Legislature(2001 - 2002)
04/26/2002 01:55 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 339 - INCREASE CRIMINAL FINES Number 0038 CHAIR ROKEBERG announced that the first order of business would be SENATE BILL NO. 339, "An Act increasing fines for certain criminal offenses." Number 0065 MARILYN WILSON, Staff to Senator Dave Donley, Senate Finance Committee, Alaska State Legislature, said on behalf of the Senate Finance Committee, sponsor, that SB 339 increases maximum criminal fines that may be imposed on an individual or organization for certain criminal offenses. The maximum criminal fine amounts for an individual have not been increased since the revision of the Alaska Criminal Code in 1978 - 24 years ago. The maximum criminal fine amounts for an organization have not been increased since 1990. She noted that the fine amounts [proposed by SB 339] are not mandatory; they would simply become the maximum fine allowed, and judges would retain their discretion to set the fines based on the conditions surrounding individual offenses. Most criminals will not be able to pay the higher of these increased fines, but those that can pay, should pay. She expressed the hope that increasing the maximum allowable fines will help deter crime. Additionally, she noted, these higher fines will help reimburse the state for the costs of the criminal justice system. CHAIR ROKEBERG, referring to the chart provided by the sponsor comparing current fines with those proposed by SB 339, asked why the particular amounts proposed in SB 339 were chosen. MS. MARILYN WILSON indicated that those amounts were chosen as a result of researching what other states have as their maximum fines. CHAIR ROKEBERG noted that the maximum fine in Texas for [an unclassified felony] is $10,000, but in Kansas [an unclassified felony] carries a $500,000 fine. REPRESENTATIVE MEYER asked if there are any statistics showing "how many people actually pay these fines." He said he has heard that with regard to "driving while intoxicated" (DWI) fines, if fines are set too high, people just don't pay them. He pondered whether, by keeping the fines reasonable, more of them would be paid. MS. MARILYN WILSON said that according to the court system, approximately 30 to 33 percent of criminal fines are collected. Number 0327 REPRESENTATIVE MEYER ventured that raising the fines will not increase the collection rate. MS. MARILYN WILSON pointed out that SB 339 pertains to criminal fines, not motor vehicle fines. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES observed that perhaps this is an issue for which statistics alone will not bear out. She offered that there could possibly be some increase in the amount collected, though perhaps not proportionate to the increase in the fines. She indicated that perhaps the increase in fines would act as a deterrent for some people, though perhaps not for the majority of people intent on committing crimes, since penalties are not foremost on peoples' minds when they are breaking the law. She posited that the increase in fines might result in more money to the state, though for those people who do not currently pay their fines, the increase won't make any difference. REPRESENTATIVE MEYER asked whether SB 339 would help fill the fiscal gap. MS. MARILYN WILSON pointed out that the fiscal notes are indeterminate. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES surmised that increasing the fines will not increase the cost of collections; thus it is to the state's advantage to attempt to collect more whenever possible. CHAIR ROKEBERG indicated that the Department of Law (DOL) is attempting to be more aggressive in its collection of [criminal fines]. He surmised that even the increase in misdemeanor fines will result in more revenue. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES agreed. She also pointed out that with the pending upgrade of the court systems' computer system, collection of fines and surcharges should increase. REPRESENTATIVE MEYER asked what happens to the cash confiscated during drug busts. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES posited that although she is not sure how it is accounted for, such money is probably forfeited, and if it is counted as a forfeited asset, it is probably not applied to fines owed. CHAIR ROKEBERG said he assumes such money winds up in the general fund (GF) eventually. Number 0658 LINDA WILSON, Deputy Director, Public Defender Agency (PDA), Department of Administration, testified via teleconference, and after mentioning that she does not know the answer to Representative Meyer's question regarding money confiscated during drug busts, said that generally the PDA is not in favor of legislation that increases fines. She noted, however, that this particular bill will not have much of an impact on the PDA's clientele, since whether the fine is $75,000 or $500,000, it is still an unreachable amount, as was stated by the sponsor's representative. She also mentioned, however, that [increasing fines] can have a trickledown effect in that judges might be influenced by the larger maximums into imposing higher fines compared to what is currently being imposed. If so, the PDA's clientele would be affected by SB 339. MS. LINDA WILSON mentioned that [increasing fines] can result in petitions to revoke probation and parole for nonpayment of a fine. Generally those petitions are not filed alone; she explained that if there is another violation, it can bring those in as well. She said that according to her understanding of conversations she's had with "the probation people," they generally do not file petitions just for a nonpayment of fine. To summarize, she said that although generally the PDA opposes such measures, SB 339 will probably not have a big effect on PDA's clientele, other than its effect on petitions to revoke probation and parole. CHAIR ROKEBERG asked who files petitions to revoke. The courts or the DOL? MS. LINDA WILSON said that it is generally done by the DOL; the probation/parole officer files the petition to revoke, either in front of the parole board, if it is parole that is being revoked, or in court, if it is probation that is being revoked. She added that petitions can be filed simultaneously in both places for the same conduct if the person is on both parole and probation. In response to a question, she reiterated that generally petitions are not filed solely on nonpayment of a fine. CHAIR ROKEBERG, noting that no one else wished to testify on SB 339, closed the public testimony and announced that SB 339 would be held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|