Legislature(2003 - 2004)
04/10/2003 03:35 PM Senate STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
April 10, 2003
3:35 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Gary Stevens, Chair
Senator John Cowdery, Vice Chair
Senator Fred Dyson
Senator Gretchen Guess
Senator Lyman Hoffman
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 159
"An Act relating to special medical parole and to prisoners who
are severely medically or cognitively disabled."
MOVED CSSB 159 (STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 2(JUD)(title am)
"An Act relating to the statute of limitations for certain civil
actions relating to acts constituting sexual offenses; and
providing for an effective date."
MOVED HB 2 OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 158
"An Act transferring the Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual
Assault from the Department of Public Safety to the Department
of Health and Social Services; and providing for an effective
date."
MOVED SB 158 OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 22
"An Act limiting the factors that may be considered in making a
crime victims' compensation award in cases of sexual assault or
sexual abuse of a minor."
MOVED SB 22 OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 85
"An Act relating to sentencing and to the earning of good time
deductions for certain sexual offenses."
MOVED CSSB 85 (STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 119
"An Act eliminating the Alaska Public Offices Commission;
transferring campaign, public official, and lobbying financial
disclosure record-keeping duties to the division of elections;
relating to reports, summaries, and documents regarding
campaign, public official, and lobbying financial disclosure;
providing for enforcement by the Department of Law; making
conforming statutory amendments; and providing for an effective
date."
SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS ACTION
SB 159 - No previous action to record.
HB 2 - No previous action to record.
SB 158 - See State Affairs minutes dated 4/8/03
SB 85 - No previous action to record.
SB 22 - No previous action to record.
WITNESS REGISTER
Senator Lyda Green
Alaska State Capitol, Room 516
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor SB 159
Jacqueline Tupou
Staff to Senator Lyda Green
Senator Lyda Green
Alaska State Capitol, Room 516
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on SB 159
Larry Jones
Executive Director, Parole Board
Department of Corrections
P.O. Box 112000
Juneau, AK 99811
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 159
Lietoni Tupou
Department of Corrections
431 N. Franklin, Suite 400
Juneau, AK 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 159
Kevin Henderson
Eligibility Program Officer
Department of Health &
Social Services
PO Box 110601
Juneau, AK 99801-0601
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 159
Robert Briggs
Disability Law Center
230 S. Franklin, Room 209
Juneau, AK 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 159
Dr. John Robertson
Director of
Department of Corrections
431 N. Franklin, Suite 400
Juneau, AK 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 159
Anna Fairclough
Stand Together Against Rape (STAR)
1057 W. Fireweed Lane #230
Anchorage, AK 99508
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 159 and SB 22
Representative Kevin Meyer
Alaska State Capitol, Room 513
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor HB 2
Laurie Hugonin
Alaska Network on Domestic Violence
130 Seward Street Room 209
Juneau, AK 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 22
Winifred Kelly
Tundra Women Center
P.O. Box 2785
Bethel, AK 99559
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 22
Senator Hollis French
Alaska State Capitol, Room 504
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor SB 85
Portia Parker
Department of Corrections
431 N. Franklin, Suite 400
Juneau, AK 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 85
Linda Wilson
No address provided
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 85
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 03-18, SIDE A
CHAIR GARY STEVENS called the Senate State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:35 p.m. Present were Senators
Dyson, Guess and Chair Gary Stevens. Senators Cowdery and
Hoffman arrived momentarily.
The first order of business to come before the committee was SB
159.
SB 159-PAROLE FOR MEDICAL / COGNITIVE DISABILITY
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked for a motion to adopt the committee
substitute (CS) as the working document.
SENATOR GRETCHEN GUESS made a motion to adopt work draft \D
Luckhaupt 4/9/03 as the working document. There being no
objection, it was so ordered.
SENATOR LYDA GREEN, sponsor of SB 159, paraphrased from the
sponsor statement:
SB 159 gives the Alaska Board of Parole (ABP)
flexibility to grant or deny medical parole to
applicants. Thus the board will be better able to meet
the needs of the prisoners, the department and
communities.
The ABP has a proven track record in their decision-
making abilities. Over the past seven years, the ABP
has granted parole to approximately 45 percent of all
the discretionary parole applicants. Less than eight
percent of these parolees have violated their
conditions (i.e. missed a meeting with a parole
officer) and approximately one percent has committed a
new offense. This number is particularly compelling
when compared to the 77 percent return rate of
mandatory parole violators.
This bill will allow the ABP and the Department of
Corrections to work together to determine an
appropriate and cost effective release plan. The cost
of health care to the Department of Corrections has
significantly increased over the last few years. Some
of the factors causing these increases are:
· The increased population of terminally ill
inmates
· The recent Seward Highway accident on November
19, 2002
· Hospitalization of prisoners for long-term
assisted care
When making a determination for medical parole
the following are considered:
· Department of Correction medical report
· The seriousness of the criminal offense
· Release plan
· Parole officer/DOC recommendation
Passage of this proposed legislation will allow
the ABP to use its endowed power and authority to
make responsible decisions regarding all the
factors mentioned above, while still considering
the safety of the community.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS said he has visited several prisons in
the last several months and has learned that because the
state is fully responsible for the individual while
incarcerated, the state may face enormous medical expenses.
This bill would allow those seriously ill inmates to return
home or move to a facility that provided less expensive
treatment.
SENATOR FRED DYSON noted the original law didn't allow for
parole for someone who was convicted and incarcerated for
sexually abusing a minor. He asked if it was correct that
this bill removed that provision.
SENATOR GREEN said it did; that is what the language on
page 1, line 12 does.
SENATOR DYSON asked for the reasoning for removing the
prohibition for paroles for those guilty of sexual abuse of
a minor.
JACQUELINE TUPOU, staff to Senator Green, explained the
inmates that are considered for medical parole are
physically incapacitated. Also, not all medical parolees
would simply be released; many would move to other secure
facilities.
SENATOR COWDERY asked where these inmates would be placed
and would the type of crime come under consideration.
MS. TUPOU said the bill provides flexibility so each case
would receive individual consideration and the
determinations would be different. Some inmates would move
to another secure facility and others might go home. If
parole would diminish the seriousness of the crime the
inmate would be disqualified from consideration.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked the department to come forward.
LARRY JONES, Executive Director of the Alaska Board of
Parole, said the Parole Board sees this as a corrective
bill because the 1995 legislation is overly tight. The
department can't legitimately bring inmates to the board to
implement the decision making process. When a special
medical parole applicant meets the criteria, the board must
act quickly because the person is close to death. Since
1996 they have granted just nine medical paroles and have
considered just 14 cases. Most died within two to three
months of their parole. These inmates are so critically ill
they aren't the same person that committed the crime for
which they were incarcerated.
In his judgment, this bill would not impact public safety.
Every year the board makes hundreds of discretionary
decisions; this would simply provide them increased
flexibility. Medical paroles require that a plan be
established for each parolee; inmates wouldn't be tossed
"into the gutter." These people are still under the
supervision of the Department of Corrections just as any
other parolee would be.
Whether a parole would diminish the seriousness of the
crime is always a consideration and never taken lightly by
the board. The Board of Parole stands as a very strong
proponent of victim's rights. Victims are notified of the
hearings and they may participate.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked him for an explanation of who is
on the Parole Board, the associated responsibilities and
the connection with the department.
MR. JONES replied it is complex and he would like to hear
the question posed more frequently. The Alaska Board of
Parole is an autonomous board with five members that report
to the governor. There is a certain judicial requirement so
there is a geographic representation. Ethnicity and gender
are also considerations for appointment. Members serve five
year staggered terms and legislative approval is not
necessary. Members typically serve for more than one term.
The board travels to the hearing sites, which entails
considerable travel. They don't hear mandatory parole
cases, but 96 percent of their hearings are the revocation
hearings for those mandatory paroles. When the board
travels this includes five board members, two staff, the
parolee and attorney, the state parole officer, the victims
and the witnesses.
SENATOR COWDERY asked how many inmates might take advantage
of a special medical parole.
MR. JONES deferred to Mr. Tupou.
LEITONI TUPOU, Special Assistant to the Commissioner of
Corrections, explained the board would review 13
applications if the bill passes.
SENATOR COWDERY asked if that would save $500,000.
MR. TUPOU replied it would.
MR. JONES added the savings would be greater in the long
term.
MR. TUPOU referred to a spreadsheet to show how much the
state currently spends on those inmates. Under current law,
the board would not hear these cases.
SENATOR COWDERY asked if the savings would come from
transferring the inmates from their present location.
MR. JONES said that is correct.
SENATOR COWDERY asked if the $500,000 is a medical savings.
MR. JONES said the impact of this bill is a matter of who
is bearing the cost.
4:00 pm
KEVIN HENDERSON, Eligibility Program Officer for the
Division of Medical Assistance, advised the department is
generally supportive of the bill. Part of the intent is a
cost shift because many of these inmates will be looking
for a way to pay for continuing medical care. The
department sees Medicaid as the likely recipient. At the
state level it makes sense to put these people on Medicaid
and get federal matching money for at least part of the
costs. As long as they are incarcerated the state pays 100
percent of the health care costs.
He pointed to the fiscal notes and cautioned it was likely
only nine of the 13 would qualify for Medicaid. Some would
probably qualify for expensive long-term care and some for
adult public assistance. The bill is a good idea for the
state but it's important to clearly look at careful
discharge planning for each individual to ensure they are
provided for.
SENATOR LYMAN HOFFMAN made reference to the fiscal note
from Health and Social Services and asked if they believe
Medicaid expenditures would grow at just ten percent per
year. If that's true, he asked how that fits with the data
on page 1 of the fiscal note.
MR. HENDERSON replied the fiscal note reliability after two
years is difficult. They made some assumptions that may or
may not be true.
Historically Medicaid costs have been increasing at ten
percent or more per year. That rate has nothing to do with
the 13 Alaska inmates; it's just the rate that health care
is increasing. An assumption was made that the nine inmates
identified as likely to be eligible for Medicaid would
continue to live and that there would be a linear growth of
nine new Medicaid recipients each year thereafter.
Admittedly, those people are medically fragile and probably
wouldn't survive for years, but he was reluctant to project
just how long they would live. They were unsure how many
inmates would be medically paroled every year or the level
of care that might be needed.
SENATOR HOFFMAN noted FY09 costs would be $2.7 million,
which would be $2.2 million over and above the $500,000
savings.
MR. HENDERSON advised him to look at the GF Match line.
SENATOR HOFFMAN observed the breakeven point ends in FY06;
after which it would cost the state.
MR. HENDERSON replied the numbers were probably high and
the Department of Corrections would likely make the case
that all the parolees would not live five years.
SENATOR HOFFMAN rhetorically questioned how many would have
to not live that long for it to make sense.
ROBERT BRIGGS, staff attorney with the Disability Law
Center of Alaska, reported they provide services for
Alaskans with disabilities including those in institutions.
With the closure of the Harborview institution in Valdez,
they now provide protection and advocacy services for
nursing homes, prisons and mental institutions. They
believe the bill makes sense in terms of saving general
fund dollars.
He suggested amending the bill to require discharge
planning that would address the basic life domains of the
prisoner. Because the intended population would be
functionally impaired, a plan needs to be in place before
they are released. Both Montana and Rhode Island require
medical discharge planning in the statute that is parallel
to what this bill would do. Appropriate discharge planning
would also address the safety concerns.
Cost shifting is good because institutional costs are the
highest costs. Some of these individuals are likely to be
eligible for home and community based waivers meaning a
family member could provide care for the individual. Care
coordination could certainly be provided cheaper than
services in a nursing home.
Representative Berkowitz pointed out the language on page
3, line 17 appears to limit the concept of who can be
discharged to those who have a cognitive condition that is
impaired due to irreversible dementia. The medical officer
for the correctional system testified he had no problem
eliminating the phrase "due to irreversible dementia."
Based on his testimony, the House State Affairs Committee
eliminated the phrase.
DR. JOHN ROBERTSON, Medical Director and Health Services
Administrator for the Department of Corrections, advised
the inmates selected for medical parole would be likely to
live less than a year. Although there has been mention of
cost shifting, all ways have not been addressed. For
instance, some inmates would qualify for veteran benefits
if they were out of the state system. While this
legislation would give the department and the parole board
more flexibility, each applicant would be carefully
scrutinized and wouldn't be considered for medical parole
without adequate discharge planning.
SENATOR HOFFMAN asked what he estimated the annual savings
to be if parolees lived between six months and a year after
parole.
DR. ROBERTSON admitted he assisted in drafting the numbers.
When he reviewed actual costs for the last three years he
found the state spent from $20,000 to $500,000 depending on
the medical condition. Statistically medical expenses are
the greatest at the end stage of life and it isn't uncommon
to accrue a $200,000 bill in the last two weeks of life.
Another cost to the department that isn't reflected in the
numbers is that while the inmate is institutionalized there
are associated officer costs. For every day that someone is
in a hospital or nursing home rather than in the
correctional system there would be a salary savings for one
or two officers.
SIDE B
4:25 pm
ANNA FAIRCLOUGH from Anchorage expressed concern that
sexual assault offenders might be considered for medical
parole under SB 159. The proposal is particularly
indefensible with regard to those who committed offenses
against minors. She questioned whether any of the 13
inmates that might be eligible for medical parole had
sexually assaulted a minor.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS called Ms. Tupou forward to address the
question.
SENATOR DYSON asked Ms. Fairclough whether she heard the
response when he asked that question.
MS. FAIRCLOUGH replied she interpreted his question more
globally as confirmation that they were revoking the
inability to release sexual perpetrators. Her question
specifically asked whether there was a sexual perpetrator
in the group of thirteen under discussion.
MS. TUPOU replied one inmate was convicted of a sexual
offense of a minor.
MS. FAIRCLOUGH urged members to be aware that sexual
offenders are high repeaters and even though they are on
their death bed they might still present a danger because
they aren't "hard wired" the same. If they are exposed to
children or have any opportunity they will repeat the
offense. She supported a discharge plan and asked whether
there was a definition in state statute for corrections to
use for "severely medically disabled."
She asked Senator Dyson to pay particular attention to this
bill because it would be a step in the wrong direction to
allow a sex offender back on the street.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS remarked he was certain that was not the
intention of the department.
He asked Ms. Tupou to respond to the proposed amendments.
For discussion purposes he labeled the discharge plan
amendment #1 and the irreversible dementia amendment #2.
MS. TUPOU explained the sponsor has no specific problem
with either amendment. She opined amendment #1 is redundant
since the new regulations became effective on March 29,
2003.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS advised the bill would go to the Finance
Committee and he would be comfortable passing it along in
the present form giving the sponsor the opportunity to
address the amendments there.
SENATOR GUESS stated she would like to hear from the
Disability Law Center whether they were comfortable with
the new regulations. She added Ms. Tupou didn't speak to
amendment #2.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked Mr. Briggs to comment on adopting
the amendments or passing the bill in the present form with
the recommendation that the sponsor carefully review them
in the Finance Committee.
MR. BRIGGS had no problem passing the bill without the
amendments. That the new published regulations require
discharge planning, he would take as represented. Further,
the point that Dr. Robertson made that a medical officer be
charged to ensure there is appropriate continuity of
service is reasonable and makes his job easier.
There were no further questions.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked for a motion to move the bill
without amendments.
SENATOR DYSON made a motion to move SB 159 from committee
with attached fiscal notes with individual recommendations.
SENATOR GUESS added the points Ms. Fairclough made
regarding sex offenders were valid and she would appreciate
the sponsor's attention on the issue.
There being no objection, SB 159 moved from committee.
HB 2-CIVIL STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS/SEX OFFENSES
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MEYER, bill sponsor, explained this
was a cleanup bill and was brought to their attention by
the Revisor of Statutes. It clarifies which misdemeanors
and which felonies involving sexual assault and sexual
abuse of a minor should have a three year civil statute of
limitations and which should have no statute of
limitations. In the original bill, HB 210, his intent was
to drop the criminal statute of limitations for felony
sexual assault and sexual abuse of a minor. The bill was
amended on the floor to include the civil statute of
limitations as well. Inadvertently, the amendment didn't
reference felony sexual abuse of a minor and felony sexual
assault to any particular sections of the criminal code so
it was uncertain which felonies were intended. Because the
amendment didn't make any provision for misdemeanors, all
the misdemeanors dropped from three years to two years.
The crimes that were inadvertently changed were misdemeanor
sexual assault, misdemeanor sexual abuse of a minor,
incest, felony indecent exposure, and unlawful exploitation
of a minor. Prior to the floor amendment the statute of
limitations for these crimes was three years. In addition,
unlawful exploitation of a minor, which is a class B
felony, would have no statute of limitations.
The bill has a retroactive clause because they didn't
intend for the indirect change that occurred.
SENATOR FRED DYSON assumed the Department of Law, the
Attorney General and the Department of Public Safety agreed
with the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYERS assured him that was correct. Ms.
Finley would ordinarily have been present as Revisor of
Statutes, but she had another commitment.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked for a motion.
SENATOR DYSON made a motion to move CSHB 2 (JUD) from
committee with individual recommendations and attached zero
fiscal notes.
SB 22-CRIME VICTIMS' COMP.:SEXUAL ABUSE/ASSAULT
SENATOR GRETCHEN GUESS, bill sponsor, paraphrased from the
sponsor statement:
When the state established Victims' Compensation
Board over 20 years age, it ensured the victim's
role in the crime would be considered. For
example, if someone started a bar brawl and was
hurt, their case could be denied by the Victims'
Compensation Board.
The unintended consequence of this language was
child abuse and sexual assault victims could be
denied funding if the board found them to have
contributed to the circumstances of the crime.
For example, a victim of sexual assault could be
denied because they were drinking the night of
their sexual assault.
Implying a victim of sexual assault somehow
deserved or played a role in being victimized is
in direct opposition to what we believe as a
community - a victim of child abuse of sexual
assault has not done anything to bring the crime
on him or herself.
Toward fixing this unintended consequence, the
language of this bill does the following:
· Ensures compensation is not denied based on
considerations of provocation, the use of
alcohol or drugs, or the prior social
history of the victim.
· Retains the current language for
compensation criteria for all other crimes
The victim's compensation board is funded 60
percent by state government and 40 percent
by federal government. The 60 percent from
the state government comes from garnishing
felon's permanent fund dividend checks.
Given the nature of the funding mechanism,
the fiscal note from the Department of
Public Safety will be zero.
There were no questions.
LAURIE HUGONIN, Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and
Sexual Assault representative, testified in support of SB
22 and read the following into the record:
We wish the day would have long come and gone
when victims of sexual assault were routinely
questioned or somehow made to feel guilty because
of the clothes they chose to wear or the fact
that they may have had a drink or that there may
be something in their past they wish they had
done differently. None of those things cause
perpetrators to commit the crime of sexual
assault or contribute to the crime.
Unfortunately, the Violent Crimes Compensation
Board still has similar items listed as things to
be considered when determining whether or not to
grant compensation to victims of sexual assault
or sexual abuse of a minor. It's difficult enough
to come forward as a victim of sexual assault and
try to find some approximate justice. Victim's
journeys are made more difficult when parts of
the system rely on myths to respond to these
crimes. The bill helps stop that practice of
victim blaming and we thank you for your work to
help increase the availability of justice to
these victims.
SENATOR JOHN COWDERY asked how many requests for
compensation had been rejected because of the victim's
actions regarding drug use.
SENATOR GUESS replied last year the total number denied for
any reason was about six.
MS. HUGONIN didn't know the specific number, but
anecdotally two or three a year come to their attention as
problematic.
SENATOR COWDERY asked what the typical award amounted to.
SENATOR GUESS said it's based on the costs incurred by the
victim. All the funds for violent crimes come from
Permanent Fund Dividends.
SENATOR FRED DYSON announced he has knowledge and a
conflict of interest because his wife is a marriage and
family counselor and a significant number of her clients
are sexual assault or sexual abuse victims and a few of
them are compensated through this program.
ANNA FAIRCLOUGH, Executive Director of STAR (Standing
Together Against Rape), testified in support of SB 22. Rape
is an act of violence perpetrated against a person's body,
soul, and personal identity. No one, no matter what his or
her personal history deserves to bear that. When a minor is
victimized sexually they need to be shown that the
perpetrator is the one responsible for the crime and not
the victim.
She emphasized that if one victim is denied compensation,
it is one victim too many. Several times a year they see
victims that have been revictimized and because alcohol was
involved in the crime they were denied compensation. She
stressed, "It is the perpetrator's fault it is the
perpetrator's crime and they need to be convicted and we
need to help these victims."
Winifred Kelly, from the Tundra Women Center in Bethel
testified in support of SB 22. Victims shouldn't be
discriminated against based on their history or use of
alcohol or drugs. A violent crime is a violent crime.
Two other testifiers had to leave before they were able to
give testimony.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked for a motion to move the bill.
SENATOR COWDERY made a motion and asked for unanimous
consent to move SB 22 from committee with the attached
fiscal note. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
SB 158-MOVE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE COUNCIL TO DHSS
CHAIR GARY STEVENS announced the sponsor, Senator Ben
Stevens, asked that the bill be moved to the Health
Education and Social Services Committee. His intention is
to hold it there this year for further study.
SENATOR JOHN COWDERY made a motion to move SB 158 from
committee.
SENATOR GRETCHEN GUESS objected. She said Senator Dyson
[HESS Chair] assured her there would be some good
productive conversation in the community, but at this time
she doesn't agree with the bill so an objection is in
order. She elaborated:
We've been talking a lot about sexual assault and
we have one more bill on it. It is a crime and to
those of us in the community, we believe it is
appropriate in Public Safety because it is not a
health issue. It's a public safety issue.
SENATOR DYSON clarified he did not intend to address the
bill [in the HESS Committee] this year, but he didn't mean
to infer that there might not be some action next session.
He's committed to work on the bill during the interim to
determine the best direction.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked for a roll call. The objection
failed with Senators Dyson, Cowdery, Hoffman and Chair Gary
Stevens voting yea and Senator Guess voting nay.
SB 158 moved from committee.
SB 85-REPEAT SERIOUS SEX OFFENSES
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked Senator French to introduce the
bill.
SENATOR HOLLIS FRENCH, bill sponsor, paraphrased from the
sponsor statement:
CS SB 85 has two purposes: first, to increase the
penalties for repeat sex offenders and, second,
to add repeat sexual offenders to the list of
those who are not eligible to earn a "good time"
reduction of their terms.
SB 85 is designed to treat repeat sex offenders
differently from other repeat felons. Research
has shown that sexual offenders are not like
other offenders. As noted in a National Institute
of Justice (NIJ) research report on managing
adult sex offenders, sex crimes flourish in
secrecy. Many offenders are otherwise highly
functioning and use their social skills to commit
their crimes and to manipulate both victims and
criminal justice officials. Offenders are often
very accomplished at presenting a façade designed
to hide the truth about themselves. Many sex
offenders commit a wide range and large number of
sexually deviant acts during their lives and show
a continued propensity to offend. The NIJ study
concludes that adult offenders who commit sex
crimes should be managed, treated, and supervised
differently from other criminals.
Current statutory guidelines in Alaska, however,
treat all two-time felons as though they were the
same, that is, all prior felony convictions are
given equal weight when an individual is
sentenced on a new offense. For example, a judge
sentencing a person convicted of a second forgery
or a second sexual offense has to operate under
the same sentencing guidelines. SB 85 establishes
a separate, and more stringent, set of sentencing
guidelines for those who commit second or
subsequent sexual offenses or commit a sexual
felony after a prior felony conviction.
The other proposed change in the law in CSSB 85
is to add repeat sexual offenders to the list of
those who are not eligible to earn "good time" or
a reduction in their prison terms for good
behavior. Under current law, most prisoners,
including sexual offenders, can earn a one-third
reduction of their sentences for good behavior.
CS SB 85 would require repeat sexual offenders to
serve the full length of their sentences; they
would not be eligible for parole.
By increasing sentences for repeat sexual
offenses and actual time served for these
offenses. SB 85 will help to protect Alaska's
women and children from some of the most heinous
crimes against them, sexual felonies.
He asked members to review attachment A that outlines
current and proposed sentencing guidelines for repeat sex
offenders.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked for a motion to adopt the
committee substitute (CS) as the working document.
SENATOR JOHN COWDERY made a motion to adopt CSSB 85 \S
version as the working document. There was no objection.
SENATOR COWDERY asked how this might impact the prison
system budget.
SENATOR FRENCH replied the Department of Law assigned a
zero fiscal note to the bill. The department does not
expect a large increase in costs as a result of this bill
because these offenders return to prison on a very regular
basis anyway. Sex offenders are known to be repeat
offenders.
SENATOR COWDERY asked if there was a typical age for sex
offenders. He said he knew Senator French had a background
in this area.
SENATOR FRENCH replied he spent one year prosecuting
nothing but sex crimes and there is no typical age for a
sex offender; they run the gamut from young to old.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked if the department had any
comments.
PORTIA PARKER from the Department of Corrections reported
they worked with the Department of Law to prepare the
fiscal note. They researched recidivism for sex offenders
in the correction system and of the current population of
727 sex offenders 80 percent have been through the system
at least once before. Of that 80 percent, 52 percent have
been incarcerated with the Department of Corrections ten
and more times. This accounts for a huge cost to the entire
criminal justice system in terms of trooper, police,
prosecutor and court system time. Leaving these violators
in prison could in fact result in a cost savings to the
entire system.
SENATOR COWDERY asked if repeat offenders go through the
system in the same way as a first time offender.
SENATOR FRENCH explained any new offense requires a new
trial for a finding of guilt.
SENATOR FRED DYSON made a motion to move CSSB 85 (STA) from
committee.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked if anyone that signed up to
testify via teleconference had objection with the bill.
LINDA WILSON, Deputy Director of the Alaska Public Defender
Agency testified in opposition to SB 85. She commended the
sponsor for wanting to address the problem but thought the
bill was "too much of a response." The increase in
presumptive sentences and maximum sentences and the denial
of good time is beyond what is necessary and would treat
sex offenders differently than other offenders.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS advised the bill would move to the
Judiciary Committee next and she would have an opportunity
to speak there.
SENATOR GUESS commented Ms. Wilson's concerns were good
issues for the Judiciary Committee to address. She then
made a motion to move SB 85 from committee with individual
recommendations and attached fiscal note. There being no
objection, it was so ordered.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS adjourned the Senate State Affairs
Committee meeting at 5:00 pm.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|