04/18/1994 01:00 PM House JUD

  SB 24 - Extend Maximum Period of Probation                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER said that he, REP. JAMES and REP. PHILLIPS                   
  heard SB 24 already.  He explained that the bill asks that                   
  the allowable time for probation be extended from five years                 
  to ten years.  He asked if there was any discussion among                    
  the committee members who did not hear the bill previously.                  
                                                                               
  Number 510                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. PHILLIPS wanted to note for the record that this change                 
  was recommended by the Sentencing Commission, and that there                 
  was no negative testimony when the bill was previously                       
  heard.                                                                       
                                                                               
  Number 520                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. JAMES moved to move SB 24 out with zero fiscal notes                    
  and individual recommendations.                                              
                                                                               
  REP. CLIFF DAVIDSON asked how they could explain a zero                      
  fiscal note while engaging the resources of the state for                    
  another five years.                                                          
                                                                               
  Number 540                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER explained that this question had come up in                  
  the previous hearing, and noted the extension would not take                 
  effect for five years.  So for the next five years, as                       
  called for on the regular fiscal note, there is no fiscal                    
  impact.  What is hoped for, and he saw no reason why this                    
  hope should not come into play, but the balancing off of the                 
  courts having a little more discretion in how long to lay in                 
  probation for, might actually decrease the amount of time                    
  given in the first place, so the amount of probation                         
  occurring from five to ten years would hopefully be more                     
  than offset by reduced sentencing in the first place.                        
  Having the ability to place someone on probation for a                       
  longer period of time might somewhat reduce the amount of                    
  sentencing they received in the first place.  It costs less                  
  to keep a person on probation than to reincarcerate them                     
  again.  He then asked if there was further discussion on SB
.                                                                          
                                                                               
  Number 560                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. PHILLIPS made motion to move SB 24 with individual                      
  recommendations and zero fiscal notes. The bill was moved.