Legislature(1997 - 1998)
02/05/1998 01:45 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 3
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State
of Alaska limiting the rights of prisoners to those
required under the Constitution of the United States.
SENATOR DAVE DONLEY noted that SJR 3 limits the rights of
prisoners, convicted in the state of Alaska, to those
required under the Constitution of the United States. He
observed that the Alaskan Constitution grants rights and
liberties not granted to citizens of other states. He
maintained that Alaskan prisoners have utilized some of the
provisions of Alaska's Constitution to claim additional
rights not available under the federal Constitution. He
stated that this could cause significant problems with the
administration of correctional facilities. He identified
areas of concern:
1. Discipline and classification;
2. Access to rehabilitation programs;
3. Location of incarceration; and
4. Square footage requirement on cell size.
Senator Donley noted that the Cleary consent decree
prohibits dormitory type cells. He maintained that, without
a uniform standard for prison administration, it is
difficult to get the Court to clarify the specific
requirement. He emphasized that he did not know of any
other states where dormitory cells are prohibited.
Senator Donley provided members with a Letter of Intent
(copy on file). He stressed that the proposed Letter of
Intent was based on discussion during previous hearings.
Senator Donley observed that the victims' rights provision
of the Alaska State Constitution could be viewed as modified
by the prisoners' rights section.
Senator Donley referred to Brandon v. State, 938 P.2d 1029
(Alaska 1997). He observed that a prisoner who was sent to
the state of Arizona contended that his reformation was
endangered since he was not close to his family in Alaska.
The Alaska Supreme Court ruled that it raised a
constitutional question under the Alaska State Constitution.
The lower court will examine the case. Senator Donley noted
that Chief Justice Rabinowitz, in a dissenting opinion,
wrote that the Court had never before extended the principal
of reformation to the issue of location. Chief Justice
Rabinowitz pointed out, that according to the Brandon
decision, prisoner visitation is a component of the
constitutional right to rehabilitation. Chief Justice
Rabinowitz suggested that, as a result of the decision, the
Department of Corrections would find it difficult to justify
most out-of-state incarcerations, incarcerations of rural
Alaskans in urban facilities and most incarcerations that
encompass significant geographical dislocation. He added
that there would be significant fiscal implication.
Senator Donley referred to Article I, Section 12 of the
Alaska State Constitution. He observed that discussion of
the principle of reformation held during the Constitutional
Convention indicated that an individual right would not be
created. Subsequent decisions in the late 1970's by the
Alaska Supreme Court concluded an individual right was
created.
Senator Donley explained that the intent of SJR 3 is to
clarify that the Article I, Section 12 does not create
individual rights for prisoners. Article I, Section 12 would
continue as a guiding principle.
Representative Mulder stressed the importance of the
legislation on the Department of Corrections' future
liabilities and responsibilities. He emphasized that there
are not enough inmate programs to assure reformation through
visitation. He stressed that inmate programs are expensive.
DEAN GUANELI, CHIEF ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, CRIMINAL
DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW agreed that the Alaska State
Constitutional Convention viewed Article I, Section 12,
Principle of Reformation, to be a guideline. He observed
that a shift by the Court created a right to rehabilitation
in the 1970's. He stated that SJR 3 would clarified that
Article I, Section 12 is a guiding right, not an enforceable
right.
Mr. Guaneli emphasized that the Court has given the
Department broad deference in choosing when and what kinds
of programs to give prisoners. Despite the Court's decision
there has been little impact from litigation. He noted
concerns that the resolution would allow funding to be
withdrawn from prison programs. He emphasized that prisoner
programs are good management tools.
Mr. Guaneli referred to the Cleary decision. He did not
think that SJR 3 would create a very strong ground for being
relieved from the Cleary judgement. He observed that there
has never been a finding that the state of Alaska was in
violation of the State Constitution. The State has
maintained that it did not violate the Constitution. He
observed that the state of Alaska has been in contempt of
Court for noncompliance with the judgement. He suggested
that a pattern of compliance with the order would present a
better case for relief. He acknowledged that passage of SJR
3 would not hurt the State's case.
Representative Davies noted that state prisoners have
maintained that state statutes were violated. He observed
that reformation is a management tool.
Mr. Guaneli agreed that prisoner programs are good
management tools.
Co-Chair Therriault emphasized that the Department of
Corrections is precluded from withholding participation in
prisoner programs as a management tool.
Mr. Guaneli reiterated that the Court has given the
Department wide deference in deciding how programs are
managed. He noted that programs could be withheld during
administrative segregation due to prisoner behavior. He
added that some prisoners are segregated through no fault of
their own. The Department would have an obligation to
extend some programs to these prisoners. He maintained that
the Court does not impose specifics on the Department.
Representative Davies questioned the affect of prisoner
programs on recidivism rates. Mr. Guaneli could not comment
on the affect of prisoner programs on recidivism rates.
Senator Donley emphasized that SJR 3 does not preclude
rehabilitation programs. He emphasized that; while prisoner
programs are meritorious, how they are implemented should be
the policy decision of the Legislature and the Department of
Corrections. He maintained that SJR 3 is the best tool
available to revisit the Cleary decision.
Senator Donley clarified that the Letter of Intent was not
considered for adopted by previous committees. He emphasized
that the content of the ballot question is the most
important consideration. He stressed that the Letter of
Intent is a guideline for the ballot question.
Senator Donley questioned if the House Finance Committee
received the correct version of SJR 3 from the House
Judiciary Committee.
SJR 3 was HELD in Committee for further consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|