Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/22/1999 01:20 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
CSSB 11(JUD) - PRISON TIME CREDITS FOR MURDERERS
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the first order of business is CSSB
11(JUD), "An Act relating to good time credits for prisoners
serving sentences of imprisonment for certain murders."
Number 0063
SENATOR DAVE DONLEY, Alaska State Legislature, came before the
committee as sponsor of SB 11. The bill would reduce good time
deduction for people convicted of first- or second-degree murder in
the state. It would reduce it from 33 percent to 16 percent. The
federal government has adopted an 85 percent standard for all
sentences in the federal prison system. The federal law also
suggested that all states adopt the standard. Alaska has some of
the most liberal good time laws in the nation at 33 percent. He
noted that over 30 states have gone to the 85 percent standard. He
further noted that there is a great discrepancy amongst the states
on how they sentence people for different crimes. The argument has
been made that Alaska has strong mandatory sentencing laws, but
Alaska is not the only state to give long sentences for first-and
second-degree murder. The idea in the bill is to set a dichotomy
and to say that at least when a person commits a murder that the
state will try and follow the national sentencing standard. He
noted that the bill actually requires 84 percent, but that's a lot
closer to the national standard than where the state is now.
Senator Donley further stated that the real issue seems to involve
the families of victims of homicide or those who have been
victimized by those who have been convicted of second-degree
murder. He explained that he went to a memorial service for
families of victims of homicide last year in Anchorage, which is
how the bill originated. He was approached by several families who
had children murdered who see the murderers walking down the
street. He didn't have an answer for them other than the good time
provisions in sentencing which allow an inmate to go free one-third
the time earlier than what was sentenced. The shortest sentence
for second-degree murder in Alaska has been ten years; and, with
one-third off for good time, that means a person serves about six
and a half years. Most of the sentences are longer than that, but
there are many, many sentences that are under thirty years.
SENATOR DONLEY further stated that SB 11 is excellent public
policy. There aren't any real constitutional questions involved
because clearly the state has a right to distinguish between people
who kill other human beings and those who do not in terms of
sentencing. He noted that there would be some fiscal impact in six
to eight years. He hopes that the word would get out that the
state would take killing a person even more seriously which would
act as a deterrent thereby paying for itself.
Number 0469
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated the committee just reviewed SB 3,
which raised the minimum sentences on offenses against a child
including first- and second-degree murder. He asked Senator Donley
whether he is familiar with that piece of legislation.
SENATOR DONLEY replied SB 3 puts child murderers under the law he
wrote about ten years ago that included - for the first time - the
99-years-without-parole provision.
Number 0559
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that SB 3 raised the presumptive
minimum sentence for second-degree murder from 5 to 20 years. He
wondered whether there would be any impact between that bill and
this bill for those crimes.
Number 0609
SENATOR DONLEY responded, if that is true, it sounds like a good
idea.
Number 0644
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT noted that SB 3 raises some [offenses] to a 20
year minimum. He further noted that in those cases a person would
have to serve 17 years under this bill.
Number 0681
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked Senator Donley whether he has seen
any study that says removing good time is a deterrent.
SENATOR DONLEY replied no. He doesn't know how that would be
calculated without getting into the minds of perpetrators. But
having laws that don't tolerate killing other people is a good
message. He noted the saying, "you got away with murder." Seeing
a murderer walk down the street sends the wrong message to
families of victims and others in terms of how serious society
takes homicide.
Number 0740
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked Senator Donley whether there is any
federal incentive that the state would gain by changing the
statutes as suggested in the bill.
Number 0764
SENATOR DONLEY replied, he thinks, that there might be something
that parallels what's going on in juvenile justice. That being,
federal dollars available for meeting certain criteria. It depends
on how the federal law is written. Sometimes its suggestive and
sometimes some money is made available even if a state is just
studying and moving in a particular direction.
Number 0840
SENATOR DONLEY noted, in response to the questions regarding SB 3,
that it is 99 years without parole, if the victim is a child and it
is a second-degree murder.
Number 0928
MARGOT KNUTH, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the
Commissioner-Juneau, Department of Corrections, came before the
committee to testify. In response to Representative Murkowski's
question, there is a federal act called Violent Offenders
Incarceration Act-Truth In Sentencing (VOIA-TIS) which makes extra
money available to the states for being tough on crime. The
legislature appropriates those funds each year to help pay for the
cost of incarceration of the state's inmates in Arizona. Alaska
does not qualify for the truth-in-sentencing portion because its
good time is 33 percent rather than 15 percent - the maximum that
the federal government allows. The state looked at going to 85
percent and quickly decided that it could not afford it. The
amount of money paid out of the truth-in-sentencing portion is a
small percentage of the additional costs that the state would incur
to increase any length of time for incarceration. Furthermore,
there were a few states that went to 85 percent in reliance on the
federal funds, but President Clinton has proposed to discontinue
that funding this year. Those states are very unhappy, which
further confirms Alaska's concerns of not going that route. She
further noted that Alaska is one of the toughest sentencing states
in the U.S. She read the following average sentence figures into
the record:
Georgia - 144 months
Louisiana - 104 months
Missouri - 247 months
Minnesota - 144 months
New Jersey - 432 months
New York - 317 months
Tennessee - 173 months
Virginia - 91 months
Washington - 243 months
Alaska - 467 months
MS. KNUTH noted that the figures are for anticipated time to be
served. Therefore, the figure of 467 for Alaska already takes out
good time. There are two questions involved: What is the
appropriate amount of time for people to be serving for these
offenses? and Can the state afford it? The biggest problem with
this suggestion is that most inmates are already over 50 years old
by the time they are eligible for release, which is considered old
in prison populations and means high medical costs. This bill is
talking about increasing the length of time being incarcerated
beyond the age of 50, which is an expensive proposition. According
to her calculations, the state already has 105 first-degree murder
prisoners who would be over 50 years of age by the time they are
released, and 21 who would be under the age of 50 by the time they
are released. There are 58 second-degree murder prisoners who
would be over 50 years of age by the time they are released, and 51
who would be under the age of 50 by the time they are released. If
the bill were enacted, there would be a total of 183 over the age
of 50, and a total of 52 under the age of 50. She referred to an
article entitled, "Should Elderly Convicts be Kept in Prison?", and
read from it. She noted that down south it costs an average of
$20,000 per year for the typical inmate, while in Alaska it costs
$50,000. She knows that Senator Donley is truly concerned about
the criminal justice system and she believes that he would put the
dollars there, but if this had been in law since statehood it would
have cost the state $50 million more than what it has spent thus
far. It doesn't show up on a fiscal note because these inmates are
in for so long that there isn't any sentence that would increase in
just five years, but if a sentence was stretched out, there truly
would be a large price tag.
Number 1529
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked Ms. Knuth whether it's true that good
time is used as a management tool within a prison. She noted that
a person doesn't think about it before committing a crime, but once
in prison that person measures when he or she is getting out.
MS. KNUTH replied that is quite accurate. It's a significant
management tool. Some states are concerned that they have lost
that tool by going to a higher percentage. It's not much of a tool
for murder prisoners, but right now the state's good time is the
same time period a person is eligible for discretionary parole.
She explained that there are cases that need a significant period
of discretionary parole time in order to watch a person after
release. Some states are very concerned that they have lost that
parole time because it can only be the suspended portion of a
sentence.
Number 1590
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT noted, according to his calculation, that
there would be about a 100-month increase in the average sentence.
Number 1627
MS. KNUTH noted the average sentence length for first-degree murder
is about 70 years and close to 40 years for second-degree murder.
Those figures are deceptive, however, because they only measure
those who are currently incarcerated. They don't measure those who
have already been released.
Number 1679
BLAIR McCUNE, Deputy Director, Central Office, Public Defender
Agency, Department of Administration, testified via teleconference
from Anchorage. When the federal government went down to 15
percent, they did it in conjunction with a comprehensive review of
federal sentencing in general. They decreased good time and pretty
much did away with the federal parole system. They also decreased
some of the national sentences that could be imposed for federal
crimes.
MR. McCUNE further stated that, by law, when people are released
under good time they are released to the jurisdiction of the parole
board. He pointed out that people who are released after lengthy
sentences have a hard time readjusting to society, even though
their behavior isn't bad in prison. They require a close watch to
make sure that they are making progress readjusting.
MR. McCUNE noted that there may well be an equal protection
challenge brought based on the difference in treating those
convicted of a first- and second-degree murder and other offenses,
thereby raising a fiscal impact on the department.
Number 1889
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Mr. McCune whether there is still a presentence
investigation for first- and second-degree murder.
MR. McCUNE replied yes. He can't think of a case where a
presentence investigation has not been done.
Number 1916
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Mr. McCune whether there would be any
motivation for a judge to be lenient on a sentence.
MR. McCUNE replied there is a truth-in-sentencing provision that
says a judge has to set out on the record how much good time is
possible to be earned. A judge should not, however, take that into
account when sentencing a person.
Number 2041
CHAIRMAN KOTT closed the meeting to public testimony.
Number 2045
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT noted, according to his calculation, a person
committing a crime at the age of 25 would be in prison until the
age of 65. The bill would increase that age by another ten years.
The question is, does the state want to keep a person until the age
of 65 or 75?
Number 2108
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Ms. Knuth whether there is any
statistical data that show a plot of the average cost per age. He
has a hunch the last 10 years would rapidly increase and might be
as much as the prior 40 years.
Number 2136
MS. KNUTH replied no she has not been able to find a study
addressing that. In general, the average cost-of-care for an
inmate increases two and a half times each year after the age of
50. Right now, the state spends $50,000 per year for an inmate,
which equates to about $150,000 per year after the age of 50. The
legislature has seen the cost for medical treatment, such as heart
surgery, as the "wild card" in the Department of Corrections'
budget. She noted that the supreme court has told the department
it must provide ... to a certain level.
Number 2207
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Ms. Knuth whether the delta between a
person staying in prison versus a person being released and taken
care of by society is significant.
Number 2228
MS. KNUTH replied it is a lot more expensive to deal with medical
issues while a person is incarcerated because of the need to
provide security services. She cited there was an incapacitated
inmate due to be released who had no family. As a result, a
guardian was appointed and that person was transferred to a nursing
home at one-third the cost.
Number 2281
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Ms. Knuth whether the state is bound by the
Cleary decision to provide various medical services to inmates.
MS. KNUTH replied the state is bound by a statutory provision and
a constitutional provision. [She did not specify which ones]
Number 2294
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI said she appreciates the argument of cost,
but noted that these people have committed a murder and there are
specific sentences for those crimes no matter the cost.
Number 2363
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Representative Murkowski whether she would be
happy for all first- and second-degree murderers to have no
possibility for parole for good time.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI replied that's another subject for another
time.
MS. KNUTH noted that there is a huge population of first-degree
murderers who have 99 or more years to serve that would not get
out, but there are exceptional situations that get sentenced for
less. She cited as an example women who have been battered for
years who finally respond lethally. There is a class of offenders
who she would be very uncomfortable releasing at any age because
they are perfectly able to commit offenses for in perpetuity - sex
offenders.
Number 2445
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked Ms. Knuth whether...
TAPE 99-38, SIDE B
Number 0001
MS. KNUTH replied there are no murderers in halfway houses, and
there is nothing in between.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked Ms. Knuth whether the level of
incapacitation has to get to a vegetated state.
MS. KNUTH replied, if a person was incapacitate and still in the
state's custody, a vegetated person could not be in a nursing home.
The state would have to keep that person within the confines of a
prison or have correctional officers stay around-the-clock at one
of the hospitals.
Number 0051
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Ms. Knuth whether she knows of anybody
who has made it through a 99-year sentence; and, if so, has that
person slipped back into a previous behavior pattern.
Number 0123
MS. KNUTH replied, she believes, the oldest inmate in the state's
custody is around 67 years old. She noted that these people die
institutionalized. The department is looking at the population
that has sentences of 40 to 50 years. The population that has a
sentence of 99 years and up is in essence a life sentence.
Number 0157
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN wondered whether the other side of the
argument matters. In other words, is this just "window dressing"
because the chances are good that it won't matter?
MS. KNUTH replied no. The figure of $50 million, mentioned
earlier, excludes all of the inmates with a sentence of 99 years
and up. The figure is for the inmates that the department expects
to see released. She further noted that the figure is based on the
cost for care at $50,000 a year. It does not factor in any
geriatric medical costs.
Number 0193
CHAIRMAN KOTT said the sponsor indicated that the crux of the bill
is to get at those murderers walking down the street, not the
people with a 99-year-and-up sentence. He asked Ms. Knuth whether
a statute can be established discriminating based on age.
Number 0227
MS. KNUTH replied no. She noted that for first-degree murder the
minimum sentence is 20 years, and for second-degree murder the
minimum sentence is 5 years. There are some cases where the court
looks at the circumstances and chooses to impose a sentence of 15
years, for example. But the public hears that there has been a
murder and the judge only imposed a 15-year sentence. She
mentioned the only thing that the legislature can do is increase
the mandatory minimum sentence for second-degree murder, but that
takes away the opportunity for judges to look at cases
individually.
Number 0288
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA noted she handled two murder cases that
got five year sentences. She explained one was for a woman who was
caught drinking while driving and killed another person but had no
memory of it. It was real clear from the witnesses and
circumstances that she had nothing to do with putting herself
behind the wheel of the car. The other case involved an abused
wife who snapped and killed her husband. It was real clear from
the testimony that she would never be a danger to anybody else.
She would be reluctant to give up a judge's discretion because the
second-degree murder cases that go down to that level are real
unique circumstances. She also mentioned that parole and good time
work well under those circumstances.
Number 0344
JAMES ARMSTRONG, Legislative Assistant to Senator Dave Donley,
Alaska State Legislature, came before the committee to give closing
statements on SB 11. He said he's not sure of the 9 states Ms.
Knuth is referencing because 30 states have done some type of
truth-in-sentencing that goes hand-in-hand with serious crimes. He
noted that the state of Illinois has eliminated good time credits
and requires entire sentences to be imposed on prisoners for
first-degree murder. In addition, he mentioned that the House
Judiciary Standing Committee heard SB 1 - the "No Frills Prison
Act" - a few years ago. At which time, Senator Donley thought that
Act gave the Department of Corrections a lot of discretion for
severely medically able parole, but according to discussions with
the department, there is a case where a cancer inmate cannot be
released because he is not bedridden and could possibly commit the
crime again. He noted that Senator Donley is considering looking
at that statute again.
Number 0430
CHAIRMAN KOTT indicated that the bill would be held over for
further consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|