This year the major issue in Topeka has been the budget. It has, by now, sunk in for most that we are going to have to make some very serious cuts.
This comes with a lot of reluctance, but the facts remain, because of the downturn in the national economy, we are facing one of the largest budget deficits in our history.
It is a process, and I have found bills seldom look the same in the end as they do in the beginning.
What is certain is we are all going to have to look at new and creative ways to fund state and community programs and services.
Normally, I would write in more detail about the budget and other issues, but because of the timeliness of this article, I will spend the rest of this article explaining a bill I introduced to abolish the death penalty, recently heard by the state judiciary committee.
First I would like to begin with a little history and background on the death penalty in Kansas.
The death penalty has been enacted and abolished in our state a number of times since 1859.
Since Kansas placed the death penalty on the books in 1994, not one person has been executed. In fact, Kansas has not executed anyone since 1965.
The Kansas Legislature passed a measure creating the sentence of life without parole in 2004. In 2003, a Kansas legislative post-audit report found “cases in which the death penalty was sought and imposed could cost about 70 percent more than cases in which the death penalty wasn’t sought.”
This report included information provided by the Kansas Attorney General’s Office, the Kansas Bureau of Investigation, the Board of Indigents’ Defense Services, and local courts, prosecutors, and law enforcement.
This added cost is a result of investigation, lengthier trials, and the higher cost and frequency of appeals.
Death cases have criteria that also includes specially trained lawyers and judges, and a more extensive juror selection and instruction process.
The appeals process is mandated by the U.S. Supreme Court and the Constitution.
The State of Kansas can do little to reduce these costs, which are built in to cases involving capital punishment.
Because of the emotional impact, this change in policy cannot be totally weighed in dollars.
This is why SB 208 was referred to Senate Judiciary, where it received an overall policy discussion on Thursday.
At this public hearing, senators heard testimony demonstrating the inconsistency, ineffectiveness, and the greater fiscal and emotional burdens of the death penalty system.
