Legislature(1993 - 1994)
02/08/1993 01:37 PM Senate JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
February 8, 1993
1:37 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Robin Taylor, Chairman
Senator Rick Halford, Vice-Chairman
Senator Dave Donley
Senator Suzanne Little
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator George Jacko
OTHERS PRESENT
Senator Johnny Ellis
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CONFIRMATION HEARING: Commissioner Lloyd Rupp
SENATE BILL NO. 54
"An Act relating to violations of laws by juveniles; and
providing for an effective date."
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 11
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of
Alaska relating to repeal of regulations by the legislature.
SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD.
PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION
SB 54 - NONE
WITNESS REGISTER
Commissioner Lloyd Rupp
P.O. Box 112000
Juneau, Alaska 99811-2000
POSITION STATEMENT: Confirmation hearings.
Kenny Leaf, committee aide
Senator Robin Taylor
State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information.
Travis Kay
Close-Up Program
Healy, Alaska 99743
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSSB 54.
Bonnie Berbrich
Close-Up Program
Denali, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSSB 54.
Jack Chenoweth, Attorney
Legislative Legal Counsel
130 Seward Street, #406
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Reviewed CSSB 54.
Margo Knuth, Asst. Attorney General
Criminal Division
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSSB 54.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 93-7, SIDE A
Number 001
Chairman Robin Taylor called the Judiciary Committee meeting
to order at 1:37 p.m. to take testimony from Commissioner
LLOYD RUPP. A quorum soon assembled.
COMMISSIONER RUPP indicated he had not prepared a formal
statement for the committee but was prepared to respond to
questions. He said a packet of material had been delivered
to committee members earlier, which contained reference
letters and resume' information.
Number 036
SENATOR TAYLOR asked about his last couple of assignments in
corrections. MR. RUPP outlined his previous two assignments
which included Naval service and a federally funded program
called, "Practical Assistance to Correctional Agencies."
At urging from SENATOR TAYLOR, COMMISSIONER RUPP described
his ideas for Operation Hope, beginning with his tenure as
manager of a program dealing with drug problems in 18 to 26
year old deliquents for a program similar to a boot camp.
He explained these youth were able to address their alcohol
problems as well as their deficits in education, in terms of
marketable skills with a multi-agency approach.
COMMISSIONER RUPP also explained how he would be dealing
with other commissioners and agencies for alternatives to
incarceration.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked COMMISSIONER RUPP how he would propose
to solve the current over-crowding in the corrections
facilities.
Number 116
COMMISSIONER RUPP said there needed to be action on several
fronts. First, he said, attention needed to be paid to
those presently in the felony population, approximately 3000
inmates and growing. He reviewed the master plan which
projected the exacerbation of the building program.
COMMISSIONER RUPP recommended looking at felons to see which
ones could profit from the CRC half-way house placement
without compromising any public safety.
COMMISSIONER RUPP spoke about the large number of technical
violations, as described in the master plan, and he wanted
to empower his probation officers to make decisions without
fear of personal liabilities. He praised Project Hope as a
way to present some alternatives to confinements, and he
urged being aggressive in assisting judges to make
alternative determinations. COMMISSIONER RUPP suggested it
would be a cost benefit in the misdemeanor population to
prevent putting them in felony beds.
Number 149
COMMISSIONER RUPP continued to emphasize prevention, and he
specified alcohol as the driving factor in criminal behavior
in this state. He counseled the senators to deal with the
problem by enlisting the help of other agencies for
prevention and solutions.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if other members of the committee had
questions.
SENATOR LITTLE asked COMMISSIONER RUPP if he thought his
vision could be met in this state while also meeting the
possibility of reduced funds.
Number 167
COMMISSIONER RUPP explained some of his cost savings would
be to make appropriate use of the heavy cost beds, and he
thought the legislature would have to work smarter in doing
something about medical costs. He gave some optimistic
opinions on the corrections problems, but stressed the need
for adequate funding for alternatives, such as for more
parole officers. COMMISSIONER RUPP explained, in the budget
cycle, his department would go to a zero based budget.
Number 199
SENATOR HALFORD asked about COMMISSIONER RUPP'S aversion to
using parole officers as clerks and asked for the percentage
of time an average parole officer should be in the field v.
behind a desk. COMMISSIONER RUPP said he had received
several different answers on that question since he has been
here, and he thought it was a variation in offices. He
quoted parole officers as saying they spent too much time in
the office doing paper work generated by the action
decisions at work. MR. RUPP outlined possible remedies for
improving quality time for the parole officers.
When asked by SENATOR HALFORD about his goals for the parole
officers, COMMISSIONER RUPP wanted to see the parole
officers spend at least 60% of their time in the field, and
there was agreement that increased paperwork had made many
parole officers bureaucratic bound by virtue of requirements
levied on them. He thought the community interest was best
served by having agents out in the field working with their
clients. SENATOR HALFORD agreed with COMMISSIONER RUPP'S
summation of the problem.
Number 237
SENATOR DONLEY asked if COMMISSIONER RUPP had any chance to
follow up on contacts with the Committee on Competition and
conflict between the private and prison industries.
COMMISSIONER RUPP reported on what he had done so far in
prison industries, which was to talk to individual
competitors. He said he was trying to develop joint
ventures such as used in California, where it is reasonably
successful, and he described how it should be a balance
between public interest and private enterprise.
Number 262
SENATOR DONLEY encouraged COMMISSIONER RUPP to work with the
committee on the problems with prison industries in Alaska.
SENATOR DONLEY also asked if anyone was designing any new
facilities in the corrections department, and COMMISSIONER
RUPP said he didn't intend to preside over any new
correctional constructions, notwithstanding the master plan.
He planned to look at the camp situation as a possibility,
but it would not be designed as a hard site. COMMISSIONER
RUPP said facilities for women was an area which needed a
careful approach, and he outlined how he would balance the
Cleary Decision with the need for a woman's institution.
Number 280
SENATOR DONLEY and COMMISSIONER RUPP had a lengthy
conversation about possible new facilities, Wildwood,
misdemeanants, Community Residential Center beds, over-
classified felons, and SENATOR DONLEY'S concern for
jeopardizing public safety. COMMISSIONER RUPP said he would
never compromise public safety, and he, again, said he would
maintain a balance between public safety and appropriate
cost benefits.
SENATOR HALFORD asked whether the two prisoners, who escaped
from Highland Mountain in Eagle River, were properly
classified to be there. COMMISSIONER RUPP had not seen the
final written report, but thought those individuals would
have been better housed in a different situation. He
offered to give an additional report to SENATOR HALFORD, who
had some further observations on the institution.
Number 351
SENATOR JOHNNY ELLIS commended COMMISSIONER RUPP on
Operation Hope and asked how the associated costs would be
handled. COMMISSIONER RUPP SAID there were costs in both
the capital budget and the 1994 budget, but there was a low
fiscal note. He explained how the program would grow,
beginning in July with the Point MacKenzie project to
identify the resources available there.
COMMISSIONER RUPP gave a detailed description of sharing
costs and the budgeting process. He said it would not be a
fixed institution, but would have re-locatable buildings.
Number 370
SENATOR ELLIS questioned the boot camp approach in relation
to Project Hope, and COMMISSIONER RUPP explained how they
fit into a three part program. He addressed the at-risk
population as well as alcohol problems and work experiences.
In a discussion of budgeting for the project, COMMISSIONER
RUPP mentioned assets from other agencies such as state
owned equipment, which could be used to teach vocational
skills. He talked in terms of cost benefits from such
relationships, and he gave an optimistic view of their
intentions.
Number 400
SENATOR ELLIS asked if the recommendations from the
sentencing commission had been discussed, and what would be
their impact on corrections if adopted. COMMISSIONER RUPP
said he would liked to have been involved in the sentencing
commission process during the time of their deliberations.
He agreed with appropriate alternative sentencing and
intermediate sanctions, and in general, he said he would
support the recommendations.
SENATOR ELLIS directed attention to proposals before the
legislature (SB 54) to make it easier to waive alleged
juvenile offenders into adult court. He mentioned some
variations on the suggested waiver, including costs, and
juveniles in maximum security.
COMMISSIONER RUPP said he had not had time to look at the
proposed legislation, but he was familiar with the increase
in the violence among adolescence groups both in the United
states and in the rest of the world. He discussed his
familiarity with gang activities and the push on law
enforcement.
SENATOR ELLIS asked him to testify on the true costs and
impacts on juvenile issues before the Department of
Corrections. COMMISSIONER RUPP drew on his California
experience to give some background on the juvenile problems.
Number 452
SENATOR DONLEY asked how the state constitution related to
corrections and. He, again, stressed his concerns about
prioritizing with public protection first and rehabilitation
second. He wondered if this prioritizing could be
established in the constitution.
MR. RUPP thought the constitution was specific to public
safety balanced with reformation, and he said, generally,
the push was towards public safety. He empathized with
SENATOR DONLEY'S concerns about victim's rights and
described his involvement with victim's advocacy.
COMMISSIONER RUPP thought there needed to be more done for
victims with the assistance of the perpetrators for mutual
resolution of the problems.
Number 489
In a follow-up question, SENATOR DONLEY asked for feedback
on any difficulties posed by the courts' interpretation of
public protection and reformation as co-equal factors. He
still wanted COMMISSIONER RUPP'S opinion as to priorities
rather than being co-equal.
SENATOR LITTLE expressed concern about COMMISSIONER RUPP'S
ideas of getting the victims and perpetrators together.
First of all, COMMISSIONER RUPP recommended the book, Crime
and it's Victims by a member of the Justice Fellowship, and
gave examples where creative judges have worked to bring
reconciliation between the victim and the perpetrators.
COMMISSIONER RUPP explained how, in some cases, the
perpetrator obtains a job and pays the victim on a scale
agreeable to the victim, or purchases something of equal
value, or the perpetrator might be involved in some service
to the victim. He said sometimes this has led to a
reconciliation between the victim and the offender, but very
often, he explained, these are first time offenders who do
stupid crimes. COMMISSIONER RUPP said otherwise the
offender may go on to worse crimes, because they never get
any personal involvement with their victim and do not know
how the victim feels.
Number 523
COMMISSIONER RUPP assured SENATOR LITTLE it would be with
the consent of the victim, would not pose an imposition, and
be under the supervision of a specifically trained officer.
SENATOR LITTLE expressed appreciation for his answers.
SENATOR TAYLOR thanked COMMISSIONER RUPP and ended the
hearing.
SENATOR TAYLOR introduced SB 54 (OFFENSES BY JUVENILE
OFFENDERS) sponsored by SENATOR HALFORD and explained a
committee substitute had been drafted.
KENNY LEAF, committee aide, offered two items to the
packets; first, administrative over sights in the original
bill, and second, the amended version of the sectional
analysis.
SENATOR TAYLOR invited SENATOR HALFORD to testify on his
bill.
SENATOR HALFORD gave some history on the research he had
been conducting on conditions of property crimes by
juveniles, and he explained the committee substitute
includes provisions for restitution to victims. He said it
also includes provisions that take away the confidentiality
of the minor convicted, with regard to civil cases.
SENATOR HALFORD said that would allow a victim to sue a
minor who does damage to the victim's property and would
also provide for the use of permanent fund dividends to be
attached as one of the sources from which to recover from
the juvenile offender.
SENATOR HALFORD wanted JACK CHENOWETH, from Legal Counsel to
review the sectional analysis, and SENATOR TAYLOR paused the
meeting to wait for MR. CHENOWETH.
Number 566
SENATOR TAYLOR brought the committee back to order, and
SENATOR HALFORD moved to send the standard letter back to
the body for the confirmation of COMMISSIONER RUPP, giving
no stated objections. Without objections, so ordered.
SENATOR HALFORD moved to adopt the new committee substitute
for SB 54, identified as CHENOWETH 2/6/93, as a mark-up
vehicle. Without objections, so ordered.
SENATOR TAYLOR acknowledged SENATOR DONLEY as having
additional amendments.
SENATOR TAYLOR noted there were Close-Up students in
attendance, and he invited TRAVIS KAY to testify.
MR. KAY said he was from Healy. He said they were just now
researching the bill, so he didn't know much about the
subject. He offered the view of a 17 year old student, and
said he wanted to be treated as an adult, even though he
still had doubts about his decisions.
TAPE 93-7, SIDE B
Number 001
MR. KAY said lessons could be learned when juveniles were
treated as adults, and he thought 16 was a good age of
awareness.
SENATOR DONLEY suggested to the students it was difficult to
understand the bill because it doesn't refer to specific
crimes, but he told the students the application was for
serious crimes. He listed the "bad crimes" for MR. KAY.
MR. KAY said he understood the difference but found it
difficult to understand the thinking of juveniles who would
commit such crimes. He thought it was important to punish
them, but he didn't think a juvenile should get the death
sentence.
SENATOR HALFORD reviewed the provisions in his bill as to
age, and MR. KAY thought the provisions were good.
When asked for anything further from SENATOR TAYLOR, MR. KAY
said he agreed with the bill and the committee should pass
it.
BONNIE BERBRICH, a Close-Up student from Denali, agreed that
when people are 16 years old, they should be treated and
tried as adults in murder or rape. She believed juveniles
should have their dividends taken away if they couldn't pay
for restitution. She offered to answer questions from the
kid's point of view.
SENATOR TAYLOR thanked the Close-Up students for their
participation and asked MR. CHENOWETH to walk the committee
through a sectional analysis of the committee substitute.
MR. CHENOWETH elected to walk the committee members through
the legislation topically. He said the initial thrust of
the legislation was the effort to identify and treat
differently the minors 16 to 18 years of age, who commit
classified or class A felonies, as delineated in Section 5
on page 3, beginning with line 14 through 28. He contrasted
current law, which handles minors as juveniles subject to
provisions of adjudication with the proposed legislation.
MR. CHENOWETH said this would reverse the presumption of a
minor, 16 to 18, charged with an unclassified or class A
felony.
Number 81
MR. CHENOWETH explained, under CSSB 54, a minor could be
automatically charged, tried, and sentenced as an adult. He
reviewed the remainder of the sections in terms of what
sections of the law may, or may not, apply in indictments
for unclassified, class A felonies, and lesser felonies or
misdemeanors. MR. CHENOWETH said it was the major crime
that will decide how the minor is treated, and he explained
how a minor could be place back into the juvenile system to
be handled as a delinquent.
SENATOR DONLEY asked for any provision, if a minor can show
by a preponderance or some other standard, they are amenable
to treatment, they could be sent to juvenile court. MR.
CHENOWETH explained how it could be done on page 3, lines 27
and 28 to give either party the opportunity to make use of
the waiver of jurisdiction, and they discussed the waiver in
the context of SENATOR DONLEY'S hypothetical example.
SENATOR DONLEY expressed displeasure with section (h) and
asked that it be deleted. SENATOR HALFORD moved to delete
section (h) on page 3, line 27 and 28.
SENATOR LITTLE asked, if a juvenile is adjudged to be
rehabilitated, what would be the damage of retaining the
section, to allow the judge to act appropriately for the
benefit of the young individual.
SENATOR DONLEY said the problem was the standard becomes a
preponderance of the evidence, so there is a 51% chance this
individual is capable of possibly being rehabilitated by the
time they reach the age of majority, in which case they are
going to stay in juvenile court. He thought it might be
appropriate for lesser degrees of crime, but for the serious
crimes, a clever person could put on a great show to prove
they could be rehabilitated. SENATOR DONLEY said this puts
the judge in the position of guessing at a decision, which
would be a burden on the judges in those cases.
SENATOR HALFORD used the example of a 17 and an 18 year old
person convicted of rape/murder, in which the 18 year old
would serve a minimum presumptive sentence of 8 to 15 years,
while the 17 year old could be out by his 20th birthday. He
thought the public would resist such sentencing, and he
discussed the benefit of a solid sentence.
Number 146
SENATOR LITTLE registered her objection to the amendment,
saying she didn't have the wisdom to say every single
juvenile who commits a crime of this degree needs to be
absolutely, without exception, treated as an adult.
SENATOR DONLEY brought up two points, with the first being a
middle ground of higher presumption rather than just a
preponderance of evidence, making a significant burden on
the defendant to show they are rehabilitative. The second
out would be if there is a manifest injustice by putting the
person into adult court, and he asked MARGO KNUTH if they
could go to a three judge panel over the sentencing. MS
KNUTH said they could.
SENATOR TAYLOR called for a vote on the amendment, which
passed on a vote of 3 to 1, and section (h) was deleted.
Number 170
MR. CHENOWETH went next to Section 8 to explain the
protection from being over charged by zealous prosecutors.
He covered the sentencing of juveniles in Section 10, where
those younger than 18 are waived and handled as adults. MR.
CHENOWETH reported opinions given on both sides of the
argument, and he explained how the legislation splits the
responsibility.
Number 210
SENATOR HALFORD asked MR. CHENOWETH where the children, who
are currently waived and tried as adults, are kept. MR.
CHENOWETH didn't know.
SENATOR DONLEY said they were segregated from the regular
minors in a youth facility, and he discussed with SENATOR
HALFORD the difficulty of isolating them. He said there had
been an extensive review last year of where to put the
waived juveniles.
SENATOR LITTLE asked how the committee could come up with a
zero fiscal note for the bill. MR. LEAF explained the
fiscal notes were drafted for the original SB 54, and new
fiscal notes were on the way for CSSB 54, but they were also
zero.
MR. CHENOWETH said he wished to discuss records of
proceedings involving juveniles with reference to Section 6
on page 4, and he explained the records were confidential
and may now be sealed at the end of five years, particularly
if the child successfully completes rehabilitation under the
sentence. He explained the change made by this section
would remove the opportunity to seal records for a
conviction of a minor, who was 16 years of age or older, and
who was prosecuted under AS 47.10.010(e) through (g) for the
commission of an unclassified felon or a class A felon.
SENATOR TAYLOR choose at this point to end the discussion
and not to send the bill from committee today.
There being no further business to come before the
committee, the meeting was adjourned at 3:00 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|