Legislature(2017 - 2018)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/01/2017 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
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 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 54 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SB 54-CRIME AND SENTENCING
1:35:07 PM
CHAIR COGHILL announced the consideration of SB 54. He noted
this is the second hearing and there is a committee substitute
(CS) for the committee to consider.
1:35:46 PM
SENATOR COSTELLO moved to adopt the work draft CS for Senate
Bill 54, labeled 30-LS0461\O, as the working document.
CHAIR COGHILL objected for an explanation of the changes.
1:36:00 PM
JORDAN SHILLING, Staff to Senator Coghill, described the
following changes between version A and version O of SB 54:
Section 5
AS 11.66.150 - Definitions.
Establishes a definition for "compensation"
which does not include any payment for
reasonably apportioned shared expenses.
MR. SHILLING explained that the sponsor's office solicited a
definition from the Department of Law and the Public Defender
that both agreed would meet the goals of the Alaska Criminal
Justice Commission ("Commission") recommendation. Any use of the
term "compensation" in Sections 3 and 4 of the bill has its own
definition for the purposes of those sections.
1:37:33 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI joined the committee.
MR. SHILLING continued to review the changes between version A
and version O of SB 54.
Section 6
AS 11.56.757(b) - Sentences of imprisonment for
felonies.
Increases the active term of imprisonment that
may be imposed for a C-felony that is a first
felony conviction from zero to 90 days to zero
to 120 days.
CHAIR COGHILL noted this goes beyond the term the Commission
recommended which gives judges more latitude.
Section 7
AS 12.55.125 - Sentences of imprisonment for felonies.
Establishes minimum probation term lengths for
felony sex offenses. 15 years for an
unclassified felony; 10 years for an A or B
felony; and 5 years for a C felony.
MR. SHILLING reminded the members that while the Commission
recommended some supervision for felony sex offenders, it did
not specify the minimums. The sponsor's office solicited
opinions from the Department of Law and the Public Defender
about appropriate minimums and the sponsor decided to go with
the higher numbers suggested by the Department of Law.
The maximum probation for felony sex offenses is 15 years. The
minimum probation for an unclassified felony sex offense is 15
years so the term of probation is set at 15 years. The minimum
probation for a class A or class B felony sex offense is 10
years, which creates a range of 10-15 years. The minimum
probation for a class C felony sex offense is 5 years, which
creates a range of 5-15 years.
1:40:23 PM
SENATOR KELLY joined the committee.
Section 8
AS 12.55.135 - Sentences of imprisonment for
misdemeanors.
Increases the maximum sentence of imprisonment
for distributing an explicit image of a minor
to an Internet website that is accessible to
the public.
MR. SHILLING explained that last year Senate Bill 91 was amended
on the House floor to enhance the penalty for the class B
misdemeanor offense of distributing an explicit image of a minor
to one other person. However, the amendment failed to enhance
the penalty for the class A misdemeanor offense of posting an
explicit image on an internet website that is accessible to the
public. This eliminates that disparity by increasing the maximum
term of imprisonment for the conduct. This is a Commission
recommendation.
Section 10
AS 12.55.135(l) - Sentences of imprisonment for
misdemeanors.
th
Revises language relating to Theft in the 4
Degree (and similar offenses) to comport with the
Alaska Criminal Justice Commission's
recommendations that probation term lengths be
clarified and 3rd and subsequent offenses be
punishable by up to 10 days in prison.
MR. SHILLING described this as a technical change to comport
with the Commission's recommendation.
Section 11
AS 12.55.135(p) - Sentences of imprisonment for
misdemeanors.
Conforming change that requires notice to the opposing
party if the state seeks to establish the new
aggravating factor for A misdemeanors.
MR. SHILLING noted that this comports with the Commission
recommendation.
Section 12
AS 12.55.145(a) - Prior convictions.
Establishes a 5-year lookback period for the purposes
of establishing aggravating factors for A misdemeanors
that are based on prior convictions. Unclassified and
class A felonies are excluded from the lookback
period.
MR. SHILLING explained that there is already a 5-year lookback
for domestic violence assault in the fourth degree and it made
sense to extend that lookback to all class A misdemeanors. He
noted that the felony sentencing framework has a 10-year
lookback, but unclassified and class A felonies are excluded.
1:46:45 PM
Section 15
AS 28.15.011 - Drivers must be licensed.
Reduces the crime of No Valid Operator's License to an
infraction.
MR. SHILLING explained that this corrects a disparity created by
Senate Bill 91 that reduced driving with a suspended license
(for reasons other than a DUI) to an infraction, but did not
similarly reduce the crime of driving with no valid operator's
license to an infraction. This was a Commission recommendation.
Section 17
AS 33.07.010 - Pretrial services program;
establishment.
Technical changes to clarify the requirement to
conduct pretrial risk assessments on defendants.
MR. SHILLING explained that this relates to the Commission
recommendation to eliminate the requirement for risk assessment
for individuals who are cited rather than arrested and
individuals who are released on the bail schedule. Version A
used the legal term "brought into custody" and that created some
confusion about what it meant. On the advice of the Court
System, the language was changed to "detained in custody in a
correctional facility following arrest".
Section 18
AS 33.07.030 - Duties of pretrial services officers.
Requires the Department of Corrections to present the
results of the pretrial risk assessment to the
prosecution and the defense, in addition to the court.
MR. SHILLING advised that the Department of Corrections (DOC)
has concerns with this section. The question centers on who
should be responsible for presenting the results and there is
some thought that the Court System might be more appropriate.
CHAIR COGHILL said the bill identified DOC because they
administer the risk assessment.
MR. SHILLING said those are all the changes between version A
and version O of SB 54.
1:49:57 PM
CHAIR COGHILL removed his objection. Finding no further
objection, he announced that version O is before the committee.
He listed the invited testimony.
1:52:30 PM
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel, Alaska Court System, Anchorage,
Alaska, noted the Court System's zero fiscal note. She said she
was prepared to answer any questions but would address just the
sections of version O that the Court System was most involved
in.
She turned to Sections 1 and 2 that relate to violating
conditions of release (VCOR). Senate Bill 91 changed VCOR from a
crime to a violation, which means there can be no jail time, but
it is an arrestable offense. This created some confusion when
individuals were taken to the holding facility about whether
they could be held. "If this was a non-jailable offense, how
really can we hold the person to have something more happen with
their underlying bail conditions?" The presiding judges'
solution was to amend the bail form by adding a sentence that
says a person who violates any of the conditions of release
shall be held for another bail review hearing. She acknowledged
that this may or may not be working, but it was an Alaska
Criminal Justice Commission ("Commission") recommendation to
change VCOR back to a crime to ensure that people arrested for
this conduct could be held for a short period.
She said the corresponding punishment for Sections 1 and 2 is
found in Section 9 on page 5, line 4. It specifies that VCOR is
a class B misdemeanor, and the maximum time a person can be held
is 5 days. During that time the person would have another bail
hearing on the underlying charge. She reiterated that changing
VCOR back to a crime was a Commission recommendation.
1:56:13 PM
MS. MEADE turned to Section 8 that relates to the terms of
imprisonment permissible for class A misdemeanors. She directed
attention to the new paragraph (2) that has the enhanced penalty
of 60 days imprisonment for a person's second class A
misdemeanor if it is similar in nature to the first one. Judges
brought it to her attention that this penalty is slightly
anomalous, especially in the context of a second DUI. A second
DUI is a class A misdemeanor and the DUI statute provides 20
days minimum imprisonment and 30 days maximum imprisonment. If
SB 54 were to pass, the permissible range for a second DUI would
be 20 days up to 60 days. She suggested that clarifying what
happens the second time would be helpful for practitioners and
judges.
She directed attention to page 4, lines 8-9, and highlighted
that the language in Senate Bill 91 said imprisonment would be
one year if the defendant has "past criminal convictions." That
generated a lot of discussion about whether you needed two or
more convictions or whether it really meant a past conviction.
She said at least one judge decided you needed two or more
because it is plural, but both practitioners and judges thought
it was quite vague.
She reminded members that Section 9 has the five-day penalty for
violating conditions of release.
1:59:32 PM
MS. MEADE turned to Section 10 that addresses the penalty
provision for class B misdemeanor theft offenses of items valued
under $250. The question that came up was whether any probation
could be ordered. She noted that Mr. Shilling explained that
judges and lawyers have rules for statutory interpretation that
led some to believe that if it wasn't specified that probation
could be ordered, then probation wasn't permitted. She said it
was the sponsor's intent that probation ought to be an option
for low level theft offenders, so that addition was clarifying.
She described Section 11 that relates to the procedure of
putting aggravating factors into practice as something that is
non-controversial but helpful to the Court System. It says that
the court will determine whether to put the class A misdemeanant
into the category of a possible higher jail term.
MS. MEADE turned to Section 15. She explained that Senate Bill
91 changed the penalty for driving with a license either
suspended or revoked (unrelated to DUI) to an infraction and the
maximum penalty is $300. However, it left intact the law with a
higher penalty for driving without ever having gotten a license.
That is a misdemeanor punishable by up to 90 days in jail. This
new subsection is intended to resolve that discrepancy.
She said that Section 16 addresses what is referred to as the
Section 113 problem in Senate Bill 91. That bill said that
municipalities cannot have penalties that are more severe than
the state penalties, but it overlooked the fact that
municipalities and the state have fines for the same offenses
and the municipal fines are sometimes higher. Section 16 changes
the term "offense" to "crime" which clarifies that minor
offenses such as traffic tickets are not included in that
provision.
MS. MEADE turned to Section 18 that relates to the duties of
pretrial services officers. She said one issue that arose during
implementation meetings is how the pretrial report will be
disseminated. Senate Bill 91 said the pretrial risk assessment
would be presented to the court, but it did not address how the
parties would get it. She said she understands that the
Department of Correction might not like this change, but it does
seem that the prosecution and defense attorneys need to receive
the report before the hearing.
She explained that when someone is arrested late in the evening
and will be arraigned by 9:00 a.m. the next morning, the
pretrial services office is tasked with conducting an
assessment, creating a report, and getting it to the appropriate
people before the arraignment. The change in Section 18 would
have the pretrial services office issue the report not only to
the court, but also the prosecution and the public defender or
defense attorney. She said she didn't view this as
controversial, but that may or may not be the case.
CHAIR COGHILL said it's appropriate and the question relates to
implementation.
MS. MEADE said she could talk with the pretrial implementation
group about whether the court should distribute the reports, but
that might not be the most efficient since the attorneys may
need that document even before the court needs it.
2:07:51 PM
SENATOR MEYER referred to Section 10 and summarized his
understanding that the penalty would not include jail time for
someone who steals items worth less than $250 two times.
MS. MEADE agreed there is no active jail time but pointed out
that SB 54 adds a term of probation of six months.
SENATOR MEYER commented on the frustration related to small
thefts and asked if there is a lookback for these crimes.
MS. MEADE directed attention to the language in Section 12 on
page 8, starting on line 6. Version O of SB 54 adds what is
generally a five-year lookback for those misdemeanors.
CHAIR COGHILL said he believes that relates primarily to class A
misdemeanors, but he'd double check and discuss it with the
Department of Law.
MS. MEADE said she may have misspoken.
SENATOR MEYER asked if a penalty that has a mandatory minimum of
20 days in jail actually means that term or if it could be less
for good time.
MS. MEADE suggested he ask the Department of Corrections, but
she believes that a good time deduction applies for a 20-day
jail term.
CHAIR COGHILL welcomed Commissioner Williams and expressed
interest in receiving his comments on the fiscal note after
hearing from both the Department of Law and the Public Defender
Agency.
2:13:05 PM
DEAN WILLIAMS, Commissioner, Department of Corrections, said the
department needs to analyze the provisions in version O, but he
understands that the proposed changes are a policy call. His
perspective is that anything that increases incarcerations will
impact the department because the budget is already set. The
forthcoming fiscal note will help clarify what the different
policy calls will cost.
He highlighted areas of concern for DOC in version O. First is
how DOC will deliver the risk assessment tool to multiple
parties, not just the court. His understanding is that attorneys
frequently aren't appointed until the arraignment, so it seems
logical that the court would distribute the report to the
appropriate parties at that time. A second concern relates to
how the partners involved in the risk assessment will be
affected by this change.
CHAIR COGHILL asked him to discuss the pretrial working group
and who is involved. He acknowledged that the department and the
working group might have better ideas.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS explained that the pretrial director has
everyone at the table who is even remotely involved in standing
up the pretrial unit. He said he would appreciate the
opportunity for the workgroup to continue to formulate the plan
including figuring out how to get it to the relevant parties.
"If we find that there is a glaring glitch at the end of that, I
guess I'd feel better about addressing it in statute."
CHAIR COGHILL said point well taken.
2:19:06 PM
JOHN SKIDMORE, Director, Criminal Division, Department of Law,
thanked the sponsor and committee for addressing what the
Department of Law considers to be very few tweaks to Senate Bill
91. He said he asked Mr. Campion to join him today to talk about
the front-line view of three policy areas of Senate Bill 91. He
would follow Mr. Campion and talk about the changes that SB 54
makes in those policy areas.
2:20:15 PM
CLINT CAMPION, District Attorney, Criminal Division, Department
of Law, Anchorage, Alaska, said he would talk about his
observations in the areas of violating conditions of release
(VCOR), class C felonies, and theft in the fourth degree.
He explained that his observations about theft in the fourth
degree in the Municipality of Anchorage are anecdotal because
the municipality generally prosecutes those cases. Police
officers are telling him that suspected thieves are telling
officers to issue a citation and let them go because the
officers can't take them to jail. This has caused frustration.
Regarding VCOR, he agreed with Ms. Meade that there has been
confusion within the DA's office, with judges, and law
enforcement about what to do when someone is suspected of having
violated their conditions of release. If a judicial officer is
unable or unwilling to remand someone on a violation of
conditions of release and the officer is confused about what to
do, the recourse is for his office to ask the court to schedule
a bail hearing. He noted that because his office doesn't
typically prosecute violations, there is a possibility there
won't be a record upon which the pretrial services unit can
evaluate future risk assessments
Regarding class C felonies, he said the committee should be
aware that many offenders who are charged with a class C felony
may sit in jail 30-60 days consuming DOC resources, but won't
get any jail time once their case is tried or resolved. This is
an unintended consequence of Senate Bill 91. He also cited the
dramatic increase in vehicle thefts over the last two years and
highlighted how difficult it is to explain to a victim that a
defendant who stole their car will get a presumptive
probationary sentence and no jail time.
2:24:30 PM
MR. SKIDMORE reviewed the instructions to the Alaska Criminal
Justice Commission to reduce both recidivism and the number of
people incarcerated in jails at any given time across the state.
He said jails are not intended to be a dumping ground for people
with substance abuse issues and/or mental illness, but some of
these people commit offenses that have serious impacts on
society. In those circumstances it is appropriate to impose some
amount of jail time, but there should be both discretion and
balance. The courts need to have the discretion to look at both
the offense and the offender and decide if the person should be
put on probation or sent to jail.
He said that one of the problems the Department of Law ran into
when Senate Bill 91 was enacted is that it did not give judges
sentencing discretion for class C felony offenses. That is
despite the fact that discretion and balance is rooted in the
laws, the constitution, and cases. He cited art. I, sec. 12,
Constitution of the State of Alaska, AS 12.55.005, and quotes
from the U.S. Supreme Court in Lancaster. The question, he said,
is how much discretion will you return to the Court System
regarding class C felonies?
MR. SKIDMORE related that [in 2017] the Commission looked at the
penalty for class C felonies, debated a recommendation from the
Department of Law, and ultimately recommended a sentencing
framework from 0 to 90 days. SB 54, version O, increases the
upper limit to 120 days. He said that it is a policy call for
the committee to make, while keeping in mind the constitution,
the statutes, and the case law that call for discretion and
balance.
MR. SKIDMORE said the Department of Law also saw it as a concern
that no active jail time is initially imposed for a second
offense of theft in the fourth degree - stealing property valued
under $250. He highlighted that Senate Bill 91 also revoked the
recidivist statute under theft in the third degree. That statute
said a third conviction of theft in the fourth degree within
five years elevates the offense to a class A misdemeanor. The
Department of Public Safety and the Department of Law together
proposed not changing what happens the first or second time
because these are the lowest level offenders and they ought to
be given a chance. "Many will change their ways just with
probation." What we suggested was trying to have some other
sanction when you get to that third offense, he said. While DOL
and DPS recommended reinstating the recidivist provision, the
Commission recommended leaving the third offense a class B
misdemeanor and allowing the maximum term of imprisonment for
that level, which is 10 days.
For class C felonies and theft in the fourth degree, the
Department of Law is not proposing absolutely no jail time.
Rather, they are proposing that the courts have the discretion
to respond to the particular circumstance.
He said Ms. Meade and Mr. Campion both spoke on the topic of
violating conditions of release (VCOR), so the committee already
understands why the Department of Law believes it would be
appropriate to return that offense to a misdemeanor.
MR. SKIDMORE endorsed the policy call in SB 54 about mandatory
probation for sex offenders. He called it a solid concept and a
critical component for addressing sex offenders in the state. He
noted his intention to work with the sponsor's office on a minor
issue regarding language placement.
Referring to Senator Meyer's question about a lookback, he said
nothing in current law talks about how far to look back when
determining whether a third offense of theft in the fourth
degree would be subject to a maximum of 10 days active
imprisonment. The lookback in the current version of SB 54 only
applies to sentencing for class A misdemeanors. Referring to a
second question Senator Meyer asked, he said a mandatory minimum
sentence cannot be reduced.
He noted that SB 54 also has a provision on sex trafficking that
closes the loophole that was created by Senate Bill 91 when
language from a separate bill was used to modify the sex offense
statutes. That was not a recommendation of the Commission.
CHAIR COGHILL thanked Commissioner Monegan for waiting online to
offer testimony and asked if he could return on Friday.
Commissioner Monegan agreed.
2:34:18 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI reviewed the three areas of concern that SB
54 addresses. First, the bill proposes a presumptive term of
zero to 18 months for first time class C felonies.
MR. SKIDMORE clarified that version O proposes zero to 120 days
of active imprisonment with the possibility of suspending the
additional time for a total of 18 months. The Department of Law
originally looked at zero to 18 months but now believes that
zero to 12 months is more reasonable. He added that it is a
policy call for the legislature to make.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said he understands it's a policy call, but
he's basing his policy decision of Mr. Skidmore's expertise.
"Are we keeping the public safer if we go with your
recommendation to make it zero to 12 months for first time class
C felonies?" He said he also understands that the Department of
Law recommended reenacting AS 11.41.140(a)(3) to allow
recidivist thefts to be prosecuted at a higher level; and making
violating conditions of release a class B misdemeanor with a
maximum of 10 days in jail. He asked, "What do we need to do to
keep the public safe?"
MR. SKIDMORE replied DOL recommended the presumptive range of
zero to one year for first-time class C felonies because that is
consistent with the Commission's recommendation and original
intent to adjust presumptive sentencing. He explained that prior
to 2005 all felonies were subject to presumptive terms, but
after the Blakely decision ranges were created which resulted in
increased sentencing. He recapped saying, "A year feels right in
terms of looking at all those types of offenses and types of
conduct that is classified for class C felonies."
He explained that the Department of Law's proposal for theft in
the fourth degree was to have some sanction for repeated
offenses. By the third time it's clear the person hasn't gotten
the message and some other sanction is needed, he said. Whether
that message is what is in SB 54 or what the Department of Law
originally recommended isn't the significant point. "The
significant point is that there is some other sanction or
penalty available."
MR. SKIDMORE endorsed the provisions in SB 54 relating to
violations of conditions of release. They are closely aligned
with what the Department of Law originally recommended.
CHAIR COGHILL thanked Mr. Skidmore and Mr. Campion, and asked
Mr. Steiner to offer the public defender perspective.
2:40:42 PM
QUINLAN STEINER, Public Defender, Public Defender Agency, stated
that he has been a member of the Alaska Criminal Justice
Commission since it began, and he participated in the
discussions for Senate Bill 91, the 2017 recommendations, and SB
54. He said his intention today is to discuss the policies and
answer questions. He identified the recommendations related to
class C felonies as the biggest policy change.
He reported that the clear basis of the class C felony policy
drove the Commission's work, with two things being paramount.
The first was that jail time for certain individuals actually
increases recidivism. The second was the concept that the actual
conviction for a felony further reduces the ability for an
individual to rehabilitate him/herself. That has barrier
consequences for employment and housing.
MR. STEINER pointed out that the 2017 recommendations from the
Commission were not based on any assessment that the original
recommendations had failed, had compromised public safety, or
didn't achieve their goals. Rather, it was a more complicated
discussion about refining the policy based on input from the
public as well as a contemplation of the merit of how even the
scheme really was. The discussion included rolling back but that
appeared to be a repudiation of the policy. He offered his
perspective that what drove the debate was how to mitigate the
likelihood that somebody is going to be in a situation where
they will plead to jail time for a felony when they could
otherwise negotiate an agreement either without jail time or to
an aggravated misdemeanor where they could participate in
treatment and potentially not suffer the consequences of that.
He said he supported 90 days because he didn't think it had
pressure to compel pleas without the associated benefits of the
treatment and rehabilitation.
He explained that the policy about theft in the fourth degree
was a discussion that resulted from an inaccurate perception
that a person could never go to jail for a low-level theft. That
was never the case. An individual could not go to jail the first
two times and the third time there was a suspended sentence. The
fourth time the individual could go to jail for revocation of
their prior. But in a discussion about evening the scheme, the
talk was whether it was appropriate to elevate the offense to
the higher-level misdemeanor. He noted that he supported that
change as well as the misdemeanor aggravator. He summarized
saying that "for a second similar would allow a more aggravated
sentence rather than imposing an aggravator where you jump all
the way up to a year." He emphasized that it was an effort to
refine the policy not change it based on an assessment that it
had failed. A valuable part of the discussion was getting the
right mix so that the policies are effective and accommodate the
concern about community condemnation.
MR. STEINER said the policy debate he did not support was
changing the violating conditions of release. He offered his
perspective that the discussion was administrative. There were
fixes in place that could have accomplished the original intent
without making it a crime. What did mitigate the concern was the
cap on the jail time. It is not limited to a period that was
necessary to effectuate the goal of being able to arrest
somebody for violating conditions of release and then having a
bail hearing. That was always possible and with the fix that was
put in place by the court that remained possible. But it was not
given a chance to work and become part of the daily practice and
culture.
2:46:20 PM
MR. STEINER said the Commission recommended that some
probationary period be imposed for individuals convicted of sex
offenses, but it was never discussed what that would be. It was
left to the legislature. The discussion was for a similar
percentage to the prior policy so that it left some discretion
for the judges to impose an appropriate period of probation.
CHAIR COGHILL asked if the provision in SB 54 is appropriate.
MR. STEINER replied it leaves no discretion. The maximum and
minimum are the same so it's a definite term. The judge has no
discretion to decide what is appropriate under the circumstance.
His suggestion was to do a similar percentage to the prior law
so there was some movement.
CHAIR COGHILL pointed out that the change to the good time
credit had a significant impact.
MR. STEINER agreed that including earned compliance credit
furthered the rehabilitative goals.
CHAIR COGHILL asked his perspective of 90 and 120 days for class
C felonies.
MR. STEINER said that from his perspective there isn't much
difference, but the discretion of up to one year would have
created a problem. The Commission was concerned about sentences
increasing over time when ranges were available. That's what
happened. Judges had the discretion to ramp up sentences in the
old school idea that more jail time was likely to produce the
desired effect. But the data shows that isn't true. More jail
time doesn't produce a better outcome or more motivation for
rehabilitation. That's why he supported 90 days and he didn't
think 120 days wouldn't undermine his reasoning.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said he'd like to look at the research on
how 90 days, 120 days and one year in prison affects recidivism
and the public safety impacts for those different terms. He also
expressed interest in looking at what other states do.
MR. STEINER confirmed that was all documented by the Commission.
CHAIR COGHILL said that information is probably on the
Commission's website, but he could also provide the documents to
the committee.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said he'd appreciated that.
CHAIR COGHILL reminded the members that the Commission said
their [2017] recommendations were based on community
condemnation and public safety concerns, not data. He noted that
the current data says that less jail time results in less
recidivism, but the public isn't satisfied with that right now.
He asked Commissioner Williams to discuss how the department
will approach the fiscal note.
2:54:32 PM
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS explained that the fiscal note cost
drivers will be based on reintroducing jail time after Senate
Bill 91 removed it for certain offenses. He pointed out that
everyone that returns to prison returns with health care issues
that are cause for concern, even for those who are returned to
prison for 15-20 days. He said a piece of justice reform that
hasn't been discussed is whether the state is putting enough
into treatment opportunities. This should be contemplated
because treatment options need to be in place before people can
be diverted from $150 per day prison beds. The opioid crisis and
attendant crime issues brings this more clearly into focus.
Addressing that is part of the policy call. He expressed hope
that that wouldn't be lost in the discussion.
2:57:38 PM
CHAIR COGHILL noted that Representative Reinbold was in the
audience.
He reviewed the agenda for Friday and stated he would hold SB 54
in committee for further consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| CS for SB 54 - Version O.pdf |
SJUD 3/1/2017 1:30:00 PM |
SB 54 |
| SB 54 - Summary of Changes (ver. A to ver. O).pdf |
SJUD 3/1/2017 1:30:00 PM |
SB 54 |