Legislature(2019 - 2020)SENATE FINANCE 532
05/03/2019 09:00 AM 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 | |
| SB19 | |
| SB34 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 19 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 34 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SENATE BILL NO. 34
"An Act relating to probation; relating to a program
allowing probationers to earn credits for complying
with the conditions of probation; relating to early
termination of probation; relating to parole; relating
to a program allowing parolees to earn credits for
complying with the conditions of parole; relating to
early termination of parole; relating to eligibility
for discretionary parole; relating to good time; and
providing for an effective date."
9:50:51 AM
Co-Chair von Imhof stated that the committee's intent was
to hear an overview of the bill. She noted that public
testimony would be taken on all crime bills at the 1:30 pm
meeting.
JOHN SKIDMORE, DIRECTOR, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF
LAW, addressed the bill. He informed the committee that the
bill focused on probation and parole and would highlight
how balance was returned to the criminal justice system to
ensure that the sanctions that were imposed were
appropriate. He said that he would discuss the ability for
someone to end their probation early, as well as who was
eligible for discretionary parole. He relayed that these
issues were important because when someone was placed on
parole the courts had already found that that person was
guilty of a crime, these were the efforts to keep
individuals in compliance with the law as they returned to
society. He spoke to the sections of the bill:
Section 1 Eliminates language related to caps on
technical violations of probation under AS 12.55.110.
Section 2 Eliminates language related to caps on
technical violations of probation under AS 12.55.110.
Mr. Skidmore stated that when someone was placed on
probation the court sets conditions on them: dont consume
alcohol, report to your probation officer, dont have
contact with certain people, maintain employment, and other
conditions set in probation. He said that when someone
violated those conditions, they needed to face the
consequences. He said that technical caps had been
implemented in order to limit the amount of time that could
be imposed as a penalty, modeled after the Probation
Accountability with Certain Enforcement (PACE) program that
supported swift and certain sanctions. He lamented that the
caps had not worked as hoped; people would be released
before hearings occurred and then go on to commit further
violations. Without the hearing, violations that happened
subsequent to release but prior to a hearing, would not
carry proper weight for accountability. He lamented that
people were not being held accountable for their crimes.
9:55:00 AM
Senator Wielechowski asked whether the department agreed
that had the system worked properly, it would have been
retained. He asked whether there was a way to fix the
problem rather than abandon caps altogether.
Mr. Skidmore stated that the program was resource intensive
and successful only when applied to a small number of
people. He did not believe that the program could be
resourced to the point where it could work on the statewide
level. He added that the PACE program would still exist for
certain offenses, selected by the courts, but would not be
applied uniformly for all probationers across the state.
9:56:38 AM
Mr. Skidmore addressed Section 3:
Section 3 Makes the recommendation of a probation
officer for early termination of probation permissive
and at the discretion of the probation officer. Also
eliminates the timeline for when such a recommendation
must be made. Maintains requirement that the
probationer is in compliance with their conditions of
probation and has completed all of the required
treatment programs. Also maintains the prohibition on
unclassified felony, sexual felony, and domestic
violence offenders from being recommended for early
termination.
Mr. Skidmore claimed that recent criminal justice reform
had taken discretion away from probation officers. He said
that the bill would rectify the issue.
9:58:11 AM
Mr. Skidmore spoke to Section 4 and Section 5:
Section 4 Allows a person to obtain a driver's license
if they have been convicted of felony driving while
under the influence and has not also been convicted of
a crime against a person, if the license has been
revoked for 10 years and in the preceding 10 years the
person has not been convicted of a driving related
criminal offense or a felony.
Section 5 Allows a person to obtain a driver's license
if they have been convicted of felony refusal to
submit to a chemical test and has not also been
convicted of a crime against a person, if the license
has been revoked for 10 years and in the preceding 10
years the person has not been convicted of a driving
related criminal offense or a felony.
Mr. Skidmore said that the sections would allow for a path
for a person to get their driver license back. He noted
that the administration supported the sections.
9:59:20 AM
Mr. Skidmore discussed Sections 6 and 7:
Section 6 Reduces amount of time that a probationer
may decrease their length of probation for good
behavior to 1/3. Also requires the credit to be
awarded up front similar to statutory good time for
prisoners.
Section 7 Prohibits those convicted of a sex offense,
unclassified felony, felony crime against a person,
and domestic violence crime against a person from
earning credit against their period of probation.
Mr. Skidmore lamented that under the current law the 1/1
ratio was significant when combined with other changes made
to probation by past reform efforts, additionally, the way
that the earned compliance credits were currently written
into statute had resulted in significant litigation that
occurred in time accounting.
10:01:14 AM
Mr. Skidmore addressed Section 8 of the bill:
Section 8 Amends duties of a probation officer to
require that a probation officer consider recommending
early termination of probation. Also eliminates the
requirement to use administrative sanctions before
filing a petition to revoke.
Mr. Skidmore said that the section made clear under the law
that the recommendation from a probation officer was
supported and authorized under the law.
10:02:42 AM
Senator Wielechowski thought Section 8 seemed to be counter
to the department's philosophy. He thought that the
elimination of administrative sanctions limited responses
to positive or negative behavior.
Mr. Skidmore stated that the issue was still under
discussion within the department.
Senator Wielechowski asked about the possibility of giving
probation officers the ability to impose administrative
sanctions without having to go to a judge.
Mr. Skidmore did not think there would be an objection to
give parole and probation officers the ability to impose
administrative sanctions. He noted that the bill simply
removed the requirement. He thought that the department
could support probation officers using their own
discretion.
10:04:17 AM
Co-Chair von Imhof let the committee know that Jeff
Edwards, Director of the Parole Board, would be available
for questions.
10:04:30 AM
Mr. Skidmore discussed Sections 9 through 15:
Section 9 Requires an application for discretionary
parole to be submitted to the parole board before a
person can be considered for discretionary parole.
Section 10 Clarifies that a person who is ineligible
for a good time deduction from their sentence is also
ineligible for discretionary parole. Also, prohibits
certain crimes from being considered for discretionary
parole. These are the same crimes that were ineligible
for discretionary parole prior to January 1, 2017:
.notdef Non-sex class A felonies (Robbery 1, Assault 1,
Arson 1);
.notdef B felonies if the person had one or more prior
felony convictions;
.notdef C felonies if the person had two or more prior
felony convictions; and
.notdef B and C sex felonies (Sexual Assault 2, Sexual
Abuse of a Minor 2, Distribution of Child
Pornography).
Section 11 Raises the amount of time a person
sentenced for an unclassified offense (murder,
kidnapping) before they are eligible for discretionary
parole from one-third to one-half of the active term
of imprisonment or the mandatory minimum whichever is
greater. Also requires persons convicted of B felony
level drug distribution to serve one-half of the
active term of imprisonment before they can be
considered for discretionary parole.
Section 12 Eliminates a presumption of release and
thereby returns discretion back to the parole board
when determining release on discretionary parole.
Section 13 Allows the parole board to make a person,
who does not meet the factors in section 10,
ineligible for further consideration of discretionary
parole or to have the person serve additional time
before they can be considered again for discretionary
parole.
Section 14 Conforming language regarding the
requirement that a person fill out an application for
discretionary parole.
Section 15 Outlines application process for
discretionary parole. Ensures that the prisoner is
furnished with a copy of the prepare report.
Mr. Skidmore grouped them together as the sections
pertained to discretionary parole. He stated that criminal
justice reform had affected discretionary parole in several
ways. First, the crimes that were eligible to be considered
for discretionary parole were expanded. When a person was
sentenced by the courts, there was mandatory or
discretionary parole. Discretionary parole was not
automatic but at the discretion of the parole board. He
referenced the movie "Shawshank Redemption." He shared that
mandatory parole meant that a person had been released on
parole because they had behaved while in custody. He said
that mandatory parole was used for population management.
He reiterated that here had been restrictions on the people
eligible to apply for discretionary parole, which was
expanded through criminal justice reform. Secondly, the way
in which the Parole Board exercised discretion was altered;
under criminal justice reform, when an individual reached a
certain period of incarceration, and application was no
longer necessary, and parole was an automatic
consideration. Thirdly, the Parole Board was directed to
presume that everyone that reached a certain date of
incarceration should be released unless there was clear and
convincing evidence that they were a danger to society.
10:08:01 AM
Mr. Skidmore summarized that all these issues would be
resolved by the legislation be returning them to where they
had been before the reform legislation.
10:08:21 AM
Mr. Skidmore noted that there were additional things that
changed in the bill in other committees. He highlighted
Section 11, which discussed discretionary parole. He
pointed to Section 7, which identified certain crimes that
had different parameters for discretionary parole
eligibility.
10:09:21 AM
Co-Chair Stedman had some concerns with the issue of
discretionary parole. He wondered about discretionary
parole for people convicted of murder.
JEFF EDWARDS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA BOARD OF PAROLE,
ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), addressed Co-Chair
Stedman's question. He stated that the change meant that
before any inmate convicted of a classified crime was
eligible to appear before the board, they had to serve half
of their prison term.
Co-Chair Stedman asked how many individuals were
incarcerated for the crime of murder that would be subject
to the change proposed in the bill. He asked how often
discretionary parole was granted to murderers.
Mr. Edwards did not have the information available. He
recalled that individuals convicted of murder, that had
been considered for early release, had been found to have
served at least half of their sentence.
10:11:51 AM
Co-Chair Stedman maintained his concern for early release
of murderers. He referenced a notorious criminal that could
have been considered a nice guy. He asked how a first-
degree murderer could ever be qualified good time or
mandatory parole.
Mr. Edwards thought Mr. Skidmore had accurately
differentiate between discretionary and mandatory parole.
The average murder in the first-degree sentence was around
80 years. Under mandatory release, the inmate would be
released after serving two-thirds of the sentence; under
the current law they could be eligible after serving only
one-third, the legislation changed that to one-half. He
said that under the statutory good time clause, every
eligible inmate shall receive good time for good behavior
while in prison.
10:13:55 AM
Co-Chair Stedman asked about Second Degree murder charges
and eligibility for discretionary parole. He asked about
the different charges for murder.
Mr. Skidmore noted that the categories for murder were
murder in the first degree, murder in the second degree,
manslaughter, and criminally negligent homicide.
Co-Chair Stedman asked to concentrate on second degree
murder.
Mr. Edwards replied that concepts were the same. Under
Section 11 of the bill, the required time served was
increased to one-half of time served. He noted that the
mandatory parole did not change in SB 34, only the
eligibility to apple for discretionary parole. He found the
average sentence length for murder in the second degree was
40 years; under current law, the person would be eligible
for mandated release after serving two-thirds of the 40.
The maximum sentence for murder in the second degree was 99
years.
10:16:01 AM
Co-Chair Stedman presumed that 40 years was the average for
second degree murder, with eligibility for discretionary
parole after 20 years, mandatory after 26 years, with good
time.
Mr. Edwards replied in the affirmative.
Co-Chair Stedman thought that releasing a murderer early
for good behavior was problematic, particularly for the
families of victims. He thought that tighter requirements
for parole should be considered.
10:17:37 AM
Senator Wielechowski was curious about recidivism rates for
those released on parole. He had seen charts that showed
the age at which people committed crimes. He thought the
age peaked in the 20s and then decreased. He was interested
in the cost of keeping elderly inmates in jail.
10:18:57 AM
Senator Micciche asked about unclassified crimes and
discretionary parole eligibility.
Mr. Skidmore stated that previous criminal justice reform
had expanded the categories of those that were eligible for
discretionary parole. He said that the intent of SB 34 was
to revert to what the law said prior to SB 91. He stressed
that the legislature had the power to adjust the
eligibility crimes within the bill.
10:20:53 AM
Senator Micciche agreed with Co-Chair Stedman that all the
crimes removed from discretionary parole were serious
crimes, which he thought seemed counter to logic.
10:21:53 AM
Senator Hoffman followed up on Co-Chair Stedman's concerns.
He asked where the state stood on parole for first- and
second-degree murder.
Mr. Skidmore said he could provide the information later.
Senator Hoffman the requested the information could help in
comparing Alaska with other states.
Co-Chair von Imhof thought it was fair to give Mr. Skidmore
and the department some time to gather information. She
wanted to continue moving the bill forward. She stressed
that significant policy change needed to be discussed
within the next ten days.
10:23:40 AM
Senator Wilson pondered whether the state was too tough on
crime or not tough enough.
10:23:51 AM
Senator Wielechowski referenced Section 9. He had heard
that 40 percent to 50 percent of prisoners were
beneficiaries of the Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority
(AMHTA). He asked whether eligible people could be left
sitting in prison just because they failed to fill out an
application.
Mr. Skidmore thought the question was best addressed to the
department.
Mr. Edwards noted that there would be an assigned parole
officer to assist inmates in the completion of
applications. If a prisoner could not fill out their own
application, their assigned parole officer would help them
fill out the application.
10:25:41 AM
Co-Chair von Imhof understood that parole was a contentious
issue. She asked to return to the topic at another time and
continue discussion of the rest of the bill.
Co-Chair Stedman commented that he would like information
on what the federal penalties were for some of the topics
discussed.
10:26:55 AM
Senator Micciche considered toughness on crime and wondered
about what state had the worst results. He referenced FBI
data that put Alaska at 829 violent crimes per 100,000,
which was 7 times the lowest state of Maine and twice the
national average.
10:27:32 AM
Co-Chair von Imhof appreciated the robust discussion. She
thought Sections 9, 10, and 11 called for further
discussion in the future.
10:27:47 AM
Mr. Skidmore addressed Section 16:
Section 16 Gives a parole officer the discretion to
make a recommendation to the parole board that a
person's parole be terminated. Maintains requirement
that the probationer is in compliance with their
conditions of probation and has completed all of the
required treatment programs. Also maintains the
prohibition on unclassified felony, sexual felony, and
domestic violence offenders from being recommended for
early termination.
Mr. Skidmore discussed Section 17:
Section 17 Eliminates language referencing technical
violations of parole under AS 33.16.215.
Mr. Skidmore spoke to Section 18:
Section 18 Allows the parole board to toll time while
the parolee is in violation status. This is similar to
how probation works when a probationer is in violation
status. Under this provision, the parolee's parole
time will not continue to run while the parole
violation is under consideration by the parole board.
Mr. Skidmore highlighted Sections 19 and 20:
Section 19 Reduces amount of time that a parolee may
decrease their length of parole for good behavior to
1/3. Also requires the credit to be awarded up front
similar to statutory good time for prisoners.
Section 20 Prohibits those convicted of a sex offense,
unclassified felony, felony crime against a person,
and domestic violence crime against a person from
earning credit against their period of parole.
10:29:56 AM
Mr. Skidmore spoke to Section 21:
Section 21 Prohibits a person from earning good time
for time spent on electronic monitoring post-sentence.
He asserted that electronic monitoring was a different
scenario, and good time was not needed in the same way for
people in hard beds (in a facility) in order to
incentivize good behavior.
Mr. Skidmore discussed Section 22:
Section 22 Eliminates the requirement that the
Department of Corrections submit a report to the
Alaska Criminal Justice Commission regarding the
sanctions imposed under the administrative sanctions
program which is repealed in this bill.
10:31:14 AM
Mr. Skidmore addressed Section 23:
Section 23 Repealer section.
He stated that the section dealt with repealers in the
bill. There were several repealers that dealt with
technical caps and administrative sanctions.
Mr. Skidmore continued to Section 24:
Section 24 Requires the Department of Corrections to
develop a needs assessment of all rehabilitative
services for each institution, including education,
treatment, vocational education, secular and faith-
based, and pro-special program and report that
information to the legislature.
He felt that rehabilitative services should be discussed in
future policy concerning criminal reform.
10:32:33 AM
Senator Bishop appreciated Mr. Skidmore's comments about
Section 24. He relayed that he did not want to waste money.
10:33:12 AM
Mr. Skidmore addressed Section 25 and Section 26:
Section 25 Applicability.
Section 26 Effective date. This bill takes effect on
July 1, 2019.
He noted that any adjustments that were made in the
legislation would not apply to those currently
incarcerated.
10:34:08 AM
Senator Hoffman understood the people lost the PFD after
commission of certain crimes. He wanted a list of
provisions that would result in the loss of PFD
eligibility.
Mr. Skidmore stated that individuals sentenced to felonies
lost eligibility for the PFD. He believed that it would be
for every year that they were incarcerated.
Senator Hoffman understood that once an individual was a
felon, they lost their dividend for life.
Mr. Skidmore agreed to provide the information.
10:35:41 AM
Senator Micciche thought that changes to discretionary
parole would affect individuals that had already been
sentenced.
Mr. Skidmore stated that in the applicability section there
were five different subsections that indicated that the
subsections would apply to sentences imposed on or after
the effective date of the sections. The crime itself had to
be committed after the effective date of the bill.
10:37:58 AM
Co-Chair Stedman thought the bill was like a
constitutionally protected benefit plan. He understood that
sentences would not be changed but felt the legislature
would have no control over adjusting parole classifications
once an individual was sentenced.
Mr. Skidmore affirmed that ex post facto was a
Constitutional provision; punishment on an individual could
not be increased. He reiterated that the law could be
guidance as to how discretion should be exercised.
10:39:28 AM
Mr. Skidmore addressed FN 1 from Department of Law, OMB
Component 2202. The note was a zero-fiscal note.
10:40:59 AM
Co-Chair von Imhof noted that time was of the essence.
10:42:15 AM
Senator Wielechowski asked about the age distribution of
incarcerated individuals and asked about recidivism of
those on parole.
Mr. Edwards thought that the recidivism rate was
approximately 20 percent. He said in 2018 there were 27
inmates, between 61 and 80, who were discretionary parole
candidates; 328 inmates were between 18 and 30.
10:44:23 AM
Senator Wielechowski asked about the 80 percent success
rate with recidivism. He asked about the details of the 20
percent who recidivated.
Mr. Edwards noted that most violations were technical
violations: alcohol use, drug use, or failure to report to
a parole officer.
10:45:11 AM
Senator Bishop asked what could be done to get the
recidivism rate to 10 percent.
10:45:55 AM
Senator Shower expressed confusion with the 80 percent
success rate. He asserted that the recidivism rate was
higher. He was concerned that he was not receiving accurate
information concerning recidivism.
10:47:50 AM
Mr. Edwards affirmed that Senator Shower was correct in
that recidivism rates were currently higher. He revealed
that he had been quoting for discretionary parolees only.
The 80 percent was not reflective of the global inmate
population.
Senator Shower appreciated the clarity.
10:48:58 AM
Senator Wielechowski thought this was an important
distinction, since the bill contemplated changing the time
of which a prisoner might be eligible for discretionary
parole. He thought that if there was an 80 percent success
rate under current statute, with 20 percent recidivating
under benign technical violations, the result was fairly
successful. He was curious to see a breakdown of the
technical violations of the 20 percent recidivism for
discretionary parole, as well as a breakdown in the
violations for recidivism for those under mandatory parole.
Mr. Edwards offered to find Senator Wielechowski more data.
He shared that the mandatory release individuals had a much
higher recidivism rate. He reiterated that those people
were released under mandate and were not interviewed or
vetted before being released.
10:50:40 AM
Senator Micciche thought that information on recidivism for
those on discretionary parole should be broken down by type
of crime.
SB 34 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair von Imhof thought there was more discussion
needed. She reminded the committee that amendments could be
delivered to her office. She reiterated that public
testimony would be taken at the 1:30 pm meeting.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 19 Work Draft Version K.pdf |
SFIN 5/3/2019 9:00:00 AM |
SB 19 |
| SB 19 SCS Bill Total Multi-Year Agency Summary - Copy.pdf |
SFIN 5/3/2019 9:00:00 AM |
SB 19 |
| SB 19 Senate CS Sectional Analysis - K Version.docx |
SFIN 5/3/2019 9:00:00 AM |
SB 19 |