Legislature(2015 - 2016)SENATE FINANCE 532
03/28/2016 01:00 PM Senate FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB91 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 91 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 28, 2016
1:22 p.m.
1:22:25 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair MacKinnon called the Senate Finance Committee
meeting to order at 1:22 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Pete Kelly, Co-Chair
Senator Peter Micciche, Vice-Chair
Senator Click Bishop
Senator Mike Dunleavy
Senator Lyman Hoffman
Senator Donny Olson
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Anna MacKinnon, Co-Chair
ALSO PRESENT
Senator John Coghill, Sponsor; Jordan Shilling, Staff,
Senator John Coghill; Greg Razo, Chair, Alaska Criminal
Justice Commission; Lt. Kris Sell, Juneau Police
Department, Alaska Criminal Justice Commission.
SUMMARY
SB 91 OMNIBUS CRIM LAW & PROCEDURE; CORRECTIONS
SB 91 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
SENATE BILL NO. 91
"An Act relating to protective orders; 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 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
Rules 32 and 35(b), Alaska Rules of Criminal
Procedure; and providing for an effective date."
1:23:19 PM
SENATOR JOHN COGHILL, SPONSOR, discussed Version S of the
bill. He explained that the legislation was an effort
culminating in work that had been done in a previous
legislative session under SB 64, which had established the
Alaska Criminal Justice Commission (ACJC). The commission
was established in order to bring recommendations to the
legislature pertaining to sentencing reform, recidivism
reduction, and public safety elements. He recounted that
ACJC had met over the previous year, holding seven major
commission meetings and dozens of subcommittee meetings.
The commission had come up with 21 recommendations. He
referred to a report from the commission "Alaska Criminal
Justice Commission - Justice Reinvestment Report," (copy on
file).
Senator Coghill listed members of the commission: a justice
from the Alaska Supreme Court; Gary Folger, Commissioner,
Department of Public Safety; Jeff Jessee, Chief Executive
Officer, Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority;
Representative Wes Keller; Walt Monegan, Commissioner,
Department of Corrections; Stephanie Rhoades, Judge,
Anchorage District Court; Craig Craig Richards, Attorney
General, Department of Law; Lt. Kris Sell, Juneau Police
Department; Brenda Stanfill, Interior Alaska Center for
Non-Violent Living; Quinlan Steiner, Alaska Public
Defender; and Trevor Stevens, Judge, Ketchikan Superior
Court.
Senator Coghill continued, emphasizing that the goal had
been for ACJC to bring the legislature information on how
to reduce recidivism. He wondered how to hold individuals
accountable if jail was not the best solution. He mentioned
a recently built prison and discussed the costs of
incarceration. He stated that there were 13 members on the
commission that met over a period of 7 months and came up
with recommendations that showed that the state could
reduce its daily prison population by 21 percent over the
next decade and save approximately $424 million. The
discussions had been high level and consensus-based. He
referred to a color-coded summary document that listed
categorized policies with corresponding commission
recommendations and bill sections (copy on file). He
thought the bill was complex and dealt with several major
policy areas; including arrests, pretrial accountability,
sentencing and parole. He mentioned re-entry issues such as
victims' rights.
1:27:59 PM
Senator Coghill discussed further recommendations of the
commission, including presumption of citation rather than
arrest. Further, ACJC recommended changing B misdemeanors
to citation rather than arrest. He expanded that after the
bill went through the previous two committees, citation
remained a preference but changes had been made to B
misdemeanors. The commission had also recommended a new
risk-based release system, which would change the method in
which bail was considered. He used the example of a high-
risk individual who had the means to afford bail, as
compared to an individual who was low-risk and could not
afford bail. He expanded that the risk factors included
probability of showing up for court, and risk to society.
Consequently, ACJC had recommended a pre-trial supervision
component, which would be reflected in the fiscal note as
pre-trial service officer positions. He suggested that
diverting an offender to an ankle monitoring program (for
drugs and alcohol), the danger to society would decrease
and the positive changes to the offender would increase
public safety.
1:30:13 PM
Senator Coghill discussed the policy considerations under
the "Sentencing" category. He stated that the commission
had addressed A and B misdemeanors, unclassified and
classified felonies, and controlled substances. He informed
the committee that the commission's work and
recommendations had been thoughtful, and the deliberation
had been complex at both the commission and committee
level. He discussed discretionary, administrative, and
geriatric parole; and noted that ACJC had taken great
interest in relevant research from the United States. He
discussed sex offender treatment, and thought that
currently treatment was happening too much outside the jail
system. He thought if there was reinvestment of the savings
from the bill, it would be possible to hold sex offender
treatments inside jail, which would increase public safety.
He thought there may be individuals languishing for months
or even years while waiting for sex-offender treatment.
Senator Coghill discussed adding value to in-prison
programs that would give credit for good behavior. He
emphasized the concept of incentivized rehabilitation. He
expanded the concept to probation and parole, to include
monitoring and halfway houses. The commission had addressed
the need for treatment and accountability.
1:33:30 PM
Senator Coghill pointed out that some items had been added
into the bill, including random drug testing for public
assistance recipients. He thought the new concept would be
challenged, but considered it was defensible. The addition
had gone through two legislative committees. He mentioned
the topic of reapplication for benefits after failure of
the drug test.
Senator Coghill discussed victim's rights as addressed in
the bill. He recounted that ACJC had included victim's
advocates, and had held two roundtable discussions with
advocacy groups. He noted that he was a non-voting member
of the commission and had focused on listening and
learning. He thought that victim's rights considerations
had been increased after the preceding committees, and
thought it had improved the bill. One facet was the
victim's ability to speak at an offender's parole hearing.
He explained that although some parole durations were
proposed to be shortened, the bill added voices of the
victim and the correctional system to the process. He
furthered that the accountability measures would be clear,
and were evidence-based.
Senator Coghill highlighted that some of the changes to the
bill had been limited - earned good time for sex offenders
was reduced to one-fifth in the previous committee. He
thought that good-time earned should still be a component
in the bill, so as to provide incentive for completing
rehabilitation programs.
Senator Coghill highlighted reinvestment, and specified
that the cost of an individual in jail was $142 per day. He
thought that if offenders were held accountable outside of
jail, a marginal savings of $42 per day was possible. He
thought that if efforts were focused on reducing
recidivism, not only would there be financial savings but
there would be a safer public. He referred to a fiscal note
that estimated savings in the amount of $150 million over
the following five years.
1:37:07 PM
Senator Dunleavy referred to sexual offenders and the
widely varying offenses. He wondered if there was
discussion as to how to break down or categorize different
types of offenses so as to treat diverse types of offenders
differently.
Senator Coghill answered in the affirmative, and discussed
the challenge of designing probation to be appropriate for
all offenders. He mentioned risk-assessment tools that
would be used for determining good time, or getting
probation and parole. He agreed with Senator Dunleavy in
that there would be offenders that could not be
rehabilitated, and some that could. He questioned of how to
hold the offenders accountable under probation and parole,
and thought Senator Dunleavy would see the distinction as
the committee reviewed the bill.
Senator Dunleavy asked if there would be a pathology
category to address individuals with deeply rooted and
serious issues.
Senator Coghill stated that the situation would be
addressed. He asserted that the recommendations were a
result of months of work and a great deal of research. He
discussed implementation of evidenced-based pretrial
services focusing on prison beds for serious and violent
offenders. He mentioned strengthening probation and parole
supervision to be more effective than what was previously
implemented. He discussed reinvesting in re-entry programs
to make a safer society. Additional reinvestment would
include items such as victim's services, treatment, and
driver's licenses.
1:40:20 PM
Senator Coghill summarized that the bill was in aid of
protecting public safety. He discussed the importance of
corrections, which also served as validating community
condemnation. He referred to the victim's rights amendment
to the constitution. He pointed out that there were civil
liberties issues to consider, and thought it was important
to consider individuals innocent until proven guilty. He
discussed the two-thirds recidivism rate in the state,
which he thought was not a safe and acceptable scenario.
The commission proposed concepts that, while new to Alaska,
were proven concepts in other states. He referred to the
State of Texas, where the state had reinvested in the
population and subsequently had a lower crime rate and
reduced jail population.
Senator Coghill continued discussing reinvestment, and
asserted that the bill examined the continuum from arrest
to social services issues, to victims' rights. He thought
the bill was comprehensive. He commented that it was easy
to pick out singular concepts and apply them to the failing
present-day system without success; without taking into
account the accountability measures from the arrest, pre-
trial, post-conviction, and jail time. He emphasized that
that bill would hold those accountable that should be
accountable, and would allow people to be productive if
possible. He thought there was latitude for judges, and
mentioned allowances for aggravating and mitigating
circumstances. He thought the commission had done well. He
acknowledged the length of the bill, and stated that there
were effective dates, applications, and court rule changes.
He stated that court rule changes would, in some
circumstances, take discretion away from the courts. In
other places, the bill would give judges much more
discretion, based on accountability measures being
considered. He thought there were new tools in the bill
that would be helpful throughout the entire justice system.
Senator Coghill shared that ACJC had been asked to extend
to 2020, and review the work that had been done to
determine if it was fulfilling its intended purpose. He
thought the bill was comprehensive and multi-faceted; and
considered that it would treat people as honestly, fairly,
and as justly as possible.
1:45:08 PM
Senator Coghill referenced a list of Alaska statutes that
the bill fit: title 11, title 12, title 28, title 29, title
23, title 34, and title 43. The bill went across many
sections of the law and dealt with direct and indirect
court rule amendments. He furthered that the timelines in
the bill made the applicability difficult to understand,
and stated that he would provide the committee with a
diagram to illustrate how the applicability worked.
Senator Olson asked about the aforementioned $420 million
in savings under the bill.
Senator Coghill thought the proposed savings was a little
less than $420 million. He stated that it was difficult to
look beyond 5 years, and thought that estimated ten year
savings would be close to $400 million.
Senator Olson discussed the motivation for the bill, and
asked who would pay for certain provisions such as the
aforementioned drug testing.
Senator Coghill wanted the committee to consider the
potential savings (due to decreased recidivism) in order to
apply the funds to reinvest in valuable programs ranging
from drug and alcohol programs to new members on the pre-
trial agency. He thought that OMB could better address the
financial impacts.
1:48:50 PM
Senator Olson clarified that his question related
specifically to who would fund the drug testing that had
been incorporated into the bill.
Senator Coghill specified that the state would pay for the
drug testing through granting. He acknowledged that there
was no new money in the state and emphasized that it was
necessary to save money in order to spend money.
Senator Olson mused that if the state was paying for drug
testing, and simultaneously removed public assistance,
there would be additional expense to the state.
Senator Coghill thought there was multiple ways of looking
at the situation. He pondered that if individuals went off
public assistance there would be less cost to the state;
and if one stayed on public assistance, the state was
safer. He noted that those convicted of murder could get
food stamps, while those convicted of drug crimes could
not. He discussed programs that designed to help mitigate
substance abuse. He referred to employees in public safety,
food service, mining, and other fields who were required to
submit to random drug tests. He thought the drug test
requirement for those on public assistance would make the
public safer.
Senator Olson elucidated that he was not advocating for
either position with regard to drug testing, but rather
wanted to understand the concepts. He mentioned the state
and federal components of public assistance.
Senator Coghill thought that the Department of Health and
Social Services was going to come forward with a budget
recommendation regarding drug testing.
1:52:10 PM
Senator Dunleavy asked if the bill contemplated any change
to definitions of criminal behavior.
Senator Coghill stated that the bill reduced few B
misdemeanors down to citations, and gave the example of
removing cones on a highway project. He stated that some
offenses pertaining to controlled substances had no change
with regard to criminality, but would be handled
differently. He gave the example of a felony controlled
substance in varying amounts that had different charges. He
expressed that the idea was to hold people accountable, but
prioritize treatment of low-level offenders. High level
offenders would be handled differently.
Senator Dunleavy asked if the bill contemplated additional
expectations put on public schools. He referred to past
legislation related to dating violence and sexual abuse.
Senator Coghill answered in the negative.
Senator Dunleavy asked if there was an idea as to how much
money would be reinvested in treatment as compared to
victim's rights.
Senator Coghill relayed that OMB would address the matter,
and make a list. There had been a recommendation that $100
million go into programs. He stated that there was fluid
discussion as to whether funding should go to pretrial
services, to drug and alcohol services, or to mental
health; and how it should be handled with granting. The
bill contained language to enable the investment in
programs. He thought the amount of savings was open for
discussion, as well the dispersal and spending of the
savings.
1:55:56 PM
Senator Dunleavy asked for examples of groups that might
oppose the bill in its current form.
Senator Coghill conveyed that there were some victim's
advocate groups that felt the sentencing structure in the
bill was too loose. He expanded that the groups had already
expressed opposition to the existing sentencing structure.
He argued that under the legislation, sentencing
contemplated a new way that offenders were held accountable
through risk assessments. He thought that some victims had
intense feelings of violation and might perceive the bill
was too light on crime in the area of sentencing ranges. He
referred to federal law that required aggravating and
mitigating circumstances had to be argued at the final
sentencing of an offender. He recounted that the Senate
Judiciary committee had considered the presumptive
sentencing to be the bottom of the range, which the
commission had considered it the middle of the range. He
thought some would find the configuration disturbing. He
furthered that there would be additional factors such as
new risk assessment tools that would be employed through
pre-trial services, good time behavior structures, and
supervision. He discussed additional factors, such as the
ability for victims to weigh in on offender probation and
parole and the court contacting victims before new hearings
and other circumstances. He summarized that the commission
had found through research that expanded accountability,
rather than higher ranges of sentencing brought better
safety outcomes.
Senator Coghill continued to discuss sentencing, stating
that sexual assault sentencing was another area in which
victims advocacy groups might be in opposition to changes.
He spoke to the high incidence of sexual assault in the
state. He thought there were many people who felt as though
there was no justice when there was a perception of light
sentencing. The commission had considered how to treat the
most egregious offenders as well as those who could benefit
from the opportunity for rehabilitation. He spoke to the
importance of tools such as probation and parole, earned
good time, and sex offender treatment within jail. He
thought the commission had been very responsive to
considerations of charging offenders and accountability
under parole. He thought the current system was violating
people. He did not know that it was possible to create a
system that would forever stop sexual abuse, and stressed
the importance of holding people accountable.
Senator Coghill continued discussing contentious elements
of the bill, and relayed that the bill proposed raising the
threshold of the dollar amount for property theft. He
referred to a group in Mat-Su called Stop Valley Thieves,
which was concerned that misdemeanor theft charges would
not be handled properly. He acknowledged the violation that
was inherent in being the victim of theft, yet disagreed
with the group. He discussed the value difference of thefts
between rural and urban areas, and the different types of
trials. He thought existing laws created a scenario in
which there was a jury trial where the state was in a
position was continually bargaining down felonies rather
than holding people accountable for felonies as they really
were. He thought the felony tool should be used more
precisely, and the misdemeanor tool should be used wisely.
Additionally, remuneration and restitution should be used
as tools more frequently.
Senator Coghill thought it was important to consider the
whole of the bill while acknowledging the accountability
measures that were included. He was sympathetic to those
who might think the bill was light on crime, but asserted
that the bill presented accountability in a new way. He
thought that some people might only be satisfied if
offenders were getting jail time, however he was more
interested in the effectiveness of accountability. He
emphasized the lack of change in offenders after jail time,
and discussed recidivism.
2:02:44 PM
Senator Coghill thought the accountability measures that
had been put into the bill were proven practices considered
by the commission.
Senator Bishop asked about the aforementioned 95 percent of
prisoners who had not been rehabilitated and became repeat
offenders. He wondered if the Texas model has been in place
long enough to render statistical data as to the
effectiveness.
Senator Coghill answered in the affirmative, and offered to
provide the committee with the review of recommendations
that showed the statistical assessment the commission had
completed. He furthered that the justice reinvestment
report included a national statistical review as well as a
review from the Department of Corrections.
Senator Dunleavy asked how the proposed language to reduce
charges for drug possession compared to other states.
JORDAN SHILLING, STAFF, SENATOR JOHN COGHILL, was unaware
of how states approached drug sentencing. He knew of
several other states that treated simple possession as a
misdemeanor. He felt sure that there were other states that
had laws with similarity to SB 91 in differentiating
between high-level and low-level drug dealers and sentenced
accordingly. He stated that he would have the commission
look into the statistics and provide information to the
committee.
Senator Dunleavy asked if the recent change to marijuana
laws had impacted discussion on the bill in the area of
drug possession.
Mr. Shilling revealed that the commission had not
contemplated addressing marijuana sentencing.
2:06:11 PM
Co-Chair Kelly asked if the sectional analysis would be
reviewed the next time the bill was scheduled in the
committee.
Senator Coghill stated that the sectional analysis would be
reviewed, and was organized into categories due to the
subject matter ranging into different bill sections. He
used the example of risk-based decision making and
pretrial, which dealt with approximately 8 sections of the
bill.
Co-Chair Kelly discussed the upcoming bill calendar, which
indicated the bill would be heard again the following day.
Co-Chair Kelly handed the gavel to Vice-Chair Micciche.
2:07:18 PM
AT EASE
2:08:20 PM
RECONVENED
GREG RAZO, CHAIR, ALASKA CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMISSION,
explained that he was a vice president at Cook Inlet
Region, Inc. (CIRI), and had worked there for 11 years. He
served as chair of the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission,
was Vice Chair of the Alaska Native Justice Center (ANJC);
and was Chairman of the Executive Governance Committee of
the Alaska Federation of Natives. He stated that justice
policy was something he strongly believed in. He discussed
his history as a practicing attorney, and stated that he
had gained extensive courtroom experience through being an
active courtroom lawyer for 21 years.
Mr. Razo explained that when the legislature had conceived
of ACJC, it had worked to involve people in criminal
justice; including every level of the court system, the
public defender, the attorney general, law enforcement,
victim's rights, Alaska Natives, public safety,
corrections, and two non-voting members of the legislature.
He thought that many points of view of had been involved.
Mr. Razo highlighted that as a commission member he had
acted on the principal of consensus. The commission had
worked on the recommendations for about 9 months. The
recommendations had been supported by all commission
members and were supported by evidence. The commission had
looked at the drivers for the prison population in Alaska,
and immediately made note of the high recidivism rate. He
discussed recidivism statistics, which indicated that two-
thirds of people released from prison in Alaska would go
back to prison within three years. He recounted that the
commission had looked at a great deal of statistics and
research and had formed three groups: pretrial, sentencing,
and post-conviction. Each group had taken a detailed look
at the evidence and worked to develop policies to present
to the full commission in order to work for consensus. He
thought the process had been methodical and the
recommendations considered public safety as a guiding
factor. The commission believed that it was possible to
increase public safety when recidivism was decreased.
Considerations to that end included expenditures for
justice reinvestment. He discussed methods for reduction of
recidivism by achieving savings by taking non-serious
offenders out of prison. Such offenders could be provided
with treatment, prevention, and oversight resources; which
cost less than prison and were shown to provide better
results.
2:13:34 PM
Mr. Razo discussed the first recommendation, which dealt
with sentencing and limiting the use of prison for low-
level misdemeanor offenses. He related that the commission
had been stunned at the large number of misdemeanor
offenders that were sent to prison each year. He reported
that 67 percent of all admissions to prison were for non-
violent misdemeanors, and 82 percent of all admissions into
prison were for misdemeanor offenses. The large numbers of
non-violent misdemeanor offenders were cycling in and out
of the prison and costing the state a great deal of money.
He recounted observing the revolving recidivism when he was
a misdemeanor prosecutor and defense lawyer. He observed
offenders not receiving treatment, and sentences that would
slowly grow larger. He wondered whether the state was
spending money on serious offenses and driving down
recidivism.
Mr. Razo continued discussing the first ACJC recommendation
and recidivism. In response to what it found through
research, the commission had adopted a number of evidence-
based strategies to divert certain misdemeanor offenses
through programs that provide alternatives to prison. The
commission had made a recommendation to reclassify low-
level B misdemeanors into violations or non-criminal
infractions. He commented that 26 days was the average
prison sentence for some of the low-level B misdemeanors,
which was the least serious offense in the state.
Senator Dunleavy asked Mr. Razo for an example to
illustrate the types of low-level offenses he had been
referring to.
Mr. Razo described disorderly conduct, and theft in the
fourth degree as examples of low-level B misdemeanors. He
emphasized that misdemeanor offenders spent a great deal of
time in prison and their proclivity for returning to prison
was not being reduced. The commission considered that there
was more serious things that could be addressed with the
funds that were currently being used to imprison repeat B
misdemeanor offenders. He offered to provide additional
examples if necessary.
2:17:29 PM
Senator Dunleavy wondered if Alaska had a higher rate of
certain criminal behaviors than other states, or if the
classification of criminality itself was different.
Mr. Razo offered the opinion that Alaska's laws were
consistent with those of other states, and did not think
the state had more crime than other states. He found that
over time people were staying in jail longer for the same
offenses, and thereby driving up the prison population and
the associated expense. The commission had investigated why
individuals were staying in jail longer, which had led it
to examine felony level offenses. He discussed presumptive
sentencing, which gave guidelines to judges in the decision
of a final sentence. He referenced a US Supreme Court case
(after 2005) concerning mitigators and aggravators, which
would require a jury trial. The legislature had responded
to the ruling by putting in a presumptive range of
sentences. He gave an example of a 5-year presumptive
sentence for C felonies that changed to a 10-year sentence
range.
Mr. Razo continued to discuss presumptive sentencing,
noting that the consequence to setting the range of
sentences for each felony offense was that the courts
tended to sentence people at the high end of the range. The
sentences for sex offenders in particular were extending to
twice, three times and beyond the length that the same
offenses had previously been sentenced. The opportunity for
sex offenders to be eligible for either good time or
discretionary parole had been removed, and there was a
resultant swell in numbers of sex offenders in prison. The
commission found that sex offender treatment generally
taught individuals about boundaries and correct behavior;
and with intense supervision, offenders were able to enter
society. He thought it was righteous to be angry about sex
offenders, but they were not being treated in prison at an
acceptable rate, nor was it incentivized to do treatment.
2:23:10 PM
Senator Olson wondered if there was a difference in
recidivism rates in rural versus urban Alaska. Mr. Razo
commented on the over-representation of Alaska Natives in
the prison system, and discussed outreach by the commission
in conjunction with the Alaska Mental Health Trust. He
described a visit to the Ambler Mountain Correctional
Center, and called it a life-changing event. He had found
the staff to be a dedicated group of professionals, and
encountered many prisoners that were incarcerated due to
mental illness. He recalled seeing almost exclusively
Alaska Natives in the prison. He talked with prisoners, and
surmised that most of the prisoners were incarcerated due
to offenses related to drugs and alcohol. He opined that
there was an addiction problem of epidemic proportions in
the state. He stated that the inmates were just killing
time, and pointed out a lack of books in the prison
library. He considered the situation to be a significant
waste of humanity.
Mr. Razo stated that the reinvestment funds would be
focused on prevention, treatment, and victim's services;
all of which he considered to be under-resourced in Alaska.
He discussed his meetings with services providers in Nome
and Kotzebue. He characterized the employees as a group of
dedicated professionals working on a shoestring budget.
Service providers wanted to help more individuals, but had
significant problems in rural Alaska due to their location.
2:27:50 PM
Senator Olson asked about the hurdles and obstacles for
rural incarcerates.
Mr. Razo stated that when someone was arrested in rural
Alaska, they had to have an arraignment and be brought
before a judge within 24 hours. The Department of Public
Safety had to pick up the individual, fly them to a court
location, after which time they were released or
incarcerated. If the individual was released in Anchorage,
there was an opportunity for ankle monitoring; whereas in
rural Alaska, there was not. He thought there needed to be
an alternative option in rural Alaska, such as community
supervision. He noted the effect on the prison population,
as there were more people in rural Alaska who were unable
to get out of prison due to not meeting conditions of bail,
which required the submittal of money bonds. The commission
had found evidence that an unsecured bond (the promise to
pay if a person were to break bail) was as effective as
money bail. He noted that the practice had been
successfully implemented in a number of other states.
Mr. Razo impressed that the bill was originally based upon
evidence. As the legislation changed through the committee
process, he urged the members to consider whether any
amendments were evidenced-based as well.
Senator Bishop asked about the evidence-based process of
the commission, and wondered if the commission had gathered
information from any prisoners during the visit to Ambler
Mountain.
Mr. Razo stated that in addition to the prison visit,
examination of high-level studies and statistics was
primarily the source that informed the committee. He
expanded that although there was not anecdotal information
used to formulate recommendations, the comments from the
prisoners had been salient.
2:32:57 PM
LT. KRIS SELL, JUNEAU POLICE DEPARTMENT, ALASKA CRIMINAL
JUSTICE COMMISSION, explained that she worked with the
Juneau Police Department (JPD) and was Vice President of
the Alaska Peace Officers Association (APOA); neither of
which she was representing. She related that the commission
process had been painful but important. She recalled the
"tough on crime" position that had been politically and
culturally popular in the past, and explained that when she
joined the commission she had been forced to reevaluate her
ideas. It had been a difficult transition for her to
acknowledge the evidence. She described the existing state
criminal justice system as a "criminalizing, victim-
creating factory" that would imprison offenders, not
rehabilitate them, and then release them to re-offend. She
discussed her work as a police officer, and the recidivism
that she had observed.
Lt. Sell shared her thought process as she had initially
pondered statistics. She relayed difficult discussions with
other members of the committee. She thought the commission
was proposing a massive paradigm shift. She recounted
powerful statements from victims, and questioned if
offenders victimized others after the state failed to
meaningfully alter their behavior. She thought that the
system was generating victims at a high rate, and mentioned
the high rate of repeat offenders. She reiterated that she
was not representing JPD, APOA, or the City and Borough of
Juneau.
2:40:33 PM
Lt. Sell thought the committee might be confronted with
evidence that could make the members uncomfortable. She
discussed unsecured bail, and the unpopular idea that the
evidence presented. She emphasized that doing the right
thing was more important than doing the popular thing.
Senator Bishop wondered if Lt. Sell had become supportive
of what the data had shown.
Lt. Sell answered in the affirmative, and explained that
the process of shifting her thinking had been very
difficult. She had to go through her own education process
and give up previously held beliefs.
Vice-Chair Micciche stated that he was a co-sponsor of the
bill, and he had taken criticism for it. He agreed that the
bill represented a paradigm shift, and agreed that the
current system was not working. He emphasized that the
state had to look for a better result for the money it
spent on incarceration.
Lt. Sell agreed that the state was generating more hardened
criminals and more recidivism every day. She thought the
matter was a choice between making people feel as if they
were safe, versus making people actually safe.
SB 91 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Vice-Chair Micciche discussed the schedule for the
following day.
ADJOURNMENT
2:45:09 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 2:45 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 91 - Supporting Document (Letter to Commission 25% Reduction).pdf |
SFIN 3/28/2016 1:00:00 PM |
SB 91 |
| SB 91 Sectional Analysis ver S.pdf |
SFIN 3/28/2016 1:00:00 PM |
SB 91 |
| SB 91 - Letters of Support (Consolidated).pdf |
SFIN 3/28/2016 1:00:00 PM |
SB 91 |
| SB 91 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SFIN 3/28/2016 1:00:00 PM |
SB 91 |
| SB 91 Visual Sectional Aid ver S.pdf |
SFIN 3/28/2016 1:00:00 PM |
SB 91 |
| SB 91 Support Reso 4723 as Amended - Relating to Criminal Justice Reform.pdf |
SFIN 3/28/2016 1:00:00 PM |
SB 91 |
| SB91 Alaska Criminal Justice Commission Report.pdf |
SFIN 3/28/2016 1:00:00 PM |
SB 91 |