Legislature(1997 - 1998)
02/19/1997 01:54 PM Senate JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SJR 3 PRISONER RIGHTS LIMITED TO FEDERAL RIGHTS
SENATOR DAVE DONLEY , sponsor of SJR 3, discussed changes made to a
proposed committee substitute. CSSJR 3(JUD) was broadened to
encompass all rights currently provided to prisoners in Alaska.
Traditionally, prisoners rights in the U.S. have stemmed from the
federal cruel and unusual punishment clause. Under the Alaska
Constitution, Alaska courts might extend due process clause rights
to prisoners. CSSJR 3(JUD) now reads, "The rights and protections
and the extent of those rights and protections afforded to
prisoners by this constitution shall be limited to those rights and
protections and the extent of those rights and protections afforded
to prisoners under the Constitution of the United States" to
encompass Alaska's due process rights that have been interpreted
differently from those under the U.S. Constitution.
TAPE 97-9, SIDE B
Number 568
SENATOR PARNELL asked what other prisoners' rights might change
under CSSJR 3(JUD). SENATOR DONLEY replied Alaska is required to
provide and maintain a law library and photocopier, among other
specific things, according to the Cleary settlement. The federal
Constitution allows for less expensive, alternative means to
guarantee prisoners access to the courts and other areas. Under
CSSJR 3 (JUD), Alaska would still have to provide the means to
legal access approved by federal courts, but would not have to
maintain an updated law library in every institution. Another
distinguishable feature of prisoners' rights is the provision of
rehabilitation programs, mandated by the Alaska Constitution.
SENATOR PARNELL moved to adopt CSSJR 3 (0-LSO268\E) as the working
draft of the committee. There being no objection, CSSJR 3 was
adopted.
SENATOR PARNELL asked Senator Donley to elaborate on the purpose of
SJR 3, because he finds it ironic that Alaska would want to be
subject to the federal Constitution instead of our own state's
Constitution. He noted he is troubled by the implications of
taking this action related to other federal issues, such as the
state sovereignty issue.
SENATOR DONLEY replied there are two reasons. Alaska's
Constitution provides its citizens with more individual rights than
those under the U.S. Constitution. We think of those rights as
applying to law-abiding citizens in the general population. When
those rights are extended into the prison system they create a
different standard than that provided under the federal
constitution. While Alaska courts may interpret the Alaska
Constitution to extend those individual rights to prisoners, that
extension may not be the wisest public policy. Second, the Cleary
settlement can only be revisited if significant changes occur. SJR
3 would create a significant enough change to allow renegotiation.
Number 437
SENATOR PARNELL asked if SJR 3 would apply only to convicted, and
not pre-trial, prisoners. SENATOR DONLEY said the federal standard
prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment only applies to people who
have been convicted and incarcerated but Alaska Courts could extend
due process rights to those prisoners as well. His intent, when
drafting SJR 3, was that it only apply to people who have been
convicted and incarcerated. He was unsure whether Alaska has any
distinct rights for pre-trial prisoners separate from federal
constitutional rights.
SENATOR PARNELL noted Alaska's right against self incrimination is
much broader than the federal right; the Legislature passed a
discovery bill during the previous session in an attempt to get the
Supreme Court to narrow the scope. SENATOR DONLEY believed that is
not an element of one's incarceration, but is a separate issue.
Number 409
SENATOR PARNELL suggested including a definition of "prisoners" in
the resolution to clarify it applies to convicted prisoners, not
pre-trial prisoners. SENATOR DONLEY believed the court would have
difficulty applying it to anyone other than prisoners who are
incarcerated after conviction because otherwise there would be a
dual system of rules for pre-trial prisoners: those who could make
bail, and those who could not.
BRUCE RICHARDS , Special Assistant to the Commissioner at the
Department of Corrections, did not state a position on SJR 3, but
submitted the following testimony for the record on behalf of
Commissioner Pugh.
I understand that discussion in the last hearing included some
thought that if the Department did not have to abide by the
caps set by the Court that we could put more prisoners in
existing correctional facilities.
I wanted to take the opportunity to go into that premise a
little deeper. From a correctional management standpoint,
overcrowding is not solely created by the Court caps. I
welcome the opportunity to discuss with the committee the
other issues that limit the number of inmates that can be
housed in a facility.
1. Inmate management, security, and programs are impacted
negatively. I am firmly on record regarding the dangers of
increased violence, not enough work or treatment programs to
keep inmates busy, and the dangers inherent in inmate idleness
in a correctional institution. In addition to idleness, the
ability to deliver rehabilitative programs decreases. And on
top of it all, the staff are stretched too thinly to provide
a safe level of oversight. I could speak at great length
about these conditions. I've spent the better part of the
last 26 years of my career in and around institutions in
Alaska - as a Superintendent and as a line worker - so I
believe I can attest to what I tell you, not just from a
theoretical or philosophical standpoint, but from actual
hands-on experience in Alaska.
2. The other issue involved in placing more prisoners in an
institution needs to be discussed. That is that each facility
was designed to support a specified prisoner population.
There is a limited capability to absorb increases in
population. What I'm talking about is design capacity of
physical plants.
-There are fire, life safety, and building codes to consider.
There is the Uniform Fire Code, the Uniform Building Code, the
Uniform Mechanical Code, the American Society of Heating,
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE)
standards, the Uniform Plumbing Code, not to mention DEC, EPA
considerations, OSHA and ADA.
-Someone said to me the other day that it is like an elevator
that is rated for X pounds. That doesn't mean that you can't
put more pounds in it, but that you tempt system failure with
potentially disastrous results if you exceed the rating -- and
the problem is exacerbated if you exceed the rating every
single time the elevator is called into service.
-I want to give you a few examples of just what I mean. HMCC
in Eagle River is rated for x gallons of effluence handled by
the sewer system and draining into Eagle River. That
translates into 285 inmates. We run the sewer treatment
system and measure the outfall and report to DEC. We're right
at 285. So even if we could put more bunks in cells there, we
would not be able to handle the sewage problem.
-One other comment about sewer discharge: too much sewer
discharge in undersized lines can back up badly. UPC
requirements aren't to be taken lightly. Just last month at
Spring Creek the sewer system backed up into the kitchen, we
had raw sewage in the kitchen area which had to be closed,
system unclogged, kitchen sanitized and the sandwiches bought
from AVTec.
At Palmer Correctional Center in Sutton we have 2 wells. And
the water system and well capacity are at maximum capacity.
We are double bunked at Palmer. Even if we could triple bunk,
which we can't, we would need to put in a new well. We
included the cost of a new well in our bond bill last year
which included an expansion at Palmer.
-In the supplemental budget bill we're asking for more than
$600,000 to replace a boiler in Fairbanks. Putting more
bodies in a building increases the load on a boiler to carry
the heat and hot water. At the very least, this decreases the
life cycle of the boiler.
-KCC is double bunked, it was built for single, but now has
doubles. There is literally no space for a third bunk. The
dayroom is rated for the number of inmates for a single bunk.
Half of the inmates are locked down while the other half are
in the dayroom. The dining room is actually the multi-purpose
room where many other of the activities take place. Inmates
eat in shifts. If another shift is added, for example, the
multi-purpose dining room is not available for scheduled
afternoon activities.
-The Fire Marshall has established exiting criteria, so that
if one would propose housing inmates in areas not designed as
housing, there would be problems with managing exits. If
exits are internal, etc.
-There are standards for minimum ventilation requirements,
typically based on minimum air flows and air changes per hour.
Substantial overcrowding would violate these code
requirements. And while mentioning ventilation codes, I
should point out that prison populations have a relatively
high incidence of TB and hepatitis and other airborne pathogen
diseases. Overcrowding in poorly-ventilated housing units
subject staff and other prisoners to the diseases. Financial
claims and costly litigation often precede expensive facility
modification.
-One last example ... security control systems have switches
and other moving parts. Most mechanical devices are rated for
x number of uses before failure. If you double or triple the
number of uses the switches or parts wear out ... their life
cycle is shorter.
-And from here we could get into a discussion of existing
deferred maintenance needs. I will spare you that, except to
say, we have over $13 million in deferred maintenance and
another $9 in equipment. Over-use of systems just exacerbates
the deferred maintenance problem.
I hope I have answered some questions and given you a broader
glimpse into a day in the life of a correctional manager.
It's not simple and not just a matter of how many people can
fit in an elevator.
SENATOR MILLER moved CSSJR 3(JUD) out of committee with individual
recommendations. SENATOR ELLIS objected and asked about Senator
Parnell's drafting concern. After a brief discussion, SENATOR
MILLER withdrew his motion so that a definition of "prisoner" could
be included in CSSJR 3(JUD).
Number 351
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR noted he would be willing to reschedule CSSJR
3(JUD) at any future hearing, and informed committee members of
testimony from Mr. Paul Sweet who was unable to be connected via
teleconference. Mr. Sweet supports SJR 3 and believes prisoners
should work 12-hour rotating shifts.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|