Legislature(2017 - 2018)SENATE FINANCE 532
03/28/2017 01:30 PM 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 | |
| SB54 || SB55 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 54 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 55 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 57 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SENATE BILL NO. 54
"An Act relating to crime and criminal law; relating
to violation of condition of release; relating to sex
trafficking; relating to sentencing; relating to
probation; relating to the pretrial services program;
and providing for an effective date."
SENATE BILL NO. 55
"An Act relating to criminal law and procedure;
relating to controlled substances; relating to
sentencing; relating to the period of probation;
relating to revocation, termination, suspension,
cancellation, or restoration of a driver's license;
relating to parole; relating to the duties of the
Department of Corrections and the Department of Health
and Social Services; and providing for an effective
date."
1:35:16 PM
GREGORY RAZO, CHAIRMAN, ALASKA CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMISSION,
ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), discussed the initial 21
recommendations, which formed the basis of the Omnibus
Crime Bill from the previous legislature [SB 91]. He said
that the recommendations had been consensus and evidence
based. He relayed that the recommendations that came out in
January 2017 had been fundamentally different from the
previous recommendations, which had led to
misunderstandings and consternation surrounding the
implementation of SB 91. He explained that SB 91 would not
be fully implemented until 2018, because of the substantial
part of corrections implementation that still needed to be
done. He said that the changes brought by the bill in
criminal law and sentencing had become the focus of law
enforcement, prosecution, and public concern. He noted the
substantial increase in misdemeanor crime that had
coincided with the implementation of the legislation. He
said that the recommendations that the commission had
established in December 2016 highlighted both technical
changes and changes based on requests from the Department
of Law and the Department of Public Safety. He shared that
the process had been challenging to find consensus.
1:41:35 PM
Mr. Razo explained that the current law provided that for
first time C felons, the court could impose probation with
a suspended term of imprisonment of 18 months. The
provision had been included in SB 91, because the
commission's research showed that prison time could
increase a low-level offender's likelihood to commit a
crime once released from prison. The commission had most
recently recommended that the presumptive term for first
time C felonies should be 0 to 90 days active time, which
was a recommendation that stemmed from community input
during public testimony. He noted that community
condemnation was one of the proper objectives of sentencing
under Tidal 12 of the Alaska State Statutes. He said that
the recent recommendation was anecdotally based, unlike the
original fact based recommendation in SB 91, and that the
ultimate result of the recommendation found in SB 54 was an
increase in the presumptive term, allowing a judge to
impose a term of imprisonment between 0 and 1 year.
1:43:47 PM
Co-Chair Hoffman requested clarification on the comment
that the recommendation that had not been evidence based.
Mr. Razo responded that the commission recommendations from
January 2017 that formed the basis of SB 54 had not been
based on the same type of data and research that had
originally formed the basis for SB 91. He added that the
2017 recommendations had not had consensus, but had been a
majority vote.
1:44:46 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon noted that the time allotted for public
testimony was 2 minutes, and that Mr. Razo had exceeded
that limit. She asked him to summarize his comments and
submit a written copy to the committee.
Mr. Razo agreed to the request. He concluded that the other
important change reflected in SB 54 was the changes in
theft in the fourth degree. He stated that current law
provided that an offender may not be sentenced to jail for
the first or second conviction for theft in the fourth
degree, although fines and restitution could still be
imposed. The third conviction carried a maximum term of 5
days in jail, with 6 months of probation. The provision in
SB 91 stemmed from the commission's research that prison
time could have a criminogenic effect on low-level
offenders. The commission had recommended that for third-
time theft 4 offenders the penalty should be increased up
to 10 days in jail. He said that SB 54 went beyond the
recommendations to provide that the first conviction for
theft in the fourth degree may be punishable up to 5 days
suspended, with 6 months of probation; the second
conviction may be punishable by 5 days active time, with 6
months of probation; the provision for a third time
offender was the same as the commission recommendation of
10 days. He asked that the legislature clarify in the bill
language regarding probation terms for sex offenders.
Presently, SB 54 would mandate a 15 year minimum term of
probation and current law stated that a maximum term was 15
years of probation for sex offenders. He stressed that the
evidence that supported SB 54 was different in kind that
the evidence that supported SB 91, and that the changes in
sentencing were no of the same consensus as in SB 91.
1:47:55 PM
Co-Chair Hoffman remarked that the changes currently in SB
54, regarding the C felonies and theft in the fourth
degree, were not supported by evidence and that there was
no evidence to suggest that the evidence based reform in SB
91 was not working.
Mr. Razo replied that there had not been enough time to
gather data that would underlay the SB 91 recommendations.
He stressed that SB 91 had not been fully implemented, and
it had only been 8 months sing the bill had become law.
1:49:09 PM
JOHN SKIDMORE, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, CRIMINAL DIVISION,
testified that the commission had worked to find a balance
in the criminal justice system. He stated that the
commission's initial task had been to find ways to reduce
recidivism, which they had attempted to do by giving
judge's discretion in several areas that the commission had
thought had been restricted by SB 91, more than was helpful
or appropriate to ensure public safety. He spoke of Class C
felonies, and clarified that there had been two proposals
presented on the matter, one limited jail time from 0 to 90
days, and the other was for 0 to one year. He said that the
people who voted against the 90 days were voting for the
one year. He believed that previous testimony that the
commission had failed to reach consensus on the matter
neglected to take into consideration all of the votes that
occurred at that particular commission meeting. He relayed
that disagreement lay in the amount of time should be
imposed for Class C felonies, which was a policy issue that
should be decided by the legislature. He believed that the
legislature should dictate to the courts how much
discretion should be extended to judges when determining
sentencing. He agreed that the current position in SB 54
went beyond the recommendations of the commission. He said
that the commission had recommended that active jail time
of 10 days be associated with a third theft in the fourth
degree conviction. He said that SB 54 went beyond that,
which was not what DPS or LAW had initially recommended to
the commission, nor had they advocated for such action at
any time. He stressed that the underlying theory for the
commission had been that putting people in jail triggered a
criminogenic effect on people; if you put people in jail
they would be more likely to commit a crime in the future.
He believed that this theory was valuable to take into
consideration. He added that once a person was committing
their second or third offense, the notion that the jail
time was the criminogenic effect no longer carried as much
weight because the person continued to commit crimes
regardless of whether they were placed in jail or not.
Mr. Skidmore spoke to the issue of sex offender probation.
He relayed that the recommendations had been to return to a
provision in law prior to 1991, which required mandatory
probation for sex offenders and set out the timeframes. He
furthered that the timeframes had been evidence based
gathered by DOC and multiple studies. He related that the
evidence had indicated that having a person complete sex
offender treatment, and having them on probation for that
period of time, reduced recidivism. He noted that the
mandatory probation under SB 91 was subject to earned
compliance credits, which meant that probation could be cut
in half. He warned that adopting provisions different than
what was currently in SB 54 would give individuals the
potential to reduce their period of probation by 50
percent.
1:54:25 PM
Senator Micciche queried the types of crimes that were
categorized under Class C felony.
Mr. Skidmore responded that Class C felony offenses were a
broad category of crime. He listed assault in the third
degree, burglary in the second degree, vehicle theft, theft
between $1000 and $25,000, criminal mischief, possession of
child pornography, terroristic threatening in the second
degree, stalking in the first degree, riot, hindering
prosecution, promoting contraband, harming a police dog,
tampering with evidence, distribution of narcotics, as a
sampling of the types of crimes that fell under Class C
felony. He believed that there were over 60 Class C
felonies.
1:55:50 PM
Senator von Imhof understood that the commission supported
the changes in SB 54 in regard to theft in the fourth
degree and mandatory probation for sex offenders.
Mr. Skidmore responded that DPS and LAW had recommended
that the commission consider up to a year of possible jail
time for Class C felonies, which had not been the
commission's ultimate recommendation. He furthered that DPS
and LAW had recommended that the third conviction of theft
in the fourth degree should result in jail time, SB 54
proposed the possibility of jail on the second conviction
as well as the third. He reiterated that the policy issue
would be left up to the legislature. He stated that the
provision of mandatory probation for sex offences found in
SB 54 were the same as what had previously been in law
under AS 12.55.125, subsection O.
1:57:59 PM
Co-Chair Hoffman asked whether the position of LAW had
altered since the passage of SB 91.
Mr. Skidmore asked for clarification on which position Co-
Chair Hoffman was probing.
1:59:38 PM
Co-Chair Hoffman wondered whether the department's position
the issues brought up by Senator von Imhof had already been
established prior to the debate on SB 91.
Mr. Skidmore replied that due to the breadth of the
legislation the department had not realized that the
probation of sex offenders was being repealed until the
debate had neared its end. He revealed that the department
had though the revision had been an oversight. He stressed
that the department's position never shifted. He said that
the department had concerns about Class C felonies and
theft in the fourth degree, but had remained silent with
their recommendation in order to give the legislation time
to work. He stated that the last 9 months had offered
enough time for the department to observe that new
recommendations needed to be made.
2:00:10 PM
Senator Dunleavy requested clarification of the earned
compliance credits with regard to sex offender probation.
Mr. Skidmore responded that earned compliance credits were
a section of the bill that stated that for every 30 day
period that a probationer completed probation without a
violation, the period of probation would be reduced by the
same amount of time.
2:01:18 PM
Senator Dunleavy stated that the term "sex crime"
encompassed a variety of crimes. He wondered whether there
was a breakdown of the recidivism rates for specific
categories of sex crimes, and whether there was a
differentiation between different types of sex offenders,
in regard to the earned compliance credits.
Mr. Skidmore responded that there was no distinction for
the earned compliance credits, they applied to all felony
offenses.
2:02:24 PM
Senator Dunleavy asked whether there were any circumstances
for felony offenses that might be an exception to the rule
for compliance credit.
Mr. Skidmore said that there was no distinction between any
felony or the type of offense; when a person was sentenced
to probation and did 30 days without a violation then the
probation was reduced by 50 percent.
2:03:13 PM
Senator Dunleavy asked whether the bill would remove the
compliance credits.
Mr. Skidmore replied no. He added that even if the
legislature decided to re-impose the same mandatory
probation for sex offenses that existed prior to SB 91, the
probation would actually be a lower period of probation
when the earned compliance credits were considered.
2:03:57 PM
Senator Dunleavy directed committee attention to the Alaska
Justice Statistical Analysis Center Fact Sheet (copy on
file), which showed that there had been an uptick in crime
since 2013. He wondered whether something had happened in
2013 that had led to a rise in crime.
Mr. Skidmore stated that since 2013 the department had
observed an uptick in crime. He lamented that there were no
simple answers when it came to crime rates and that
multiple factors could influence them. He thought that an
educated guess about the cause of the steady rise in crime
was the combination of the opioid crisis and the fiscal
crisis that had led to the reduction of resources in law
enforcement and in prosecution. He noted that criminal
justice reform could also be a factor because whenever
significant changes were made in the effort for criminal
justice reform, it took time for the system to adjust.
2:05:42 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon hoped that Mr. Skidmore would be
available to the committee for further discussion
throughout the day.
Mr. Skidmore said he was available for the entire day and
would make himself available at the committee's request.
2:07:02 PM
QUINLAN STEINER, DIRECTOR, PUBLIC DEFENDER AGENCY,
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION (via teleconference),
testified that he was a member of the Criminal Justice
Commission, and had participated throughout the process,
both with the original recommendations and the subsequent
set of recommendations that formed the foundation of SB 54
and SB 55. He spoke to the changes found in SB 54. He
believed that the biggest change was the Class C felony
policy change. He said that the foundation for the original
recommendation weighed the impacts of jail and a felony
conviction, both had negative consequences that inhibited
rehabilitation. He said that even 24 hours of jail time
could cause someone's recidivism to increase. He relayed
that the felony conviction in itself was a barrier to
employment and could have other impacts that prevented
rehabilitation and impacted recidivism. He explained that
the original policy was meant to make sure that someone who
was a first time felon, without an aggravated case, did not
get both the impact of jail and the impact of the felony
consequence. He shared that one of the things that had been
debated was the balance of the scheme all the way from
Class A misdemeanors to felonies. He stated that the
discussion came about, though not supported by evidence
that there was any negative impact of the policy, but that
some jail time could be merited under the theory of
community condemnation. He relayed that the commission had
voted for 90 days, which had since been raised to 1 year.
He revealed that 1 year of jail amounted to a roll back of
the original policy, which he believed would result in an
increase in felony convictions and jail time without any
associated increase in rehabilitation. He shared that the
original policy had the advantage of being able to arrange
probation. He said that the result of 1 year would be more
decision to plea in order to avoid open sentencing on a
year, which could result in jail time as part of a plea
agreement without necessarily increasing any opportunity
for rehabilitation. He said that the 1 year cases would be
more expensive for lawyers to process and would limit the
effectiveness of reducing recidivism. He continued that the
other policies that had been departed from in SB 54 had
been the Class B misdemeanor policy; the original intent
had involved insuring that a person in their first or
second time out was not sent to jail for even short periods
of time, which would interfere with their rehabilitation.
He pointed out to the committee that short amounts of jail
time could cause someone to lose their job, their home, and
the foundation by which they would build upon future
rehabilitation. He stated that he vot4ed for some change in
the effort to even out the scheme, and he believed that the
departures would impact the ultimate goal for the
commission. He reiterated that the recommendation in SB 54
were not data driven. He expounded that the policy change
for violating conditions of release in the new legislation
was based on concerns that individuals could be arrested
for violating conditions of release, and then be released
from jail before the bail hearing. He shared that the
problem had been potentially solved through an
administrative change to how bail was provided for by the
courts, but the fix had not yet been implemented across the
state, which resulted in a change that had an
administrative base, but no further criminal justice policy
goal. He thought that it was important to weigh how much
jail time was being imposed against the potential achieved
benefits.
2:12:55 PM
Co-Chair Hoffman asked how much time the commission spent
discussing the 0 to 90 versus the 0 to 1 year.
Mr. Steiner thought that the recommendation had been
vigorously debated. He said that there had been a
disagreement about jail time for the first time Class C
felony; what should the judge be allowed to impose under
their own discretion. He stated that the community had
responded that some jail time should be available that
signaled a condemnation for the conduct. He personally felt
that a timeframe limited to 90 days would not upset the
recommendations to a degree that would result in plea
negotiations in order to avoid open sentencing. He thought
that in 1 year there would be plea agreements that were the
result of the coercive force of jail looming overhead,
rather than addressing the merits of rehabilitation. He
said that in the past when wider discretion had been
provided for judges in sentencing, in spite of very clear
direction from the legislature that the sentences should
not increase, the sentences increased. He asserted that
when bail policies changed people spent more time in jail
simply because they were poor and could not afford even
small amounts of bail, and he revealed that it was the
judge's discretion that was driving the problem.
2:16:10 PM
Co-Chair Hoffman wondered whether there was debate
regarding increasing the maximum from 90 to 120, or 180
days.
Mr. Steiner replied that there had been a proposal for 1
year, which had been amended to 90 days. He said that the
commission then debated whether or not to vote for the 90
day limit. He relayed that the vote had been split, with
the majority voting for 90 days, the minority opposed
because they felt a 1 year was more appropriate. He stated
that there had been no discussion on a position of
compromise. He understood that 120 days had been debated
during discussions on SB 91, but that it had been voted
down.
2:17:29 PM
Co-Chair Hoffman queried the details of the vote to forward
the 90 day recommendation to the legislature.
Mr. Steiner recalled that the vote had been close, he
believed that the majority had won by 1 vote.
2:18:27 PM
DEAN WILLIAMS, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
acknowledged the difficulty of the process of criminal
justice reform. He relayed that he had not been on the
commission before the passage of SB 91. He spoke to the
balance necessary to find the appropriate deterrent to
criminal activity, while honoring the original intention
behind criminal justice reform. He shared that the system
had been expected over the past several years to avoid
prison growth, in fact, a 15 to 25 percent reduction had
been requested. He lamented that the department's budget
had been set with the expectation that the prison
population would decrease. He stated that 40 percent of the
prison population fell under the Class C felony
classification. He explained that it had been challenging
for his department to craft a fiscal note for SB 54 because
SB 91 had not been in place for long enough to provide
meaningful data. He relayed that whatever course the
legislature chose, appropriations would be made to make the
prison system safer and more viable. He hoped that funds
could be invested in opioid prevention efforts. He
concluded that the pre-trial part of SB 91 would begin in
January 2018, and should have a positive impact in
contracting the pre-trial population. He related that a
focus for the future should be on sufficient opportunities
to provide treatment intervention.
2:23:56 PM
Co-Chair Hoffman queried the anticipated saving from the 0
to 90 day change over the construction of a new
correctional facility.
Commissioner Williams replied that one result from the
decrease in the prison population was the closure of the
Palmer Correctional Center. He said that the decision had
been a difficult one, but had saved the department several
million dollars, and had allowed for staff to be reinvested
in other neglected areas. He lamented that he could not
speak to specifics, but that the department had experienced
a slight contraction in the population and a down-cline in
certain sectors of the population. He reiterated that some
of the pieces of SB 91 had not yet been implemented.
2:25:11 PM
Co-Chair Hoffman wondered whether the 90 day provision in
SB 54 would result in an increase in the population and the
need to reopen the Palmer facility.
Commissioner Williams said that it was a possibility.
2:26:15 PM
WALT MONEGAN, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY,
expressed support for SB 91. He shared that he had spent 34
years with the Anchorage Police Department, and that in the
time he had spent on patrol he had started to arrest the
second generation of families who found themselves in the
system. He believed that the systems necessary to support
SB 91 had not yet been fully realized, and that with more
time and some minor adjustments the legislation could
produce the results that he hoped for. He relayed that the
public was upset about the state of criminal justice reform
in the state. He noted that there were key pieces of SB 91
that had not yet been fully implemented. He added that the
budget crisis had resulted in a decline on the number of
prosecutors and troopers, and that the state was in the
middle of an opioid epidemic. He said that the he supported
the proposed changes in SB 54. He believed that the bill
would allow judges to examine each case based on merits and
facts. He agreed that judges to have the discretion to make
determinations in sentencing.
2:30:30 PM
Co-Chair Hoffman remarked that the recidivism rate was
critical and key to the legislation. He relayed that the
general measurement for recidivism was 3 year increments.
He stated that the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission was
going to be examining those rates when analyzing the
effects of SB 91. He stated that by changing SB 91, the
recidivism rate would be unmeasurable. He noted that plea
deals took place in cases that stretched out over long
periods of time. He wondered whether the zero to 1 year
sentencing would result in more plea deals.
Commissioner Monegan replied that it could. He clarified
that law enforcement was not part of the plea deal process.
He reiterated that the discretion should lie with the judge
overseeing the case.
2:33:28 PM
Senator von Imhof asked why there was so much disagreement
about zero to 90 days versus zero to 1 year. She queried
that public response to SB 91 over the past year in regard
to sentencing.
Commissioner Monegan replied that the current law was not
working. He stressed that the system lacked treatment
facilities, and until that time data needed to be gathered
and examined as the process toward criminal justice reform
continued.
2:36:59 PM
Senator von Imhof understood that under current law Class C
felonies received zero to 90 days active imprisonment for
first time offenders.
Commissioner Monegan replied that zero to 90 days was not
currently in statute. He explained that the first offense
earned probation only on a Class C felony. He shared that
the debated surrounded putting something that allowed for
more than simply writing a citation and then releasing
offenders.
2:38:00 PM
Co-Chair Hoffman argued that the commission had been tasked
with solving the problem if sentencing on Class C felonies,
and that had been the intent of the commission's
recommendation.
2:39:14 PM
RON FLINT, PRESIDENT, NUGGET ALASKAN OUTFITTERS, JUNEAU,
testified in support of SB 54. He expressed frustration
that felony limit for theft was set at $1000. He felt that
there had been an increase in small time theft. He offered
several personal anecdotes about theft in his store.
2:43:23 PM
JEFF JESSE, LEGISLATIVE LIAISON, MENTAL HEALTH TRUST
AUTHORITY, testified that his work on the commission had
been to craft policy that was driven by data and scientific
fact. He stressed that if criminal justice reform was only
about minimizing criminality, and therefore minimizing the
amount of general funds that were spent on crime, then the
original criminal justice recommendations in SB 91 would be
the most effective vehicle. He said that it was apparent
that this was not the only goal. He encouraged the
committee to craft legislation that adhered a closely to
the commission's recommendations as possible.
2:46:14 PM
NICOLE BORROMEO, ALASKA FEDERATION OF NATIVES, ANCHORAGE
(via teleconference), spoke in opposition to SB 54. She
stated that the federation did not believe that replacing
SB 91 was warranted at the present time. She hoped that the
legislature could wait until the 32 legislative session
before substantive changes were made to SB 91. She said
that if substantive changes were going to be made this year
she hoped they would closely follow the criminal justice
commission's recommendations.
2:47:47 PM
Co-Chair Hoffman asked whether the Ms. Borromeo had
discussed the federation's views with Julie Kitka,
President, Alaska Federation of Natives.
Ms. Borromeo replied in the affirmative. She relayed that
Ms. Kitka supported the federation's position on SB 54.
2:49:28 PM
BUTCH MOORE, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), believed
that penalties for Class B felonies should be added to SB
54. He cited Page 53, section 89 of SB 91:
Sec. 89. AS 12.55.125(d) is amended to read:
(d) Except as provided in (i) of this section, a
defendant convicted of a class B felony may be
sentenced to a definite term of imprisonment of not
more than 10 years, and shall be sentenced to a
definite term within the following presumptive ranges,
subject to adjustment as provided in AS 12.55.155 -
12.55.175:
(1) if the offense is a first felony conviction and
does not involve circumstances described in (2) of
this subsection, zero [ONE] to two [THREE] years;
a defendant sentenced under this paragraph may, if the
court finds it appropriate, be granted a suspended
imposition of sentence under AS 12.55.085
Mr. Moore explained that Class B felonies included
burglary, arson in excess of $25,000, bribery, sexual
assault 2, and theft over $25,000. He requested that
minimum jail time be added to Class B felonies. He spoke to
previous testimony he had given in another committee. He
believed that one of the biggest problems with the prison
system in Alaska was the issue of substance abuse and
mental health. He felt that the parts of SB 91 that had
been implemented had been focused on the financial aspects
of the criminal justice system. He did not believe that SB
91 would protect the public from violent offenders. He
requested that the committee review sections 89 and 122 of
SB 91. He continued to speak to SB 91.
2:54:54 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon explained that the SB 91 referred to in
the meeting was from the 29th legislative session.
2:55:31 PM
Senator Micciche asked whether Mr. Moore supported the five
items in SB 54 that increased sentencing for various types
of crimes.
Mr. Moore replied in the affirmative. He hoped that
consideration could be given for increasing sentencing for
Class B felonies.
2:57:24 PM
TARA RICH, LEGAL AND POLICY DIRECTOR, ACLU OF ALASKA,
ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), testified in support of
evidence based and research driven policies. She spoke to
three provision that the group hoped would be changed: the
violations of conditions of release, the Class C felonies,
and low-level theft in the 4th degree. She said that the
violations of conditions of release were geared toward an
administrative end and were costly and unnecessary. She
stated that increasing the active term of presumptive
imprisonment for Class C felonies to up to 1 year of
possible imprisonment was premature. She asserted that it
was too early to make the decision and that there was no
evidence that creating an active term of imprisonment made
spending sense. She said that there was evidence to suggest
that for first time offenders, active terms of imprisonment
had a criminogenic effect. She urged the committee not to
base decisions on anecdotal, third-hand accounts of
perceptions on the increase of theft in the 4th degree
offences. She reminded the committee that the
recommendations that resulted in SB 54 were not data driven
or evidence bases and requested that the committee give SB
91 more time to provide results.
Co-Chair MacKinnon CLOSED public testimony.
3:02:01 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon queried additional comments from the
sponsor of the legislation.
3:02:11 PM
SENATOR JOHN COGHILL, SPONSOR, hoped that the debated on
the bill would result in a balanced piece of legislation.
He felt that the changes in SB 91 that were reflected in SB
54 had caused confusion for the public. He expressed
appreciation for future discussions, and offered to provide
additional backup and details.
3:04:38 PM
Co-Chair Hoffman stated that people had supported the
legislation because the need for criminal justice reform
had been evident. He spoke of the financial strain felt by
the state because of the cost to construct the Goose Creek
Correctional Facility. He commended the work that had been
done on SB 91. He believed that the bill had been intended
to reduce recidivism and curb spending. He stressed his
expectation that cost saving measures would be realized. He
expressed concern that SB 54 did not follow some of the
recommendations of the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission.
He asked whether redirected dollars could be in jeopardy
under the current bill version.
Senator Coghill replied that the commission had been
composed of people who practiced within the system, and
those who had been affected by the system. He said that the
goal of the legislation had been to reduce crime, increase
public safety, and decrease the recidivism rate. He said
that putting money from incarcerated prisoner care into
rehabilitation programs was the goal. He stated that
accommodation to help offenders reenter communities as
productive members of society was lacking in the state. He
did not believe that jail and accountability were the same
thing. He lamented that the process would continue to be
challenging. He stressed that the system contained
criminals who were incarcerated for mainly drug and alcohol
related crimes, and without incentives those offenders
would be accountable for their rehabilitation. He said that
SB 54 went further than the commission had recommended,
than he personally wanted, but that it had been based on
public and police testimony, as well as the Department of
Law testimony in Senate Judiciary Committee.
Co-Chair MacKinnon REOPENED public testimony.
3:12:24 PM
CARA NELSON, DIRECTOR, HAVEN HOUSE JUNEAU, JUNEAU (via
teleconference), testified that over 65 million Americans
had criminal records, which meant that public policy and
perception of criminal justice needed to evolve. She
thought that meaningful change would take time, and that
there was no way to gauge whether SB 91 was working because
it had only been law for 8 months. She stressed the need
for data driven, evidence based recommendations as the
foundation for criminal justice legislation. She believed
that addiction should be aggressively addressed in policy.
She hoped that policy decisions would not be solely based
on public condemnation, but on evidence. She expressed
appreciation for the conversation surrounding criminal
justice reform.
Co-Chair MacKinnon CLOSED public testimony.
3:16:47 PM
Senator Micciche said that he supported the philosophy
behind SB 91. He stated that the commission had updated
some of their 2015 recommendations in 2017, which were
reflected in SB 54. He said that most of SB 54 had been
crafted in observance to the adjustments the commission
made in 2017 of its 2015 recommendations.
Senator Coghill explained that most of the items in SB 54
had been considered by the commission, which had modified
in the Senate Judiciary Committee, namely the level of
incarceration issues surrounding Class C felonies and
fourth degree theft.
3:19:01 PM
Senator Micciche felt that the discussion was pertinent. He
felt that the commission had adjusted its recommendations
out of the recognition that it had gone too far in certain
areas, and that communities were being severely impacted.
He wondered how the process worked for identifying the
difference between possession of child pornography versus a
lower level Class C felony, when considering for
sentencing.
Mr. Skidmore replied that the department certainly
differentiated between the two felonies when considering
length of sentencing.
Co-Chair MacKinnon requested a written response to the
question from the department.
3:21:26 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon requested clarification concerning the
bail schedule.
3:22:19 PM
NANCY MEADE, GENERAL COUNSEL, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM,
explained that state had set bail schedules for decades,
only for misdemeanors and never for felonies. The bail
schedule provided that when a person was arrested for a
misdemeanor they could be taken by law enforcement to a
correctional facility, and then released under certain
circumstances and with certain conditions without
immediately seeing a judge. The person would be given a
piece of paper asking them to return some time later for
arraignment. She said that evidence had come to light in
March 2016 that had coincided with the SB 91 reforms, and
the evidence brought forth by the commission, showing that
the pre-trail population had grown 81 percent over the past
10 years. The changes to the pre-trial provisions, and how
bail would be set under SB 91, had not yet come into
effect. She stated that, recognizing what the legislature
had intended with SB 91, the presiding judges got together
and created a statewide bail schedule. Prior to that there
had been different bail schedules for the different
judicial districts in the state, with variations within and
among them. The statewide bail schedule was intended to
enhance consistency and to allow for more people to be
released upon arrest than was previously possible. This was
to address the fact that the pre-trial population had been
growing because people could not make the bail that was set
by a judicial officer. She clarified that felons were not
released right away under the bail schedule, and no
domestic violence or stalking related offenders were
released on their own recognizance. She said that the bail
schedule said that in any particular case an arresting
officer could call the on call judge to set a different
bail if necessary. She noted that in nearly all of the
instances the judge would defer to the expertise of the
arresting officer. She admitted that there had been some
dissatisfaction with some of the things that were listed as
a release under the bail schedule. Presiding judges were
currently revising the bail schedule, which should be
release in a few weeks.
3:26:55 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon remarked that there had been confusion
surrounding the new bail schedule.
3:27:34 PM
Co-Chair Hoffman requested information related to the
percentage plea bargains of Class C felonies in the year.
3:28:12 PM
Mr. Skidmore asked whether Co-Chair Hoffman wanted to know
how many cases resulted in a plea bargain, or the sentence
that resulted from the plea bargain.
3:29:06 PM
Co-Chair Hoffman clarified that he wanted to know how many
cases by year, over the last ten years, had resulted in a
person being sent to prison under a plea bargain deal.
Mr. Skidmore replied that such data was not collected by
the department. He said he could not tell the committee how
many people ended up with sentences as a result of a plea
bargain. He offered that 90 to 95 percent of the cases
resolved through plea negotiations, but he could not
provide the numbers for active jail time versus no jail
time.
Co-Chair Hoffman had heard that the number of plea
bargaining cases would increase under the zero to 1 year
sentence.
Mr. Skidmore did not believe that the sentencing was set up
would control the number of plea negotiations that
occurred. He stated that the system would find an
equilibrium no matter where the legislature decided to
provide the discretion in term of what sentences could be
imposed. He relayed that 90 to 95 percent of the cases
would continue to be resolved through plea negotiations.
3:30:14 PM
Co-Chair Hoffman interjected that if someone was facing a
90 day sentence versus a 1 year sentence, and the person
had a job and a family, the person would plea bargain. He
believed that a person would be less likely to push for a
plea bargain if they were only facing 90 days in jail.
3:30:53 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon requested some facts for the committee
concerning what the department did in the normal course of
business to address public safety, and the consequences for
individuals who went through the criminal division office.
Mr. Skidmore agreed to provide the information.
Co-Chair MacKinnon discussed housekeeping.
SB 54 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
SB 55 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 54 2017.03.27 ACLU to S-FIN re SB 54 (Crimes and Sentencing).pdf |
SFIN 3/28/2017 1:30:00 PM |
SB 54 |
| SB 54 AACP Support.pdf |
SFIN 3/28/2017 1:30:00 PM |
SB 54 |
| SB 54 - Supporting Document - Property Crime Stats.pdf |
SFIN 3/28/2017 1:30:00 PM |
SB 54 |
| SB 54 - Supporting Document - Violent Crime Stats.pdf |
SFIN 3/28/2017 1:30:00 PM |
SB 54 |