Legislature(2015 - 2016)SENATE FINANCE 532
03/29/2016 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| 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 |
SENATE BILL NO. 91
"An Act relating to protective orders; relating to
conditions of release; relating to community work
service; relating to credit toward a sentence of
imprisonment for certain persons under electronic
monitoring; relating to the restoration under certain
circumstances of an administratively revoked driver's
license, privilege to drive, or privilege to obtain a
license; allowing a reduction of penalties for
offenders successfully completing court-ordered
treatment programs for persons convicted of driving
under the influence; relating to termination of a
revocation of a driver's license; relating to
restoration of a driver's license; relating to credits
toward a sentence of imprisonment, to good time
deductions, and to providing for earned good time
deductions for prisoners; relating to the
disqualification of persons convicted of certain
felony drug offenses from participation in the food
stamp and temporary assistance programs; relating to
probation; relating to mitigating factors; relating to
treatment programs for prisoners; relating to the
duties of the commissioner of corrections; amending
Rules 32 and 35(b), Alaska Rules of Criminal
Procedure; and providing for an effective date."
9:08:38 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon explained that because of the size of
the legislation, it would be discussed by topic followed by
a high level sectional analysis.
JORDAN SHILLING, STAFF, SENATOR COGHILL, introduced the
presentation, "SB 91 - Reinvestment" (copy on file).
9:09:55 AM
Mr. Shilling displayed the slide, "Prison Population Up 27%
Over Last Decade," which contained a line graph that
illustrated that the prison population had increased from
4,133 in 2005, to 5,267 in 2014. He shared that the prison
population had grown 3 time faster than the state's
resident population. He noted that the state had built the
Goose Creek Correctional Facility at a cost of $240
million, in order to accommodate the growth.
9:10:11 AM
Mr. Shilling turned to the slide, "Absent Reform, Prison
Population Projected to Grow by Additional 27% over Next
Decade, Costing at Least $169 Million." The slide contained
a line graph that detailed the historical and projected
prison growth from 2004 to 2024, as related to the current
bed supply.
9:10:32 AM
Mr. Shilling addressed the slide, "Prison Population is
Half Sentenced Offenders, Half Supervision Violators and
Pretrial Defendants," which showed a pie chart illustrating
the prison population, by status, on July 1, 2014.
9:11:00 AM
Senator Dunleavy asked whether the assumptions used in the
presentation were based upon the idea that Alaska would
house all criminals in-state.
Mr. Shilling replied that the projections were based on $95
per day for the adverted cost; the balance between keeping
prisoners in-state and sending them out-of-state.
9:11:29 AM
Mr. Shilling returned to Slide 4, relaying that the Alaska
Criminal Justice Commission had looked at data and research
over a 7 month period, and had identified the largest cost
drivers in the system. The pretrial population had grown 81
percent in the last decade, the sentenced population had
also grown - length of stay in prison had increased across
all classification of felonies. Alaska had many probation
violators in its prisons - one-fifth of the prison
population consisted of those who had not committed a new
crime but had committed a technical violation of probation.
He lamented that the state had a two-thirds recidivism
rate.
9:12:33 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked whether non-technical probation
violations had been included in the assumptions.
Mr. Shilling explained that a technical violation was
defined a something that was not a new crime. He said that
there was a range of technical violations from rule
violations for missing an appointment, to drinking in
violation of a condition. He added that the commission had
considered the more serious violations, such as not
completing sex offender treatment, and recommended that
they not be included in the legislation. He furthered that
things like not completing batterers intervention
programming would not be considered a new crime, but for
the purposes of the bill it was not treated as a technical
violation; the intent had been to accommodate for the
understanding that some technical violations were worse
than others.
9:13:59 AM
Vice-Chair Micciche asked how much the state invested in a
reminder system for those required to complete programs. He
wondered whether a reminder system could help reduce
technical violations. He believed that it did not make
sense to imprison people on technicalities.
Mr. Shilling explained that research had indicated that a
reminder system for court hearings would be effective; the
commission had recommended that the court system begin
notifying individuals in an effort to increase appearance
rates. He said that the commission had not contemplated
reminders for probation meetings, but he believed reminders
of this type could be beneficial.
9:15:22 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked whether missing anger management
education would be considered a technical violation.
Mr. Shilling said that for the purposes of the pie chart,
individuals not completing programming and in violation of
their probation would be included, but for the purposes of
SB 91 the policies that addressed technical violations did
not include missing anger management classes.
9:15:56 AM
Mr. Shilling explained Slide 5, "Reinvestment Directive to
the Commission":
"In this budget climate, investments that expand
treatment and services only become possible with a
reform package that results in substantial, real net
savings to the state."
- Letter to Alaska Criminal Justice Commission from
Finance co-Chairs, Senate President, and Speaker of
the House
Mr. Shilling recounted that in August of 2015, the
presiding officers of both legislative bodies, including
the co-chairs of finance, sent a letter to the commission
and requested that they research the issue and offer
recommendations that would address fundamental changes to
the criminal justice system.
9:16:26 AM
Mr. Shilling turned to Slide 6, "Commission
Recommendations":
· Implement evidence-based pretrial practices;
· Focus prison beds on serious and violent
offenders;
· Strengthen supervision and interventions to
reduce recidivism; and
· Ensure oversight and accountability.
Mr. Shilling detailed that the commission poured over data
for months; they looked at the latest research and
identified 21 evidence based practices to address the three
growth drivers in the system.
9:16:38 AM
Vice-Chair Micciche referred to Slide 5. He expressed that
Alaskans were concerned that, as a result of cuts due to
the current fiscal crisis, potentially dangerous criminals
could be released into communities. He asked for assurances
that the legislation would not put communities in danger.
Mr. Shilling related that the state had been concerned
about criminal justice reform since long before the current
budgetary predicament. He relayed that the commission held
public safety at the forefront of its collective thinking.
He asserted that the main goal of the bill was not firstly
to reduce cost, but to invest in strategies that had been
proven to work to reduce spending on futile practices, and
to reinvest in programs that reduced crime. He furthered
that substance abuse treatment programs would be needed,
and pre-trial supervision programs; currently the state had
no pre-trial supervision, pre-trial supervision had been
shown to improve appearance rates and lessen pre-trial
crime. He said that many community supervision
recommendations made by the commission had focused on
implementing swift and certain punishments to reduce
recidivism, and to decrease caseloads for probation
officers. He expounded that the policies in the bill were
rooted in research and the states that had passed the
reforms had experienced a drop in crime. He contended that
the intent of the legislation was for the state to get
higher quality public safety results for its investment.
9:19:41 AM
Mr. Shilling showed Slide 7, "Prison Growth with Commission
Recommendations." The slide showed a graph illustrating a
combination of averted future costs, plus savings in
marginal offender costs. He said that the package of
recommendations were projected to reduce the states average
daily prison population by 21 percent over the next ten
years.
9:20:10 AM
Senator Dunleavy asked whether the departments and
divisions associated with public safety in Alaska had
reviewed the legislation.
Mr. Shilling stated that the commission was comprised of
stakeholders from all areas of public safety, such as
members of the court and the police. He listed a retired
Alaska Supreme Court Justice, an active superior court
judge, and an active district court judge as having been
involved in the recommendations. He understood that the
changes were supported by the courts and law enforcement
groups. He shared that the bill had evolved in reaction to
concerns voiced by the stakeholders.
9:21:43 AM
Senator Dunleavy inquired what the opinions were from
victims' rights organizations. He queried the equitability
of the participation of different victims' rights groups.
Mr. Shilling stated that there had been victims' rights
representation on the commission. He added that all of the
commission meetings had been open to the public and that
the Office of Victims' Rights had been formally invited. He
felt that the sponsor had been responsive to their
concerns.
9:22:38 AM
Senator Olson understood that the bill had been originally
grounded in evidenced-based data. He expressed fear that as
the bill had moved through the legislature, it had been
amended to add ideas that were not evidence based.
Mr. Shilling agreed that some of the changes to the bill
had not gone through the rigorous evidence based, data-
driven process that the commission had gone through to
create the recommendations. He countered that some of the
changes in the bill had been made in response to feedback
that had been received from the Office of Victims' Rights.
He contended that the state had been making criminal
justice policy in a similar way for decades; a knee-jerk
reaction to sensational events had inspired legislation. He
stressed that that was the reason that the state had
entered into the Justice Reinvestment Initiative; to take a
better approach that was rooted in data and research. He
lamented that the amendments to the bill had not been
rigorously vetted.
9:24:32 AM
Senator Olson wondered whether the sponsor would be willing
to rescind the amendments that had been added to the
legislation.
Mr. Shilling responded that he could not speak for the
sponsor on the issue of the amendments. He pointed out that
the bill was before the committee and the committee had the
opportunity to further its evolution. He encouraged the
committee to engage the sponsor in discussions about
substantive changes.
9:25:18 AM
Mr. Shilling discussed Slide 8, "Prison Reductions and
Savings Under SB 91":
SB 91 is projected to reduce the prison population by
18.8% percent over the next 10 years and save the
state an estimated 148.7 million in marginal prison
costs over the next five years.
Mr. Shilling disclosed that estimated savings had decreased
from what was reflected on the slide. He explained that the
amount that the legislation would save, and the amount that
the committee could reinvest, had decreased as the bill had
gone through the committee process.
9:26:06 AM
Senator Hoffman referred to Slide 7. He asked whether the
slide reflected numbers that had changed after the adoption
of the amendments mentioned by Senator Olson.
Mr. Shilling replied that the chart had been pulled from
the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission's report, and
reflected the recommendations of the commission.
Senator Hoffman asked what the chart would look like after
it was changed to reflect the amended legislation.
Mr. Shilling said he could provide the information to the
committee.
9:26:55 AM
Mr. Shilling turned to Slide 9, "'Justice Reinvestment'
concept":
Free up funds by focusing prison beds on serious
violent offenders, and reinvest a portion of the
savings into the services needed to reduce recidivism
and protect the public.
Mr. Shilling elaborated that more than 30 states had
undertaken justice reinvestment projects. He defined
justice reinvestment as the data driven approach to
improved public safety, analyze criminal justice spending,
manage and allocate offender populations in a more cost
effective manner, and reinvest savings and the strategies
that hold offenders accountable and decrease crime. He said
that justice reinvestment could be described in a 5 step
process:
1. Establish a working group
2. Analyze the drivers
3. Develop policy recommendations to address problems
4. Codify policy changes
5. Reinvest savings in strategies that work
Mr. Shilling argued that rather than spending money on
programs that had not worked, funds should be redirected to
strategies that had proven effective. He reiterated that
substance abuse treatment, pre-trial supervision, community
based treatment, and reentry support services had been
proven to have positive effects on the prison population of
the state.
9:28:22 AM
Mr. Shilling presented Slide 10, "Reinvestment Priorities":
· Pretrial supervision;
· Violence prevention and victims' services;
· Community-based treatment; and
· Reentry and support services.
Mr. Shilling relayed that by following those priorities,
other states had seen reductions in prison populations, and
also in crime rates. He reminded the committee of their
opportunity to reinvest any savings that the bill would
produce.
9:28:49 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon requested that Mr. Shilling update his
presentation to reflect the author and date.
Mr. Shilling agreed to update the presentation.
9:29:36 AM
Vice-Chair Micciche asked whether Mr. Shilling thought that
the amended version of the bill contained positive changes.
Mr. Shilling related that the commission had relied on
research that had been outcome focused. He said that there
was no research that showed whether a punishment was harsh
enough, or if the right level of justice had been served.
He felt that retribution did not have an objective standard
that research could identify. He reiterated that the
amendments had not gone through as thorough a process as
the data considered by the commission.
9:31:21 AM
Vice-Chair Micciche thought that cash savings was one
consideration, and that the end result was another, and
that the challenge lie in striking the balance.
9:31:47 AM
Senator Dunleavy expressed concerned that some of the
burden of the bill, or any future initiatives related to
criminal justice, would be shifted to public education. He
warned the future discussions about the allocation of
resources to bear the burden would be imminent. He opined
that public education was being viewed as, "a place, a kind
of collection point for children, as well as how to deal
with all societal ills."
Senator Dunleavy asked whether Mr. Shilling could provide
the committee with data from other states regarding
criminal justice reform.
Mr. Shilling agreed to provide the information.
9:33:06 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon discussed housekeeping involving the
trajectory of the legislation in committee.
9:34:08 AM
JEFF JESSEE, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ALASKA MENTAL HEALTH
TRUST AUTHORITY, stated that he had been a member of the
commission and had worked on the recommendations. He
assured the committee that the changes proposed in the
legislation would not "reinvent the wheel" but were based
on scientific evidence and data, as well as the successes
other jurisdictions had experienced upon implementing
similar strategies. He said that some of the evidence
surrounding various practices could get confusing because
some of it was counterintuitive. He lamented that some
strategies that were currently being used in an attempt to
reduce criminal behavior had turned out to be not only
ineffective, but in some cases had increased crime. He
spoke of the program "Scared Straight" where adolescent
offenders were taken into prison settings in order to show
them what incarceration looked like from the inside. He
lamented that the program had not been effective, and had
actually increased criminality. He asserted that the reason
was speculative, but it was believed that it was partly
because the program demystified the criminal environment in
prison, causing adolescents to relate to criminals. He
spoke of the DARE Program, where police officers were
brought into elementary school classrooms to talk about
drug abuse and the associated consequences. He revealed
that DARE was not an effective program overall, but that
bringing recovering adolescent addicts into the classroom
had been impactful. He opined that school administrators
did not appreciate brining recovering addicts into the
classroom. He shared that the approach of the commission
was to research the strategies that did, and did not work.
He urged the committee to question the cost associated with
each of the amendments that had been drafted into the
legislation.
9:38:00 AM
Mr. Jessee stated that generally society incarcerated
people either out of fear or anger. He felt that the
committee needed to make the decision, when looking at the
amended bill, of whether they were scared enough, or mad
enough, to spend the extra money to approach the situation
differently. He shared that methamphetamine addicts that
cycled through the system could end up with up to a 2 year
sentence, which would cost the state $280,000. He argued
that helping people to recover from addiction and get their
lives on track would the best return on investment.
Mr. Jessee informed the committee that much of the increase
in the prison population was in pre-trial. He said that
evidence had shown that keeping people in jail, pre-trial,
when they did not pose a significant risk to the community,
was a poor use of resources and had been shown to increase
criminality. He stated that assessment tools used to assess
the risk to communities when someone was released pre-trial
had advanced substantially. He relayed that by investing in
pre-trial services the state could receive quality
assessments of risk and conditions that would be necessary
upon release to keep the public safe.
9:40:39 AM
Mr. Jessee said that looking at other ways to implement
evidence based practices that would reduce criminality over
the long-run was a major goal of the commission's
recommendations. He stressed that every act of recidivism
created another victim. Reducing recidivism by providing
support and services to get people out of the pattern of
criminal behavior focused not solely on the offender, but
on preventing future victims. He noted that this had been
an issue raised by victims' rights organizations; if the
state did not reduce crime, then it also would not be
reducing victimization. He relayed that the Bring the Kids
Home Initiative was an example of things rarely working
exactly as designed, no matter how well planned. He
believed that it was critical that the effort at reform was
data driven and that the results reflected the science. He
thought that quality control of data could be maintained by
creating a Criminal Justice Information Center. He
concluded that the work of the committee was to locate the
"sweet spot" where savings to the state were maximized,
while still investing in strategies that would provide
positive results.
9:43:28 AM
Senator Bishop referred to the $280,000 cost of
incarcerating a drug offender for 2 years. He asked whether
the commission had looked into what King County, in
Washington State, had done in regard to drug addicts.
Mr. Jessee was familiar with some practices in King County
but that he did not know what Senator Bishop was speaking
to, specifically.
Senator Bishop said that instead of incarcerating first-
time offenders, they took them directly to rehabilitation
centers.
Mr. Jessee said he was familiar with the program but had
not seen any data on the long-term impacts of the program.
9:44:37 AM
Senator Olson wondered whether the commission had
considered the legalization of marijuana when making its
recommendations.
Mr. Jessee stated that the commission had not focused a
specific process on marijuana, but it had looked into what
would be necessary to reduce drug and alcohol related
offences in the future. He thought many of the
recommendations of the commission were applicable in the
marijuana environment. He thought the commercialization of
marijuana would impact communities, but pointed out that
the issue had been voted on by the people of Alaska.
9:46:06 AM
Senator Dunleavy asked about the $280,000 cost for a two-
year prison sentence. He assumed that drugs were not
available in prison and wondered how an individual could
still be addicted to drugs after being in prison for 2
years.
Mr. Jessee clarified that addiction included more that
immediate withdrawal symptoms and cravings. He said that
even those in forced sober environments suffered from
addiction. He stated that addicts would go back to the drug
once it became available. He said that a person could get
over their physical addiction to drugs and still retain an
addictive personality disorder. He warned that stopping the
use was only one part of treatment and that addiction was a
complicated disease.
9:47:38 AM
Senator Dunleavy surmised that incarceration could take
care of the physical addiction, but not the psychological
addiction. He asked whether most people that went to prison
for drugs in Alaska had access to programs that dealt with
the psychological aspects of addiction.
Mr. Jessee stated that the department was trying to rebuild
its treatment capacity. He recounted that a past policy
shift had dismantled all of the treatment programs in the
department. He relayed that some of the reinvestment
proposed in the bill would further expand the available
treatment options. He said that a number of people did
receive treatment while they were incarcerated, which could
be beneficial upon release; however, that treatment usually
required community follow-up once the offender was
released. He concluded that some people did receive
treatment in corrections, but many that needed it did not.
9:49:17 AM
Vice-Chair Micciche felt that it was important to
acknowledge that addicts could procure drugs in prison. He
understood that drugs were available inside of prisons
where inmates learned how to better conceal their habit;
additionally, they often made contacts for drug connection
upon release. He challenged the idea that prisons were
drug-free zones.
Mr. Jessee agreed. He said that despite the best efforts of
any correctional system, it was unlikely that substances
could be kept out of prisons 100 percent.
9:50:40 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon noted the experts who were still slated
to testify. She welcomed Co-Chair Kelly to the table.
9:51:12 AM
DEAN WILLIAMS, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (via
teleconference), echoed the statements of the previous
testifiers. He understood the angst generated by asking for
a reinvestment piece in the legislation. He expressed that
research and data had supported the importance of the
reinvestment aspect in the bill in order to lower crime
rates. He said that it also made sense anecdotally; prison
for adults or juveniles should be reserved for the hardest
core criminals, taking low-level criminals into the system
led to the advancement of criminality in those individuals
and not rehabilitation. He felt that keeping the right
people in jail helped to reduce crime by not advancing
criminal thinking and criminal behavior inside prisons. He
furthered that the reinvestment piece of the bill was
important for filtering out people who should not be
incarcerated. He understood that this approach could sound
counterintuitive, but that the data supported the plan. He
assured the committee that he would be looking for savings
at every step. He reiterated that putting people in prison
who did not absolutely need to be there would advance the
population and would result in higher costs. He admitted
that the fiscal note attached to the plan was daunting, but
reiterated that putting people in jail who did not need to
be there would exacerbate the problem.
9:55:09 AM
Commissioner Williams discussed the issue of drugs in
prison. He pointed out to the committee that when many
addicts were incarcerated, the demand for illegal
substances increased. He summarized that the reinvestment
piece was an important part in finding savings and truly
reducing the recidivism and crime rate.
9:56:50 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon requested the cost of low-level, medium,
and high-level incarceration per inmate, per day.
Commissioner Williams conveyed that the department was
using $141 per day as an average across the spectrum. He
said he did not know it that number had been divided out
over different facilities for different levels of
supervision. He said he could get back to the committee
with more specific numbers.
9:58:11 AM
Senator Hoffman asked about the commissioner's position on
random drug testing of inmates and correctional officers.
Commissioner Williams stated that there was a robust inmate
drug testing program in place currently, if there was
reason to believe that an inmate was using then officers
would investigate. He stated that there was currently no
random drug testing of staff. He furthered that random drug
testing of employees did occur in other states, and that
the department was looking into the practice.
10:00:49 AM
Senator Dunleavy asked whether there was mental illness
screening for those in prison on drug-related offenses, and
whether those screening results were taken into
consideration when deciding how to proceed with those
offenders.
Commissioner Williams stated that the issue the state
currently faced, particularly heroin and opioid addiction
was front and center for the department. He relayed that he
had started meeting with grass roots organizations in an
attempt to recognize the role addiction played in the
problem. He noted that that part of the pre-trial services
effort was to identify addicts with mental health issues.
He voiced that addicts who were detoxing in prison were
medically fragile and cited the recent death of an inmate
from drug withdrawal. He asserted inmates were screened for
mental health and substance abuse issues inside the prison
system, but the resources available to address those issues
was limited. He said that the job of the department was to
run a prison system and not a psychiatric hospital, but
that the reality was that many of the inmates in the prison
system had significant psychiatric issues. He believed that
the reinvestment piece, and the bill overall, would be
beneficial to the system.
10:04:07 AM
Senator Dunleavy asked whether the bill contemplated an
enhanced screening process and plan for treatment of
inmates who had been identified as mentally ill.
10:04:47 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon thought that the upcoming testifier
could better address Senator Dunleavy's questions.
10:05:07 AM
STACY TONER, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF BEHAVIORAL
HEALTH, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES, testified
in support of the legislation, specifically the
reinvestment priorities. He said that the division believed
that the reinvestment priorities in the bill were aligned
with their mission to foster strong individuals and build
safer communities. She stated that her division would be
tasked with providing community based treatment. She
relayed that the division was crafting a proposal that
would expand substance abuse and mental health services for
individuals half in community residential centers (CRC) in
order to support their successful transition into
communities.
10:07:35 AM
Ms. Toner relayed that access to services was important.
She said that addressing the addiction needs of inmates
while they were in prison was imperative in order to stave
off relapse once the inmates were released. She believed
that attaching services at the halfway house, while
offenders were reintegrating into the community, would
provide natural supports toward recovery, employment, and
reintegration into their families. She spoke to the Alcohol
Safety Action Program (ASAP), which she expected would be a
strong point of the reinvestment strategy.
10:08:33 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked whether there was a diversion
process, or anything in the bill that would treat certain
inmates differently based on their mental health.
Ms. Toner understood that there would be assessments to
identify mental health or substance abuse issues and that
appropriate services would be provided to meet the needs of
the inmate.
10:09:24 AM
Senator Dunleavy asked whether there was language in the
bill that spoke directly to the issue, and whether changes
were expected to be made in the assessments.
Ms. Toner replied that she had not seen language in the
bill that spoke specifically to changes in the assessment
process once the inmate was placed in a CRC. She noted that
at that point the inmate would receive an assessment and a
referral for services for treatment.
10:10:12 AM
Ms. Toner mentioned that states in the Lower 48 had been
using medication assisted treatment inside facilities, she
believed that the idea was one for the state to consider.
10:10:37 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon queried whether the division would be
conducting an assessment as to the consequences of the
legalization of marijuana for the state. She wondered
whether it would generate revenue for the state or
contribute to societal ills.
Ms. Toner stated that the division had begun to explore the
issue, but that the division was currently focused on more
pressing issues.
10:11:37 AM
BRENDA STANFILL, VICTIMS RIGHT ADVOCATE, ALASKA CRIMINAL
JUSTICE COMMISSION, noted that in addition to working with
the commission, she served as executive director of the
Interior Alaska Center for Non-Violent Living [Fairbanks],
and was a member of the Network on Domestic Violence and
Sexual Assault [Juneau].
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked whether there were other victim
agencies represented on the commission.
Ms. Stanfill replied that she had been chosen to represent
victim agencies on the commission. She thought the
commission process had been interactive and inclusive;
victim advocacy groups and victims provided information
during roundtable discussions, and developed a report for
the commission that represented the voices of victims and
victim advocacy.
10:13:41 AM
Ms. Stanfill conveyed that the 13 member commission had
worked in subgroups, which had also included non-commission
public entities. She stated that the commission had agreed
to give high-level recommendations for the legislation,
while acknowledging that further detail work would need to
be done. She noted that the semantics and nuanced language
of crime classification had been a particular area of study
for the commission. She asserted that many of the
amendments that had been incorporated into the legislation
had been the result of those conversations. She said that
victim advocacy groups had focused their ideas for reform
on non-violent crimes. She appreciated that a lot of clean-
up had been done to the bill at the legislative level. She
lamented that some violations had been added back in to the
bill as crimes, such as failure to appear, which she
believed should be revisited. She stated that victim
advocacy groups did not support drug testing of individuals
who were convicted of drug crimes and applying for public
assistance.
10:18:00 AM
Ms. Stanfill shared that working on the commission was a
difficult process. She spoke to the traditional idea that
if someone did something bad they went to jail. She
revealed that after working in the criminal justice field
for 25 years she had concluded that society could not
criminalize its way out of social issues. She said that she
had experienced things in her extensive career that had led
her to her current mindset. She relayed a story from 2015,
in which a young man in Fairbanks had been killed by
police. She recalled him as a toddler in a shelter she had
overseen, which led her to realize that the state did not
have any services for children. She said that they had all
been cut. She said that in 2010, 12 women out of 100 had
been victims of domestic violence or sexual assault, which
due to prevention efforts over the past 5 years had dropped
to 8 women in 100. She felt that the state was essentially
"growing criminals" by not providing the services and
outreach that high risk people needed in order to succeed.
She pointed out to the committee that victims of trauma
were more likely to make bad life choices. She stressed
that if the state could focus on the reinvestment pieces of
the legislation, and pour money into reinvestment,
prevention, and treatment, drug addicts who truly wanted
treatment could be helped.
10:21:40 AM
Ms. Stanfill reiterated that she strongly believed in the
reinvestment recommendations.
10:22:25 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon read from the Executive Summary in the
report, "Alaska Criminal Justice Commission - Justice
Reinvestment Report, December 2015":
Over a seven-month period, the Commission analyzed the
state's criminal justice system, including a
comprehensive review of sentencing, corrections, and
community supervision data.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked whether Alaska had more
incarcerated felons than other states.
Ms. Stanfill replied that she would need more data in order
to answer the question. She noted that the commission had
not compared Alaska to other states.
10:24:07 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon categorized the reform issue as the
desire for "smart justice". She said that the state needed
to look at how to better utilize the dollars that were
being spent on incarceration, and remobilize those dollars
for inmate rehabilitation. She felt the committee should
discuss what "justice" meant to the state. She quoted the
Executive Summary:
Based on this analysis, and the directive from
legislative leadership, the Commission developed a
comprehensive, evidence-based package of 21 consensus
policy recommendations that would protect public
safety, hold offenders accountable, and reduce the
state's average daily prison population by 21 percent,
netting estimated savings of $424 million over the
next decade.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered how a conversation with
Alaskans about justice could take place, which would be
open enough to include how to support the victims of crime,
while understanding and supporting the state's efforts to
rehabilitate offenders.
10:26:13 AM
Mr. Shilling reiterated that there was not objective
research that showed what an appropriate level of justice
looked like, nor an appropriate level of community
condemnation or retribution. He thought that the principal
of justice varied from person to person. He spoke to the
example of felony theft; public opinion was that if the
felony threshold were to be raised, the state would
experience an increase in theft. He stressed the importance
of continually referring to the research, which reflected
that 23 states in the last decade had raised their
threshold and no correlation had been found with raising
the threshold and the number of thefts. He asserted that
the research was nearly irrefutable. He believed that the
Justice Reinvestment Initiative was about stopping the
spending of money on programs that researched had shown did
not work. He proclaimed that sentences had been increased
by 2 years in the mid-2000s, which had yielded no public
safety benefits. He contended that spending should be
scrutinized when taking about what justice meant to the
state to examine whether we were getting the outcomes that
had been expected.
10:27:49 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon solicited comments from other committee
members with regard to justice.
10:28:10 AM
Co-Chair Kelly felt that the criminal justice system had
not changed significantly since medieval times. He felt
that there was a possibility that the entire system needed
an overhaul. He believed that the goal should be that
inmates leave the system better people than when they began
their incarceration. He asserted that all people that
entered prison without a high school diploma should have
acquired on upon release. He recalled an article he had
read in an archeology magazine about the use of a
panopticon in an Australian prison. He shared that
panopticons had fallen out of use because the design
eventually drove prisoners insane. He discussed various
failures in criminal reformation throughout history. He
asked whether the commission had encountered a criminal
justice system model anywhere in the world that produced an
improved citizen at the end of incarceration. He stressed
his desire for a better system.
10:32:18 AM
Ms. Stanfill was not sure that such a model had been
created. She offered that victims of property crime first
and foremost wanted their property back without waiting for
long periods while it sat in evidence. She discussed
corrective provisions for returning property and
restitution for victims. She wondered if it would be better
to allow an offender to work to pay back their victim,
rather than sit idly in a prison. She stressed that
offenders often needed someone to help them to navigate
life. She thought that some of the systems currently set up
(such as CRCs) could successfully rehabilitate offenders
through intensive programing.
10:35:09 AM
Senator Bishop commended the work that the commission had
so far accomplished. He shared that the Department of Labor
had worked with DOC in the past, and that there had been a
General Education Diploma (GED) program, as well as job
training, in prisons at that time. He said that the DOC
budget subcommittee had included funding for a pilot
program for trade instruction. He thought that judges
should have more discretion during sentencing. He believed
that a work program would serve inmates in prison and upon
release. He wondered how the Department of Education and
Early Childhood Development could be worked into the
equation. He felt that future criminals could be identified
and redirected in grade school. He suggested that more
resources could be directed to school-aged children in
order to circumvent the criminal element.
10:39:14 AM
Co-Chair Kelly asked whether the Point Mackenzie
Correctional Farm was still in operation.
Mr. Shillings understood that it had been shut down.
Co-Chair Kelly queried why the farm had been closed.
10:39:52 AM
Senator Bishop thought it was closed as a cost-savings
measure. He believed that inmates from Goose Creek
Correctional Center were bussed to work on the farm during
the day.
Co-Chair Kelly thought that the farm was an example of a
facility that produced benefits to the state. He felt that
inmates could appreciate doing real "manly" work.
10:41:16 AM
Senator Olson commented on increasing the discretion of
judges. He understood that the increased sentencing and
overpopulation was due to judges having greater latitude.
Mr. Shilling stated that some parts of the bill were about
limiting judicial discretion; he believed that to a certain
extend the state was in the current situation because of
too much judicial discretion. He countered that some parts
of the bill were about expanding judicial discretion. He
said that state sentencing laws were prescriptive and
worked off of a "cook book" when it came to sentencing. He
relayed that all of the sentencing ranges had been
increased in the mid-2000s, which had a minimal effect on
reducing the crime rate in the 1980s and 1990s, but that
persistent increased were seeing a diminishing return. He
concluded that it was true that judicial discretion had
been limited over the years because so that judges could
work within a narrow range.
10:44:12 AM
Senator Olson surmised that Mr. Shilling was suggesting
that legislators knew more about sentencing than court
judges.
Mr. Shilling replied that he was not aware of the
justification for the current sentencing ranges. He
asserted that the legislature had accommodated for the
rigidity in the sentencing statutes by having mitigators
and aggravating factors to allow the courts to deviate from
those ranges. He contended that the legislation was an
opportunity to rethink the ranges.
10:45:18 AM
Vice-Chair Micciche related the desire for all Alaskans to
have the chance to succeed. He pointed out that there were
also "bad people" in the state. He wondered whether an
accurate way to identify high-risk offenders could be
established in order for the legislature to dedicate
resources to ensure that those offenders served adequate
sentences. He asked what proportion of those incarcerated
were turned into career criminals by the system. He
believed that justice was the act of incarcerating those
who were a danger to communities, and rehabilitating those
that showed the potential.
Ms. Stanfill stated that the bill did not change the
acknowledgement of patterns of criminality in statute. She
discussed the pretrial risk assessment, and pointed out
that if an inmate could post bail, they were released
regardless of their risk to society. She believed that the
conversation would result in plans to approach the problem.
10:48:04 AM
Co-Chair Kelly remembered that the legislature in the 1990s
had worked under the assumption that the state had been
"soft on crime". He recalled that at that time, the state
had experience a rise in the criminal element, which had
cause the legislature to overreact. He felt that
presumptive sentencing should be replaced with the opinions
of sitting judges. He offered that if judged failed to
exercise their latitude they should be removed from office.
He probed the correlation between a spike in the population
of unsavory characters in the 1990s, and the small of
amount of increased penalties that had resulted in decrease
in crime. He opined that some of the things that had been
built into the system were impossible for an offender to
overcome. He spoke of probationary periods of 25 years,
which he assumed was for serious offenders, but thought
that there may have been those that acquired that burden
unnecessarily. He stated that it was impossible for someone
not to reoffend over the 25 year time period, and was
concerned that offenders could wind up pack in prison for
insignificant offences. He noted that the bill would reduce
probation time, but asserted that each individual case
needed to be assessed for practicality and fairness.
10:51:59 AM
Mr. Shilling revealed that the state had witnessed an
increase in the amount of time individuals spent on
probation and parole supervision. He relayed that the
commission had felt that 25 years was unnecessary,
particularly after looking at the research that showed that
if a person was going to offend they would likely do so
within the first year of probation. He lamented that
probation caseloads were incredibly high and probation
officers lacked the resources to supervise their clients
well. He expounded that many of the probation
recommendations were about front loading the probation
resources, because that was where they had been shown to
have the greatest effect, and by focusing the limited
resources on those most likely to reoffend. He informed the
committee that the community supervision policies would not
only limit the terms of probation, but would offer an
earned compliance credit that was meant to incentivize
sustained compliance with the conditions of probation, low-
risk, low-level offenders would be removed from the
caseloads sooner, and a number of other strategies to
implement a swift, certain, and proportional principal that
was known to reduce recidivism.
10:53:17 AM
Senator Dunleavy asked whether the bill contemplated
dealing with the resurgent opioid issue in the state. He
queried any changes in penalties regarding opiate dealers.
Mr. Shilling stated the bill contemplated the
differentiation between high-level and low-level drug
dealers. He believed that reinvestment was an important
component to addressing the underlying source of the
problem, and suggested that the committee could reinvest
any savings that the bill incurred into those strategies.
He asserted that due to the criminogenic effects of prison,
prison did not work for low-level drug dealers and simple
possessors.
10:54:50 AM
AT EASE
10:55:09 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair MacKinnon informed Mr. Shilling that the committee
wanted to address the pre-sentencing element of the
legislation.
SB 91 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair MacKinnon discussed housekeeping.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 91_Reinvestment Presentation - Credited.pdf |
SFIN 3/29/2016 9:00:00 AM |
SB 91 |
| SB 91 NFIB Opposition Letter.pdf |
SFIN 3/29/2016 9:00:00 AM |
SB 91 |
| SB 91 Public Testimony Swihart - Petersburg Chief of Police.pdf |
SFIN 3/29/2016 9:00:00 AM |
SB 91 |