Legislature(2015 - 2016)GRUENBERG 120
03/22/2016 05:00 PM House 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 | |
| HB205 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 205 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
March 22, 2016
5:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux, Chair
Representative Wes Keller, Vice Chair
Representative Neal Foster
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Charisse Millett (telephonic)
Representative Matt Claman
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Kurt Olson (alternate)
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 205
"An Act relating to conditions of release; relating to community
work service; relating to credit toward a sentence of
imprisonment for certain persons under electronic monitoring;
relating to the restoration under certain circumstances of an
administratively revoked driver's license, privilege to drive,
or privilege to obtain a license; allowing a reduction of
penalties for offenders successfully completing court- ordered
treatment programs for persons convicted of driving under the
influence; relating to termination of a revocation of a driver's
license; relating to restoration of a driver's license; relating
to credits toward a sentence of imprisonment, to good time
deductions, and to providing for earned good time deductions for
prisoners; relating to early termination of probation and
reduction of probation for good conduct; relating to the rights
of crime victims; relating to the disqualification of persons
convicted of certain felony drug offenses from participation in
the food stamp and temporary assistance programs; relating to
probation; relating to mitigating factors; relating to treatment
programs for prisoners; relating to the duties of the
commissioner of corrections; amending Rule 32, Alaska Rules of
Criminal Procedure; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 205
SHORT TITLE: CRIMINAL LAW/PROCEDURE; DRIV LIC; PUB AID
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) MILLETT
04/17/15 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/17/15 (H) JUD, FIN
03/11/16 (H) JUD AT 12:30 AM GRUENBERG 120
03/11/16 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
03/12/16 (H) JUD AT 2:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/12/16 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
03/14/16 (H) JUD AT 12:30 AM GRUENBERG 120
03/14/16 (H) Heard & Held
03/14/16 (H) MINUTE (JUD)
03/16/16 (H) JUD AT 12:30 AM GRUENBERG 120
03/16/16 (H) Heard & Held
03/16/16 (H) MINUTE (JUD)
03/18/16 (H) JUD AT 12:30 AM GRUENBERG 120
03/18/16 (H) Heard & Held
03/18/16 (H) MINUTE (JUD)
03/21/16 (H) JUD AT 12:30 AM GRUENBERG 120
03/21/16 (H) Heard & Held
03/21/16 (H) MINUTE (JUD)
03/21/16 (H) JUD AT 5:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/21/16 (H) Heard & Held
03/21/16 (H) MINUTE (JUD)
03/22/16 (H) JUD AT 5:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
CARMEN LOWRY, Executive Director
Alaska Network on Domestic Violence & Sexual Assault (ANDVSA)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 205, offered
testimony in support.
LAUREE MORTON, Executive Director
Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault (CDVSA)
Department of Public Safety
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 205, offered
testimony in support.
TRINA SEARS, Attorney
Office of Victims' Rights
Legislative Affairs
Alaska State Legislature
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on HB 205, spoke in
opposition to aspects of the bill.
ANN SEYMOUR
Justice Solutions
Address Unknown
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 205, spoke in
favor of the bill.
BRENDA STANFILL, Executive Director
Interior Alaska Center for Non-Violent Living
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 205, discussed
victims' services and spoke in favor of the bill.
MADISEN DUSENBURY
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 205, opposed
certain provisions in the bill.
KARA NELSON, Director
Haven House
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 205, offered
support.
ANTHONY BIELER, Peer Support Specialist
Cook Inlet Tribal Council (CITC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 205, discussed
lack of treatment facilities.
MAUDE BLAIR
Alaska Federation of Natives
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 205, discussed the
benefits of reinvestment.
ACTION NARRATIVE
5:05:23 PM
CHAIR GABRIELLE LEDOUX called the House Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting to order at 5:05 p.m. Representatives Millett
(telephonic), Keller, Lynn, Claman, and LeDoux were present at
the call to order. Representatives Foster and Kreiss-Tomkins
arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 205-CRIMINAL LAW/PROCEDURE; DRIV LIC; PUB AID
5:06:15 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX announced that the only order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 205, "An Act relating to conditions of release;
relating to community work service; relating to credit toward a
sentence of imprisonment for certain persons under electronic
monitoring; relating to the restoration under certain
circumstances of an administratively revoked driver's license,
privilege to drive, or privilege to obtain a license; allowing a
reduction of penalties for offenders successfully completing
court- ordered treatment programs for persons convicted of
driving under the influence; relating to termination of a
revocation of a driver's license; relating to restoration of a
driver's license; relating to credits toward a sentence of
imprisonment, to good time deductions, and to providing for
earned good time deductions for prisoners; relating to early
termination of probation and reduction of probation for good
conduct; relating to the rights of crime victims; relating to
the disqualification of persons convicted of certain felony drug
offenses from participation in the food stamp and temporary
assistance programs; relating to probation; relating to
mitigating factors; relating to treatment programs for
prisoners; relating to the duties of the commissioner of
corrections; amending Rule 32, Alaska Rules of Criminal
Procedure; and providing for an effective date."
[Before the House Judiciary Standing Committee was CSHB 205,
labeled 29-LS0896\H, adopted 3/14/16.]
CHAIR LEDOUX opened invited testimony.
5:07:34 PM
CARMEN LOWRY, Executive Director, Alaska Network on Domestic
Violence & Sexual Assault (ANDVSA), advised that the Alaska
Network on Domestic Violence & Sexual Assault (ANDVSA) is a
network of coalition of 23 agencies working to prevent and
respond to domestic violence and sexual assault across the
state. She read her written testimony as follows:
In that role, we provide a collective voice for
victims' advocates, as well as victims and survivors
of domestic violence and sexual assault to inform and
influence the state-wide coordination of domestic
violence and sexual assault services.
I first want to thank you all for the opportunity for
me to provide testimony today. We want to say that
the Network extends our appreciation to the way that
the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission's reform
initiative has involved victims of crime and victim
advocates. We believe that this shows a very strong
will to ensure that any changes that are being
proposed or that might come about within the criminal
justice and corrections' systems are relevant to
victims and it doesn't put them at harm. So thank
you.
The second ... we want to also use this opportunity to
express our gratitude to, in particular to Senator
Coghill for his sustained support and his willingness
to also work very closely with advocates. And to the
way that ... that he's allowed for those inputs to
come in and to value those. The Network and other
victim advocates have been invited to the table and
... we've been able to engage, we've been able to
listen, and we feel like this is a very productive way
for all of us to learn about inputs into this bill.
Our main goal at the Network is to ensure that the
interests of victims of domestic violence and sexual
assault are heard, respected, and protected. And so
what we're focusing in on in our involvement with you
all on this is to focus on particular areas of the
bill which look at victim notification, categories of
crime, eligibility for violation or arrest, and in
particular, the ways that the pretrial will be phased
in since we don't currently have these now.
And most importantly, and think kind of exciting for
the Network, is that we look forward to the
reinvestment process and how that will impact the long
term health of Alaskan residents. And just to extend
on that thought a moment, I want to share with you all
that the ... that the Network and our member programs,
and other stakeholders in this state are already very
well prepared to move very quickly and efficiently to
help the state translate the savings that will come
about in this bill into reinvestment into prevention,
victims' services. First of all, we have a statewide
steering group called, Pathways to Prevention. The
statewide steering group is comprised of multiple
stakeholders across the state, including service
providers, people within state government, elders,
people from rural areas, children, youth, and all the
different types of people. And this is a partnership
that is done in consortium or in partnership with the
CDC. What we're doing is looking at planning, we're
looking at what our best practices, we're looking at
what produces evidence, and what is evidence based
programming. Because we want to do programming that
is effective, that's relevant, and that makes a
difference.
The second aspect, to demonstrate the readiness that
we are, is that we have a high degree of involvement
of youth. Currently we have a very large
participatory program called, Lead On, that is a youth
summit that brings youth from all across the state
together for three days in order to help them learn
about ... about how to have healthy relationships,
about how to be more involved in their community. And
from that initial gathering up to 35 communities have
received small grants, and these are youth lead
grants.
And then the final point that I want to say about what
prepares us to help you move into the reinvestment
part is that collectively we can see that we have a
commitment. And I think that the ongoing
conversations that we're having around the bills and
around the commission and the reform demonstrates that
there is a strong commitment. And we just want to
say, in closing, that we do appreciate being asked to
the table, we appreciate being able to have our input
heard, we appreciate that there is a value for
victims' perspectives, and to thank you very much for
that.
5:12:53 PM
LAUREE MORTON, Executive Director, Council on Domestic Violence
and Sexual Assault (CDVSA), Department of Public Safety,
paraphrased her written testimony into the record as follows:
Thank you for taking testimony on victims' services,
prevention, recommendation 21 of the Criminal Justice
Commission's report, and the reinvestment priorities
contained within the report.
Alaska is the first state involved in this huge
justice reinvestment initiative that listed victims'
issues as one of its top priorities, which I think
shows the strong commitment from all branches of
government to support victims while addressing these
crimes. And the Council appreciates that support.
And, Madam Chair has Ms. Moore already spoken?
5:14:05 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX advised that she had not.
LAUREE MORTON continued reading her testimony as follows:
Okay. The commission held two victims' services
roundtables, one in Fairbanks and one in Bethel, last
fall. They also conducted individual interviews with
victims, service providers, and stakeholders in the
Anchorage area. Ten priorities were identified
through information collected from these various
sources. I believe the committee has a copy of the
report generated by the roundtable discussions, it was
passed out to you today. Several of those priorities
were rolled up into the reinvestment priorities of
violence prevention and victims' services in remote
and bush communities.
I want to share some good news with you and to
advocate a comprehensive strategic approach to use the
reinvestment dollars to further prevention efforts and
strengthen services throughout the state. First, a
little context in these. For years we have heard
Alaska leads the nation in the number of assaults,
intimate partner violence, sexual violence, and child
sexual abuse. All things that women and children
endure. Until 2010, most of the information
supporting those were anecdotal or based on scattered
reports to law enforcement. In 2010, the statewide
Alaska Victimization Survey revealed 58 out of every
100 Alaskan women suffered intimate partner violence,
sexual violence, or both over their lifetime.
Subsequent regional surveys from 2011 to 2014, showed
a consistency with the overall state numbers. We had
data from women themselves that supported the
anecdotes and law enforcement reports. People who
worked in shelters and rape crisis centers who
volunteered for crisis lines, who went with victims to
gather evidence through rape exams, knew the numbers
were high. I don't think anyone was prepared for how
high. Focused attention moved from the emergency
rooms, our shelters and rape crisis centers, outward
toward prevention. How could we move our communities
from the norm of violence against women, to lives
freed from that violence? While prevention and
education about healthy ways of being have always been
part of the battered women and anti-sexual violence
movement. Advocates, for too long, were the only ones
working to bring those concepts to society at large.
More Alaskans now stood ready to talk about these
crimes and search for ways to create meaningful
change, peace in our communities. Resources are not
only financial in nature, but financial resources are
necessary and with the prior administration's
leadership and the consent of the 27th and 28th
Legislatures, finances were supplied to include
comprehensive prevention strategies purposely
throughout Alaska, permeating community meetings,
schools, wellness coalitions, even day-to-day ordinary
conversation between friends.
Which brings us to today and the good news. We have a
handout and if you will turn to the fourth page, you
will see the lifetime estimate. But, look at those
2010, in which the statewide first survey was done,
and 2015, which we just completed the second statewide
survey. The 2015 Statewide Victimization Survey shows
a decline in the number of women who have suffered
intimate partner violence, sexual violence, or both,
not only over their lifetime but in the prior year in
which the study was conducted. You can see that in
the lifetime estimates for intimate partner violence
in 2010, 47.6 percent of the women endured intimate
partner violence. In 2015, that has dropped to 40.4
percent, which is a 15 percent decrease. Sexual
violence in 2010, was at 37.1 percent. In 2015, it's
dropped to 33.1 percent, which is a decrease of 11
percent.
5:18:59 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX referred to the handout regarding "sexual violence
forcible" and "alcohol or drug involved" and asked her to
explain the distinction.
MS. MORTON responded that the questions around sexual violence
were split into two categories, alcohol or drug involved sexual
violence, and sexual violence without alcohol or drug
involvement.
CHAIR LEDOUX asked whether she was suggesting that alcohol or
drugs involved didn't involve violence, and if it didn't involve
violence what was it.
MS. MORTON related that it could have involved forcible sexual
violence, and this is just a distinction between whether or not
alcohol or drugs were involved in the violent incident of sexual
assault.
CHAIR LEDOUX surmised that it all involves force and violence.
MS. MORTON responded yes, the distinction is whether or not
alcohol or drugs were involved, and she offered to provide the
full report on the victimization survey wherein distinct
questions asked. For example, she said, a person responding to
the survey did not have to answer "yes or no" as to whether they
were sexually assaulted. Rather, they were asked specific
behavioral questions, such as whether someone tried to force
them to have vaginal sex, whether someone tried to force them to
have anal sex, and whether someone presented some specific
sexual violent behavior.
5:20:59 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX extended that she wanted to clarify that it all
involved force, and that she is unsure whether Ms. Morton was
saying yes or no.
MS. MORTON opined, no to physical force, and yes in the event
someone forces an act of sexual violence against another person
without their consent.
5:21:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN said he did not understand Ms. Morton's last
answer and asked her to repeat it.
MS. MORTON explained that the difference between the two
sections of the survey had to do with whether or not alcohol or
drugs were used. She remarked that any form of sexual violence
is violence, and the distinction here was whether or not alcohol
or drugs were used. In 2010, 26.8 percent of the cases involved
alcohol or drugs, and 25.6 percent of people reporting sexual
violence reported that it was forcible sexual violence with no
alcohol or drugs involved.
5:22:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked whether she meant physical force such
as grabbing someone, or emotional force which could be defined
as a threat.
MS. MORTON apologized for not making the full survey available,
and that she would prefer to make it available to the committee
rather than go by her memory.
MS. MORTON turned to the handout "Trends from 2010-2015" and
pointed out that within the prior year instances, there were
6,556 fewer victims of intimate partner violence in 2015, than
in 2010. She pointed out that there were 3,072 fewer victims of
sexual violence in 2015, than in 2010. The reason this is good
news, although still unacceptably high, is that Alaska dropped
from a lifetime of 58 out of every 100 Alaskan women to 50 out
of every 100 Alaskan women, she remarked.
5:24:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN requested her estimation of the cause of the
violence going down.
MS. MORTON answered that the Council on Domestic Violence and
Sexual Assault (CDVSA) believes that a portion of that good news
is the prevention efforts that have been put forward since 2010
through today. She continued reading her testimony as follows:
So, the survey showed that there is a ... prevalence
is decreasing, the trends are heading in the right
direction, but we still needs to strengthen our
efforts for all women to be safe. And, how do we do
that? How do we move forward? I think we provide
focused attention to the prevention that is necessary
to continue the change community by community.
Promoting community readiness and being ready to
support efforts on those small and large scales.
So, in the next slide what you'll see is a list of
different prevention activities that we thoughtfully
and carefully considered bringing into the state.
Some of them actually are generated from here in this
state, such as Compass, which generated from a group
of Alaska Native men who worked and mentored male
youth 12-18, sitting down and saying what can we do.
What can we do to raise a generation of men who are
going to be respectful of women, who are going to
understand that violence is not the answer, that
strength is them being honest, and with integrity, and
in taking care of yourself and your family and your
friends. What does that look like? And they came up
with this program called Compass, which is a 12 week
program where adult men mentor male youth 12-18 in
their daily activities. So, whether that's hunting or
fishing, whether that's providing for their family in
some other way, whether that's going out and camping
for the weekend, or playing sports, or whether that's
cooking the bread for the week for the family,
whatever those activities are, they are opportunities
to talk about what it means to be a respectful and
strong man.
There are other programs that are international in
scope, "Girls on the Run" for example, that we looked
at and thought would be adapted well to Alaska and
brought into this state. So, young girls in 5th
through 8th grade have adult female mentors over a 12
week running course, and at the end they actually run
a 5K, they do a community service, they learn about
what it means to be a respectful young woman in our
society. And how to interact, and what their
boundaries are, and how to be productive in our
communities. All the way to "High (indisc.)," one of
which is green dot, which you may be more familiar
with, that allows everyday people in communities to
understand about domestic violence and sexual assault
to see for themselves what their boundaries are. I
may be comfortable in a group of my peers if someone
tells an off-color joke or something that is degrading
to women, calling them on that. I may not be
comfortable if I see Representative LeDoux and Keller
fighting, to go break them up. But, maybe somebody
else would be comfortable in doing that. So,
[laughter]. But maybe I would feel comfortable
calling 911. So, it helps me know what my comfort
level is, and to know that I can do something. Nobody
sort of ... catch phrase for green dot is 'Nobody has
to do everything, but everybody can do something.'
And it helps you to be able to know what that is.
5:29:03 PM
I wanted to ... also sort of focus on putting
prevention to work, which was the summit that we were
able to hold in these intervening years between 2010
and 2015. You'll notice on the slide [page 7] that
there are, I'm going to say 19 communities, then if
you count and I'm incorrect please be kind to me.
That brought teens together, men and women, youth, who
were interested from a community perspective and
learning what it would look like and how to engage
their entire community in this effort to create peace,
to stop domestic violence and sexual assault. So,
teens came together, they put together a prevention
plan. We had the ability to follow up with those
plans, provide support to those communities, and
really help them start effecting the change that they
knew was possible.
On the next to the last slide, I think is "When I'm an
Elder." You may have seen these, a couple of years
ago they ran fairly frequently on "Gavel to Gavel."
It was where groups of young people from different
areas of the state got together and talked about what
they wanted their world to be like.
5:30:22 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX noted that Ms. Morton's testimony had gotten a bit
far afield from this bill, and asked Ms. Morton whether she does
or does not support the bill, and whether there are specific
portions she supports or does not support.
MS. MORTON offered that she misunderstood her instructions
because she thought the committee wanted to hear about
prevention and reinvestment, which is part of what happens with
the savings of the different areas of the bill regarding
reentry.
CHAIR LEDOUX explained there will be an entire day next week
dedicated to the reinvestment portion of this bill.
MS. MORTON acknowledged that she probably got her wires crossed
and offered that her testimony could be a foretaste of that and
she would not repeat herself.
MS. MORTON said that in addition to prevention, one of the
priorities the victims' services discussed was victim services
in rural and remote areas. She pointed to recommendation 1
within the report, wherein it holds the concept of augmenting
leadership for village elders to work with youth in reducing
these crimes. She referred to the creation of "Safe Homes," and
noted that not every community has a shelter or crisis center,
but there are ways in which rural areas can still ensure safety.
The Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault (CDVSA)
expanded outreach in assisting communities to become aware of
available services, and the training of community health aides
to conduct basic rape exams in village. She pointed to number
nine, and advised that the other priority is to increase
services for child victims and witnesses. She related, "It's
something that, as we know in our shelters, overall, only about
26 percent of the population that access our services are
children. But when you look at only those people accessing our
shelter services, the number of children involved jumps up to 44
percent of those who actually access shelter." She stressed
that this would be an opportunity to pay better attention to
what can be done for children.
5:34:09 PM
TRINA SEARS, Attorney, Office of Victims' Rights, Legislative
Affairs, Alaska State Legislature, said she would like to answer
the question of which aspects of the bill help victims. Ms.
Sears related that as an attorney with the Office of Victims'
Rights, the office opposes almost everything in the bill. There
are some provisions that would help victims, but for the most
part in almost all aspects provides ways to let offenders out of
jail, she remarked. Ms. Sears then explained her background
with regard to prosecuting sex crimes and domestic violence
crimes. She acknowledged that the committee has heard from a
few victims' advocates who care about victims in this community.
The difference, she point out, is that in her office they are
all attorneys specializing in criminal law and they advise
victims of their statutory and constitutional rights.
5:37:21 PM
MS. SEARS said that, unfortunately, this bill does not provide
treatment for those addicted to drugs, or mentally ill, and this
bill affects violent and non-violent offenders alike with almost
every aspect of this bill providing for less jail and earlier
release for all offenders. Including, she pointed out, those
convicted of sexual assault in the first degree or sexual abuse
in the first degree, and that those who have sex with children
under 13 would get out of jail substantially earlier under this
bill. Another concern is that this bill violates a victim's
constitutional right to be heard when defendants are pending
release from custody, from bail to probation to parole. Ms.
Sears pointed out that every victim of a crime has a
constitutional right to be heard before or after conviction at
any proceeding where the accused being released from custody is
considered. Unfortunately, there are many aspects of this bill
that mandate that a judge has to release somebody under certain
conditions. She said the information a victim would provide to
the court at a proceeding is extremely helpful to a judge, a
probation or parole officer, thereby possibly effecting the
conditions of release. For example, she said, whether this
person should be deemed a safety risk, oftentimes victims have
information that is not available because many victims don't
report, but under this bill the judge's hands are tied.
5:40:48 PM
MS. SEARS noted another concern was how this bill reduces
penalties at all phases. For example, it redefines crime such
that theft will no longer be punishable by jail time if it's up
to $250 in value, and only on the third conviction could someone
receive up to five days in jail. She suggested explaining to
the small businesses that it takes a third conviction before
someone who has stolen from them can get even one day in jail
under this bill. Currently, in the event someone fails to show
up to court it's a misdemeanor offense and a felony if they
don't show up for their felony court, which leads to another
concern. She explained that the delay in the system re-
victimizes people because they go to hearing after hearing and
it's continued and continued, and they never know what's going
to happen. She stated that this bill provides little penalties
for defendants who fail to show up and it will cause mandatory
continuances of another 30 days because nothing can happen in a
felony case without the defendant being present. This
legislation will basically incentivize people to not show up
because if they've been drinking or using drugs, why would they
ever show up to court because the judge and prosecutor would
know they were high and there's no real penalty for not showing
up to court. She stressed that the delays re-victimizes
victims.
5:43:33 PM
MS. SEARS expressed that the drug laws have been seriously
redefined in this bill, such that possession of heroin and
cocaine will be a misdemeanor offense punishable by a maximum of
30 days in jail, whereas, currently it's a felony offense with a
maximum penalty of five years in jail. The bill makes it
impossible for a judge to sentence someone to treatment because
they won't be on felony probation, they won't be mandated to go
to any treatment as a misdemeanant, and they won't be required
to perform UAs. This bill reduces presumptive sentencing for
every class of offense, A felonies, B felonies, C felonies, and
misdemeanors are all reduced in this bill, she said. Currently,
if a person is robbed at gun point, the penalty is a seven year
minimum and this bill reduces it to five years, it also reduces
the penalty for being stabbed with a knife and seriously
injured.
5:46:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether she perceives a bad
person being in jail as a good thing because they can't reoffend
and would make society safer. He further asked whether she
believes all of the current sentencing statutes are appropriate
or whether they should be longer. He referred to her concerns
and requested a more circumspect picture.
5:47:02 PM
MS. SEARS explained that if this bill focused on reentry to help
people become productive, that would be a start. Unfortunately,
the bill just significantly reduces sentences for people,
provides earlier parole and earlier probation release. There
might be a provision where, if you are concerned about helping
people reenter society, that would probably help them get their
license back and get a job. But, she commented, the rest of the
bill doesn't implement anything along those lines. In terms of
whether she thinks jail is bad or good, it depends. Under
current law, for people committing low-level crimes the judge
could give them zero jail, and oftentimes as a prosecutor on the
low-level felonies, she would offer less than a month jail time
on something that could be up to five years by taking into
account factors such as rehabilitation that is set in statute.
But, she related, this bill forgets another component to
sentencing, such as reestablishing community norms, community
condemnation, which is lost in this bill. She further related
that jail by itself isn't necessarily good or bad as it depends
on the circumstance, such as, whether someone is violent, or is
a repeat offender. Unfortunately, the bill sometimes treats
everybody the same, violent and non-violent, they get the same
penalty.
5:49:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked Ms. Sears to forget this
legislation and to just consider current sentencing laws, are
there any sentencing laws she feels are inappropriate or
overreaching.
MS. SEARS asked whether he meant reducing any sentence for
anybody.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked Ms. Sears to disregard HB
205, and further asked whether there are any current sentencing
laws with a strong argument for reducing sentences.
MS. SEARS responded that currently there are incentives in the
law for people to receive lower sentences, and she pointed out
that the legislature recently passed new mitigaters that apply
to people if they undergo treatment. As to whether sentences
are already too high for specific crimes, she remarked that
probably not because much is already built into the law, such as
allowing youthful first offenders to get zero jail, or little
jail for non-violent offenses.
5:50:16 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX requested her thoughts regarding the PEW Charitable
Trusts' research that jail, to a certain extent, causes
recidivism and that jail isn't working for many people.
MS. SEARS related that she is not an expert in statistics, but a
couple of the statistics the PEW Charitable Trust offered did
not consider changes specific to Alaska. It didn't necessarily
consider that Alaska seriously increased its sentences for sex
crimes. And, she noted, when they say sentences are going
higher and higher for A and B felonies, an A felony sex crime is
attempting sexual assault which is 15 years minimum, and a B
felony sex assault might be a student having sexual contact with
their teacher, and that penalty has gone to five years. She
reiterated that they don't take into account some of the things
that are specific to Alaska.
5:51:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER expressed that with regard to the
commission's focus on victims' rights, two roundtables took
place in September, the commission designed a task force
specifically regarding the rights of victims, and victims'
advocate Commissioner Brenda Stanfill is on the commission.
MS. SEARS responded that her supervisor, Taylor Winston,
attended a roundtable that was after most of the 20
recommendations were already ...
5:52:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER reiterated there were two roundtables in
September of 2015, according to the report.
MS. SEARS opined that Ms. Winston flew out-of-town to attend a
roundtable for victims. She put forth that at the conclusion of
those roundtables were additional recommendations, after the
initial 20 or 21, and they are not in the bill.
5:53:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER pointed out that the 21 recommendations
were approved after September. [Alaska Criminal Justice
Commission, Justice Reinvestment Report, dated December 2015.]
CHAIR LEDOUX clarified that the reinvestment language will be
added within another committee substitute, and it is not
currently in the bill. She stressed that the bill will not move
out of committee without the critical reinvestment language and
without money for the reinvestment.
MS. SEARS said that all she sees is a zero fiscal note and the
bill being represented to the public as a cost savings. She
related that she would be interested in whether the state
actually reinvests and puts its efforts monetarily toward
victims' services and mental health and drug treatment, and how
much that will cost.
5:54:31 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX clearly stated that the fiscal note is not zero,
and reiterated that there is a fiscal component to this bill and
there are upcoming appropriate fiscal notes on the bill.
MS. SEARS offered that the concerns of her office are based upon
what is currently written in the bill. In the event there is a
proposal to significantly invest money into treatment or
victims' services, the Office of Victims' Rights would respond
but currently no money is reinvested in this bill. She remarked
that if this bill passes without that reinvestment, there's no
guarantee there is even going to be any reinvestment in the
future.
5:55:24 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX stressed and reiterated that she is giving Ms.
Sears her commitment that this bill is not reaching the floor of
the House of Representatives without the reinvestment component.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN pointed out that the proposal is that it
will save the state money, but not without reinvestment because
the bill won't have its desired effect. As a former prosecutor,
he requested her perspective as to whether the "war on drugs"
has worked by taking more and more discretion away from judges
in terms of sentencing for non-violent drug offenders.
5:57:18 PM
MS. SEARS answered that, first of all, Alaska doesn't have
mandatory sentences for first time felony drug offenders
possessing drugs. She said the typical sentence is an SIS
[suspended imposition of sentence] if it's the first felony and
maybe a couple months of jail, if any. She explained that the
person is on probation for a couple of years and if they do well
the conviction is set aside. The reason he may have seen
numbers of recidivism and losing their SIS is because people
can't get off their addiction, she said.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN restated his question and asked, on a
broad societal scale, whether the war on drugs has worked.
MS. SEARS replied that she honestly is unaware of what goes on
in the rest of the country. She related that she was assigned
to the drug unit as a prosecutor, and that it was difficult to
get the federal government with more serious penalties than
Alaska, to take over a drug case. Usually, for the federal
government to take over a case, a weapon had to be involved or a
significant amount of drugs or money. Therefore, a person is
generally not federally prosecuted in Alaska for small amounts
of hard drugs, such as heroin, she said.
5:58:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN referred to Blakely v. Washington, [542
U.S. 296 (2004)], and the changes to some of the presumptive
sentencing laws wherein the overall average sentence for
felonies went up as a result those laws. He asked whether she
has research that disagrees with those conclusions, in terms of
the broad overall increase in felony sentencings statewide over
the last eight or nine years in Alaska.
MS. SEARS asked whether that excludes sex offenses.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN answered that he is looking at all
felonies.
6:00:03 PM
MS. SEARS argued that there are B felony sex offenses, and C
felony sex offenses, and opined that some of those statistics
did not separate out sex offenses; therefore, those statistics
are not good. The Alaska Judicial Council conducted a study,
due to be released soon, that would answer whether people
receiving convictions for drugs and property crimes are actually
seeing any jail, she said.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT said she understands her concerns and
offered that as the sponsor of HB 205, without the reinvestment
piece, treatment, substance abuse, and the ability for a sex
offender to receive treatment in place she would pull the bill
from the legislature, and she asked Ms. Sears to work with her
to make it a better bill.
6:02:56 PM
MS. SEARS continued her testimony and reiterated that with all
presumptive sentencing, the penalties are being reduced even for
second and third offenders. The bill also proposes reducing
earlier on parole, certain types of offenders. For example,
mandatory parole is required after an offender serves one-fourth
of their sentence for B and C felonies, such that when someone
burglarizes a home, it is a B felony. Whatever sentence the
judge gives that person under this bill would be mandatorily
released after serving only one-fourth of their sentence. The
bill, with respect to sex offenders, includes a provision that
allows for discretionary parole after an offender serves one-
fourth of their sentence. Currently, if someone is sentenced
for a crime committed a year ago, they would serve 100 percent
of the sentence. She noted that a couple of years ago the
legislature took away good time for certain sex offenders, yet
this bill allows the person to get out after one-fourth of their
sentence which is a significant change for victims of sex
crimes.
6:04:29 PM
MS. SEARS offered significant concern that this bill allows
those 50 years old to get out of jail after serving 10 years,
including sex offenders and homicide defendants. She related
that she has prosecuted quite a few sex offenders who were older
than 55, and some were in wheelchairs committing sex crimes
against children. She said she is open to questions or
discussions to make this bill better because there is no doubt
that Alaska's criminal system is flawed and change is needed.
However, she expressed, her office believes that change should
not come at the expense of Alaskan's safety and it should not
trample on the rights of thousands of people who are victimized
by crime each year.
CHAIR LEDOUX stated that her office will work with Ms. Sears,
particularly after the reinvestment piece is added, and she is
welcome to return with her comments.
6:06:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER thanked her for her comments and noted
that he will carefully review her testimony because some of her
comments need to be addressed on the record later. For example,
he pointed out, the geriatric element in the bill only requires
a hearing, and it does not release anyone.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether she or her office
was involved with the commission and its public process, and if
so, how she contributed to the commission's work.
MS. SEARS said that her office was not invited to be a member of
the commission, although her supervisor did attend at least one
meeting and listened in on some of the meetings by telephone.
She related that the meeting her supervisor attended allowed a
couple of minutes for public input for all of the people there.
She opined that her office wasn't invited to speak initially
until her testimony here, but she wasn't formally invited.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS noted that within her closing
comments she acknowledged that change is needed, and he asked
the changes she sees as necessary within the criminal justice
system.
6:09:36 PM
MS. SEARS pointed out that the commission was initially tasked
with looking at why Alaska has such a high recidivism rate and
addressing that problem. The commission was then instructed by
the legislature to reduce the jail population by 25 percent,
which are two different things. The commission, from her
perspective, should have focused and should focus on why so many
people are reoffending, and how to make probation better so
probation officers are better able to assist people to not
reoffend, she offered. That is not the focus of the bill, she
stressed, as the focus of the bill is how to reduce the prison
population.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS commented that he would like to
hear from a commissioner as to whether they would agree with her
statements because previous testimony has been focused on the
likelihood of recidivism and using data and other factors to
guide sentencing.
MS. SEARS said she doesn't want to debate the issue because
Representative Kreiss-Tomkins has heard more testimony that she,
but challenged where the bill specifically addresses recidivism.
She pointed out that she disagrees because just reducing
penalties for violations, or violating probation doesn't focus
on recidivism.
CHAIR LEDOUX reiterated that when the reinvestment piece is
introduced, Ms. Sears will see that it addresses recidivism.
6:11:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER expressed that the committee will continue
to work on improving the bill. He pointed out that all of the
Alaska Criminal Judicial Commission's meetings were well
advertised, always open to the public, and people testified
during the meetings. Although, Ms. Sears didn't say otherwise,
he wanted to put on the record and stress to everyone that the
commission was an open, transparent, and collaborative process.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked the committee to define reinvestment
in one or two sentences for the public, which is to be the
salvation of this bill.
6:12:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER offered that the intent is to reinvest the
money the state saves from inappropriately locking people up too
long. He related that data has shown that [the current criminal
system] isn't getting the results the state had hoped in
programs. For example, in order to help the reentry process the
Parole Board has to be beefed up, and reinvestment has to happen
in order for this to work. He added that the Alaska Criminal
Justice Commission is not finished, it made these
recommendations as a starting point and it is still a process.
He explained that the next stage is implementation, which
obviously will be the reinvestment element, and there is a lot
of interest in how that can be reinvested. The nature of the
legislative job is dealing with the different interests on how
to reinvest or invest, he said.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN thanked Ms. Sears for her clear and lucid
testimony.
CHAIR LEDOUX advised that her office will be in touch with her.
6:17:24 PM
ANN SEYMOUR, Justice Solutions, said she is a nationally known
crime victim advocate, and she helped facilitate outreach to
crime victims, survivors, and victims' service professionals and
advocates, throughout the Alaska Criminal Judicial Commission's
work. Ms. Seymour then listed her background information within
her written testimony provided to the committee. Ms. Seymour
related that throughout the 1990s she personally led national
efforts to be tough on crime and to lengthen sentences all
across the country. The justice field has moved to evidence
based practices and she likewise moved to support justice reform
that is smart on crime. She said her involvement in criminal
justice and corrections reform is to be certain victims' voices
are heard, and when the discussion is public safety to also
consider the individual safety of victims and survivors, as
members of their communities. During her early days as a
victims' advocate wherein victims had virtually no rights and
were an afterthought in justice processes if they were thought
about at all. The most significant change in justice reform and
reinvestment efforts is the strategic and proactive involvement
of crime victims and survivors. Over the past five years she
has been involved in justice reinvestment efforts in
approximately 20 states, and realized that the needs of victims
vary widely from state to state. She offered that South Dakota
focuses on creating a statewide notification system for victims,
in Pennsylvania one of the outcomes provides advocates for
victims of juvenile offenders, Hawaii completely overhauled its
victim restitution program, and Oregon holds an amount of money
in its statewide domestic and sexual assault services fund. She
noted there is consistency in the fact that states that have
reduced its prison population have also reduced its crime rate.
For example, beginning 2010, South Carolina reduced its prison
population by 20 percent and at the same time it has seen a
reduction in its crime rate of over 12 percent. Beginning 2011,
Kentucky, reduced its prison population by 1.6 percent with a 17
percent reduction in crime rate.
6:22:17 PM
MS. SEYMOUR related that she applauds any bipartisan justice
reform effort and she sees that the Alaska Criminal Justice
Commission's efforts have recognized the needs of crime
survivors and the commission's early and strong commitment to
hearing the voices of victims in Alaska is where she came in.
Her work began last summer, first reviewing a rich body of
research demonstrating that while Alaska had some of the finest
victim assistance programs in the nation there were still so
many victims unserved and underserved. These include: victims
of child abuse and neglect; the majority of Alaskan women who
experience at least one incident of intimate partner's sexual
violence in their lifetime; and that the victim's need for legal
assistance far outweighs this state's capacity to provide it.
She explained that "we reached out to over 50 survivors and
victim advocates" to inform them about what the commission was
trying to do and invited them to join discussions to assist in
clarifying victims' most important needs and concerns. During
[the roundtables] in September, she had opportunities to speak
with many crime victim survivors, and met with Butch and Cindy
Moore in person. She listened to domestic violence survivors,
in particular, for whom personal safety was just an oxymoron,
and she interviewed victims' assistance professionals who
struggle to provide quality services to victims in Alaska
despite not having enough resources to do so. Two roundtables
held in Alaska in September, as opposed to just one roundtable
in other states, wherein tribal elders and survivors were flown
in to ensure that the commission learned specifically about the
needs of victims in Alaska, Bush and remote communities.
Overall, there were 29 survivors and advocates attending the
roundtable, and she related that it is important to note their
input truly [influenced] the commission's work. She noted a
strong consensus regarding the need to strengthen victims'
assistance services in remote and Bush communities, together
with a focus on crime prevention and bystander intervention and
the goal of less crime and fewer victims in Alaska. She related
there was strong support for evidence based and culturally
competent programming, supervision for convicted offenders
including batterer's intervention, and restorative community
service with the reinvestment piece.
6:25:59 PM
MS. SEYMOUR opined that HB 205 offers the foundation in
reinvestment funding that can make the roundtable
recommendations a reality, and with its wide range of victims'
rights marks it one of the most victim centered pieces of
legislation she has seen over the past decade. She further
opined that each victim is unique and it is impossible to paint
them all with a broad brush. Her work is to be certain the
voices of victims, and their advocates are heard, respected, and
reflected within public policy.
6:27:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN surmised that according to her testimony,
prison populations decreased because crimes were redefined, and
he asked whether felonies became misdemeanors, and misdemeanors
became violations.
MS. SEYMOUR responded that she has worked in 20 different states
and every state is unique in how it goes about reducing its
population. In Alaska, and most states, the focus is on non-
violent offenders, alcohol and drug strategies, and people who
can be more effectively supervised within the community. Across
the board, she said there has been a reduction in the prison
populations, but also a reduction in the actual crime rates.
She said she would provide the committee with data if so
desired.
6:28:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN surmised that the non-violent crime
population would be out of prison, leaving only the more serious
population in prison, and asked whether that is why there was a
decrease in the prison population.
MS. SEYMOUR said yes, in most states. She offered to provide
overviews of specific strategies other states have used,
although the commission had much of that information when it
began its foundation efforts.
6:29:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN referred to her testimony regarding the
reduction in crime as well as some states seeing a reduction in
its prison population. He opined that when people discuss the
crime rate in a state, it is typically a function of the
Department of Justice statistics collected state by state and
tracked with a fair amount of detail; the prison statistics come
from each state's Department of Corrections. He asked whether
that is also her understanding of the statistics she references
and that when discussing a reduction in crime it is actually the
Department of Justice statistics and not something coming from
individual states.
MS. SEYMOUR said she would double-check but opined the data is
coming from individual states. She reminded the committee of
her examples from South Carolina and Georgia because they were
the first two states where she was involved in victims and
justice reinvestment. There has been a history of those states
seeing the reduction she spoke of and, she reiterated she will
double-check and provide the committee with the information.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked her to check on it because, in
Alaska, each time it receives a reference on the crime rate it
comes from Washington, D.C., and not from Juneau. He pointed
out that he would like to know if those other referenced states
are doing it as an internal state analysis, or getting their
crime statistics from those published.
MS. SEYMOUR said she would clarify it tomorrow.
6:31:46 PM
BRENDA STANFILL, Executive Director, Interior Alaska Center for
Non-Violent Living, said she is a commissioner on the Alaska
Criminal Justice Commission as a victim advocate, and is also
the executive director of the Interior Alaska Center for Non-
Violent Living. The governor's office selected her to sit on
the commission and that did not mean she was the only person
that could have input into victim advocacy. The commission's
process was interactive whereby the commissioners and the
audience participated, and the commissioners were enthused that
all voices were heard and not just the commission members. A
large area the commission looked at is victims' rights, which is
tremendously important, and the commission tried to keep those
rights at the forefront with the issue of victims' rights being
considered throughout the entire process, she said. The three
issues considered were pretrial, sentencing and community
supervision. Fifteen years ago, from a victim advocacy
perspective, she would be fighting tooth and nail to stop this
from going forward, and would be advocating for hard penalties
and holding people accountable because that is the only way
people change. Throughout the years, she said, it was clear
that jail changes no one because "my little guys in the shelter"
grew up and they are now the men in her batterer's intervention
program, some are dead after firing on law enforcement, and/or
are hooked on meth and stealing from everyone. In addition,
these people cannot get the services they need so when their
mothers tell her that little Johnny, who you've known for his
whole life, needs to get into treatment, she can't help him.
For instance, Fairbanks does not have mental health services
available to an un-resourced person unless they try to commit
suicide. The state is failing on the side of providing
treatment services and uses all of its funds for the
incarceration of people, and yet the people are not coming out
of prison different. Ms. Stanfill acknowledged that she is
afraid to move away from jail because it's what she knows and
believed is supposed to happen because when growing up that is
what she was taught.
6:36:15 PM
MS. STANFILL related that in reviewing the data and research,
the state can achieve public safety and reduce crime by doing
things differently and making certain that resources are
available to provide treatment. She turned to the area of
pretrial release and pointed out that victims are extremely
represented within the bill. The current bail system allows a
person out on bail if they have money and their release is not
based upon risk, or what is going on. Yet, in the event a
person doesn't have money they would probably sit in jail.
Pretrial release is part of the reinvestment the state has to
create and continue to engage in that [reinvestment] process,
she said.
6:37:01 PM
MS. STANFILL advised that pretrial release means that some
people would be released on their own recognizance (OR) which
does not mean that the victim does not have a voice, rather it
means a person would be released with conditions. In the event
a person is charged with a low-level crime, if the victim
describes the reality of a situation, the judge can impose
conditions in an attempt to keep that victim safe. The bill
does not read that a person is released with no conditions such
as breathalyzer tests or to check in with the 24/7 program, she
explained, it's that the person will not be required to put
money down in order to get out on bail. She further explained
that the risk assessment assists in determining whether a
defendant can safely be released. In the event the defendant is
determined to be a high risk offender they may not get out of
jail and communities will be safer, which is better than a
defendant just posting bail with money and getting out.
MS. STANFILL noted that within the area of sentencing, the
question before the commission was whether the state had to use
jail or could use other methods, specifically separating out the
violent and non-violent offenders. She noted that the
commission knew it would have to dive into an in-depth look at
the legislative level, such as what level of offenders are
eligible for administrative parole without a hearing or
geriatric parole. An issue considered under SB 91, was raising
some of the maximum probation terms limits, wherein the
commission recommended five years, and victim advocates were not
sure whether they felt more comfortable with ten years. She
noted these are the type of dialogues that have taken place, and
no one said, right out of the gate, that this thing is ready.
For instance, victims' advocates believed they had made certain
child porn was not a violation, and due to wording language the
crime was actually still listed as a violation. She reiterated
that in-depth digging is ongoing to be certain the legislature
crosses things out and doesn't miss the boat. As a victims'
advocate, she opined, the criminal justice system can be
conducted better, can achieve safety, and be certain victims'
voices are heard.
6:40:02 PM
MS. STANFILL reiterated that the state can make long-term
changes in Alaska by executing reinvestment. She pointed to
Lauree Morton's testimony such that within Alaska's last five
years of intensive prevention efforts, it experienced 3,000 less
incidents of victimization in one year. As a victims' advocate,
she said she is willing to give up the current sentences of days
in jail in order to provide the prevention and reentry services,
with victims as part of the process, on the front end of
reentry. She related that some of the information, during this
committee meeting, did not come across in the manner the
commission discussed, and she looks forward to more dialogue in
being certain everything has been discussed. She thanked the
committee for putting reinvestment at the top of its priority.
6:42:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT reiterated that the state's current
criminal justice system is not working, and that reinvestment
aims at changing outcomes for the prison population and reentry
so people do not return to prison. The point of the bill is to
take data driven information and turn it into a result based
bill, she said.
CHAIR LEDOUX opened public testimony.
6:44:07 PM
MADISEN DUSENBURY said she represents the Dusenbury family and
other victims. Ms. Dusenbury read her testimony as follows:
As she said, first of all, I'd wanna ... I'd like to
thank you guys for giving me the opportunity to speak.
I am obviously a little bit nervous, I've never done
this before. As she said, I am the daughter of Jeff
Dusenbury. He was a man who lived and was killed in
south Anchorage by a drunk driver in a hit-and-run
collision. I flew down to Juneau today because this
is something that I am passionate about, certain
portions of this crime bill. And I would like my
voice to be heard.
As I said, I'm obviously no expert in criminal law, at
all. I only speak to you guys as someone whose father
was killed by negligent behavior, and whose life was
affected daily by the decisions made for our criminal
justice system. I speak to Representative Millett, as
well, as you are my family's district representative
and a sponsor of this bill. I hope that you all take
my testimony into consideration when moving forward.
For anyone who is not familiar, thank you [accepted a
tissue], with the case, my dad was killed on July of
2014 by a young woman named, Alexandra Ellis. It was
a Saturday morning and my dad was out on his usual
morning bike ride, when Ellis driving backwards hit
him with her truck, proceeded into a park, and then
fled the scene. She had gotten out of her second-
round of rehab weeks prior, yet was intoxicated from
drugs and alcohol when she killed him. My mom and I
have been to court since then for trials on eight
different occasions, and our case is still not over.
Each time that we go to court it's really emotionally
draining and stressful. Having to re-live my father's
death and hear the person who killed him speak and to
see her in court is obviously very upsetting. As well
as seeing pictures of his bicycle of where his head
impacted the truck is very traumatizing for me. To me
it's .... exemplary of re-victimizing the victim,
reopening a wound and pouring salt into it again. In
the last week, five months after Ellis was supposed to
remand to jail, the judge and prosecution agreed that
Ellis will only have to serve 60 to 90 days about, in
jail for killing my father and leaving him there to
die. If that isn't outrageous enough, it is my
understanding that if this bill would have been in
place, Ellis would essentially be serving no time for
killing my father due to the administrative parole
that allows criminals to serve only one-fourth of
their sentence in conjunction with the Nygren credit
that she was granted. Along with not serving any jail
time, this bill also allows good behavior credit on
probation, from what I understand, potentially cutting
her probation time in half. And if she violates her
probation, it's also my understanding that if she
violates her probation, like is caught behind the
wheel with alcohol that she will only have to serve
three days in jail.
I don't understand how a probationary period with such
lenient violation consequences hold ... holds
criminals accountable. To me, a probationary period
is supposed to help rehabilitate people back into
society. So, it doesn't make sense to me that by
cutting criminals' probation time in half, I feel it
is cutting the rehabilitation time in half was well.
The sentence originally imposed on Ellis and the
changes made to it on her probationary period through
this crime bill don't offer my family closure, in
fact, it is insulting to us. My mom and I have never
been into retribution or revenge. We've never been
one to say, throw the books at Ellis. I understand
that my dad is gone and nothing can change that. All
I ever wanted was just ... [crying]. All we ever
wanted was justice.
6:49:05 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX asked Ms. Dusenbury if she would like to take a
break.
MS. DUSENBURY responded "No, thank you though," and continued
reading her testimony as follows:
All we ever wanted was justice, objectively handed out
by the court, and we hoped, thank you, [Ms. Dusenbury
was handed a tissue] with the attention this case
gained our state would use it as a platform to
society, especially the youth, that reckless behavior
such as driving under the influence and killing
someone are very serious offenses that hold very
serious consequences. I understand that it is
important to rehabilitate a criminal to be a
contributing member of society; however, I also feel
it should serve as some sort of deterrent to our
community and to our youth. Do we continuously try to
rehabilitate people like Ellis, regardless of how many
times they have tried and failed rehab at the victims'
expense? To me this bill just validates that a
criminal's chance of rehabilitation has become more
important than the victims. I'm confused, honestly,
how our elected government officials can support
certain pieces of this bill, such as the shortened
sentencing time, and the shortened probation period.
Mainly I'm confused because, if I understand
correctly, you guys are supposed to our voice. If you
look at any media article online you will see hundreds
of comments, and they're all overwhelmingly in
opposition of this lenient sentence. Our community
has come together and created certain petitions, and
there's about 9,000 signatures on these petitions.
They are people who are angry at the one year
sentence. I can only imagine how outraged they'd be
if they knew Ellis would essentially serve no jail
time, if this bill would have been in place. I want
to know who is supposed to represent and work for
these 9,000 people? Who is supposed to represent and
work for me, and for my family? If this bill passes
and the consequences of crime become even more lenient
then I lose all hope that people will reconsider their
actions when participating in mischief and negligent
behavior. It's in my opinion that this bill works for
criminals and against victims. And it doesn't just
seem unfair to me or to other victims, it seems unfair
to society. I don't ... I don't think it's ... just
for our state to sway towards the deference of
criminals. I feel like it re-victimizes the victims
and I feel like it risks the public's safety just to,
I guess, reduce prison population. Brenda, who spoke
before me, said that she wanted to have input of
victims so, like I said, I hope that you guys take it
into consideration when moving forward with the
process and with looking at it more specifically. I'm
finished.
6:52:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN offered that her father was his riding
buddy and her father is in his thoughts all the time. He
explained that this is a complicated bill, and Alaska has huge
problems including determining the number of people in jail, how
long to keep people in jail, how to keep the most violent and
dangerous people off the streets, and rehabilitate those who
have potential to contribute to society.
6:53:37 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX put forth that her testimony was extremely powerful
and she offered her condolences. Chair LeDoux explained, "I
lost ... I lost a husband ... a husband and a son to an
automobile accident many, many years ago. But, listening to
your testimony brings all of that back. I'll reiterate the
comments of my colleague, and my friend, Representative Claman,
it's really complicated."
MS. DUSENBURY said she understood, and asked the committee to
consider unique cases in moving forward, and to look at the
specifics of this.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT said that Ms. Dusenbury's voice is
impactful and important, and noted there is a balance between
protecting victims, honoring her father, and also finding a
pathway forward. She asked Ms. Dusenbury to work with her in
moving forward.
6:56:14 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 6:56 p.m. to 7:01 p.m.
7:01:42 PM
KARA NELSON, Director, Haven House, said she is a person of
long-term recovery, and supports HB 205. She related that she
specifically supports reducing the number of prison beds in
order to free up the funds for reinvestment into Alaska's
reentry support services, specifically for substance abuse,
detox, treatment detox, housing, and employment. She explained
that Haven House is a program for women coming directly out of
prison, and also a recovery residence. Several items addressed
in the bill, including the reinvestment piece, as well as
providing reentry support for release, is crucial to the success
of Alaskans released back into their communities. She
emphasized the importance of the reinvestment piece in bringing
substance abuse and mental health disorder assistance inside and
outside of the program.
CHAIR LEDOUX advised that the reinvestment piece will be
discussed next week because the public testimony portion on this
bill is being continued.
7:04:48 PM
ANTHONY BIELER, Peer Support Specialist, Cook Inlet Tribal
Council (CITC), related that he had been a 20 year heroin
addiction and in 2004 moved from New York City to Juneau to get
away from drugs; however, he became hooked on the pills
available in Juneau at the time. He explained that within a few
years he was in jail and charged with a felony at the age of 48
for the first time in his life, with no opportunity to bail out.
Prior to the trial he was scared into believing his sentence
would be 20 years, but was given a six year sentence with four
years suspended, and he spent six months at Lemon Creek
Correctional Center and another ten months at the half-way house
in Juneau. Almost immediately, he related, he inquired about
treatment, and was advised of ASAP [Alcohol Safety Action
Program], but was told he had to get on a waiting list.
Although, he was able to participate in some treatment while at
the halfway house, the opportunity to attend treatment in Juneau
did not come up until two days before being released. He
stressed that prior to being arrested and becoming a felon,
Rainforest Recovery was available to dry out but that a detox or
a methadone program was not available in Juneau. He said he was
looking for Suboxone or something similar to actually recover
and become employable. After release, and being a felon, it was
almost impossible for him work other than construction, although
things are now slowly getting better. Recently, he said, he was
hired on the spot with a handshake at Home Depot and Sears and
ten days later received two letters stating that he was
terminated because his background report advised that he was a
felon. He thanked the committee for the opportunity to speak
and that he supports HB 205 because things have to change. He
reiterated that at 48 years old he became a felon for the first
time in his life with no resources available to help him before
or after jail.
7:10:02 PM
MAUDE BLAIR, Alaska Federation of Natives, noted that the Alaska
Criminal Justice Commission passed a comprehensive package of
policy recommendations, and this bill addresses some of the
recommendations. She pointed out that a disproportionate number
of Alaska Natives are currently confined, and make up
approximately 15 percent of the state's population, but
represent 36 percent of the state's pretrial inmates.
Currently, approximately 50 percent of all of the people in
prison have not even been sentenced, there is no law enforcement
in Alaska's smaller villages, and that access to the courts is
limited to hub villages. She expressed that access to
attorneys, legal aid, and someone to assist in understanding the
legal system is even harder to get in some of these economically
depressed areas. As Ms. Stanfill referred, these are
economically depressed areas wherein a person has no job and no
money to make [bail], so that person will sit in jail. She
remarked that due to this criminal justice reform there will be
a disproportionately positive impact on Alaska Natives. She
described this legislation as a good start toward helping the
legal system function well and, as earlier mentioned,
reinvestment is important in targeting the social ills and the
difficulties that may cause unlawful behaviors, plus
reinvestment assists in helping people to become productive
members of society.
[SB 250 was held over.]
7:13:04 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was recessed at 7:13 p.m.
until March 23, at 1:00 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|