03/15/2007 03:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB64 | |
| SB89 | |
| SB7 | |
| SB36 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 7 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 36 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| = | SB 64 | ||
| = | SB 89 | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
March 15, 2007
3:32 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Hollis French, Chair
Senator Charlie Huggins, Vice Chair
Senator Bill Wielechowski
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Lesil McGuire
Senator Gene Therriault
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 64
"An Act relating to the requirement for candidates, groups,
legislators, public officials, and other persons to submit
reports electronically to the Alaska Public Offices Commission;
relating to disclosures by legislators, public members of the
Select Committee on Legislative Ethics, legislative directors,
public officials, and certain candidates for public office
concerning services performed for compensation and concerning
certain income, gifts, and other financial matters; requiring
legislators, public members of the Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics, legislative directors, public officials, and
municipal officers to make certain financial disclosures when
they leave office; relating to insignificant ownership interest
in a business and to gifts from lobbyists for purposes of the
Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act; relating to certain
restrictions on employment after leaving state service for
purposes of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act; and
providing for an effective date."
MOVED CSSB 64(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 89
"An Act relating to requiring electronic monitoring as a special
condition of probation for offenders whose offense was related
to a criminal street gang."
MOVED CSSB 89(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 7
"An Act relating to the voting rights of felons."
HEARD AND HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 36
"An Act relating to sentencing for the commission of certain
offenses influenced by alcohol and to the offense of consumption
of alcohol in violation of sentence."
HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 64
SHORT TITLE: DISCLOSURES & ETHICS
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
01/26/07 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/26/07 (S) JUD, STA, FIN
02/08/07 (S) JUD AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/08/07 (S) Heard & Held
02/08/07 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
02/12/07 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
02/12/07 (S) Heard & Held
02/12/07 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
03/12/07 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
03/12/07 (S) Heard & Held
03/12/07 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
03/14/07 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
03/14/07 (S) Heard & Held
03/14/07 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
BILL: SB 89
SHORT TITLE: ELECTRONIC MONITORING OF GANG PROBATIONER
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) WIELECHOWSKI
02/21/07 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/21/07 (S) JUD, FIN
03/05/07 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
03/05/07 (S) Heard & Held
03/05/07 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
03/14/07 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
03/14/07 (S) Scheduled But Not Heard
BILL: SB 7
SHORT TITLE: FELONS' RIGHT TO VOTE
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) DAVIS
01/16/07 (S) PREFILE RELEASED 1/5/07
01/16/07 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/16/07 (S) STA, JUD, FIN
01/25/07 (S) STA AT 9:00 AM BELTZ 211
01/25/07 (S) <Above Bill Hearing Canceled>
02/22/07 (S) STA AT 9:00 AM BELTZ 211
02/22/07 (S) Moved CSSB 7(STA) Out of Committee
02/22/07 (S) MINUTE(STA)
02/23/07 (S) STA RPT CS 1DP 2NR SAME TITLE
02/23/07 (S) DP: MCGUIRE
02/23/07 (S) NR: FRENCH, GREEN
03/05/07 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
03/05/07 (S) Heard & Held
03/05/07 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
03/15/07 (S) JUD AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: SB 36
SHORT TITLE: SENTENCING FOR ALCOHOL-RELATED CRIMES
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) THERRIAULT
01/16/07 (S) PREFILE RELEASED 1/5/07
01/16/07 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/16/07 (S) STA, JUD, FIN
01/23/07 (S) STA AT 9:00 AM BELTZ 211
01/23/07 (S) Heard & Held
01/23/07 (S) MINUTE(STA)
01/25/07 (S) STA AT 9:00 AM BELTZ 211
01/25/07 (S) Scheduled But Not Heard
01/30/07 (S) STA AT 9:00 AM BELTZ 211
01/30/07 (S) PEACE OFFICER CONVICTED OF MURDER
02/01/07 (S) STA AT 9:00 AM BELTZ 211
02/01/07 (S) -- Rescheduled from 01/30/07 --
02/22/07 (S) STA AT 9:00 AM BELTZ 211
02/22/07 (S) Moved CSSB 36(STA) Out of Committee
02/22/07 (S) MINUTE(STA)
02/23/07 (S) STA RPT CS 1DP 2NR SAME TITLE
02/23/07 (S) LETTER OF INTENT WITH STA REPORT
02/23/07 (S) DP: FRENCH
02/23/07 (S) NR: MCGUIRE, GREEN
03/05/07 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
03/05/07 (S) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/15/07 (S) JUD AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
WITNESS REGISTER
Dwayne Peeples, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Corrections (DOC)
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 89
Anne Carpeneti, Assistant District Attorney
Criminal Division
Department of Law
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided the Department of Law perspective
on SB 89 and SB 36
Cindy Smith, Aide
to Senator French
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Explained a proposed change to SB 7
Michael Macleod-Ball, Executive Director
ACLU of Alaska
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 7
Dave Stancliff, staff
to Senator Therriault
Alaska State Capitol
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced SB 36 for the sponsor
MaShelle Hess, Project Coordinator
Division of Behavioral Health
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS)
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 36
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR HOLLIS FRENCH called the Senate Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:32:50 PM. Present at the call to
order were Senator Wielechowski, Senator Huggins, and Chair
French.
SB 64- DISCLOSURES & ETHICS
3:33:13 PM
CHAIR FRENCH announced the consideration of SB 64 and asked for
a motion to adopt Version \M work draft.
SENATOR HUGGINS motioned to adopt Version \M committee
substitute (CS) for SB 64, labeled 25-GS1059\M
CHAIR FRENCH asked the committee to note that the two
substantive amendments that were made at the last hearing are
incorporated in Version \M. The bribery provision is found in
Sections 1 and 10 and the aircraft provision is in Sections 8
and 9. The sections are renumbered to take the added provisions
into account, but other than that the bill is unchanged.
CHAIR FRENCH, finding no questions or comments, asked for the
will of the committee.
3:34:12 PM
SENATOR HUGGINS motioned to report CSSB 64(JUD) from committee
with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note(s).
There being no objection, it was so ordered.
At ease 3:34:48 PM
SB 89-ELECTRONIC MONITORING OF GANG PROBATIONER
3:35:55 PM
CHAIR FRENCH announced the consideration of SB 89 and solicited
a motion to adopt Version \E committee substitute (CS) as the
working document
SENATOR HUGGINS motioned to adopt Version \E CS for SB 89
labeled, 25-LS0644\E. There was no objection.
3:36:21 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI explained that the previous version
addressed gang members on probation, but did not include
parolees. The Criminal Division of the Department of Law asked
that parolees be included and so a new section was added to
accommodate that request. The Department of Corrections (DOC)
suggested removing the word "continuous" to give it leeway in
cost effectively administering the program and that was done.
That resulted in a revised indeterminate DOC fiscal note. The
current analysis indicates the estimated general fund cost at
$195 thousand, which is down from about $1 million.
This last weekend he received a demonstration from constituents
who do this type of work. Essentially, a Blackberry is
programmed so that whenever someone moves in or out of a
particular zone the PDA [personal digital assistant] beeps. When
that happens someone contacts the person who is wearing the
ankle bracelet to find out what is happening. That is more
passive than having someone sitting in a room watching a number
of different screens. Removing the requirement for the
monitoring to be continuous will have a fairly significant
impact, he stated.
3:38:20 PM
CHAIR FRENCH, directing a question to Mr. Peeples, asked if $40
per day per ankle monitor is the cost estimate that was applied.
DWAYNE PEEPLES, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Corrections
(DOC), referenced the analysis on page 2 of the indeterminate
fiscal note, which breaks out a series of scenarios. The right
column shows a passive model ratio of 1 probation officer to 40
offenders. DOC allocates $40 per day under the system of
releasing inmates from institutions under furlough. That
includes release to a halfway house, a community residential
center or on electronic monitoring. That is fairly comparable to
this, he stated and it does not use GPS. The numbers reflect
first year estimates that include startup costs of purchasing
computers and vests for new probation officers.
CHAIR FRENCH noted that the daily cost per offender is $17 and
the estimate for collections is 30 percent. He asked if the idea
is to charge probationers for the ankle bracelets.
MR. PEEPLES said that's the idea. For this program DOC would try
to recover about $75,000 per year toward operating costs.
3:41:55 PM
CHAIR FRENCH highlighted the previous policy discussion about
the difference between a special condition and a general
condition. Making it a special condition would require a higher
burden of proof and his understanding is that it would be
necessary to prove that the person is a member of a criminal
street gang for the condition to apply. Making it a general
condition would be a lower burden of proof; it would apply to
anyone who is convicted of a felony provided that there is some
nexus between the crime that was committed and criminal street
gangs.
3:43:07 PM
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant District Attorney, Criminal Division,
Department of Law, said right now it's pegged to the finding of
the aggravating factor, which is AS 12.55.155(c)(29). As drafted
this may be a Blakley factor meaning that prosecutors would need
to prove to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt the connection to
an aggravating factor. Mr. Svobodny previously suggested that
another approach would be to make it a general condition of
probation. That way it wouldn't require going through the
procedure that under Blakley is required for every aggravating
factor unless it's connected to a prior conviction.
CHAIR FRENCH summarized that for this condition to apply, both
the grand jury and the trial jury would have to find that the
crime was committed by a criminal street gang member.
MS. CARPENETI said that's the effect.
3:44:30 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI recalled that Mr. Svobodny suggested making
it a special condition for anyone who is on parole or probation.
For fiscal reasons he limited it to those who met the
aggravating factor under AS 12.55.155(c)(29).
CHAIR FRENCH observed that the fiscal conversation may be better
suited for the finance committee. This committee is to confront
legal questions such as whether the application should be narrow
and apply to all or broad and apply to few. He would defer to
the bill sponsor.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said his goal is to deal with the
increasing gang problems in Anchorage. The idea is to keep track
of gang members who are on parole so that if they do congregate
or go to prohibited areas the movement will be recorded using
global positioning system (GPS). The policy call to make it a
special condition was to keep the cost down, but it could be
expanded to any number of people on parole or probation.
3:46:09 PM
CHAIR FRENCH said he just wanted the committee to make a heads-
up eyes-wide-open policy call while the bill is in the
committee.
SENATOR HUGGINS stated a preference to keep the bill narrow, but
he is concerned about the state's liability.
CHAIR FRENCH acknowledged it is a valid question, adding that
that is a tough legal doctrine.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI agreed that it would be difficult for
anyone to go against the state.
SENATOR HUGGINS said the benefit is that this will show what it
costs. If it proves to be successful the program can be
expanded.
3:47:51 PM
CHAIR FRENCH found no further questions or comments and asked
the will of the committee.
SENATOR HUGGINS motioned to report CSSB 89(JUD) from committee
with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note(s).
There being no objection, it was so ordered.
At ease 3:48:33 PM
SB 7-FELONS' RIGHT TO VOTE
3:49:25 PM
CHAIR FRENCH announced the consideration of SB 7 and solicited a
motion to adopt Version \L committee substitute (CS).
SENATOR HUGGINS motioned to adopt Version \L CS for SB 7,
labeled, 25-LS0100\L as the working document.
CHAIR FRENCH explained that the CS distinguishes among felons
according to the category of crime for which they were
incarcerated. The categories are broken out on page 1, lines 8-
13. The idea is to continue under the existing system, which is
to not restore the rights of released felons if they have been
convicted of an unclassified felony or a class A felony. Also,
voting rights would not be restored to repeat felons who are
released from prison.
In summary the policy call is that someone is able to vote upon
release from incarceration after having served time for a lower
level felony. Someone who has been convicted of rape, robbery,
or murder would have to complete the requirements for
unconditional discharge before regaining the right to vote. The
other sections are conforming amendments to make the changes
work for the Division of Elections. Under the current draft
there would be two classes of felons: one group that is
restricted and another that is able to vote upon release.
CHAIR FRENCH drew attention to page 2, line 15 and said the
director of the Division of Elections has asked the committee to
consider amending subsection (a) so that the onus for obtaining
the names of persons convicted of a felony is placed on the
Department of Corrections (DOC) rather than on the director of
elections. The argument is that DOC officials already have
access to that information.
CHAIR FRENCH motioned to adopt Amendment 1. On page 2, line 15,
delete "The director shall make reasonable efforts to obtain"
and insert "The commissioner of corrections shall notify the
director of".
3:53:39 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI objected to ask if the intention is to say
that "the commissioner of corrections shall notify the director
and the director shall make reasonable efforts to obtain the
names".
CHAIR FRENCH said the Division of Elections suggested the
language.
3:54:08 PM
CINDY SMITH, Aide to Senator French, explained that both aren't
needed; the Department of Corrections already electronically
transmits names and other identifiers to the Division of
Elections. The change is consistent with subsection (d) above.
DWAYNE PEEPLES, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Corrections
stated that the department has the ability to provide the
Division of Elections with names and identifiers of persons who
were convicted and released. DOC provides similar information to
the Permanent Fund Dividend Corporation for the purpose of
seizing dividend checks from felons.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI referenced page 2, line 17, and asked if
everything else in subsection (a) remains the same.
MS. SMITH replied nothing else is changed.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked to see the provision incorporated in
the bill before making a final determination.
CHAIR FRENCH found that to be fair and asked if he maintained
his objection.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI removed his objection.
CHAIR FRENCH announced that Amendment 1 is adopted.
3:56:31 PM
MICHAEL MACLEOD-BALL, Executive Director, ACLU of Alaska,
identified himself.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if he foresees any constitutional problems
associated with stratifying and changing the rights of felons
according to the seriousness of the offense for which they were
convicted.
MR. MACLEOD-BALL said he did not. There isn't a lot of guiding
case law, but generally the legislature and the courts have some
authority to define terminology that is used in interpreting
constitutional provisions. The intent in SB 7 is essentially no
different than what is already in statute. To the extent that
the current statute is constitutionally permissible, this should
be as well.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if he has any other observations about the
bill.
MR. MACLEOD-BALL articulated the view that the original version
of the bill was preferable from a policy perspective because it
would have allowed more felons onto the voting rolls.
Nonetheless, this is a step in the right direction, he stated.
SENATOR HUGGINS asked where Alaska would stand in terms of
voting rights relative to other states.
MR. MACLEOD-BALL summarized the statistical information that was
given during the previous hearing and said this would place
Alaska in the middle.
SENATOR HUGGINS asked if Alaska is currently in a group with 21
other states.
MR. MACLEOD-BALL said, "I believe that large number in the
middle brings felons back onto the voting rolls at some time and
there are a variety of distinctions in the states as to when
they're brought back on the rolls or for what crimes they lose
the voting rights in the first place. And so I viewed the change
that's being proposed here as being just a variation within that
group."
4:00:55 PM
CHAIR FRENCH announced he would hold SB 7 to prepare the amended
language and for consideration by the full committee.
SB 36-SENTENCING FOR ALCOHOL-RELATED CRIMES
4:01:23 PM
CHAIR FRENCH announced the consideration of SB 36.
DAVE STANCLIFF, staff to Senator Therriault, explained that SB
36 is based on three points. The first is the premise that some
members of society are transformed under the influence of
alcohol, predisposing them to violence that can result in
criminal activity. In such circumstances SB 36 would allow
judges the discretion to remove alcohol for some period, up to a
lifetime, as part of the sentence. Another aspect of the bill
deals with people who have more than two DUIs on record or a
single DUI that has resulted in a serious physical injury. He
noted that when legislation similar to SB 36 was before the
Senate Judiciary Committee last year, Chair French added this
language.
MR. STANCLIFF said the purpose of SB 36 is to protect people. He
asked members to imagine someone who is released on probation
after having served time for committing a violent offense while
under the influence of alcohol. Alcohol is prohibited as a
condition of probation and everything works well until probation
is over. At that point the individual returns to his or her old
pattern of drinking, which leads to the same old violent and or
criminal behavior. Follow the papers and see the great role that
alcohol plays in so many of today's violent crimes, he said.
What isn't reported is that there are volumes of studies that
connect alcohol and the way certain people react when they
drink. For some people there is a physiological change that
occurs. "Something as basic as a massive amounts and releases of
testosterone for some males that consume alcohol, to a very
subtle changes in brain activity." Clearly, when certain
individuals use alcohol, they have a propensity to do great
violence.
MR. STANCLIFF said the protective provision of the bill provides
an opportunity for interdiction before a crime occurs. If
someone who has served time for a crime that was committed while
under the influence of alcohol begins to drink again, that
person could be taken into custody. "This is not a mandatory
option. It is one we don't see will be used very frequently. We
do see it in some cases as an alternative to a much longer
prison sentence if the person agrees, is willing to go through
treatment." He noted that the Senate State Affairs Committee
added a provision to use Therapeutic Courts in lieu of this
option.
MR. STANCLIFF described SB 36 as a way to change the way our
culture and our young people view alcohol. "Young people grow up
thinking of alcohol and drinking as a right and not necessarily
as a privilege." This is a novel and serious approach that would
be used infrequently, but it would be a sentencing option in the
toolbox. Recidivism and violence related to alcohol is a
tremendous problem and Senator Therriault feels that judges
ought to have this option.
4:07:05 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI directed attention to page 3, line 15, and
asked if, in a criminal case, a finding of clear and convincing
evidence is more appropriate than a finding of beyond a
reasonable doubt.
CHAIR FRENCH said the short answer is yes. The guilty verdict
must be supported by the beyond a reasonable doubt standard, but
there are other sentencing factors that sometimes come with
different standards of proof. He asked Ms. Carpeneti to give her
perspective.
4:07:56 PM
ANNE CARPENETI, Criminal Division, Department of Law, advised
members she and Doug Kossler discussed the bill and concluded
that it probably would not be a Blakely factor. The clear and
convincing evidence standard of proof could be supported.
MS. CARPENETI informed members that Mr. Kossler litigates the
validity of legislation and he suggested that the committee
consider adding to subparagraph (A) the standard of proof of
protecting the public that is in subparagraph (B). Although she
isn't lax on drunk drivers, there could be a first-time drunk
driver who is convicted of a felony third degree assault for
breaking someone's leg, for example. It is serious physical
injury and it would fit under this provision unless the court
found that it was necessary for protection of the public to have
this long time condition imposed.
CHAIR FRENCH rephrased the suggestion, which is that
subparagraph (A), on page 3, lines 14-17, would be more
defensible if it included the requirement that the judge make a
finding that imposition of the condition was to protect the
public. He agreed to take that under advisement.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said he didn't track why not having that
standard might be problematic.
MS. CARPENETI elaborated that a condition of probation must have
some rational relationship to the crime that was committed.
There could a drunk driver who assaults someone and does not
cause death but it is a felony against a person. "You wouldn't
want a court to be able to impose a lifetime prohibition of
drinking on somebody under circumstances where it wasn't
necessary to protect the public."
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if it would be a constitutional
problem.
MS. CARPENETI said assault in the third degree is class C felony
with a maximum 5 years imprisonment. A lifetime prohibition of
drinking is a lot longer than 5 years in jail. It would be more
defensible and make more sense if there were a protection of the
public standard.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI posed the hypothetical example of someone
who rapes a person while under the influence. It was a first
time offense and there wasn't much proof that it would happen
again. He questioned why policy makers couldn't say that person
has lost the right to drink for the rest of their life. "I guess
I'm just not tracking why we wouldn't be able to do that as a
policy call," he stated.
MS. CARPENETI responded the courts generally hold that
punishment should be somewhat proportional to the act that was
committed. "Even in a first-time rape case it would certainly be
more defensible." It just makes sense to require the court to
make a finding that prohibiting drinking for a lifetime is for
the protection of the public in both (A) and (B).
CHAIR FRENCH recapped that if the most severe penalty is imposed
for the least severe felony, the imbalance is so great that
without the finding that it was necessary to protect the public,
it would be difficult to defend the sentence in the court of
appeals.
MS. CARPENETI said it's a question of proportionality.
CHAIR FRENCH said he is sure Mr. Kossler is thinking ahead to
the time when he has to defend this law. It would be easier if
the judge has made a more specific finding about why the
condition is being imposed.
MS. CARPENETI said that is correct.
4:13:40 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI continued to express concern with the
suggested change. He is reluctant to restrict a judge from
prohibiting someone from using alcohol for a heinous offense.
"You're always going to have that constitutional proportionality
issue, but I think we're taking away something else by adding
what you're requesting that we add and I'm not sure I
necessarily want to do that."
MS. CARPENETI gave her perspective that the two sections will be
compared and she believes the finding would be more necessary
under subparagraph (A) than subparagraph (B), So, she said, if
it's included just once it ought to be under (A). Also, if
someone is on their third time driving drunk, it is more
defensible to have a lifetime prohibition.
CHAIR FRENCH suggested that Mr. Kossler write up his feelings so
they could be part of the record and help the members to form
their thinking.
4:15:26 PM
CHAIR FRENCH asked Mr. Stancliff if other states have adopted
this approach of criminalizing the consumption of alcohol.
MR. STANCLIFF replied as far as he knows Alaska would be totally
unique.
4:16:07 PM
MaSHELLE HESS, Division of Behavioral Health, Department of
Health and Social Services (DHSS), stated support for the idea
of increasing public safety and the intent of the committee
substitute. However, the division and the department are
concerned that the bill doesn't address the issue of dwindling
dollars in the prison system resulting in reduced substance
abuse treatment.
CHAIR FRENCH acknowledged it is a valid concern. He added that
the Department of Corrections is asking for a budget of $241
million to cover 5,500 inmates and an equal number of parolees,
which is basically $22,000 per year per inmate/parolee. This has
made him mindful that every time a law is passed that makes
someone a convict, the state gets a bill for $22,000.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked what currently happens to someone who
is incarcerated and has a substance abuse problem.
MS HESS said prison treatment programs are limited to non-
existent. If alcohol or another drug was a part of the crime, a
condition of probation might include the requirement to go
through a community-based substance abuse program. Those
programs are grant-funded through the Division of Behavioral
Health. "If they are convicted of a violent crime and then this
bill passes where a judge can as a tool in his toolbox sentence
them to a lifetime ban on alcohol, they will just continue to
cycle through the system." When these people are in prison they
won't use alcohol and this is the ideal place to receive
treatment.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI restated that she envisions a revolving
door scenario.
MS. HESS said right adding that in her previous life as a
probation officer she used to tell her clients: "Lack of access
does not constitute treatment."
4:20:09 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if there is a Department of
Corrections fiscal note.
CHAIR FRENCH said the fiscal note from the Department of
Corrections is indeterminate. The analysis says: "The Department
of Corrections can not determine fiscal impacts of this
legislation. Data is not available for the department to
calculate the number of offenders that would not comply with the
sentencing requirements. There is a zero fiscal note from the
Department of Law and an indeterminate fiscal note from the
Public Defender Agency. The latter was prepared by Quinlan
Steiner and the analysis says: "The Agency... can not reliably
predict the fiscal impact of this legislation."
CHAIR FRENCH found no further questions of testimony and
announced he would hold SB 36 in committee.
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair French adjourned the meeting at 4:22:04 PM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|