Legislature(2015 - 2016)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/20/2016 08:30 AM House 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 | |
| SB91 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 91 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
CS FOR SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR SENATE BILL NO. 91(FIN) am
"An Act relating to criminal law and procedure;
relating to controlled substances; relating to
immunity from prosecution for the crime of
prostitution; relating to probation; relating to
sentencing; establishing a pretrial services program
with pretrial services officers in the Department of
Corrections; relating to the publication of suspended
entries of judgment on a publicly available Internet
website; relating to permanent fund dividends;
relating to electronic monitoring; relating to
penalties for violations of municipal ordinances;
relating to parole; relating to correctional
restitution centers; relating to community work
service; relating to revocation, termination,
suspension, cancellation, or restoration of a driver's
license; relating to the excise tax on marijuana;
establishing the recidivism reduction fund; relating
to the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission; relating to
the disqualification of persons convicted of specified
drug offenses from participation in the food stamp and
temporary assistance programs; relating to the duties
of the commissioner of corrections; amending Rules 32,
32.1, 38, 41, and 43, Alaska Rules of Criminal
Procedure, and repealing Rules 41(d) and (e), Alaska
Rules of Criminal Procedure; and providing for an
effective date."
8:39:58 AM
AT EASE
8:40:17 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Thompson relayed that the bill sponsor would
address changes made by a prior committee.
SENATOR JOHN COGHILL, SPONSOR, discussed his intent to
outline the major differences between the bill version that
passed the Senate [CSSSSB 91(FIN) AM] and the House
Judiciary Committee version [HCS CSSSSB 91(JUD)].
Co-Chair Thompson noted that Representative Pruitt had
joined the meeting.
Senator Coghill addressed a sectional analysis "cheat
sheet." He spoke to differences in the sentencing
provisions and explained most of the pretrial provisions
were so similar there was no change worth mentioning.
Misdemeanors had a presumptive sentencing range from zero
to 30 days and additional aggravators of up to one year;
however, the Senate version included sentencing for assault
in the fourth degree of zero to one year, but the House
Judiciary Committee had limited the longer sentencing range
to domestic violence offences. He relayed the Senate had
included a felony threshold of $2,000 with no inflation
proofing; the House Judiciary Committee had changed the
provision to $1,000 and had included inflation proofing. He
believed the change was reasonable and acceptable to the
Senate.
Senator Coghill explained the sentencing changes that would
be difficult for some Senate members to agree to relate to
sex offender issues. For example, the House Judiciary
Committee had included the age of 55 for geriatric parole
with some good time available, whereas, the Senate version
had included a minimum age of 60 with no good time (a
person was required to serve a certain sentence before
there was any good time). The Senate had specified there
would be no good time earned for sex offenders, whereas the
House Judiciary Committee had allowed it. He believed the
Senate would prefer to see no good time for sex offenders.
Senator Coghill specified that sex offenders had been
excluded from the cap on technical violations. For example,
there were caps on how long a person could be put in jail
for a technical violation and under the Senate version the
provision would apply to everyone but sex offenders. A list
of conditions had been included by the Senate (e.g. a
person could not have a computer); there were a variety of
things that may be enforced on a sex offender that could
not be reasonably put on other offenders. He wanted to see
sex offenders excluded from the cap as the Senate version
had intended.
8:45:16 AM
Vice-Chair Saddler for clarification on which bill version
contained caps and which did not.
Senator Coghill explained that caps on technical violations
were included in both bill versions. The Senate version
excluded sex offenders from the cap and the House Judiciary
Committee extended the cap to sex offenders. For example,
failure to appear at an appointment constituted a technical
violation. Under that violation the bill specified an
offender could only go back to jail for a certain number of
days for the violation. He explained the Senate had
excluded sex offenders from that jail time cap.
Representative Gara understood the difficulty in dealing
with sex offence crimes. He relayed that when he had
practiced law there had sometimes been very lengthy
conditions. He provided a scenario where a sex offender did
not receive a benefit because they had not gone to
treatment. He surmised other conditions could mean a person
was not allowed to drive or do many other things, which had
nothing to do with the person's crime. He understood the
idea of not giving someone a benefit for not doing sex
offender treatment, for showing up at a victim's house, and
for other things related to the crime. He wondered if it
made sense to allow the removal of the cap for items that
had nothing to do with the offense.
Senator Coghill relayed that the conversation related to
sex offenders was so difficult that the Senate opted to
exclude the individuals [from the cap]. The Senate had sent
the commission [Alaska Criminal Justice Commission] a
request to look at the issue. There was some cleanup needed
in the bill language because there were about six things
the commission had been asked to do (some of the items
could be rolled into one request). He referred to Senate
and House requests and noted they could probably be
combined. He did not want to give the commission tasks that
were related but just slightly different. He asked the
committee to consider the issue and he offered to have his
staff show where it could be done better. He continued that
because the Senate wanted the commission to look at the
issue and due to the Senate's reluctance to deal with the
[sex offender] issue, it would be best for the bill to
remain as close to the Senate's version as possible (to
prevent a conference committee on the legislation). He
relayed the Office of Victims' Rights had been very active
in the discussion and he believed the agency should be
honored to whatever degree possible. He detailed the office
acted as the legislative arm of victims' advocates and had
made some strong cases he believed the legislature needed
to pay attention to. However, he agreed with Representative
Gara that the band of possibilities would become harder and
harder to debate. He had asked the commission to help,
which he believed would be a better way of doing it (as
opposed to getting it all "hammered out" in the current
bill).
8:49:22 AM
Vice-Chair Saddler asked for clarification about the bill
versions under discussion
Senator Coghill replied that the "N" version was the
Senate's version and the "V" version from the House
Judiciary Committee was currently before the committee. The
sectional analysis "cheat sheet" referenced version V of
the legislation. He pointed out the section for geriatric
parole should be Section 123 instead of 105, which was
incorrectly listed on the sectional analysis.
Representative Wilson asked if there was currently a cap
for technical violations. She asked about the current
process. Senator Coghill relayed that currently an
individual could serve the required sentence. He deferred
to his staff for additional detail.
Representative Wilson reiterated her question about current
practice. Senator Coghill requested to have his staff
respond to the question.
JORDAN SHILLING, STAFF, SENATOR JOHN COGHILL, responded
there were currently no caps in statute. He detailed it was
up to unlimited judicial discretion at present. The average
jail time currently spent for technical violations was 105
days.
Representative Wilson asked for verification the discussion
was about individuals who had been sentenced and made a
technical violation while in jail (as opposed to an
individual out on probation).
Mr. Shilling answered the provision related to individuals
out of prison on probation or parole (active supervision)
who broke the conditions of their probation (e.g. failure
to show for appointments, violations on prohibition on
alcohol and drug use, and other).
8:51:50 AM
Representative Wilson asked if the courts or the Department
of Corrections (DOC) determined the ramifications of the
technical violation. Mr. Shilling replied the courts
determined the amount of time served after adjudicating the
technical violation.
Senator Coghill added that the commission's discussion had
revolved around the swift and certain penalty. He specified
it was not so much about the time involved as the quick
action. The costliness of having a prisoner in jail for
lengthy periods of time had been found to be less valuable
than the swift and certain element of having someone react
to their probation/parole violations.
Representative Gara referred to situations where a
technical violation had nothing to do with the sex offense
an individual had committed (e.g. a driving violation or
other). He would certainly want to run the concept by the
Office of Victims' Rights and others, but he wondered about
offering a cap for sex offenders in the limited
circumstance where a violation had nothing to do with the
sex offense. He wondered if the concept would do damage to
the bill.
Senator Coghill responded that he had been in 15 to 20
meetings with victims' advocates groups. He detailed the
opinions were not unanimous among those groups. He had
worked with Senate and House members and no unanimous
agreement existed there either. As they had worked to find
an answer to the question, the best option available was to
ask the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission to look at the
issue again. During the Senate process the public
condemnation was so high that the rollback was very
difficult to obtain. He believed trying to define a
technical violations under those conditions was very
challenging. He concluded if the item was rolled back it
would make the bill more difficult to move forward.
Representative Gara commented on the difference between
parole and probation. Senator Coghill replied that after a
person had served their sentence they could have a certain
amount of time on probation. He knew probation and parole
acted close to the same. He continued that a parolee served
their sentence in a different manner. He deferred the
question to DOC for detail.
Co-Chair Thompson noted DOC would address the committee
during the afternoon meeting.
8:55:48 AM
Senator Coghill stated the House Judiciary Committee had
inserted three things that he found difficult to handle. He
credited the commission and legislature for its extensive
work on the legislation. He addressed pretrial credit under
the "other" category on the sectional analysis. He detailed
the provision had been inserted by Representative Matt
Claman; it was a technical issue, but it went in a
different direction than had been agreed upon in the
Senate. He asked his staff to provide detail on the issue
(Sections 64 and 67 of the bill).
Mr. Shilling believed others could speak in more detail to
the provisions inserted by Representative Claman. He
explained the provisions gave more guidance or direction to
the courts in applying pretrial credit to defendants
serving time in residential treatment, which was commonly
referred to as Nygren credit. He deferred to the Public
Defender Agency for further detail.
Senator Coghill explained the provisions [inserted by the
House Judiciary Committee] diverted from the bill's
original direction. He wanted pretrial accountability, some
diversion capacity, and for people to be accountable in
various ways. He clarified that Nygren was in reference to
a court case, which specified a person could only get
credit for being in jail under certain conditions. The
House Judiciary Committee bill broadened the condition.
People confined in jail could receive some time credit; it
was more and more limited for people under monitoring. The
Senate version had opened it up a little, but the House
Judiciary Committee version opened it more.
Senator Coghill relayed a provision related to off-highway
[driver's] licenses had been included by Representative
Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins. He explained there was a political
and practical problem with the issue. He explained the
issue had not been debated in the Senate and pulling a bill
by a committee chair could have its own side effects. He
believed the language should not be included in the
legislation. He noted the topic was a stand-alone bill in
the House [HB 62 related to restricted off-highway driver's
licenses]. He encouraged the committee to remove the
language. He detailed the same thing was true with medical
coverage for spouses and dependents of peace officers and
firefighters. He was very sympathetic to the issue and he
referred to individuals in the room advocating for the
issue who had communicated they would change their level of
support for the bill if it was included. He truly
appreciated that, but he had discovered several problems
that would need to be dealt with. He detailed the provision
was very narrow and dealt with a specific circumstance; it
was looking for a place that would probably be broader by
way of lawsuit, which would result in higher and higher
cost. He had spoken to the governor about the particular
issue and he surmised there were probably some things the
governor could do related to a particular family affected
at present. He stated the issue was a broader policy
question. He had spoken to Senate members and had
discovered the issue would add too much weight and prevent
concurrence on the legislation.
9:00:10 AM
Co-Chair Neuman emphasized that the men and women put their
lives on the line daily in order to protect other Alaskans.
He believed the benefit should be provided to troopers. He
would follow up with Senator Coghill at a later time.
Senator Coghill did not disagree. However, he did not know
if the current bill was the proper avenue.
Senator Coghill continued to address the legislation. He
relayed the Senate had included a 120-day cap on pretrial
electronic monitoring (EM). He asked Mr. Shilling to
address the differences between the bill versions related
to the particular topic.
Mr. Shilling detailed that when the bill had been
introduced there was a 120-day cap placed on pretrial
credit while on EM. The provision had been maintained by
the full Senate, but had been removed [by the House
Judiciary Committee]. The removal of the cap was one of the
major differences in the current bill version.
Representative Wilson asked why a 120-day cap would be
imposed. She relayed a story about an individual waiting
for trial. She detailed the individual had been a model
citizen, had kept his job, and done everything he was
supposed to do. She wondered why a cap should be imposed.
Mr. Shilling responded that the concern had been brought to
the sponsor by the Office of Victims' Rights. There had
been concern about individuals serving a significant
portion of their sentence pretrial on EM and getting day-
for-day jail credit without being in prison and having
liberty restricted in that manner. There was a concern
there were delays and continuances and that individuals
were receiving undue credit; therefore, the 120-day cap had
been selected based on the speedy trial date in order to
encourage individuals to get their case dealt with so the
limit was not exceeded.
Representative Wilson relayed that the issue was a "bill
killer" for her. She stressed the delay was not the
individual's fault. She believed there was nothing the
individual could really do about the delay, which was an
attorney/court issue. She had received an email with
numerous suggestions on how to speed up some of the trials.
She believed the intent of the bill was to ensure offenders
were punished, but to give them a way back into society.
She reasoned it would defeat the goal of the legislation if
individuals lost their job and home as a result of being
put back into jail.
Mr. Shilling clarified the 120-day cap was not included in
the bill version currently under consideration by the
committee. He explained the provision had been included in
the version passed by the Senate.
Senator Coghill elaborated there were two sides to the
issue. The first perspective had been addressed by
Representative Wilson. The second perspective related to
people being at liberty and purposefully delaying court
cases. The second perspective had been highlighted by the
Office of Victims' Rights. He explained it was part of the
process the bill had gone through; the agency had been very
vocal to ensure victims did not have a fear of people being
out and about. He stated the Senate's inclusion of the 120-
day cap was a policy call; under the cap a person could
still elect to use EM and be at liberty, but could not
receive credit for the time. He added there would be the
pressure to get to resolution from the defendant's side.
9:04:57 AM
Representative Wilson mentioned HB 15 [legislation passed
in 2015 related to electronic monitoring credits] and
relayed that individuals were very restricted on EM. She
explained individuals on EM could not be out at the grocery
store or other places. She explained EM was very specific
and was about treatment, being at home, and continuing to
work. She reiterated that a person was not able to go to
the grocery store because it was supposed to be like jail.
She was concerned about another part of the bill that "if
you break it even for one day, you lose all the credit."
She was not sure how it would work if there was a delay
beyond 120 days where a person did not go to court for 150
days. She did not know if the person would or would not
receive credit for the additional 30 days. She was not sure
whether the bill sponsor was advocating to put the cap back
into the bill.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked Senator Coghill to provide guide
posts about the existing law, changes in the Senate
version, changes in the House version, and his
observations. He observed there were many different
subtleties that were difficult to capture.
Senator Coghill answered he had run into the same kind of
problems in fully understanding the changes, which was his
reason for having well over 100 meetings with the
Department of Law (DOL), DOC, and probation officers. He
would have to defer to the other departments in areas where
the change was so dramatic it would mean the departments
needed to change their behavior (e.g. changes to pretrial
should be explained in more depth by DOC). The 120-day cap
had not been recommended by the commission and had not been
something he had personally contemplated. He explained the
issue had arisen along the way from the Office of Victims'
Rights, which had won the attention of the Senate. He did
not know the issue was a deal killer; it was a policy call.
He could see the value both ways; the idea of trying to get
to resolution in pretrial was something he would push for;
therefore, he had been convinced including the cap was one
way to achieve that goal. The conditions on EM were
restrictive, but there was still a liberty that was not
similar to being in jail. He reiterated his earlier
statement that a person could still be on EM but not
receive the credit.
9:08:11 AM
Representative Gara remarked that sometimes a prosecutor
requested a time extension because they could not locate a
witness or for other reasons. He detailed the judges
required proof there was a viable reason to delay. He
wondered if there was any exception in the Senate version
where the district attorneys could request to delay trial
because the witness was unavailable.
Senator Coghill replied he could not speak to the entire
practice. He noted DOL had a substantial amount of
discretion in those particular areas. The goal was to
ensure a speedy disposition was obtainable. He relayed
there were two sides to the issue and detailed some people
wanted to hold out long enough to see if witnesses were not
available. His objective had been to determine how to keep
a system from getting so protracted that no good would come
from it and yet people were in jail for that entire time.
He had worked to include timelines to bring people to
resolution, which was the reasoning behind the 120-day cap.
Representative Gara asked which section Senator Coghill was
speaking to. Mr. Shilling answered that the 120-day cap was
not currently in the bill; if it was reinserted it would be
in Sections 64 and 65.
Co-Chair Thompson remarked the provision had been included
in the Senate's version, but it had been removed in the
House Judiciary Committee.
Senator Coghill relayed he had concluded speaking to the
large changes in the bill before the committee. He noted he
had been speaking to the "V" version. He relayed if
something was not found in the bill he would have to do a
side-by-side comparison, which he had done for his own
study. He detailed the comparison was 60 paragraphs long
because it required significant verbiage to explain the
differences.
Co-Chair Thompson asked if it would be helpful to be able
to see the comparison document. Mr. Shilling answered he
could provide a document showing the full evolution of the
bill.
Co-Chair Thompson requested the document.
Co-Chair Neuman asked if it was possible to get a copy of
Senator Coghill's notes showing his opinion about the
differences between the bill versions.
Senator Coghill stated that he put notes on his papers and
could try to narrow them down. He relayed there were only
about six major areas of the bill, which contained about
four of five policy calls each. Some were under the heading
of the medical coverage for spouses, which pertained to
five sections of the legislation. Other changes under the
heading of off-highway licenses pertained to seven sections
of the bill. Additionally, sex offender changes dealt with
about nine areas in the bill related to twelve sections. He
could highlight the items and provide them to the
committee.
Co-Chair Neuman thanked Senator Coghill and remarked he
would personally opt to make the sex offender components as
tough as possible.
9:12:44 AM
Representative Gara spoke to the 120-day cap included in
the Senate version and asked if a person would get credit
for time served in jail.
Mr. Shilling replied the particular credit only applied to
individuals outside a facility on EM.
Representative Wilson stated that a person received credit
for sitting in jail pretrial. She noted the goal of HB 15
[legislation passed in 2015 related to electronic
monitoring credits] was to keep people out of jail when
possible until they were found guilty. She reasoned a
person could be "doing all this" and still be innocent.
Senator Coghill indicated he had worked closely with
Representative Wilson on putting the previous legislation
into law, which was a policy direction he agreed with.
However, he had agreed to a 120-day cap to try to ensure
resolution was brought as soon as possible. He noted it did
get to the policy call question that a person was innocent
until they were found guilty. However, accountability
measures may be necessary during pretrial. The Senate had
been convinced by the Office of Victims' Rights that there
were people who would potentially misuse the system. He
noted he did not have any data on the issue at present. He
reiterated it was a policy call. He noted the Office of
Victims' Rights had a significant impact on the bill as it
had moved through the process; the agency was cautious
about any changes.
9:14:40 AM
Representative Edgmon referred to a letter from the Speaker
of the House and the Senate President (the presiding
officers) included in the criminal justice report, which
asked the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission to come
forward with policy options that would reduce the prison
population by 15 percent in the short-term and 25 percent
in the long-term. He asked Senator Coghill if he believed
the bill would achieve the goals.
Senator Coghill answered that as the price of oil went down
and the state's deficit increased, the commission had
already been at work. The presiding officers had asked the
commission to look as deeply as possible at cost savings.
He detailed a slight fear had developed that cost savings
would become more central than public safety, which had
continually been brought up during the debate in the
Senate. It was also true, they had asked for specific
savings when possible. The goal was data driven information
and the presiding officers had given three scenarios
ranging from the easiest to the most difficult in terms of
savings.
Senator Coghill elaborated that the commission had
developed recommendations, especially related to sexual
assault, that the legislature were not willing to take.
Therefore, it had eroded into the cost savings from a 21
percent savings down to an 18 percent savings. He explained
the public condemnation had been very difficult to answer
and there had been disagreement even within the victims'
advocates groups. He wanted to extend the commission to
have them look further at the sexual assault offences. He
explained the commission had taken some negative comments
because of options they had presented. The commission had
understood the legislature would look at the details and
change them around. The commission had gone as deep and
broad as possible, which had ultimately caused some
consternation within the victims' advocates groups. He
referred to testimony from Brenda Stanfill [executive
director of the Interior Alaska Center for Non-Violent
Living and member of the Alaska Criminal Justice
Commission] the previous day, who had indicated the
commission had struggled with how the state could change
the way it did business. The commission had ultimately
arrived at some decent recommendations. The bill included a
moderated version of the commission's recommendations, but
there were still real, marginal savings. He detailed that
at $142 per day the state would save money on the daily
cost. If the changes were implemented it was probable the
need for a new prison and its associated costs would be
averted. However, if the bill did not move forward during
the current year, the House Finance Committee would need to
begin discussions on building a new prison. He concluded
those were the parameters the commission had to deal with.
9:18:41 AM
Representative Guttenberg recalled testimony from a police
officer the previous day related to data driven decision
making that may be contrary to strongly held beliefs and
doing the right thing. He believed the current bill version
fixed one oversight, which was to provide medical coverage
for dependent spouses [of peace officers and firefighters].
He stated the issue was clearly data driven. He wondered
about the practical problem of including the provision in
the bill. He observed the change was significant, but he
would find it problematic if the provision was left out.
Senator Coghill did not know that there was a specific
provision included for dependents, but there were some
benefits. He spoke to swift and certain action on
probation/parole was trying to keep people at work.
Allowing individuals to receive food stamps was aiming to
give people getting out of jail to improve their lot in
life as they tried to determine how to integrate [into
society]. The bill instructed DOC to begin exit planning
(including places for employment, identification, housing,
and other) for inmates 90 days prior to their release. With
regard to medical coverage, he knew dependents could
probably get Medicaid. Under Medicaid expansion healthcare
would be available for inmates coming out of jail. The idea
of probation/parole had been to allow individuals not to
languish in jail under technical violations in order to
avoid job loss. A whole range of things had been
considered, but not specifically for dependents themselves.
The question related to defendants was how to achieve the
most productive circumstances as possible as quickly as
possible, while still being accountable.
9:21:27 AM
Representative Guttenberg clarified his question was
specifically related to the families of peace officers and
firefighters [killed in the line of duty].
Senator Coghill responded that he had misunderstood the
question. The House Judiciary Committee had added medical
coverage for peace officers and firefighters. One of the
problems was the narrowness of the coverage. For example,
it did not cover employees from the Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities who may be killed in
an avalanche or a Department of Fish and Game employee who
may be killed in the field. He believed the provision would
draw significant attention because it was not broad enough.
From the Senate's perspective, the issue should be
addressed separately from the current legislation if it was
a policy call. He did not know that the corrections
officers were in on the discussion.
Representative Pruitt wanted to be explicitly clear about
the intent of the bill. He asked if the genesis and intent
of the bill solely surrounded the goal of saving money in
the state.
Senator Coghill replied in the negative.
Representative Pruitt asked Senator Coghill to expand on
his answer.
Senator Coghill responded that the bill was about public
safety, but better outcomes for the money spent. He
continued that dollars were involved and the letter
referenced earlier in the meeting had looked at cost
savings. He underscored it was explicit in the commission's
instructions and the bill was about "how do we do it
better?" He reiterated the bill's intent was about public
safety and holding people accountable. He referred to
testimony by Lieutenant Kris Sell from the previous day
that if two-thirds of the individuals [released from jail]
went back to jail, it meant the system was not working
well. The question all along the way was "how do we make it
work better?" He remarked that some people would say the
system was broken. He stressed that the system was just not
working to the desired outcomes. He had known that before
the beginning of the economy's downturn six years earlier.
He relayed he had worked with Representative Wilson on a
couple of the issues.
Senator Coghill furthered they had decided to put a
commission in place because the sentencing was not working
the way they thought it would be. He remarked Co-Chair
Neuman had been working on recidivism reduction for a
number of years. The topic was not new, but the bill
categorized it in a way that acknowledged the state could
not afford a new prison, addressed how to get better
outcomes, and how to increase public safety. The intent of
the bill was to address how to reduce the crime rate and
keep people safe. Additionally, if people were entering
jails with behavioral health issues, the bill worked to
address how to deal with the issue. He explained that
currently the state was not dealing with the issues to the
best outcome. He continued the bill was really about public
safety and not cost savings; however, the state did not
have the money to continue doing things the way it was.
9:26:04 AM
Representative Pruitt had read an article a few days prior
which he relayed. He explained that Chicago, Illinois had
done something similar to the current bill in 2011. The
article included a conversation about police officers in
Chicago. A new head officer had expressed extreme concern
with the changes because it meant the officers could
identify people who had been problem offenders who were
still on the streets. He believed two police officers had
died in the line of duty in recent months because of the
individuals. He continued that approximately five districts
had been identified in Chicago and the officers felt that
due to changes they had been unable to address the
challenge even though they had the ability to identify
repeat offenders. He noted he was not claiming the changes
made in Chicago were the same as the changes included in SB
91. He remarked on the large size of the legislation and
relayed he had been working to keep up to speed on the
contents. He appreciated Senator Coghill's time spent on
the bill. He wondered what the bill did to ensure the
Chicago scenario did not happen in Alaska when working to
eliminate the revolving door. He believed minimizing the
revolving door was an appropriate goal. He spoke to
collateral consequences and things that created barriers
once someone was out of prison from being able to integrate
back into society and back to work, which he believed was
part of the goal. He wanted to ensure officers and citizens
were not put at risk.
Senator Coghill replied that no part of the bill had been
modeled after Illinois or California. He detailed both of
those locations had rifted people from jail in a very
different way from actions proposed in SB 91. The bill was
modeled after places that hold people accountable; if
individuals were a high risk and a danger they were not
allowed on the streets. The method had been a data driven,
results-based look at all of the items included in the
legislation. For example, currently a gang member charged
with a crime could go into jail, pay bail, and be released.
He detailed the individual still had to show up for court,
but they were out of jail and still dangerous. The bill
proposed risk assessing the individuals very differently;
therefore, high risk individuals would not be eligible for
bail. He continued that individuals who were considered a
danger to society could be risk assessed. He explained that
poor individuals representing a very low risk, who could
not afford the $500 bail, would be released. Individuals
with a drug or alcohol problem could be offered a
diversionary program on monitoring under a pretrial
services agreement.
Senator Coghill continued that the state was not currently
risk assessing individuals at the level recommended under
the legislation when they were let out of jail. He
specified that under probation/parole in the bill, the
higher the risk would mean the more the accountability; the
lower the risk, the lesser the accountability. In jail,
incentives to behavior modification were programmatic and
demonstrable. He emphasized the strategies were very
different than the ones used in Illinois or California. He
had worked to incorporate data from places such as Texas,
Louisiana, and Georgia - places that had actually turned
the corner on crime rates. He stressed the legislation was
not about turning criminals out; it was about holding
criminals accountable. He reiterated that the lower the
crime, the accountability differed, whereas the higher the
crime, the higher the accountability. The method differed
from current practice in many ways. He had also found that
if people could be productive in their life, they should be
allowed to pay back restitution or court fines. For
example, if a person currently owed a court fine, but could
not afford to pay it, the court would allow the person to
do community work service for $3 per hour. He wondered
where the incentive was to get out and work [for earnings
so low]. The bill required a person to do the community
work service, but at minimum wage. He stressed a person
would not have the ability to merely sit in jail - they
would have to pay the fine. The items he highlighted were
substantially different than the system in Chicago. The
ranges had been changed for sex offences and high crimes
and good behavior was incentivized, but the courts could
still go to the top of the range for egregious crimes. The
goal was to establish a system that allowed for flexibility
and discretion by the courts and DOL, while allowing
individuals to work towards earning a better lot in life.
He referenced testimony from Lieutenant Kris Sell from the
previous day related to the need for both positive and
negative incentives. He did not know whether that was true
in Illinois, because it had not been a part of the study
group for SB 91.
9:33:35 AM
Representative Pruitt wondered what helped the decision
making in terms of doing a risk assessment. He wondered if
a risk assessment would be done based on the type of crime
committed, or if a person had gone through certain
programs, or other.
Mr. Shilling responded that the bill directed DOC to adopt
a risk assessment tool; the bill was not very prescriptive
on exactly what the tool would look like. There were many
examples the department could pull from (e.g. Kentucky).
There was a delayed 18-month effective date for the tool
because it would take some time to set up. He explained the
tool would be statistical and would take into account many
of the same factors judges currently had available; it was
about how the factors were weighted. The tool would be
validated; there would be a lookback period to determine
how predictive it had been, which would enable the
department to tweak the tool to conform to Alaska's unique
circumstances.
Senator Coghill added that the tool would be used pretrial.
Pretrial individuals were still presumed innocent, but it
was possible to assess the risk of danger and a person's
ability to show up in court. There was a different type of
risk assessment for individuals on probation/parole. The
Probation and Parole Board already looked at risk factors.
He spoke to some of the provisions in the bill that would
mean higher accountability. He detailed that in the case of
felony offenders, the victim received notification the
perpetrator was coming up for probation/parole and was
given an opportunity (the notification was currently only
available in domestic violence cases). He furthered that
victims would have more input into the Probation and Parole
Board. The legislation also asked for corrections officers
to have increased input into the board than in the past,
because they were the ones who knew the offenders and
whether they had been helpful. He believed the probation
circumstances, even though there were risk assessments,
would take into account things like the requirement for an
exit plan 90 days before a person was released from jail.
He detailed an individual case plan would be necessary,
which would look at a person's assets, job skills, housing,
identification, and what the first 120 days would look like
after release. The items would be directive in the
legislation - more so than had been done up to the current
point.
9:37:01 AM
Representative Pruitt had some concerns, but he commended
the sponsor's and Co-Chair Thompson's staff for working
with his office. He discussed that the committee continued
to work with the Office of Victims' Rights to try to make
sure the bill would address some of the concerns especially
related to victims. He had been told he was crazy because
he did not fully jump on board with the legislation. He
underscored that he believed in the bill's goal, but he
believed there was still work to do. He still had concerns
about the ability to protect the public. He referred to a
case in Alaska where a man had killed his girlfriend the
day he had been released from an anger management course.
He wanted to continue to work with the bill sponsor to
ensure the issues were addressed. He ultimately wanted to
ensure the state's citizens were protected.
Senator Coghill responded that his sanity had been question
as well, primarily because the legislation would do things
differently, which was always a tough thing. Some of the
things would be new concepts, such as pretrial and
probation/parole, would be challenging to implement. He
continued that if the bill passed and the new concepts were
implemented, he believed it was wise for the legislature to
monitor, inspect, and expect reports back. The bill
included requirements and requests for the commission to do
more work on some areas, including sexual assault/violence,
which was a "must have" for the Senate. He continued the
language needed addressed in the bill because it included a
compilation of requests that could be narrowed down for
clarity. He stated that inspection was also needed going
forward. He supported extending the commission and
conducting "deep dives" into some of the statistics that
were new to Alaska. Under the process, the commission had
the help of the Pew Foundation, which had done a thorough
look into DOL and DOC related to statistics on recidivism
and its impacts. He emphasized that more was needed because
it would be necessary to follow the statistics. He relayed
they had agreed to work for two years following the passage
of the bill.
Senator Coghill believed "our sanity along the way is
worthy of questioning." He underscored that two-thirds of
individuals released from prison returning back to jail
meant two-thirds more crimes than the state wanted. He
stressed the recidivism rate was unacceptable; it meant
more victims every day. He stated that the items in the
bill were the best concepts they located on proven
practices. He spoke to the legislative debate process and
relayed the reality was the change that would take place in
the system, which could be ironed out along the way. He
emphasized the process would be long and continuous. He
wanted to establish a system that could be easily looked
at. He noted that the jail and probation officers did not
get to select who showed up. Likewise, victims did not get
to pick who beat up on them or stole from them. How
perpetrators were held accountable a big part of the
legislature's job and was a good approach to protecting
further victims. The state was not currently protecting its
society at its best. He reiterated that two-thirds of
former inmates were recidivating. He believed the proposed
system was probably as good of an approach as possible
because it had been studied throughout different states. He
referred to the behavioral health issues in Alaska's jails
and to the state's drug and alcohol problems. He stressed
the state had to begin putting programs in place to begin
changing the dynamics. He reasoned that it was not possible
to control what society dished up, but it was up to the
state and legislature to respond; he believed the bill
contained the best response available.
Co-Chair Thompson made a remark about it being the 93rd day
of the 90-day session. He facetiously brought the current
sanity into question.
9:42:46 AM
Vice-Chair Saddler asked if additional time spent on the
issue help make the bill better or whether they were
approaching the point of diminishing returns.
Senator Coghill answered that the situation was at a
critical juncture. He affirmed that it was possible to
wait, but the legislature should plan to put out an RFP for
a jail while it waited.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked if Senator Coghill would prefer to
"strip the bill back to fighting weight" before additional
items had been grafted on. Alternatively, he wondered if
the bill sponsor believed it was appropriate to add
additional sideboards to try to accommodate some "late in
the process concerns and bills."
Senator Coghill answered that some of the bills added to SB
91 presented political and practical problems he had
mentioned earlier. Some of the issues on sexual assault
would help move the bill out in the current year, which was
the reason he had discussed the Senate's action on the
bill. He detailed that continued concern would be heard
from the Office of Victims' Rights on some of the items
suggested in the original bill version that the Senate had
begun to carve out related to sexual assault violence and
criminal behavior. He believed it was appropriate and that
the current bill should be matched as closely to the Senate
version. He did not believe the bill needed to be perfect;
it was a work in progress. He furthered that the behavioral
health, sexual assault, violence, theft, and drug and
alcohol problems had not been solved. He stressed that the
legislature could not solve those problems, but it could
hold people accountable and try to turn the behavior the
best they knew how. He reiterated the situation was at a
critical juncture and he did not believe there was enough
time to wait. He recognized the bill was not perfect, but
it represented a good shot at the problems. He restated his
belief that the House and Senate bill versions should be as
similar as possible, which meant some of the bills that had
been included should probably be removed. He meant no
disrespect to individuals trying to push the bills that
were all worthy of deep debate, but were most likely more
than SB 91 could handle.
9:46:00 AM
Representative Gattis stated that doing the same thing
[over and over] was the definition of insanity. She spoke
to the need to do things differently because the current
system was not working. She thanked Senator Coghill for
working on the issue for the past six years. She relayed
she had spent significant time at the Point Mackenzie
Correctional Farm and that inmates were typically in their
last few months of incarceration. She detailed that more
importantly the facility addressed the addiction and
alcohol factor - the inmates did not have substances
available. However, once the individuals were released the
cycle began again. She liked the bill's risk assessments
and the fact individuals would be given an opportunity to
get some help. She reiterated if the current system did not
change the state would continue getting the same results.
She spoke to a concern about situations where an 18-year-
old man was sleeping with a younger girl consensually, but
they were classified in a sex offender situation. She
stressed the issue ruined people's lives. She believed how
the issue was dealt with in the current system contained a
glitch. She asked for Senator Coghill's thoughts.
Senator Coghill replied that current law included some
things that gave reason if the individuals were within
certain age limits - there were different ways of dealing
with it. He stated "we live in a very promiscuous society";
there are many reasons for youths to experiment and they
were encouraged to in many ways. The down side was if a
person violated another person the cost was very high
whether a person was young or older. He continued that
young victims had a lifelong journey, which had not been
figured out in the current legislation. He furthered there
was room for discussion along the way. He stated there was
a continuum and it was challenging to find a range related
to the least to most egregious offences because once a
person was labeled as a sex offender, it was a fact. He
stressed that once a person became a victim they also faced
a lifelong sentence. He had been unable to determine the
best way to deal with the issue in the current bill. He
believed more time and study was needed.
Senator Coghill advised that the legislature needed to
continually recognize its responsibility to hold people
accountable for bad behavior. The legislature could not
always describe how to fix the problem, but it could
provide reinvestment tools into society. He believed at the
very least the sex offender treatment needed to be moved
into the jail; currently it was outside the jail system and
people were out on the streets waiting for their turn to
get in line. The bill asked the Alaska Criminal Justice
Commission to come back with more information. He stated
that whatever the range was, there were some times where
[sexual activity] was consensual, but it was illegal. He
questioned how to deal with the specific problem. He asked
if an individual had been convinced by a domineering person
and relayed it was up to the courts to determine. He
believed the legislature needed to set better rules, but
they were trying to think of every circumstance. He
emphasized there was way too much non-consensual, violent
abuse of people in Alaska (male and female). The state had
the unhealthy distinction of being one of the worst [in
that area]; therefore, he was not willing to lighten up on
the range at present "until we start changing what we do in
Alaska." He was sympathetic to the issue. He also knew
people could be emotionally involved and do things that are
wrong that probably do not merit the lifelong sentence. He
understood that, but noted "we're just not there as a
society yet."
Senator Coghill stated society was encouraging youth in
many ways both in dress and in pop culture. He feared
especially for young girls in middle school that a whole
industry targeted them for dress, makeup, and other. Yet
when someone in that age group tried to initiate sexual
behavior and another person responded, they were brought
down with a very heavy hammer. He believed it was
rightfully so, but that individuals should not be
encouraged to experiment at that age; however, that was
what "society is dishing up." He stated he was not in
charge of the messages sent by society, but it was
necessary to determine how to respond to the issues in the
best way possible so that people were not violated even if
they are being foolish. The current bill held people
accountable at a high level for being bad. He stated the
bill also gave "opportunities for being foolish for
changes." The reinvestment portion of the bill was to
provide individuals the opportunity to regain themselves
into a productive life. The greater the failure, the harder
it was to get there. The sexual assault issue was an open
question in society and was now an open session in law.
Currently the law would be hard on the individuals across
the board; if there was going to be any slack, the
legislature needed to ask someone to help it out. He
reasoned there were highly charged emotions in the
legislature; a specific instance would be brought to
legislators and it would not have the ability to reach a
decision because of the emotional aspect. He stressed the
issue needed to be addressed dispassionately, which was
difficult. He was not willing to take the issue on in an
omnibus crime bill.
9:55:01 AM
Representative Munoz relayed she had just recently been
made aware of a situation that had shaken her to her core.
She detailed an 18-year-old man who was a senior in high
school had been in a consensual [sexual] relationship with
a 14-year-old girl. The young man had been charged with
three counts of sexual assault and was facing 30 years in
prison. She believed it was an area of the law that had
gone too far. She emphasized it was paramount to bring back
some balance and level of mercy. She hoped the Alaska
Criminal Justice Commission would take a hard look at the
particular area because she believed it needed to be fixed.
She understood that violent criminals and sexual offenders
needed to be held to the highest level of accountability,
but balance was also needed where unintended consequences
occurred that sent young people to prison for life.
Senator Coghill agreed. He did not know the issue could be
addressed in the current legislation. He stated it was a
topic unto itself and was very emotionally charged. At
present, the law did not enable a 14-year-old to consent to
sexual relations. He questioned when society should change
the look at a 14-year-old girl. He shared that his daughter
was currently in her 30s, but he also had a 12-year-old
granddaughter. He emphasized from a grandfather's
perspective, anyone who violated her would face the wrath
of a grandfather. He continued that the calls were tough
when dealing with individuals in close age groups and it
was youthful indiscretion. He did not know the answer. He
agreed that 30 years was very tough call for the situation.
As he had worked on the bill the issue at hand was the
"flash point" discussion that created so much noise, it was
impossible to get through. The individuals represented a
small group of the prison population. Alternatively, there
was a very high recidivism rate for people doing drugs and
alcohol and who beat children and did other unacceptable
things. He stated it was not acceptable anymore. He asked
how to change it. He preferred to spend the time on things
it could change and to give the commission a thoughtful way
to look at the issue that may come back to the legislature.
He reiterated his earlier statements that society was
dishing up things the state was struggling with; it was
very dynamic. He elaborated he had been raised in a very
different moral code than the one at present. He reasoned
the state's laws probably mirrored closer to the moral code
from his youth. He shared that the message from his mom and
dad on youthful indiscretion was closer to the death
penalty. He believed society needed a code specifying it
was unacceptable, "but acceptable at what level? 30 years?
I don't know." He did not know the answer to the question
and would be willing to have the discussion; however, he
did not believe they could find the answer fast enough to
address the issue in the current legislation. He reasoned
the bill should address the many things happening in
society that did need answers and had answers available.
9:59:43 AM
Representative Gara was completely sympathetic to the
concept of getting an imperfect bill through the system
rather than no bill. He continued that everyone on the
committee had their own point about something that might be
fixed. He pointed out the legislature was not merely the
House and Senate; it was a body comprised of individuals
who worked together. He believed there may be some issues
that could be rectified by speaking to members of the other
body. For example, perhaps Representative Munoz could speak
to individuals in the Senate and would discover everyone
was okay with a change. He believed part of the committee's
job was to find a way to construct a bill that was good and
may be even better (without killing it). He encouraged
members to determine who they may need to talk to in the
other body.
Senator Coghill relayed he had been open for discussion. He
had aimed to give the committee a sense of the debate as he
had followed the bill through both bodies. He stated it was
a Senate bill and he did not mind discussing the Senate
action; however, it was also an Alaska Criminal Justice
Commission bill and it included significant input from the
police, courts, and victims' advocacy groups. He emphasized
that it was not possible to answer all of the questions at
present. However, he believed they should answer the
questions it could. He stated the commission had come up
with a pretty good list, which he believed the legislature
should adhere to as closely as possible.
10:01:45 AM
Vice-Chair Saddler noted the committee had considered
another large bill the previous week and had begun asking
questions about the most important pieces of the
legislation. He clarified he was not implying intention to
strip elements out of the current bill; he believed SB 91
may represent a finely crafted balance. He asked if there
were any particular items that were more critical than
others and that required passage during the current
session.
Senator Coghill responded the question was like asking if
he would give up a hand or a heart. He guessed he would
give up a hand. He stated some pieces of the legislation
were critical, others were important, and others were a
work-in-progress that could be done later. In some ways the
areas of accountability represented the heart of the
legislation. For example, changing the pretrial system was
critical. Additionally, the reinvestment and accountability
surrounding how drug and alcohol abuse were treated was a
large part of the bill. He spoke to the importance of
sentencing and community supervision. The way people were
held accountable under probation/parole were the "heart-
blood" of the legislation; without action in those areas
the changes would not work. Important items that could
possibly be put off for another year were the limited
driver's license. He stated for someone to have the ability
to become productive in life through getting a driver's
license, may not be critical to the bill, but it was
important to Alaska. Food stamp eligibility would be
helpful to individuals coming out of jail, but it was not
essential to the legislation. He reiterated that the way
people were held accountable had to change, which included
pretrial, the way probation was done, and the way good time
was awarded in jail - the components were all balancing
factors that should remain in the legislation. He suggested
that if reinvestment did not happen it would be like having
a nice car with no gas. He underscored the essential nature
of the reinvestment component.
Vice-Chair Saddler appreciated Senator Coghill's feedback.
CSSSSB 91(FIN) AM was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
Co-Chair Thompson reviewed the agenda for the afternoon
meeting. He announced that there would be public testimony
on Thursday at 5:00 P.M. He recessed the meeting to a call
of the chair [note: the meeting never reconvened].
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|