Legislature(1995 - 1996)
02/06/1996 09:05 AM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
MINUTES
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
February 6, 1996
9:05 A.M.
TAPES
SFC-96, #19, Sides 1 & 2
SFC-95, #20, Side 1
CALL TO ORDER
Senator Rick Halford, Co-chair, convened the meeting at
approximately 9:05 A.M.
PRESENT
In addition to Co-chairman Halford, co-chairman Frank and
Senators Sharp, Donley, Rieger and Zharoff were present when
the meeting was convened. Senator Phillips was the last
arriving senator
Also Attending: Representative Con Bunde; Patty Swenson,
Administrative Assistant to Rep. Bunde; Anne Carpeneti,
Criminal Division, Department of Law; Carol Carrol,
Director, Administrative & Support Services, Department of
Military and Veterans Affairs; Senator Leman; Annette
Kreitzer, aide to Senate Resources Committee; Senator Lyda
Green; Art Snowden, Administrative Director, Alaska Court
System; Mike Greany, Director, Legislative Finance Division;
fiscal analysts; and aides to committee members.
Teleconference: Barbara Brink, Deputy Public Defender,
Anchorage; Brant McGee, Director, Office of Public Advocacy,
Anchorage.
SUMMARY INFORMATION
SENATE BILL NO. 69
"An Act relating to hazardous chemicals, hazardous
materials, and hazardous waste."
Testimony was given in support of CSSB 69(RES) by Senator
Leman and Annette Kreitzer. CSSB 69(RES) was REPORTED OUT
of committee with zero fiscal notes.
HOUSE BILL NO. 38
"An Act relating to criminal sentencing; relating to
the availability for good time credit for offenders
convicted of certain first degree murders; relating to
mandatory life imprisonment, parole, good time credit,
pardon, commutation of sentence, modification or
reduction of sentence, reprieve, furlough, and service of
sentence at a correctional restitution center for
offenders with at least three serious felony convictions;
and amending Alaska Rule of Criminal Procedure 35."
Testimony was given in support of HB 38 by Representative
Con Bunde; Anne Carpeneti, Criminal Division, Department of
Law; Jerry Luckhaupt, Attorney, Legislative Affairs Agency;
and Jerry Shriner, Department of Corrections.
Teleconference testimony was given by Barbara Brink, Deputy
Public Defender, Anchorage and Brent McGee, Director of the
Office of Public Advocacy, Anchorage. Amendment #1 was
MOVED by Senator Donley and ADOPTED. The bill was held
until next week to take up concerns voiced by Senator
Donley.
SENATE BILL NO. 178
"An Act relating to small employer health insurance."
No testimony was heard by the committee and it was
rescheduled for Friday, 9 February 1996 at 9:00 A.M.
SENATE BILL NO. 69
"An Act relating to hazardous chemicals, hazardous
materials, and hazardous waste."
Senator Leman was invited to join the committee and briefly
stated that he believed the fiscal notes should be zero.
The DEC put in a fiscal note for $5,000 for mailing expenses
but since this bill creates a single form to replace what in
the Anchorage municipality is four forms and since the
mailing goes out anyway there should be no additional
expense. It should be a zero fiscal note.
In summary the bill in Anchorage has four different
requirements: the municipal placarding requirement, the
State fire marshall placarding requirement, the community
right-to-know requirement and the OSHA requirement (MSDS
sheets). In Anchorage, the municipal placarding
requirements will still but we will remove the statewide
placarding requirements under the State fire marshall. This
is something the State fire marshall supports. There are
some threshold limits that are more stringent than Federal
law and this is a technical update making all reporting
requirements consistent with Federal law.
Senator Donley asked that the current placarding program be
explained in regard to the State fire marshall. Senator
Leman noted that the State fire marshall placarding program
had been largely ineffective. It is a function of the law
that just has not been used. The fire marshall supports
this change and does not oppose the bill. Discussion has
also been held with the fire departments. This bill will
allow for municipalities to keep the placarding program if
they wish. It is hoped that the single form now proposed
will become an electronic placarding system. Senator Donley
felt that it was important for firemen going into a building
to know what sort of hazardous materials are stored there so
that they can wear proper protective gear. Senator Leman
concurred.
Senator Rieger asked about the existing law with regards to
municipalities establishing and imposing penalties and fees,
what a first class and second class city can do, what a
municipality can do and would this give power to any
municipality that they would not have otherwise had under
their home rule charter or adopted when the city was first
incorporated? Senator Leman stated that when he served on
the local emergency planning committee in Anchorage that
Anchorage had to go through the process of establishing fees
so the LEPC came up with recommendations, worked with the
fire department and then it went through a public process as
allowed by Title 29.
Annette Kreitzer explained that Title 29 placarding program
is the current law. The only change in the section deletes
the placarding requirements under the State fire marshall
placarding program. No new authorization is being granted
to municipalities.
Senator Zharoff referred to the Alaska State Emergency
Response Commission and if it exists. Senator Leman replied
that Senate Bill 33 of last year restructured the
commission. It consists of commissioners from nine
departments and seven public members and it functions to
implement the Federal law regarding the reporting of
hazardous substances. Senator Zharoff also asked if under
section 4 of CSSB 69(RES) the specific terminology brings up
to date all of the various poisons, explosives, etc.
Senator Leman explained that in 1993 Congress passed a law
recognizing the United Nations Identification System to make
sure all the listings of hazardous substances are consistent
using international symbols to make sure everyone knows what
substances are being stored. Senator Zharoff referred to
the deletion of 500 lbs. hazardous material being handled in
one day to 10,000 lbs. and would like to know what effect
this will have. Senator Leman explained that previously
State law had been more stringent than the Federal law; now
the law was consistent.
Senator Zharoff also inquired about the provision for
compressed gases. Senator Leman advised that the stated
requirement goes beyond Federal law which doesn't require
compressed gases be reported. Municipalities can establish
their own standards that are more stringent than those
required under Federal law. Senator Zharoff expressed
concern over a fireman going into a building with compressed
gas stored without his knowing. Senator Leman advised that
the effect of the bill is to delete the placarding
requirement but the information on stored chemicals would
exist in a data bank that would be available to all
municipal fire departments when they are responding to a
fire.
Senator Sharp MOVED for passage of CSSB 69(RES) from
committee with individual recommendations and zero fiscal
notes. No objections being heard CSSB 69 (RES) was REPORTED
OUT with zero fiscal notes from Department of Public Safety,
Department of Military and Veterans Affairs, Senate Finance
Committee fiscal note for Department of Environmental
Conservation.
Co-chairman Halford introduced HB 38.
HOUSE BILL NO. 38
"An Act relating to criminal sentencing; relating to
the availability for good time credit for offenders
convicted of certain first degree murders; relating to
mandatory life imprisonment, parole, good time credit,
pardon, commutation of sentence, modification or
reduction of sentence, reprieve, furlough, and service of
sentence at a correctional restitution center for
offenders with at least three serious felony convictions;
and amending Alaska Rule of Criminal Procedure 35."
Representative Con Bunde was invited to join the committee
and offered this testimony on what is popularly referred to
as the "three strikes bill". An accurate definition is the
"habitual offender bill". For the record he paraphrased a
bit of the sponsors' statement. HB 38 provides a definite
term of imprisonment from forty to ninety-nine years for a
specific group of offenders who have two separate prior
class A or unclassified felonies, people that are referred
to as criminal predators. Under proposed legislation
discretionary parole and good time sentence reductions would
not be available to offenders who are sentenced to the
definite term. Those sentenced from forty to ninety-nine
years have the right to ask the Court for a reduction after
they have served greater than one-half of the term or thirty
years. There is obviously a cost to keeping a person
incarcerated for an extended period of time however this
legislation is crafted to keep that cost at a minimum.
Strong punishment can shape behaviour and deter crime. The
committee is strongly encouraged to consider the cost of
criminal predators remaining at large. The latest studies
show that the average felon commits 200 felonies per year.
It is time to close the revolving door on repeat offenders
and this proposed legislation will make Alaska a safer
place.
Senator Donley referred to the provision for modification or
sentence reduction after one-half of the definite term is
served and wanted to know if this included good time or not.
Representative Bunde indicated that this is without good
time. Under the definite term a person must serve one half
of their sentence. Senator Donley referred to the mandatory
ninety-nine years for certain types of murder noting with
good time it could be reduced as much as one-third.
Discussion followed regarding terminology of "good time" and
"definite term". Patty Swenson, Administrative Assistant to
Representative Bunde stated that the bill was drafted to be
consistent in defining a definite term and not one that
allowed a sliding scale. Senator Donley said he would like
to hear from the drafters of this bill as to terminology
used as there is a fear even though there is the thirty-year
back-up which creates a lot of safety the "definite term"
would not necessarily mean without consideration of good
time the way the Courts' interpret these things.
Representative Bunde stated that too often a sentence of
ninety-nine years has not meant ninety-nine years. Co-
chairman Halford requests Senator Donley get an answer to
this question.
Senator Sharp referred to fiscal notes, the revolving door
not occurring as often and therefore causing a savings for
not processing people through the Court system and that
there is no off-set for handling repeaters. Representative
Bunde pointed out the cost of leaving repeat offenders out
on the street. It was not taken into consideration the
average third time loser serves thirteen-and-a-half years in
jail. There would be no fiscal impact by this bill for at
least thirteen-and-a-half years as far as the Department of
Corrections is concerned. The Public Defender pointed out
in their fiscal note that they would have to have a more
vigorous defense if these would go to trial. It is
difficult to calculate what it is going to cost the public
but criminal research accepts the available statistics that
each felon habitual criminal commits two hundred felonies a
year.
Co-chairman Halford referred to the suspended imposition of
sentence and that it would be the bargain made anytime it
was available. An SIS is where a deal is made with the
prosecution to plead guilty to an offense, it is not
recorded, it is sealed and it remains on the desk for two
years and if you don't do anything wrong it's gone and it is
not a prior offense. Representative Bunde explained that
this bill would only impact those who commit class A or
unclassified felonies; rape, murder or armed assault. An
SIS would not be used unless it is maybe manslaughter,
assault in the first degree, robbery in the first degree,
arson in the first degree, escape.
Senator Donley inquired if the bill would trigger only if
the first offense were one of the aforelisted.
Representative Bunde indicated that was correct.
Prosecutors would also have to choose to pursue this
definitive sentence. If there is circumstantial evidence or
the case is weak they are not going to go to trial at this
big expense. Once they choose to do that it is the first
strike. The next two strikes must also be a serious
offense. They must be separate convictions and not three
charges in one trial.
Senator Phillips inquired if the California law was
initiated by initiative. Patty Swenson advised California
and Washington were by initiative and there may be other
states. Alaska used to have habitual criminal law which was
a broader-scoped three strikes.
Senator Zharoff asked how the law was working in the states
which have invoked it. Representative Bunde indicated that
it has saved California a lot of money and the general
public seemed to feel more comfortable and secure with the
idea that the revolving door is being closed on these
criminals.
Senator Phillips asked if the laws in California and
Washington have been challenged in court or not and what is
the status.
Representative Bunde advised that there are ongoing court
challenges and these laws have not been struck down. Patty
Swenson points out that there is a pending court challenge
in Washington.
Co-chairman Halford indicated that Mr. Jerry Luckhaupt, one
of the drafters of the bill was present and asked Senator
Donley to proceed. Senator Donley asked about the
relationship of the mandatory ninety-nine years sentence
provisions for certain types of murders with this bill and
asked if this would modify the current ninety-nine year
provision to say that good time is not available within that
ninety-nine year sentence. Jerry Luckhaupt indicated that
certain murders (murders of a police officer, torture
murders and a few other cases) those people currently earn
good time but under this bill it would be taken away.
Discussion regarding the terminology of "definite term" and
good time followed. Jerry Luckhaupt indicated that use of
the term "definite term" is not tied to whether or not you
earn good time rather it is tied to the fact that under the
new section seven of the bill, subsection L, the court is
required to impose a definite term that is somewhere between
forty and ninety-nine years. It is not going to be a
presumptive term. The Court must impose within that range
and it will be a definite term. For first degree murder a
mandatory ninety-nine year sentence is imposed and the Court
has no discretion. In this case the Court has the
discretion to fix the definite term within that range
provided in the statute. Presumptive sentencing is used in
Alaska. Minimum sentencing has been set for certain
misdemeanor assaults. Senator Donley informed the co-
chairman that this is the reason he wants this pursued
because this is the first time this terminology will be
used. It is important when new terminology is adopted that
it be very clearly defined or else the Court's will do the
defining and it may not be the same thing the Legislature
wants.
Senator Donley asked if there are any advantages in a
definite term as compared to ninety-nine years and even
though it is a definite term there is still a judicial
discretion between forty and ninety-nine years of what that
definite term will be. Jerry Luckhaupt indicated that the
sponsor decided to go with a definite term within that
particular range so that the Court could set a term it felt
appropriate but within a range as set by the Legislature
based upon the seriousness of the crimes the person had
committed over a period of time.
Senator Zharoff questioned what effect or impact this will
have on the present prison population. Representative Bunde
indicated there will be no additional impact for thirteen
and a half years because anyone currently sentenced under
the provisions that were covered in this bill would be
sentenced to the average term of thirteen-and-a-half years.
Anne Carpeneti was invited to join the committee and
testified on behalf of the Criminal Division, Department of
Law. It is indicated that the Department of Law supports HB
38 in it's present form, however, it will cost money in
terms of jury trials, prosecutorial time and defense time.
Senator Phillips inquired if this bill was constitutional.
Mrs. Carpeneti indicated that she believes that it is.
Senator Zharoff asked about the two other states that have
this similar law and if there are any more. Mrs. Carpeneti
indicated that there are many states that have an habitual
criminal law that vary in terms of their specifics. Senator
Zharoff voiced two concerns: with this kind of legislation
on the books will there be more focus on the criminal
charges rather than on civil charges; what will the effects
be on the public. Mrs. Carpeneti advised that in terms of
civil matters, examples would be lawsuits filed by one
person against another and they would, according to
California experience, take longer to resolve because of the
effect of the impact on the court system with the three
strikes provision. This is why our position is that these
things take money and the cost of administering this
legislation cannot be ignored.
Discussion of fishing violations and forfeitures followed
between Senator Zharoff and Mrs. Carpeneti.
Senator Rieger asked if passage of this bill would crowd out
the prosecution of lower class criminal matters. Will the
prosecution figure that they will trade off one of these
trials against a multiple of lower trials? Mrs. Carpeneti
advised in every situation where there are more cases than
you can prosecute or take to trial you have to prioritize.
Some smaller cases would not get as much attention as you
think they deserve. There is no list to go through and
decide what to prosecute. At the time of arraignment in
Superior Court an intent to pursue the definite term of
forty to ninety-nine years has to be filed by the
prosecutor. That will give the defendant notice whether or
not the State is going to pursue that option and that makes
a difference in terms of decisions about trial and pleas.
Senator Rieger asked the difference between "similar" and
"substantially identical". Mrs. Carpeneti stated that using
"similar" makes it easier for the prosecution to show that
it is similar enough to count but the elements may not be
exactly the same. She stated the most serious felonies are
defined in this bill for Alaska offenses and we can't go
looking around for other felonies in our state that might
have similar elements.
Senator Halford asked if this applies to previous statutes.
Mrs. Carpeneti indicated that perhaps it should read "a
former offense" to cover a conviction under a former
statutory reference that has been repealed or reenacted or
replaced with another provision for the same crime. Co-
chairman Halford asked for a response from the drafter.
Jerry Luckhaupt stated that it is a corrected drafting error
from approximately eight years ago when the legislature
changed "substantially identical" to "similar". The court
has been applying it as similar through the years. But
going up above on same page five referring to similar
convictions in this jurisdiction Mrs. Carpeneti was correct
when she indicated how we have dealt with former
convictions. A most serious felony in Alaska is defined in
this bill and we have identified the crimes. Someday
municipalities would be allowed to enact felony offenses and
prosecute such and a conviction by a municipality would be a
conviction in this jurisdiction and if it met those elements
of the crime defined by statute then it would qualify also.
Senator Rieger felt there should be some sort of reference
to the degree of the seriousness of the crime so that there
will be some guidance to the court. Co-chairman Halford
stated that is what the elements are. The threat to human
life. Jerry Luckhaupt referred to page five, and indicated
the conviction has elements similar to those of a most
serious felony as defined in the bill draft in section
thirteen. Senator Rieger questioned implicitly "all
elements" so that the degree of seriousness is one of the
elements which must be met. Further discussion was
conducted by Jerry Luckhaupt regarding seriousness and to
the extent that the crime is similar. This is being used in
Alaska now and currently sentences are being aggravated.
The recidivism rate is somewhere around fifty to sixty
percent of the people who are being convicted of felonies in
the State of Alaska. Under our presumptive sentence laws
the courts aggravate those sentences adding time to that
presumptive sentence based on the number of previous
convictions the person has. Arson in the first and second
degree were used as an example. Jerry Luckhaupt indicated
that the two may appear similar because they both involve
arson, but they are not similar because one involves the
presence of a person in the building which then makes the
crime inherently different.
Senator Donley referred to a hypothetical case wherein
someone commits their second most serious felony, serves
their time, gets good time, gets out; commits their third
serious felony. Under the provisions of this bill is there
an automatic loss of the good time received during
incarceration for the second serious felony or can the judge
revoke this good time? Mrs. Carpeneti indicated it is not
automatic and those under the third strike do not qualify
for good time.
Co-chairman Halford commented that something has to be said
for one who gets to the third strike in the criminal justice
system because this bill is limited to violent acts against
people.
Rep. Bunde indicated that ten percent of the prison
population in Alaska have more than three felonies. The
main thrust of amendment #1 is that there would not be an
habitual guard-house lawyer asking for a modification every
two weeks. Co-chairman Halford asked Mrs. Carpeneti to give
an explanation of the amendment. She stated the amendment
was requested to make clear that a person does qualify to
apply for a reduction or modification of sentence under the
three strikes provision they have one chance to make one
serious application the court would make a decision on that.
Co-chairmen Halford and Frank discussed the fiscal note of
$200,000 for the Department of Law and the combined total of
approximately $550,000 for the Public Defender and Public
Advocate.
Senator Donley said he felt every time a law is written to
try to limit what the Court and Corrections can do they come
up with new terminology to get around what we have done.
Latest is the early release of prisoners on furlough. Mrs.
Carpeneti stated that this bill does limit the options of
the Department of Corrections in releasing prisoners in
advance and disallows the placement of people sentenced
under this bill to serve in a correctional res- titutional
center and a furloughed person must be under the direct
supervision of a correctional officer. She indicated there
would be no problem extending this to the mandatory ninety-
nine year provision. Patty Swenson said the only
reservation would be getting it within the title.
Senator Rieger and Mrs. Carpeneti discussed whether there
were more effective means of punishment than jail and the
giant expense incurred. Representative Bunde stated that
anyone who has reached the third serious felony conviction
has certainly gone through all the rehabilitation attempted
and agreed with Mrs. Carpeneti regarding their isolation
from society.
Mrs. Carpeneti reiterated for Senator Phillips that the
Department of Law supports HB 38.
Co-chairman Halford referenced a zero fiscal note from the
Department of Corrections and asks for a brief statement
from them.
Jerry Shriner, special assistant to the Commissioner for the
Department of Corrections was invited to join the committee
and testified that the department opposes CSHB 38. Crime is
essentially a young male business and it is likely the
person who commits their first or second offense is
somewhere between eighteen and twenty-five years of age.
Chances are a person will be over thirty years old by the
time he is released from prison for the second offense.
Statistics say those people have already moved out of the
age range where they tend to commit further offenses. The
answer to protecting the public does not involve putting
people in prison for thirty years. The Department of
Corrections has submitted a zero fiscal note based on the
fact that as the sponsor pointed out these people are going
to serve somewhere in the neighborhood of thirteen or
fourteen years under current law so imposing this new law
would make no difference. While we applaud the effort to
protect the public we don't think that this does it. If we
are going to apply money and resources we need to put that
effort into preventing and stopping crime in a much more
youthful population than we are dealing with in this bill.
Barbara Brink from the Anchorage Public Defender Agency
testified via teleconference.
She discussed the financial cost of the three strikes bill.
The first prong has to do with costs associated to
increasing the prison population; second prong is increased
health care costs for prisoners who reach old age while
serving life sentences; and third the costs incurred by the
public defender agency, the judiciary, the district
attorney's office, the office of public advocacy as a result
of increased serious consequences of these cases, the
increased rate of going to trial and a greater reluctance of
the defendant to engage in plea bargaining. It should be
pointed out that if you put our fiscal note side by side
with the Department of Law you can see that there is more in
common that dissimilar. Both have requested for two
attorney positions, anticipation of the same numbers of
cases. The difference lies in the fact that the public
defender agency is also requesting paralegal assistance and
legal secretarial help. This additional support staff is
needed because a vitally different function is performed
than the Department of Law. In litigation of these matters
there is often serious and significant investigation that is
required. The Department of Law has its investigation
conducted for it by local law enforcement. We provide those
services as a necessary defense which often includes
extensive pre-trial motion work and a long difficult trial.
The California Bar Journal from last year indicated three
strikes clogging the jails and slowing trials. More trials,
more litigations, more filing of cases is going to have an
impact all over the judicial system. If the trial rate is
going to be raised that dramatically that is the kind of
impact that will be seen and therefore the concern to make
sure of adequate resources to perform the mandated
functions. And that is why the fiscal note is a plus, a
different bottom line. In closing, and the Department of
Corrections representative mentioned it also, the public is
clamoring for tough legislation on crime and criminals and
people are always concerned about violent crimes. But
according to the statistics released by the Federal Bureau
of Investigation and the Bureau of Justice Statistics there
has been little or no growth in the overall crime rate in
the last two decades. In Alaska violent crime is
approximately what it was ten years ago. There used to be
an "habitual offender statute" in the State of Alaska and it
was revamped in the Legislature and imposed on the
sentencing to fix some of what were the perceived problems
with the habitual offender statute involving different
populations, specifically the Alaska Native population.
Presumptive sentencing was designed to give equal sentences
for equal crimes. Ms. Brink indicated her concern that
there will be an impact on our Alaska Native population.
Finally, there has been no resultant decrease in the amount
of violent crime in response to the passage of the three
strikes legislation or in response to the increased
incarceration of older felons.
(tape changed to SFC-96 #20)
Ms. Brink stated that the most lasting legacy of a three
strikes law may be diverting a large amount of money and
resources into an area that is going to do nothing to
decrease violent crimes.
Senator Phillips and Senator Frank discussed whether all
states fund public defender offices or not. Ms. Brink
advised they are funded differently in different states.
California, for example, funds the public defender agency
through the county. Co-chairman Halford indicated that the
Federal constitution guarantees public defense of indigent
people.
Senator Sharp and Ms. Brink discussed capital punishment and
dealing with removing the offenders permanently from the
streets. Ms. Brink states that this is a hard question to
respond to because this bill is not dealing with capital
crimes.
Senator Donley asked that Ms. Brink put together a position
paper including relevant case law or citations on what the
State could do to statutorily limit collateral attacks and
how far the legislature could go in establishing the
standard of proof in that process of determining whether the
prior strikes were good strikes. Ms. Brink felt that the
collateral attack could not be limited in order for the
statute to be competent and constitutionally firm.
Co-chairman Halford introduced Brant McGee from the
Anchorage Office of Public Advocacy who testified via
teleconference.
Mr. McGee emphasized that first, the trial rate is going to
be close to one hundred percent because no one is going to
voluntarily accept a minimum sentence of 40 years without
going to trial once the State has given notice that it will
pursue the three strikes provision. Second, each of these
cases is going to come as a minimum of three cases; the two
prior ones as well as the one the person is now facing an
immediate trial. Third, if we assume that the law of
unintended consequences is in full effect in these matters
the trial rates for earlier second time felonies could well
be affected by this. Second offenders will certainly have a
stronger incentive to pursue a trial. This will incur a
dramatic increase of cost to the justice system, including
the courts, the district attorney's office, the public
defender and the OPA. The cost which you see in the fiscal
notes before you are dramatic underestimates of the total
impact of the passage of this bill.
Senator Frank asked if Mr. McGee had analyzed the deterrent
effect of this type of legislation. Mr. McGee responded
that there are two things that need to be looked at; one, to
provide a general deterrent on others who might be tempted
to commit such crimes; and second, isolation. What we are
attempting to do is effect a small number of people who may
or may not be a significant risk.
Senator Halford questioned if the State (either through PD's
or PA's) pays for the attorneys in Federal Habeas Corpus
actions. There is a Federal defender in the State of Alaska
who would handle such matters. Mr. McGee advised that
other states pay for federally mandated defense in Federal
Habeas Corpus actions.
Senator Frank commented that the evidence says that there is
hardly anybody committing their fourth serious offense
because after they commit their third under existing law
they are in jail until they are past their crime committing
time in life.
Representative Bunde indicated that information shows maybe
old age is slowing down Alaskan criminals or career
criminals are beginning at a very young age in Alaska. We
are waiving young criminals to adult courts and we have
quite a younger population that has a prior felony
conviction and this puts them in the statistically dangerous
and violent age when they are then up for a third felony.
Senator Donley said this bill only triggers if the first
felony is very serious and violent. Bills in other states,
where there is an ascending level of seriousness, trigger
for a fairly minor or less violent felony and then as it
builds and the third one is a serious one they will face
life in prison.
Senator Halford indicated that this is not a single, double
and home run, rather three home runs. Senator Donley
advised that we have made this bill so conservative in that
the first offense has to be so serious that it would
automatically carry a long period of time. It is almost a
paradox. Senator Halford concurred.
Senator Zharoff referred to Senator Frank's comments
regarding the bill. The agencies are saying that we are
going to have to have the resources in able to follow
through. This is not a bad piece of legislation and if we
are going to do it let's do it right and let's take care of
this problem.
Senator Donley MOVED for the adoption of amendment #1. NO
OBJECTION having been raised, amendment #1 was ADOPTED.
Senator Donley voiced a need to explore collateral attacks
and asked the public defender's office and the prosecutor's
office to give information on what limits could be placed in
the statues; numerical, evidentiary or standards of proof.
How does it conform with the existing mandatory ninety-nine
year sentence in sections 16 and 17. The sponsor and the
Department of Law have no objection.
Senator Halford would like this matter taken care of in a
reasonable time frame. Senator Donley said the research on
collateral attacks may take a little time as it is a very
serious question and it will directly relate to the fiscal
impacts of the legislation. Collateral attacks should be
limited to the maximum under the US constitution. This will
reduce the fiscal impact of the bill. Senator Halford felt
there may be two issues. One where the attacks may be
limited directly and second where you do not have to fund
the attacks.
Senator Sharp concurred but said maybe we are asking the
wrong people for advice. Senator Halford stated Senator
Donley's request is reasonable and wants the bill kept on
the calendar and moved by next week.
Representative Bunde made his closing statement. This is a
bill that involved considerable testimony about how it
would reduce plea bargaining and that is part of the
problem. The criminal justice system has to instill
confidence in the public and the public has real problems
with plea bargaining. We can't lose sight of the fact that
if we don't do something about these habitual criminals the
cost to the public will go up astronomically.
Senator Halford stated the bill would be heard next week but
will take up no issues or testimony already presented today
other than the concerns Senator Donley raised. Plea bargain
questions are valid.
Senator Halford advised SB 178 would be taken up tomorrow
before other bills.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was ADJOURNED at approximately 11:10 A.M.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|