Legislature(1997 - 1998)
02/26/1997 01:40 PM Senate JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 67 TRUTH IN SENTENCING
VICE-CHAIR PEARCE called the meeting back to order at 2:57 p.m. an
announced SB 67 was next on the agenda.
SENATOR RICK HALFORD , sponsor of SB 67, explained the proposed
committee substitute, which he supports, includes an amendment by
the Court System to clarify that the bill is asking judges to
determine approximate dates of release that cannot be used against
the Court System regarding accuracy, and a new Section 1 which may
provide for the capture of federal funds. SB 67 requires, at the
time a judge imposes a sentence, he/she estimate how much time will
actually be served. That hearing is when the victims and/or family
are most likely to be present.
Number 396
SENATOR PARNELL asked about Section 1. SENATOR HALFORD repeated
that section pertains to the capture of federal funds in regard to
how Alaska sets sentences.
VICE-CHAIR PEARCE asked about the new fiscal note. SENATOR HALFORD
replied CSSB 67(JUD) has a positive fiscal impact of about
$617,000.
SENATOR MILLER moved to adopt CSSB 67(JUD) (version 0-LS0137\K) for
discussion purposes. There being no objection, CSSB 67(JUD) was
adopted.
PAUL SWEET , testifying via teleconference from Mat-Su, asked
whether appeals will affect this bill. VICE-CHAIR PEARCE responded
at the time of sentencing, the judge does not know whether an
appeal will occur. Although everyone is aware of problems with
abusing the appeal system, SB 67 does not address that issue.
MARGOT KNUTH , representing the Department of Corrections, informed
committee members several years ago the federal government
instituted a truth in sentencing intensive grant program which
makes funds available to states for prison construction and
expansion. The program has two components: truth in sentencing;
and a requirement that states actually impose at least 85 percent
of the period of incarceration. Alaska has not been able to
qualify for those funds because it has a mandatory good-time
provision that allows up to one-third of the sentence to be served
on supervised release for felons, or any case with a sentence
longer than two years. If the sentence is less than two years,
mandatory good-time means early release for the prisoner. Good-
time can be lost for disciplinary infractions within the
institution. The federal government has recently decided that
requiring states to keep prisoners incarcerated for a full 85
percent of their sentences is hardly affordable for most states.
Consequently, it has recognized several different exceptions to the
85 percent requirement. One, the Minnesota exception, provides
that the sentence be defined to exclude any statutorily required
supervised release periods. For Alaska's violent offenders, that
would amount to the "good time" because they are spending more than
two years incarcerated and are not being released on discretionary
parole. Alaska might now be able to meet that requirement, but
needs a language change to bifurcate the sentence, which is what
Section 1 does. If Alaska is able to qualify for truth in
sentencing funds, they will amount to $617,000 for FY 98, and about
$500,000 for the following four years.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR noted several years ago the Legislature was
attempting to accomplish a similar goal. His concern at that time
was the early release of violent prisoners, by the Parole Board,
with no notification to witnesses or others who might be
threatened, including the judge who imposed the sentence. He felt
the appropriate solution was to require the sentencing judge's
consent to an early release. MS. KNUTH agreed notification of
victims and the court is entirely appropriate and added Senator
Ellis has introduced a bill to create an automated victim
notification system. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR noted previous legislation he
sponsored would make the person(s) responsible for early release
liable to the victim if a reoffense occurred.
TAPE 97-14, SIDE A
Number 000
DEL SMITH , Deputy Commissioner of the Department of Public Safety,
testified in strong support of SB 67. He and Commissioner Otte are
concerned about the public's misperceptions of actual time served
by prisoners, and the effect early release can have on the victims,
witnesses, defendants and the public.
SENATOR PEARCE asked whether a jury is told how much time will
actually be served when deliberating. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR replied they
are not informed, because it is believed it might prejudice them
against the prosecution. He explained there are states where one
can choose who will impose the sentence; the jury or judge, but the
judge has the right to overrule the jury.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked why existing sentences cannot be structured
by shifting the numbers so that one-third became three-quarters to
bring us into federal compliance. MS. KNUTH agreed that there are
several ways to accomplish the same thing that would do the least
"tweaking" to our system.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked what is wrong with a system that sentences a
person for 15 years and tacks on additional years for acting out.
He noted we assume and reward good conduct up front while most
other penal institutions put a person in prison assuming good
conduct and then punish them for misconduct. MS. KNUTH replied the
difference in a bad-time state is the presumption that prisoners
have to earn time off. Most states in the union are good-time
states but the truth in sentencing program has caused some states
to change to bad-time policies.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR questioned why prisoners, using public defender
services to appeal a criminal case, are given credit for prison
time served while the appeal is pending. If they weren't, they
would have something invested in the appeal. MS. KNUTH said that
was an interesting proposal. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR commented the appeal
turnaround time in some other countries is three months, while it
is two and one-half to three years here.
Number 55
SENATOR PEARCE moved to pass CSSB 67(Jud) from committee with
individual recommendations and the appropriate fiscal notes. There
were no objections and it was so ordered.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|