NOTE: As provided in LFC policy, this report is
intended only for use by the standing finance committees of the
legislature. The Legislative Finance Committee does not assume
responsibility for the accuracy of the information in this report when used for
other purposes.
The most recent FIR
version (in HTML & Adobe PDF formats) is available on the Legislative
Website. The Adobe PDF version includes
all attachments, whereas the HTML version does not. Previously issued FIRs and attachments may be
obtained from the LFC in
SPONSOR: |
McSorley |
DATE TYPED: |
|
HB |
|
||
SHORT TITLE: |
Abolish Death Penalty |
SB |
651 |
||||
|
ANALYST: |
Maloy |
|||||
APPROPRIATION
Appropriation
Contained |
Estimated
Additional Impact |
Recurring or
Non-Rec |
Fund Affected |
||
FY03 |
FY04 |
FY03 |
FY04 |
|
|
|
|
|
See Narrative |
Recurring |
General
Fund |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Duplicates HB 377.
Relates to / Conflicts with: HB 42, HB 53, HB 272,
HB 293, HB 294, HB 342, and
SB 51, SB 75, SB 104, SB 132, SB 272.
Responses
Received From
Department
of Corrections
Department
of Public Safety
Office
of the Attorney General
Public
Defenders Office
Administrative
Offices of the Courts
Administrative
Offices of the District Attorney
Adult
Parole Board
SUMMARY
Senate Bill 651
proposes to abolish the death penalty.
In lieu of the death penalty, the bill provides for life imprisonment,
without the opportunity for parole, when a jury finds beyond a reasonable doubt
that one of the aggravating factors exists (factors that formerly gave rise a
death sentence, such as: murder of a peace officer; murder involving
kidnapping, sexual contact with a minor or criminal sexual penetration; murder
while escaping a penal institute, and the like.)
Significant Issues
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
There are no appropriations contained within SB 651.
Both life-imprisonment and death-sentence cases involve considerable judicial resources. Both types of cases require significant time, FTE and budget resources from the courts, public defenders and district attorneys. This being said, life-imprisonment cases may result in slightly fewer appeals. Therefore, there may be some slight savings to these departments.
However, it is costly to support a defendant for life in the state’s penal institutes.
Comprehensively, taking into consideration the likely more frequent and costly judicial appeals together with the actual execution costs (vs.) supporting a defendant for life in state institutes, the final cost figures / offsets are not known. No agency submitting an analysis of this bill speculated as to what the final fiscal implications may be.
POSSIBLE QUESTIONS
SJM/yr/njw