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 Suite 101 of the State Capitol Building North.

 

F I S C A L   I M P A C T   R E P O R T

 

 

SPONSOR:

Regensberg

 

DATE TYPED:

2/11/03

 

HB

342

 

SHORT TITLE:

Additional Means of Punishment of Death

 

SB

 

 

 

ANALYST:

Maloy

 

APPROPRIATION

 

Appropriation Contained

Estimated Additional Impact

Recurring

or Non-Rec

Fund

Affected

FY03

FY04

FY03

FY04

 

 

 

 

 

See Narrative

Recurring

General Fund

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

 

Responses Received From

Administrative Offices of the District Attorneys

Corrections Department

Department of Public Safety

Adult Parole Board

Administrative Offices of the Courts

 

SUMMARY

 

Synopsis of Bill

 

House Bill 342 allows defendants sentenced to death to choose from five methods of execution.  The options include:

 

1.               intravenous injection

2.               hanging

3.               firing squad

4.               lethal gas

5.               electrocution

 

The defendant may, within sixty days after being delivered to the warden of the state penitentiary at Santa Fe, select the manner by which his punishment of death shall be inflicted. 

 

A defendant who declines a choice, or fails to make a choice, will be executed according to lethal injection.

 

Significant Issues

 

  • There is a humane element to this bill in that it allows a defendant the dignity to choose how he or she will die at the hands of the state.  It allows a person to avoid a method of death that is particularly feared.

 

  • Some would argue that it is unfair to grant such an opportunity to defendants sentenced to death. Those who are sentenced to death have committed the most inhumane and cruel acts against the innocent, weak or young.  Some will suggest that the defendant does not deserve the opportunity to choose---- his or her victims had no such choice.

 

·       This legislation must be scrutinized for constitutional implications, both federal and state.  Have any of the options been ruled “cruel and unusual” by the Courts in New Mexico, or by the United States Supreme Court?   Would a defendant’s right to choose from a number of commonly accepted execution practices eliminate any constitutional implications?

 

·       Undoubtedly, the legality/constitutionality of this bill would be challenged, thereby affecting the Courts, the District Attorney’s Office, the Public Defender’s Office, and other related agencies. 

 

  • The language relating to the 60-day time frame for making the choice should be tightened-up to ensure there is no confusion whatsoever about the deadline for making the choice.    

 

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS

 

HB 342 contains no appropriation.  The bill will increase costs to the Corrections Department in later years because the Department will be required to perform executions in different manners.  For instance, the Department would have to purchase a “gas chamber” and an electric chair.

 

As noted above, HB 342 will also increase costs to the Courts, District Attorney’s Office, Public Defender’s Office, and other related agencies. 

 

SJM/prr