in adopting the policy. And still there are those who oppose the use of capitol punishment period. For any number of reasons including faith and fairness.

It's interesting to look at the trends around the United States when it comes to the issue of the death penalty.

In 2008, 37 inmates were executed in the United States, the lowest number since 1994. Since 1999, when 98 inmates were put to death, the numbers of executions have consistently declined. Of the inmates executed in 2008: 20 were white, 17 were black.

America's support for the death penalty has fallen over the last 15 years.

According to the Gallup Organization, in 1994, eighty percent of respondents said they were in favor of the death penalty for a person convicted of murder. In 2008, the support for the death penalty has dropped to sixty four percent, roughly the same level as 1978.

One noticeable contributing factor could be the changing perceptions of younger Americans. According to The American Freshman: Forty Year Trends, the number of college freshman supporting the abolishment of the death penalty has grown over the last twenty years.

In 1986, twenty six percent of incoming freshman supported abolishing capitol punishment. In 2006, almost thirty five percent supported doing away with the death penalty.

However while 37 states currently have capitol punishment statutes on the books, the trends seems to show more state's putting fewer inmates on death row while executing fewer every year as well.

In 1999 the number of prisoners under sentence of death was 3,540; that same year there were ninety eight executions. In 2007 the number of prisoners under sentence of death was 3,220; that same year there were thirty seven executions.  

One of the reasons could not only be changing public perception but it could also be costs associated with carrying out a death sentence.

According the AP's Anne Sutton, "The Los Angeles Times in 2005 reported that the California death penalty system costs taxpayers $114 million per year beyond the costs of keeping convicts locked up for life."  In addition, audits in other states show a similar cost discrepancy in prosecuting death penalty cases.

In a discussion with House Judiciary Chairman Jay Ramras before Monday's hearing, he raised serious concerns over the costs.

The cost impacts on Alaska would be significant. From additional correctional facilities needed to accommodate death row prisoners and more money to pay their public defenders, to the cost of the state's prosecution.

On Monday during the public hearing on HB9, the Office of Public Advocacy testified they'd need to hire an additional twenty staff to help with the work load. Others have raised concerns about the state's crime lab and the need for significant investments in order to handle critical evidence management for capitol offense trials. 

At a time when the state is struggling with a $1.4 billion deficit, some lawmakers who would otherwise support the death penalty, will back off due to a simple cost/benefit equation.

Another component of opposition will be from those lawmakers who simply don't believe capitol punishment is a fair or moral way to deal with convicted killers.

Already several prominent groups have come out against the bill from faith based organizations to civil rights advocates. The arguments entail compassion and reconciliation to the hard cold fact that since 1973, approximately 123 people on death row have been released in 25 different states, because they were later found innocent. 

It does seem at the end of the day, those who oppose this bill based on fiscal, faith or fairness concerns have the lion's share of votes in Juneau. That's good for Alaska, because the last thing this state needs is another government program that drives both risks and costs higher while ignoring critical consequences. 

There is also a large degree of certainty that HB9 or any death penalty bill that makes it over to the State Senate will not survive. With a bi-partisan senate leadership and the Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee not a big fan of the proposal, smart money is on the death penalty bill experiencing real capitol punishment as it gets killed in committee.

As it looks now, the proposal to bring back the death penalty appears dead on arrival.