Legislature(2019 - 2020)ADAMS ROOM 519
04/29/2019 01:30 PM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB20 | |
| Presentation: a Look-back in Criminal Justice Reform | |
| HB96 | |
| HB31 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | HB 31 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 96 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 49 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 145 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 20 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE BILL NO. 20
"An Act requiring law enforcement agencies to send
sexual assault examination kits for testing within six
months after collection; and providing for an
effective date."
1:30:48 PM
Co-Chair Wilson asked if anyone had a question on the
fiscal note regarding 9 new employees within the Department
of Law. There were no questions from members.
^PRESENTATION: A LOOK-BACK IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM
1:31:12 PM
JOHN SKIDMORE, DIRECTOR, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF
LAW, introduced the PowerPoint presentation: "A Look-back
in Criminal Justice Reform." He had been asked to provide a
review of criminal justice reform. He began with slide 2:
Goals of Reform." He relayed that the quote on the slide
was from the Alaska Criminal Justice Committee's 2015
annual report, dated February 1, 2016. He read from the
slide:
"Local legislative interest in these efforts were
heightened by reports that the Alaska prison
population was up 27 percent over the last decade,
growing at a rate of 3 percent a year, and that
recidivism remained high with nearly two out of three
offenders returning to prison or jail within three
years. Absent further reforms, it was projected that
the number of persons incarcerated would soon exceed
current hard-bed capacity."
Mr. Skidmore indicated that the two goals of reform were to
reduce Alaska's prison population and recidivism. There
might have been some additional goals, but he mentioned the
primary goals of the Criminal Justice Committee when they
began. He wanted to take a look at the state's prison
population to recall what the committee was reviewing at
the time.
Mr. Skidmore continued to slide 3: Projected Prison
Population." He drew attention to the lower left-hand
corner which was dated 2016 and copyrighted by The Pew
Charitable Trusts. It was a slide the organization put
together during the time SB 91 [Legislation passed in 2016
regarding criminal law and procedure and corrections) was
being debated. The slide was frequently displayed that
discussed Alaska's prison populations. He noted the
historical line moving from actual to projected as of
July 1, 2016. The trend line continued up during the period
between July 1, 2014 through July 1, 2016. He highlighted
the projected area and the line [in grey] which went up
absent further reform. He suggested that with reform, the
dotted blue line indicating the prison population would
decline dramatically over the following 2 years from July
1, 2017 [2016] through July 1, 2018. He clarified that the
state had been told that absent prison reform the prison
population would increase. The following slide showed the
actual prison population during the same period.
1:34:36 PM
Mr. Skidmore discussed slide 4: "Actual Prison Population."
The slide reflected the actual prison population in 2018.
He relayed that the source of the data came from the Alaska
Criminal Justice Commission's 2018 annual report. In
general, there was a rise in prison population from 2010 to
2014. He highlighted that as of 2014 up to the time of
implementation of SB 91 in mid 2016 there was a downward
rather than an upward trend as projected. He reminded
members that the previous slide was copywritten in 2016. He
did not know why there was a difference in the numbers. One
of the slides was from The Pew Charitable Trusts and the
other was from the Alaska Justice Commission. He was merely
pointing out what each reflected. The Department of
Corrections provided the information for slide 4.
Supposedly, according to The Pew Charitable Trust, the
Department of Corrections provided the information for
slide 3 as well. He concluded that the slide dramatically
showed that the prison population was going down rather
than up before the state had criminal justice reform.
Mr. Skidmore drew attention to when SB 91 was implemented
in the middle of 2016. He referred back to slide 3 which
reflected the implementation of SB 91. He noted the drop
which would take about a year to kick in. One year later,
the drop that was predicted did not materialize. He
indicated there was a slight decrease before the line
trended up and swept back down slightly. He made a personal
comment about him and his wife making lasagna together. He
compared the layers of lasagna to the reform details. He
would discuss what some of the reforms were that were
supposed to bring the numbers down.
Mr. Skidmore continued that after SB 91 was implemented
there should have been a decrease in the line for
sentencing, not property and drug offenses. He reported
that every sentence was reduced, aside from those related
to sex offences. The state had decriminalized the crime of
driving with a suspended license which equaled 17 percent
of the state's misdemeanor case load and carried mandatory
minimums. Previously, the state had filed about 2500 cases
which dropped to less than 500 cases per year with the
implementation of SB 91. The legislation stipulated that
for anyone awaiting sentencing, their sentence would be
reduced. Drug crimes were dramatically changed in SB 91.
Possession went from a Class C felony to a Class A
misdemeanor. Not only did a drug possession move to a
Class A misdemeanor, the first 2 offences came with zero
jail time. Felony drug prosecutions had dropped prior to
and after SB 91 resulting in a drop of filed cases by over
700 per year. Misdemeanors also went down. In 2017, the
reforms related to probation and parole took effect. The
legislation expanded the people that were eligible for
discretionary parole. It was mandated that everyone that
became eligible had a hearing. The presumptions were
changed making it easier to be released on discretionary
parole. In addition, a cap was placed on the type of
sentences that were imposed for a violation of probation or
parole. For example, a technical violation was currently
capped at 3,5, or 10 days. All of the different reforms
were supposed to make the prison population decrease. He
indicated that slide 4 showed the actual prison population
trend.
1:41:04 PM
Vice-Chair Johnston asked about the misdemeanor drop in
numbers and the timeframe relating to the implementation of
SB 91. Mr. Skidmore responded that SB 91 passed in July
2016. He believed an immediate effective date applied to
the sentencing. He reported that the other phases of the
bill (probation and parole and pretrial) applied in 2017
and 2018. The sentencing and classifications happened
almost immediately after the passage of SB 91 with an
effective date of July 1, 2016.
Vice-Chair Johnston noted the prison population increasing
in 2013 and 2014 and decreasing slightly in 2015. She asked
if it was accurate to say that the state's recession and
drug crisis started in 2015. Mr. Skidmore responded that he
could not speak to a recession. However, he reported that
the opioid crisis started in 2014 or 2015.
Vice-Chair Johnston suggested that with the passage of
SB 91, the state began treating some aspects of the opioid
problem differently - the state lowered the penalties for
drug possession. Mr. Skidmore responded that the sentencing
was reduced and that no jail time was required for the
first 2 offences. Vice-Chair Johnston was correct.
Vice-Chair Johnston wondered, taking into consideration the
recession and the opioid problem, whether the prison
population numbers would have looked different had SB 91
not passed. Mr. Skidmore responded that he could not speak
to her scenario. He was before the committee to report what
had been projected to happen and what actually happened. He
only knew that prior to SB 91 the prisoner population was
going down. He could not answer her question.
Representative Knopp thought it would be interesting to
have a comparison graph from the Department of Public
Safety (DPS) regarding arrests within the same timeframe.
Co-Chair Wilson indicated she would request the comparison
from DPS. She queried whether something else was occurring,
such as additional treatment availability, that would
explain the downturn. She wondered if there was a way to
look at the years from 2014-2016 to see if anything had
changed that would account for the decrease.
1:46:38 PM
Mr. Skidmore did not have a precise answer. He told of
having a number of conversations during the timeframe with
the Commissioner for Department of Corrections (DOC), Ron
Taylor, who was trying to implement several changes within
the department at the time. However, he did not know if the
changes were the cause for the drop. He offered that
because of what the committee was currently looking at, it
would be appropriate to look to DOC for some answers. He
could not recall any other major legislation having to do
with the criminal justice system from 2014 to 2016. He
mentioned SB 64 [Legislation passed in 2014 Short Title:
Omnibus Crime/Corrections/Recidivism] that had passed a
year prior that proposed significant changes, but no
significant changes were made until the implementation of
SB 91.
Co-Chair Wilson commented that she had heard many people
had been arrested but charges had not been brought forward.
Representative Knopp suggested that the numbers be broken
down by crime type when Co-Chair Wilson made her request to
DOC. He asked Mr. Skidmore whether the changes and fixes in
SB 54 and SB 55 were reflected in the chart. Mr. Skidmore
replied that SB 54 was reflected on the chart in the last
quarter of 2017. He recalled that SB 54 was enacted after
the special session that occurred in October 2017. The
count provided by the Criminal Justice Commission in the
2018 report ended about the time 2018 began.
Representative Carpenter suggested Mr. Skidmore jump
forward several slides to address Representative Knopp's
question. Mr. Skidmore indicated that crime rates would be
addressed further later in the presentation. He wanted to
cover a couple of additional items prior to looking at
crime rates.
Mr. Skidmore scrolled to slide 5: Goal: Reduce Recidivism."
The second goal of the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission
was to reduce the recidivism rate in Alaska. He read
directly from the slide:
"The state's growing prison population and increased
corrections spending, however, had not produced
commensurate improvements in public safety outcomes:
nearly two out of every three people released from
Alaska prisons returned within three years."
Mr. Skidmore summarized that Alaska had a problem with
recidivism, and it was not getting any better. During the
criminal justice reform debate for SB 91 Alaska's
recidivism rate was one of the worst rates in the country.
It was suggested that the state could do better with
criminal justice reform. The recidivism rate had gone
unchanged for decades, and without enacting reforms it was
thought the recidivism rate could not go down.
1:51:26 PM
Mr. Skidmore advanced to slide 6: Recidivism: National
Perspective." The special report referred to on the slide
came from the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice
Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. He relayed that it
was a special report that followed up on a look at
recidivism nationwide that had been conducted for about 9
years. He indicated that 2014 was the last year in which
people were tracked, but the report was not released until
May 2018.
Mr. Skidmore continued to slide 7: "States included in the
BJS recidivism study of prisoners released in 2005." The
report looked at 30 different states in which prisoners
were released in 2005 and followed for 9 years. Alaska was
one of the 30 states that were followed. He wanted to draw
the members attention to Alaska, Utah, Oregon, Texas,
Georgia, North Carolina, and South Dakota. He highlighted
these states because in looking at the Alaska Criminal
Justice Commission's report (Justice Reinvestment,
published in December 2015) on page 5 it indicated that
there were many other states that had adopted policies to
reign in the size and cost of their corrections spending
through justice reinvestment strategy. They named a number
of states that Alaska should look at and model itself after
including Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, South
Dakota, Texas, and Utah. He noted that many of the states
mentioned were also involved in the national recidivism
study. It was a significant point which he would return to
later in his presentation.
Mr. Skidmore explained slide 8: "What is Recidivism." He
mentioned the importance of having a common definition of
recidivism so that the same thing was being measured. He
read the list:
Measuring recidivism
Recidivism measures require three characteristics:
• a starting event, such as a release from prison;
• a measure of failure following the starting
event, such as a subsequent arrest, conviction,
or return to prison;
• an observation or follow-up period that generally
extends from the date of the starting event to a
predefined end date (e.g., 6 months, 1 year, 3
years, 5 years, or 9 years).
1:54:30 PM
Mr. Skidmore continued to slide 9: "National Recidivism":
• The 401,288 state prisoners released in 2005 had an
estimated 1,994,000 arrests during the 9-year period -
an average of 5 arrests per released prisoner.
• An estimated 68% of released prisoners were arrested
within 3 years, 79% within 6 years, and 83% within 9
years.
• More than three-quarters (77%) of released drug
offenders were arrested for a non-drug crime within 9
years.
Mr. Skidmore concluded that recidivism was associated with
certain individuals. Alaska's recidivism rate was around
two-thirds which was not good but on par with the national
average. He also noted that the further out in the
timeline, the more people were recidivating. He also
pointed out that within the study of about 400,000 people
more than three-quarters or 77 percent of released drug
offenders were rearrested within a 9-year period for
non-drug crimes. He believed the legislature had heard from
prosecutors and law enforcement that individuals suffering
from substance abuse ended up being the same people who
contributed to other crimes in the state such as property
crimes to support their habit.
Mr. Skidmore moved to the next portion of his presentation
looking at Alaska's Recidivism and Reentry. He was
presenting slides the committee had already seen from a
meeting on February 5, 2019 by DOC. He took the slides
directly from that presentation.
Mr. Skidmore turned to the definition of recidivism on
slide 11: "Recidivism":
An offender who is re-incarcerated within three years
of release as a result of:
• Parole or probation violations
• New felony crime
• New misdemeanor crime
Mr. Skidmore talked about the findings on slide 12: "Alaska
Recidivism Rates." In 2011 there was a 67.47 percent
recidivism rate, just under the national average of 68
percent. Alaska was told, as it engaged in criminal justice
reform, that with its reform efforts it would not be able
to bring down its recidivism rates. It was suggested that
reform efforts were needed to bring down recidivism rates.
In 2012, recidivism rates dropped slightly but crept back
up in 2013. He continued that in 2014 it dropped again and
in 2015 it dropped all the way down to just over 61
percent. He reminded members that SB 91 was implemented in
2016. He concluded that Alaska's recidivism rate and prison
population were declining prior to SB 91.
1:59:16 PM
Mr. Skidmore detailed slide 13: "Recidivism - By Offense."
He reported that within the first 6 months, offenders
returned to incarceration because of probation and parole
violations. He suggested focusing on the area of probation
and parole violations to reduce recidivism. Offenders also
committed felonies and misdemeanors within the first 6
months of release. At the 3-year mark of being released,
about 50 percent of offenders committed new crimes.
Probation and Parole also played a significant role.
Mr. Skidmore scrolled to slide 14: "Recidivism - New
Crimes." In 2011, the recidivism rate for new crimes was
about 40 percent. By 2015, prior to the implementation of
criminal justice reform, the rate had dropped to 32 percent
for new crimes.
Co-Chair Wilson asked Mr. Skidmore to review a technical
violation of probation and parole. Mr. Skidmore responded
by giving examples of violations of probation and parole.
If a person violated any of their conditions of probation
or parole, other than committing another crime, it was
considered a technical violation.
Vice-Chair Ortiz noted Mr. Skidmore had mentioned the 58
percent figure resulting from probation and parole
violations. He asked how the state could focus on reducing
probation and parole violations. Mr. Skidmore responded
that if the state wanted to bring down its recidivism rate,
it should focus on what happened to people when they
committed probation or parole violations. He suggested
looking at what other sanctions could be taken other than
returning a person to prison. Perhaps certain programs or
other reentry plans could be considered that might reduce
the recidivism rate. He did not have a specific example.
2:03:08 PM
Mr. Skidmore explained slide 15: "Alaska's Recidivism
Before SB 91." He suggested that between 2011 to 2015
Alaska's recidivism rate declined 6 percent. He believed
the state could do better. Although the state had hovered
around the same place for over 2 decades and had been told
it could not do anything without reforms, it had managed to
drop its number anyway. Alaska had also been told there
were other states in the country that were doing far
better. Yet, by 2015, Alaska was 7 percent below the
national average of 2005 (the most recent average Mr.
Skidmore had found).
Mr. Skidmore advanced to slide 16: "All Violent Crime: All
Property Crime." He thought the slide would address some of
Representative Knopp's question regarding crime rates. He
reminded members of the states he had listed previously:
Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oregon, South Dakota,
Texas, and Utah. The slide contained information taken from
the FBI's uniform crime report data for various states
including Alaska, Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina,
Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, and Utah. The U.S. national
average was also included. Every state listed, with the
exception of Kentucky, was a state that came from the FBI
report of who Alaska should compare itself with. Kentucky
was added because of some of Alaska's pretrial reforms. The
pretrial reforms that Alaska implemented were similar to
those made by Kentucky. He noted on the topic of successes
that most of what he had seen the Criminal Justice
Commission report about was the prison population and the
recidivism rate. The commission did not talk about the
crime rate. He had heard some people say that the crime
rate could be driven by many things not all of which were
connected to reform. He understood the argument. However,
he pointed out the paragraph below the one that highlight
the 5 states on page 5 of the report from December 2015. He
read from the page:
"In 2011, for example, policy makers in Georgia faced
a projected 8 percent increase in the prison
population over the next 5 years at a cost of $264
million. Rather than spend additional tax dollars on
prisons, Georgia's leaders looked for more cost-
effective solutions. The state legislature unanimously
passed a set of reforms that controlled prison growth
through changes to drug and property offence statutes
and improved public safety by investing in drug and
mental health courts and treatment. Between 2012 and
2014, the most recent year with available crime data,
the state crime rate had fallen 3 percent."
Mr. Skidmore commented that when he looked at crime rates,
he did not look at them simply because he thought it was
the right thing to do. He thought crime rates reflected
what was going on in the state. He highlighted that when
the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission members considered
enacting the reforms, they took into account crime rates
declining in other states that had enacted criminal justice
reform. It was the measure that other states had chosen to
use. He noted that there was a different color line for
each state with an index at the bottom of the slide. He
mentioned that there was a star on each line. Each star
denoted when a particular state began participating in
criminal justice reform. Violent crime rates were on the
top of the page and property crime rates were on the bottom
of the page. In looking at the violent crime rates, they
seemed to go down with a couple of exceptions. South Dakota
[represented in brown] went up following its criminal
justice reform in 2013. It was true that there were many
factors that influenced crime rates. In South Dakota there
was a significant population increase at the time which
partially explained the increase. Oregon held steady. Every
other state appeared to be going down except for Alaska
shown in red.
Mr. Skidmore drew attention to the property crime chart. He
highlighted that property crimes went down with the
exception of Alaska. He highlighted Georgia. He
reemphasized that in both charts Alaska's crime rate went
up.
Mr. Skidmore commented that there were several things
Alaska had done well over the previous 20 to 30 years; the
crime rates had gone down. The Alaska Criminal Justice
Commission stated in its 2018 report on page 40:
"Research into the nationwide decline in crime rates
over the last 30 years shows that between 10 percent
and 25 percent of the decline in crime was
attributable to the effect of increased incarceration
rates."
Mr. Skidmore restated that the Alaska Criminal Justice
Commission reported that the nationwide data and study
indicated that crime went down over the 30-year period
because of getting-tough-on-crime policies. The report went
on to say that the policies had diminishing returns. In
other words, doubling down by increasing sentences further
would not work. However, throwing out what had been done
for the previous 30 years was not the right approach
either.
2:11:07 PM
Representative Carpenter asked what might explain an
increase in violent crimes and property crimes at the same
time the state was seeing a decline in prison population.
Mr. Skidmore indicated he would be able to answer the
representative's question in one of the following slides.
Mr. Skidmore reviewed slide 17: "Comparison of PEW Reform
States." The Pew Charitable Trusts' chart reflected all of
the states they had worked with. He pointed out that the
top of the chart showed the years in which the states
participated in criminal justice reform. On the far left
the reforms were broken down into several different
categories. The checkmarks showed which reforms the various
states engaged in. He opined that the chart was a helpful
tool to compare the different reforms the state
participated in. He added the colors to the chart to mirror
the colors in the crime rate charts. He reviewed the
different colors and the corresponding states. Alaska was
represented in red.
Co-Chair Wilson asked about the timeframe for each
checkmark. She wondered if the Pew Charitable Trusts had
further detail. Mr. Skidmore did not know how the reforms
were implemented in other states.
Co-Chair Wilson commented that SB 91 was implemented in
phases and did not think it was phased in properly. She
thought treatment had been slated further into the future
than anticipated. She asked Mr. Skidmore his opinion about
the way SB 91 was phased in.
Mr. Skidmore clarified that he had not in any way stated
that SB 91 had caused the state's problems. In his
presentation, he had highlighted the goals of reform and
reported that they were already being achieved before the
implementation of SB 91. It was too early to report on
recidivism, as no statistics were available yet. He did not
have information regarding prison population but thought it
could be provided by DOC. His main point was that the goals
that were highlighted were being achieved prior to the
implementation of SB 91. He added that after reform was
implemented, Alaska's crime rates continued to climb. The
reforms were intended to be implemented without having a
negative impact on Alaska's crime rates. He indicated that
crime rates were starting to go up prior to reform. He
would discuss the reason for the upward trend shortly. The
reforms did not result in crime rates leveling out or
declining which was what was promised through the reform
process.
2:15:04 PM
Vice-Chair Ortiz returned to the two goals brought up at
the beginning of the presentation. He queried if Mr.
Skidmore had done any analysis to explain the state's
progress prior to SB 91. He thought the stats had not been
available when SB 91 was under consideration by the
legislature. He asked if he was correct.
Mr. Skidmore agreed that the information necessary to
understand how recidivism worked at the time was
incomplete. Some information was available for 2011 and
2012. However, the third year was not available but
necessary for a proper analysis. He believed that if the
representative were to ask DOC about the prison population
presently, the department could provide the information. He
was uncertain why the legislature was told that the prison
population was continuing to increase through 2015 and
2016. He did not know why The Pew Charitable Trusts' slide
showed the prison population going up despite the fact that
it was going down.
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked about the gains made in recidivism
prior to SB 91. He queried if it was true that the state
was putting more resources into funding for substance abuse
treatment in certain years. He asked if it was the reason
for the state's gains in recidivism. Mr. Skidmore did not
have an answer. He thought it would be significant for any
policy maker to know what was going on at the time that
allowed the state to make changes. He encouraged the
legislature to reach out to DOC to talk about what was
going on at the time.
Co-Chair Wilson reported that she was reaching out to some
of the state's past commissioners. She hoped the committee
would get to talk to them the following day.
Representative Josephson asked about slides 6 and 7. He had
been told the 2015 cohort would reflect later years - years
closer to the present. He suggested that if it was true, he
thought SB 91 could be a part of the reason for the
decline.
Mr. Skidmore responded that Representative Josephson was
partially correct. He reiterated that in a previous slide
it showed people reoffending, typically for probation and
parole violations, within the first 6 months of release. It
seemed to be supported, as SB 91 was not in effect the
first 6 months of 2015. He was speaking of the calendar
year for 2015. Senate Bill 91 was not implemented until
about a year following the period. There were 2 years that
were impacted by SB 91. However, the recidivism rate was
dropping previously to that time. His point was that the
state was bringing down recidivism prior to SB 91. Although
the legislation might have had an influence, it was unclear
how much influence it had.
2:20:09 PM
Representative Josephson asked if it would have made a
difference if the stakeholders supporting SB 91 had
received the money they were anticipating for reentry,
reform, and rehabilitation. He wondered if they had
received the money. He was trying to figure out whether
there was a worthy argument.
Mr. Skidmore was not sure about money disbursement. He was
aware that money was disbursed through SB 91 and other
budget measures. He did not have any details. He reminded
everyone that SB 91 was phased in beginning in 2016 with
Phase 1. Phase 2 began in 2017, and Phase 3 began in 2018.
He advised members to keep the phasing in mind when looking
at the impacts on recidivism.
Representative Josephson was trying to figure out why
Alaskans had a red line so remarkably different than other
states. He wondered what was going on. He thought Mr.
Skidmore was saying there was anecdotal evidence that
people knew they could get off. He was trying to get Mr.
Skidmore's thesis as to why the red lines were different.
2:23:49 PM
Mr. Skidmore commented that the differences on the slide
comparing state reforms, helped to understand. He was
trying to focus his presentation on HB 20 relating to drug
crimes. He used food as a metaphor for Criminal Justice
Reform. One of the goals of reforms was for the state to
reduce the period of time people were on probation. There
were a few option. First, the maximum period of probation
could be reduced. Second, earned compliance credits could
be implemented, allowing for a reduction in a person's
probation period based on good behavior. Third, early
termination of probation and parole could be recommended.
He compared the state's reform system to ordering
everything off the menu giving the state indigestion.
Although there were sound concepts throughout SB 91,
implementing them all was like ordering everything off a
menu. He drew members' attention back to the provisions of
HB 20.
Co-Chair Wilson explained that Mr. Skidmore was likely
hearing the frustration of members. While legislators
wanted to ensure punishment at the proper level, they were
unsure of the correct levels. She wondered how to write
treatment programs into statute for those people who truly
want to change their lives. She was looking for a balance.
She did not think anyone should be surprised that a person
getting out of prison without any reform was likely to
reoffend.
Mr. Skidmore replied that Co-Chair Wilson's question was
the right question to ask. He would answer her question as
he continued the presentation.
2:27:58 PM
Mr. Skidmore returned to his presentation on slide 18:
"Violent v. Non-violent Offenses." He wanted to make the
distinction between a violent crime and a property crime.
Currently in Alaska, violent crimes were generally
considered something under Alaska Statute 11.41. The crimes
included homicide, assault, stalking, kidnapping, human
trafficking, sexual assault, and sexual abuse of a minor.
The list was not complete but provided a sense of what was
a violent crime. He continued that non-violent crimes were
considered all other crimes for the purpose of crime
statistics. He read the list of non-violent crimes
including theft, criminal mischief (property damage),
forgery, bribery, gambling, hindering prosecution, and
impersonating a public servant.
Mr. Skidmore turned to slide 19 and clarified that when
talking about crime statistics and referring to non-violent
crimes, there were other crimes listed. He read the list
which included misconduct involving weapons, drug
trafficking, arson, burglary, promoting contraband,
rioting, sending an explicit image of a minor, misconduct
involving a corpse, cruelty to animals, and sex
trafficking. He noted that misconduct involving weapons and
drug trafficking were substantially related to violent
crimes. He encouraged the legislature to ask the
appropriate questions so that members knew what people were
referring to when they mentioned non-violent crimes.
Mr. Skidmore returned to the violent crimes and property
crimes slide [Note: reinserted as slide 20]. He asserted
that it was not possible to claim that the reform caused
the increase in crime. However, when the state adjusted its
criminal justice system with SB 91, it significantly
impacted law enforcement and the prosecution's ability to
respond to increases in crime.
2:30:54 PM
Mr. Skidmore concluded his presentation with slide 21: "Why
did Crime Rise Before SB 91?" He explained there were many
factors that influenced Alaska's crime rates. However, the
opioid crisis was one of the largest influences. He
reported that overdose deaths from opioids had dramatically
increased from 2013 to 2017. The chart on the right of the
slide showed hospital care associated with opioids. He
highlighted that inpatient treatment between 2016 and 2017
decreased. The number of people receiving in-patient
treatment for substance abuse, specifically, opioids, went
down. He spoke to Representative Josephson's comment, money
was spent for additional treatment. As a prosecutor, he did
not want to put someone with a drug addiction in jail. He
would rather see them get into treatment. He agreed that
treatment was the proper place for someone with an
addiction, but treatment numbers declined. Conversely,
emergency care skyrocketed. House Bill 20 returned drug
provisions to where they were prior to SB 91. He elaborated
that possession of a controlled substance went from a
misdemeanor with no jail time for the first 2 offences to a
felony crime.
Mr. Skidmore conveyed that there were many good aspects of
SB 91 including a Suspended Entry of Judgment (SEJ). The
Suspended Entry of Judgement was a new tool. There had been
something on the state's books called a Suspended
Imposition of Sentence (SIS) that was supposed to allow
prosecutors to address those first-time offenders or
individuals that they did not think needed to end up with a
conviction on their record. It suspended the imposition of
sentence, but it still left the person saddled with a
felony conviction. There were collateral consequences to a
felony conviction. The state needed to find a way to avoid
the felony conviction, which the SEJ does. He explained
that when someone was charged with a crime, such as a
possessory drug crime, and the prosecution believed
treatment was a better option than jail, the person would
be advised to plead guilty to the crime but would not be
found guilty. The judgement would not be entered. The
person would be placed under conditions including going to
treatment. If a person met the conditions by going to
treatment, their case would be dismissed. The conviction
would not be entered, and the person would not experience
the collateral consequences associated with a conviction.
The Suspended Entry of Judgement was a new and positive
tool. It could be very helpful for people. He commented
that there had to be an incentive to get people to attend
residential treatment from 30 to 180 days. He suggested
that without an appropriate incentive, treatment was not an
attractive option. House Bill 20 incentivized in-patient
treatment. It would allow the criminal justice system to
play a role in helping combat the drug crisis. The bill
would also return the ability to aggressively go after
individuals dealing poison to Alaska's citizens. Under
current law, the Class A felony for drug trafficking was
eliminated and the penalties for drug trafficking were
reduced from A to B and B to C. House Bill 20 had
provisions that changed the drug laws. He implored the
legislature to return tools to attorneys and law
enforcement.
2:38:16 PM
Vice-Chair Johnston asked about the final slide. She asked
if the emergency numbers applied to the total population of
the state. Mr. Skidmore responded that figure 36 came from
the Department of Health and Social Services, Division of
Public Health. Epidemiology indicated that the slide
reflected the rate of hospital care, specifically
in-patient treatment, associated with opioids.
Vice-Chair Johnston wanted to find out what was considered
in-patient treatment. It would be interesting to know the
wait time statistics in getting into treatment and the
number of positions available in the state for treatment.
She was not referring to a 3-day in-patient treatment.
Co-Chair Wilson thought she had requested the information
from DOC. She would get back to the committee.
Representative Josephson relayed that an SEJ had to be
agreed to by all parties. He wondered how all parties could
be assured that prosecutors would follow through with an
SEJ agreement. He queried whether additional language was
needed regarding treatment if a person was charged with
misconduct involving a controlled substance in the fourth
degree. Mr. Skidmore thought Representative Josephson was
asking what sort of guarantees were available that
prosecutors would want to use an SEJ. Representative
Josephson responded, "Yes."
Mr. Skidmore responded that the prosecutors that worked in
Alaska wanted to see the state improve. Folks that worked
for him across the state did it because they wanted to make
Alaska a better place - they did not get paid proportionate
to their efforts. Prosecutors understood the need for
treatment in order to properly address the opioid crisis
and drug abuse. He relayed he would aggressively use the
SEJ for drug possession if it was returned to a Class C
felony. He wanted to see people in treatment. He had the
ability to direct the people working for him that SEJs
would be used. The tool would be applied to a significant
portion of related cases.
2:43:26 PM
Vice-Chair Ortiz referred to slide 16. He wondered if the
comparable states were also involved with criminal justice
reform. He thought the difference was the level of reform,
which he suspected was less than the reform in Alaska
through SB 91.
Mr. Skidmore replied that the states were chosen because
they were specifically called out by the Alaska Criminal
Justice Commission's report, Justice Reinvestment, in
December 2015. Every state, with the exception of Kentucky,
was listed on page 5 of the report and were states Alaska
could look to for comparison. Alaska's pre-trial reforms
were modeled after Kentucky, which was the reason for its
inclusion. The included states were chosen because they had
engaged in reforms that Alaska was considering. He included
the chart from Pew because the reform categories and the
states that had engaged in reform were listed. He could not
provide specifics but would be undertaking an intensive
research project at a later time.
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked if it was safe to say that the
reforms made in the states Alaska was comparing itself to
were less broad-based. He suggested Alaska ordered
everything off the menu unlike the other states. Mr.
Skidmore responded, "That's correct." He elaborated that a
person from Texas that told him Alaska should be putting
people in jail that it was afraid of rather than mad at. He
drew attention to the blue box on slide 16.
2:45:44 PM
Vice-Chair Ortiz queried whether Mr. Skidmore had studied
economics. He suggested that a certain result would happen
to the demand when the price increased for a certain item.
However, he suggested many things changed in the
marketplace. He wondered if Mr. Skidmore experienced
frustration with determining what direction the state
should take when looking at available data in the area of
criminal reform.
Mr. Skidmore had not studied economics but was familiar
with the principle Representative Ortiz described. He
agreed with the representative 100 percent. He reported
that it was very difficult, when conducting a study or
experiment, to hold everything equal other than what was
being studied. In other words, it was very difficult to
isolate one change. He agreed that it played havoc with the
state's ability to understand what has happened in the
state's criminal justice system. However, simultaneously,
science was not his forte'. He indicated that SB 91 made 96
changes that went into effect simultaneously. It made it
difficult to discuss the impacts of any one of those
changes.
Representative Carpenter recalled that there was a national
discussion about the opioid crisis beginning in 2013 or
2014. He suggested it was not just Alaska that was
affected. Mr. Skidmore replied, "That's correct."
Representative Carpenter returned to the crime rate slide.
He pointed out that from 2013 to 2017 there was an opioid
epidemic not just in Alaska but in the nation. However,
Alaska was the only state that had an anomaly in the trend
of the crime rate. He asked if other states were dealing
with the epidemic in a different way or whether there was
another factor that had not been discussed. He asked Mr.
Skidmore to comment.
Mr. Skidmore did not have an answer to Representative
Carpenter's question. He offered that there was a problem
with the opioid epidemic which had a dramatic impact on
Alaska. He could not confirm whether the opioid crisis was
the only thing that affected Alaska's crime rates. There
were clearly other factors that had an impact. He focused
on drugs because they were the focus of HB 20. At the time,
when Alaska was experiencing an increase in its crime rate,
the state chose to engage in criminal justice reform
dramatically shifting how Alaska addressed opioids. He did
not believe the shift turned out in the state's favor. He
was laying out the case for the state to go back to certain
drug laws with some changes. The state needed some of its
previous tools back.
Representative Josephson believed Mr. Skidmore when he
stated the SEJ would be used liberally. He wanted to see
where the SEJ would be paid for in the fiscal notes.
2:52:12 PM
Co-Chair Wilson responded that the request would be added.
Representative Knopp understood numbers as opposed to
percentages, and he did not like surveys with "per capita"
because of Alaska's location. He asked how to take a state
like Alaska with its small population and compare it to
other states. He suggested using real numbers for
comparison. He did not believe the comparison was accurate.
He asked Mr. Skidmore to comment. He provided an example.
He was unclear as to the basis of the studies.
Mr. Skidmore agreed about the importance of understanding
all of the ingredients in the charts. He thought
Representative Knopp could have access to the underlying
numbers. He suggested that when it came to comparing Alaska
to other states such as Texas, Oregon, or Utah,
statisticians used 100,000. The raw numbers could be
provided. The slide containing the crime rates contained
actual numbers. The recidivism numbers could be obtained
through DOC.
Co-Chair Wilson thanked Mr. Skidmore for his presentation
and indicated the committee would transition to the next
bill, HB 96.
2:55:39 PM
At EASE
2:57:23 PM
RECONVENED
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 2019 House Finance Criminal Justice Reform.pdf |
HFIN 4/29/2019 1:30:00 PM |
HFIN |
| HB031 Sponsor Statement 4.24.19.pdf |
HFIN 4/29/2019 1:30:00 PM |
HB 31 |
| HB031 Sectional Analysis ver U 4.24.19.pdf |
HFIN 4/29/2019 1:30:00 PM |
HB 31 |
| CSHB 96 Sectional Analysis Version M 4.24.19.pdf |
HFIN 4/29/2019 1:30:00 PM SHSS 2/12/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 96 |
| CSHB 96 Sponsor Statement 4.24.19.pdf |
HFIN 4/29/2019 1:30:00 PM SHSS 2/12/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 96 |
| CSHB 96 Summary of Changes Version M to Version U 4.24.19.pdf |
HFIN 4/29/2019 1:30:00 PM SHSS 2/12/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 96 |
| CSHB 96 Supporting Document Combined Letters of Support 4.24.19.pdf |
HFIN 4/29/2019 1:30:00 PM SHSS 2/12/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 96 |
| CSHB 96 Supporting Document PPT Presentation 4.24.19.pdf |
HFIN 4/29/2019 1:30:00 PM |
HB 96 |
| HB031 Presentation 4.29.19.pdf |
HFIN 4/29/2019 1:30:00 PM |
HB 31 |
| HB 96 Supporting Doc. Support .pdf |
HFIN 4/29/2019 1:30:00 PM SHSS 2/12/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 96 |
| HB 96 Supporting Doc Petition of Support.pdf |
HFIN 4/29/2019 1:30:00 PM SHSS 2/12/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 96 |