Legislature(2019 - 2020)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/04/2019 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
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 | |
| SB12 | |
| SB34 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 12 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 35 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 34 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SB 34-PROBATION; PAROLE; SENTENCES; CREDITS
2:41:10 PM
CHAIR HUGHES reconvened the meeting and announced that the final
order of business would be SENATE BILL NO. 34, "An Act relating
to probation; relating to a program allowing probationers to
earn credits for complying with the conditions of probation;
relating to early termination of probation; relating to parole;
relating to a program allowing parolees to earn credits for
complying with the conditions of parole; relating to early
termination of parole; relating to eligibility for discretionary
parole; relating to good time; and providing for an effective
date."
2:42:35 PM
JOHN SKIDMORE, Director, Criminal Division, Central Office,
Department of Law, Anchorage, stated that this bill considers
probation and parole and tries to improve on the system. He
summarized it as an attempt to return appropriate discretion to
probation officers, judges, and to the parole board. He said
that the bill touches on five major areas, including caps for
technical violations, earned compliance credits and how the
state uses them for probation and parole. It also considers
early termination and when it should be recommended or required,
discretionary parole in terms of eligibility and the
presumptions for discretionary parole, and whether good time
should be allowed when offenders are serving time on electronic
monitoring.
He offered to transition to the sectional analysis of SB 34.
2:44:06 PM
MR. SKIDMORE turned to pages 1-2, to Sections 1 and 2 of SB 34.
Section 1: Eliminates language related to caps on
technical violations of probation under AS 12.55.110.
Section 2: Eliminates language related to caps on
technical violations of probation under AS 12.55.110.
He said that these are conforming amendments for technical
violations.
2:44:36 PM
CHAIR HUGHES asked for further clarification on parole and
probation and to define discretion versus mandatory for the
public.
2:45:32 PM
MR. SKIDMORE answered that probation and parole relates to
offenders who are sentenced in Alaska to serve a period of time
in jail. The offender can be released from jail earlier for
parole. For example, if offenders are sentenced for three years
to serve, the individuals would be eligible for the parole board
to consider eligibility for discretionary parole after serving
one year. Once offenders reach the two-year mark, they shift
from discretionary parole, where the parole board considers
applications and determines whether candidates are a good risk
to be released into the community to begin the transition to a
productive member of society. Mandatory parole is also referred
to as good time, which relates to the concept that individuals
in a Department of Correction's facility who have followed the
rules and behave or are "good," and then they are released after
they have served approximately two-thirds of the sentence. He
recapped that describes discretionary parole, and mandatory
parole also known as good time. That is juxtaposed or in
contrast to probation.
MR. SKIDMORE explained that probation refers to individuals who
have served all of their sentence in a correctional facility or
while on parole and the court has also suspended time. For
example, a judge may sentence offenders to five years, with two
years suspended, with three years to serve. He said that
offenders with three years to serve, as just described, would be
placed on parole. Once the individuals are back into the
community and off parole, they are on probation.
He highlighted that the probationary period could range from one
to five years, depending on the offense and the allowable
probation time by law. During probation, using the above
scenario, the two years that were suspended is the potential
sanction that could be imposed. Each time a probation officer
files a petition to revoke probation, the court would hold an
arraignment. The court would hear the allegations, hold an
adjudication or fact-finding phase, and ultimately would hold a
disposition hearing and impose a sanction if a violation is
found. It is the imposition of this sanction that would amend
some or all of the two-year period. The court can also impose
additional sanctions, including amending or altering probation
conditions. For example, the court may add additional reporting
requirements or other requirements. He acknowledged parole and
probation are two different concepts.
2:49:48 PM
CHAIR HUGHES summarized that she thinks of parole as being in
lieu of jail time and probation as in addition to jail time.
MR. SKIDMORE agreed.
2:50:24 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE asked whether it would be possible for someone
to be released early for discretionary or mandatory parole but
still have probation associated with a suspended sentence.
MR. SKIDMORE answered yes.
2:50:56 PM
CHAIR HUGHES, with respect to probation and parole provisions in
SB 34, asked him to estimate the percentage of repeal of Senate
Bill 91.
MR. SKIDMORE answered that the provisions in Senate Bill 91
related to probation and parole are touched on and most are
repealed. One exception is for earned compliance credits that
did not exist prior to Senate Bill 91, he said. He added that in
SB 34 the amount of earned compliance credits is reduced but not
eliminated.
CHAIR HUGHES asked whether geriatric parole is maintained.
MR. SKIDMORE answered that parole for those who are incarcerated
who reach an advanced age and have certain medical conditions is
maintained. In response to Chair Hughes, he estimated about 95
percent of the 2016 crime bill is rolled back or repealed.
2:53:17 PM
MR. SKIDMORE turned to Section 3 of the sectional analysis for
SB 34 and referred to pages 2-3 of the bill.
Section 3: Makes the recommendation of a probation
officer for early termination of probation permissive
and at the discretion of the probation officer. Also
eliminates the timeline for when such a recommendation
must be made. Maintains requirement that the
probationer is in compliance with their conditions of
probation and has completed all of the required
treatment programs. Also maintains the prohibition on
unclassified felony, sexual felony, and domestic
violence offenders from being recommended for early
termination.
He explained that prior to Senate Bill 91, the probation officer
could recommend a minimum supervision bank or recommend the
court end probation. He explained that Senate Bill 91 changed it
from a recommendation to a mandatory requirement. This removed
probation officers' discretion and required them to make a
"recommendation" to the court that someone's probation be ended
after 12-18 months if the person had met certain conditions.
This removed the case-by-case consideration, but SB 34 will
return it to the probation officers' discretion. He pointed out
that crimes such as assault, drug, sexual, and theft cases have
a wide range of conduct that can occur. Further, the offenders
vary substantially, in terms of ages, prior criminal histories,
support networks and other factors, so it is important that
probation officers have discretion to consider these factors. He
recapped that Section 3 allows probation officers to make a true
recommendation about when someone should be terminated from
probation early.
2:56:17 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked for further clarification on training
probation officers on identifying recidivism and community risk
and to assess how the training works and is delivered.
2:57:04 PM
JENNIFER WINKELMAN, Director, Division of Probation and Parole,
Department of Corrections (DOC), Juneau, answered that probation
officers must do a risk needs assessment called an LSI-R [Level
of Service Inventory-Revised] to identify the caseload risk
needs. She explained that probation officers receive training
through the academy and ongoing training to ensure the risk
assessments are being addressed appropriately.
SENATOR KIEHL asked whether statistical data or reviews inform
the department on how well that works.
MS. WINKELMAN answered that the Department of Corrections (DOC)
just received the results of a validation study in the last few
weeks that examined the risk needs assessment of the Alaska
population. She said this is normed to the Alaska population and
ensuring an inter-rater officer reliability amongst the officers
and in terms of recidivism.
2:59:12 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked whether the recommendations are made to the
court or to the parole board.
CHAIR HUGHES commented that probation is involved with the court
and the parole board is the decision maker. She asked Mr.
Skidmore if that was correct.
MR. SKIDMORE answered yes. He said that probation
[recommendations are made] to the court and parole
[recommendations are made to the parole board.
3:00:09 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked where the discretionary loss has occurred if
lawyers are coming before the court just as they did previously.
He asked for further clarification on the reason for this
change.
CHAIR HUGHES paused to asked members to hold questions and dig
in later to allow Mr. Skidmore to continue with the sectional
analysis.
MR. SKIDMORE answered that the discretion being discussed in
this section is not the discretion of the court but of the
probation officer, who would determine whether a recommendation
is appropriate. Currently, the law requires probation officers
to make a recommendation even if the officer does not think it
is a good idea. This change would return the discretion to the
probation officer.
3:02:13 PM
MR. SKIDMORE turned to Section 4 of SB 34.
Section 4: Reduces amount of time that a probationer
may decrease their length of probation for good
behavior to one day for every three days without a
violation.
MR. SKIDMORE said this section relates to earned compliance
credits for probation. Prior to Senate Bill 91 earned compliance
credits did not exist. Offenders were placed on probation and
served the probation period unless the probation officer
recommended early termination. He said that earned compliance
credits provides the concept of a carrot in addition to a stick.
He explained this is designed to provide an incentive to behave.
For example, for every 30-day period that individuals did not
incur any violations, probation could be reduced by an equal 30-
day period. Essentially, those who served the first half of
their probation without any violations would be off probation.
This section would shift the calculation from one day for each
day to one day for every three days without a violation. It
would also require the DOC to consult with the Department of Law
(DOL) and the Department of Public Safety (DPS) in establishing
an earned compliance credit program. In response to Chair
Hughes, he agreed that a third could be shaved off instead of
half of the probation time.
CHAIR HUGHES pointed out that earned compliance credit is time
off from probation and parole, but good time credit is time
trimmed from the jail sentence.
MR. SKIDMORE agreed.
3:04:09 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked for further clarification on the calculation
and if it would be the same if it read 10 days for each 30 days
or if it works differently.
MR. SKIDMORE said it is similar, but it is altered to one to
three days to assist the DOC in its calculations.
3:04:48 PM
MR. SKIDMORE turned to Section 5.
Section 5: Prohibits a sex offender from earning
credit against their period of probation. Also
mandates that a probationer lose all of the credits
they have accrued if they are found in violation of
probation, requiring the accrual to start over.
MR. SKIDMORE said this also relates to earned compliance credits
for probation. This provision would first limit earned
compliance credits so as not to apply to sex offenses. He
explained that the department uses a containment model for
probation to carefully monitor offenders, but it only works
while the offender is on probation. However, earned compliance
credits allow a probationer to be removed from probation earlier
for compliance. In other types of cases this is appropriate;
however, for sex offenses the department wants to maintain the
containment model as much as possible to reduce recidivism.
He said that it would also consider when a person has accrued
earned compliance credits over time for time without violations.
If the person violates, the person would still retain all of the
earned compliance credits that had accrued up to that point.
This provision would mandate that the probationer would lose all
of the credits that had accrued if the person had a subsequent
probation violation. He explained that this would keep the
incentive building to stay in compliance. In response to Chair
Hughes, he said that earned compliance credits would not apply
to sex offenders, but it would apply to everyone else.
3:07:10 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE said some people have expressed concern. It
does not seem to have a scale about the type of offense. He
related a scenario that a probationer could have two years of
probation and at the end of probation, perhaps the probation
officer did not like the person, if the probationer had a slight
violation, the probationer could lose all credits. He asked
whether it would be possible to identify the types of violations
to avoid abuse.
MR. SKIDMORE explained that the committee could discuss this
issue and the Department of Law would review any suggested
language. He this concept is that any violation would be
determined by the court, not the probation officer. He agreed if
a probationer had a violation, the person would lose all credit.
He has heard concepts or proposals discussed to allow the court
to decide. However, the bill is not currently drafted in that
way, but he understands the concept.
SENATOR MICCICHE suggested that he would review the concept of a
model prisoner who has a reset for a minor violation to see if
it is worth evaluating.
3:09:29 PM
MR. SKIDMORE turned to pages 4-5, to Section 6.
Section 6: Amends duties of a probation officer to
require that a probation officer consider recommending
early termination of probation. Also eliminates the
requirement to use administrative sanctions before
filing a petition to revoke.
MR. SKIDMORE said this requires probation officers to consider
if early termination should be considered at any point in time.
3:10:12 PM
MR. SKIDMORE turned to Section 7.
Section 7: Requires an application for discretionary parole
to be submitted to the parole board before a person can be
considered for discretionary parole.
MR. SKIDMORE stated that this is the point in the bill that
shifts from probation to parole. Previous to Senate Bill 91, if
an inmate wanted to be released on discretionary parole, the
person would apply to the parole board. He explained that under
Senate Bill 91, the requirement that an inmate apply for parole
was removed and it required that the parole board automatically
hold parole hearings. This resulted in a significant increase in
the number of parole hearings, which made it difficult for the
board. This provision would ensure the inmate is interested in
applying for parole.
3:11:39 PM
MR. SKIDMORE turned to Section 8.
Section 8: Returns discretionary parole eligibility to
where it was prior to January 1, 2017. Makes the
following crimes ineligible:
• Non-sex class A felonies (Robbery 1, Assault 1, Arson
1);
• B felonies if the person had one or more prior felony
convictions;
• C felonies if the person had two or more prior felony
convictions; and
• B and C sex felonies (Sexual Assault 2, Sexual Abuse
of a Minor 2, Distribution of Child Pornography).
MR. SKIDMORE explained that the law was expanded in Senate Bill
91 in terms of the types of crimes for discretionary parole. He
likened it to the scenes in Shawshank Redemption in which the
character comes before the board time and time again. Some
crimes simply are not eligible for discretionary parole, which
he read.
[Due to technical difficulties the testifier was disconnected.]
3:12:33 PM
At-ease.
3:12:57 PM
CHAIR HUGHES reconvened the meeting.
3:13:11 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked whether an increase has occurred for a
percentage of parolees who committed crimes and made new
victims.
3:13:36 PM
At-ease.
3:14:47 PM
CHAIR HUGHES said the committee was experiencing technical
difficulty.
[SB 34 was held in committee.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SJUD Agenda 3.4.19.pdf |
SJUD 3/4/2019 1:30:00 PM |
|
| CSSSSB12 Version O.pdf |
SJUD 3/4/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 12 |
| CSSSSB12 Explanation of Changes from Version U to O.pdf |
SFIN 3/11/2019 9:00:00 AM SJUD 3/4/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 12 |
| CSSSSB 12 Sectional Summary Version O.pdf |
SJUD 3/4/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 12 |
| Amendment 1 to CSSSSB12 - Kiehl.pdf |
SJUD 3/4/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 12 SB 34 |
| CSSB 34 Version U.PDF |
SJUD 3/4/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 34 |
| SB 34 Transmittal Letter.pdf |
SJUD 3/4/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 34 |
| SB 34 - Probation and Parole Sectional.pdf |
SJUD 3/4/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 34 |
| SB 34 Explanation of Changes.pdf |
SJUD 3/4/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 34 |
| SB 34 Highlights.pdf |
SJUD 3/4/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 34 |