03/01/1994 09:10 AM Senate FIN

                                                                               
  SB  24 EXTEND MAXIMUM PERIOD OF PROBATION                                    
                                                                               
  Co-chair Drue Pearce directed  that SB 24 be brought  on for                 
  discussion.     SENATOR   DAVE   DONLEY,   sponsor  of   the                 
                                                                               
                                                                               
  legislation, came before  committee.  He explained  that the                 
  bill   reflects  a   recommendation   from  the   sentencing                 
  commission.   It is  also part of  the Governor's anti-crime                 
  package.  It  extends the available  period of probation  in                 
  criminal matters from five to ten years.  Once an individual                 
  leaves a correctional facility, there  is currently no means                 
  of  supervising  him  or  her  for  more  than  five  years.                 
  Evidence  indicates  that  the recidivism  rate  for certain                 
  crimes (sex offenses were noted as an example) is reduced by                 
  a longer period  of probation.  While treatment programs for                 
  rehabilitation  of  sex  offenders  have  not proven  to  be                 
  effective,   longer  term   supervision  tends   to  prevent                 
  recidivism.  The proposed bill represents a tool that  could                 
  be  used  by  the criminal  justice  system  to  protect the                 
  public.                                                                      
                                                                               
  Senator Donley noted  that since  fiscal impact would  occur                 
  five  years hence, fiscal  notes are zero.   He acknowledged                 
  that the change in law could  result in costs as individuals                 
  are  placed on  longer periods  of probation.   Those  costs                 
  could  be  negated  by judges  who  elect,  in non-mandatory                 
  sentencing cases, to  utilize a longer period  of supervised                 
  probation in the community rather than longer sentences.                     
                                                                               
  The proposed bill passed the House  in the last legislature,                 
  but died in Rules without coming to a floor vote.  There has                 
  been no expressed opposition to the bill.                                    
                                                                               
  (Senators Sharp and Jacko arrived at this time.)                             
                                                                               
  Senator Rieger  inquired concerning  the difference  between                 
  probation  and parole.    MARGOT KNUTH,  Assistant  Attorney                 
  General,  Criminal  Division,  Dept. of  Law,  briefly  came                 
  before committee in  response to  the question but  deferred                 
  comment  to staff  from  the Dept.  of  Corrections.   DIANE                 
  SCHENKER, Special Assistant, Dept. of Corrections, explained                 
  that  in  Alaska  probation/parole  officers supervise  both                 
  probation and  parole.   Supervision is  thus similar.   The                 
  parole  board  sets  the conditions  of  supervision  for an                 
  individual on parole.   Conditions are individually tailored                 
  to the offender.   For someone on probation, the  court sets                 
  the conditions at sentencing.   Neither parole nor probation                 
  has an inherently higher level of supervision.                               
                                                                               
  Discussion followed between Senator  Rieger and Ms. Schenker                 
  regarding the role of presumptive sentencing.                                
                                                                               
  Senator  Sharp  referenced  comments  from  parole/probation                 
  officers that parole is  not revoked for two and  three time                 
  felony  offenders  while  they  are  awaiting trial  on  yet                 
  another charge.   Ms. Schenker advised that  the court makes                 
  the decision as to whether or not probation is revoked.  The                 
  department  may  file  petitions  to  revoke  based  on  the                 
  offender's behavior.   Due to over crowding,  the department                 
                                                                               
                                                                               
  attempts  to  use  every  alternative   other  than  a  full                 
  revocation and return to incarceration.                                      
                                                                               
  Further discussion  followed between Senator  Sharp and  Ms.                 
  Schenker  regarding actions  that can  be taken by  a parole                 
  officer when an  offender commits an additional  crime while                 
  on parole or  probation.  Ms.  Schenker reiterated that  any                 
  action is subject to court review.                                           
                                                                               
  Senator  Donley stressed  that  the  probationary or  parole                 
  period is  when financial  restitution is  made to  victims.                 
  Since  monthly restitution  payments  are  often small,  the                 
  current five-years  are often are not sufficient  to pay the                 
  debt in full.                                                                
                                                                               
  Discussion  followed  between   Senator  Kerttula  and   Ms.                 
  Schenker  regarding  the  "burn   out"  rate  for  probation                 
  officers  and department  replacement  needs.   Speaking  to                 
  costs of the proposed bill, Ms. Schenker voiced inability to                 
  estimate the impact.   It is difficult to estimate  how many                 
  cases might result in probation  for ten years. She  advised                 
  that the department could reduce the  fiscal note to zero if                 
  the extended period of probation would be unsupervised.  She                 
  indicated  that,  at  the  present  time, an  individual  on                 
  probation for five years is generally not supervised for the                 
  full  five  years.   After  one,  two, or  three  years, the                 
  individual is  either going  to make  it, or  he or she  has                 
  violated parole and  been returned  to jail.   Misdemeanants                 
  are always placed  on unsupervised probation.   Ms. Schenker                 
  voiced department concern that it may incur  liability if it                 
  does not  supervise offenders during the last  five years of                 
  ten-year  probation.   Senator  Kerttula attested  to future                 
  need  for  additional  probation/parole officers.    Senator                 
  Jacko concurred in concern for fiscal implications resulting                 
  from the extension.   Ms. Schenker attested  to difficulties                 
  associated with attempting  to estimate  the cost.   Senator                 
  Donley noted that nothing  in the bill compels a  high level                 
  of supervision.   It  will be  up to  the judge  to make  an                 
  assessment for each case.  Ms. Schenker again voiced concern                 
  that  the  department  may  incur  additional  liability  if                 
  statutes  do  not  clarify  that   the  extended  period  is                 
  unsupervised.  If that is not clear, the department would be                 
  "hard pressed" to "make it unsupervised."                                    
                                                                               
  Senator Sharp voiced  concern regarding  what appears to  be                 
  broad application of  the extension at the discretion of the                 
  judge.     Senator  Donley  noted  that   current  statutory                 
  provisions  require five  years probation/parole  for "every                 
  kind of crime . .  . ."  He stressed that  the proposed bill                 
  would be  an effective tool  and one  of the only  tools for                 
  diminishing recidivism of sex offenders.                                     
                                                                               
  Co-chair Pearce called for additional testimony on the bill.                 
  None was forthcoming.  Senator Kerttula MOVED for passage of                 
                                                                               
                                                                               
  SB 24 with individual recommendations.   No objection having                 
  been raised, SB  24 was  REPORTED OUT of  committee with  an                 
  indeterminate fiscal note from the  Dept. of Corrections and                 
  zero notes from  the Dept. of  Public Safety, Dept. of  Law,                 
  and Court System.   Co-chairs Pearce and Frank and  Senators                 
  Kerttula and Rieger  signed the committee report  with a "do                 
  pass" recommendation.   Senators Jacko and Kelly  signed "no                 
  recommendation." Senator Sharp signed "do not pass."