Legislature(1995 - 1996)
04/29/1995 02:30 PM Senate JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 167 DAY FINES & INFO FOR COLLECTING FINES
CHRIS CHRISTENSEN, general counsel to the Alaska Court System,
explained last year the legislature passed legislation authorizing
courts to impose day fines for certain misdemeanor offenses. A day
fine is based on the person's annual income. In the course of
implementing this law, certain problems became apparent. Some of
the problems can be rectified by simple amendments to the original
law, however other problems are more fundamental. SB 167 addresses
the more technical difficulties, not the fundamental problems.
TAPE 95-27, SIDE B
MR. CHRISTENSEN replied SB 167 contains technical changes to the
law to make it more workable, however the law still contains
fundamental problems. The legislature's intent in passing the law
was to decrease the number of misdemeanor offenders serving jail
time, and to increase fine collection rates. Two problems have
occurred. First, the day fines law excludes most of the
misdemeanor offenses for which people now serve jail time. About
90 percent of the people sent to jail serve time for six offenses:
DWI; refusal to take a breath test; driving with a suspended
license; driving with a revoked license; misdemeanor assault; and
violation of a domestic violence restraining order. All six of
those crimes are specifically excluded from the day fines law, and
it is unlikely that jail sentences for those crimes will be
eliminated by the legislature.
SENATOR TAYLOR questioned the benefit to modifying some of the
mandatory sentences to provide for electronic monitoring, coupled
with a day fine, as opposed to serving jail time.
MR. CHRISTENSEN felt there were underlying problems with the
concept that would take some time to work through. He discussed a
second problem with the current law. Judges are unlikely to order
the payment of a day fine if the judge does not believe the person
will pay the day fine. In reviewing the state's collection
practices, the day fines committee discovered that current fine
collection rates are extremely low and believes the program will
not be widely used until the Department of Law receives additional
collection tools. The federal court system is studying the
possibility of preventing a person from renewing a state license
until criminal fines are paid.
Number 560
MR. CHRISTENSEN discussed a third fundamental problem pertains to
the fine amounts that result from the day fines formula. The
legislature directed that class A misdemeanors be subject to up to
365 day units, a day unit being one day of a person's salary. When
trying to determine a reasonable fine, the committee decreased the
amount to 45 day units, yet even at that level some fines are
extreme.
The fourth area of concern, described by MR. CHRISTENSEN, is about
fish and game misdemeanor offenses. The day fines committee
excluded those offenses from its report to prevent the imposition
of another layer of complexity to the existing problems. The
sentencing structure for fish and game offenses is unclear, and
contains many different penalty provisions, and many offense
definitions overlap. The day fines committee recommended that the
legislature appoint a special committee or interagency group to
assess and restructure fish and game penalty provisions and
definitions of offenses.
SENATOR TAYLOR agreed the legislature needs to make a policy
decision on the fundamental issues raised. He asked Mr.
Christensen if he believed the bill would be of significant benefit
to the court system, even though it is only technical in nature, in
light of the late session date.
Number 512
MR. CHRISTENSEN believed if the technical changes are made, the
Supreme Court would send the issue back to the day fines committee
to see if implementation is possible.
SENATOR TAYLOR announced he would hold the bill in committee to
give members further opportunity for review. He added it could be
moved out of committee quickly, if necessary.
SENATOR GREEN asked if the sliding fee scale was a common approach
to fine assessment. MR. CHRISTENSEN answered it is a common
approach in Europe, and a few American jurisdictions have started
to use it. He explained the theory is that large fines can be as
much of a deterrent to criminal behavior as the threat of a very
short jail sentence. Traditionally fines are imposed without
regard to a person's income, and are generally low. This approach
looks to a person's income to supposedly provide equity in the
system.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|