Legislature(2007 - 2008)CAPITOL 120
05/11/2007 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB255 | |
| SB141 | |
| HJR2 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 97 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 255 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 141 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HJR 2 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 255-DUAL SENTENCING 1:40:51 PM CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 255, "An Act relating to dual sentencing of certain juvenile offenders; amending Rule 24.1, Alaska Delinquency Rules; and providing for an effective date." 1:41:07 PM JEANNE OSTNES, Staff to Representative Craig Johnson, Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Craig Johnson, sponsor, explained that HB 255 proposes to expand the dual sentencing provisions for juvenile delinquency statutes. She referred to Section 1, subsection (a), and indicated that it clarifies [when dual sentencing would be considered], and brings in some specific age ranges. She indicated that a representative from the Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS) is available to provide more details. REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES mentioned she did not see any letters of support in the bill packet, and asked if there would be testimony from agencies on the bill. MS.OSTNES explained that a representative from the Department of Law (DOL) had planned on being present but left to attend another hearing. She offered to compile a list of questions for the DOL to review. 1:43:12 PM ANTHONY NEWMAN, Social Services Program Officer, Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ), Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS), stated that Ms. Ostnes met with the division director, Steve McComb, and Representative Johnson several weeks ago to discuss their concerns with juvenile sentencing. While the division has seen an overall decrease in referrals of delinquent juveniles to the agency in the past several years, the division finds unacceptable levels in the number of felony crimes, weapons crimes, and gang-related violence. Some youths finish their sentence at McLaughlin Youth Center, or other youth centers, but remain a public safety concern. However, these juveniles are no longer monitored once they reach the age of majority at 19 years of age and drop out of the juvenile system. MR. NEWMAN said that the staff at these juvenile correction facilities often recognize the potential danger from individual juveniles being released from their facility. Some of those youth offenders continue criminal activity as adults. The agency has looked for some means to provide for public safety and monitor these repeat offenders. This has lead to a review of the dual sentencing law, under AS 47.12.065 and AS 47.12.120 and was the basis for developing SB 141. The bill's concept is that a juvenile can receive both a juvenile [sentence] and an adult sentence for committing certain offenses. The adult sentence is only triggered when the juvenile has failed in the juvenile system in some way, either by committing another felony crime, escaping the facility, or failing to meet treatment goals. He went on to explain that one problem with the current dual sentencing laws is that the criteria that would make a youth eligible for dual sentencing provisions is so stringent that it is almost never used as an option. In reviewing agency statistics, dual sentencing provisions were used in only four instances in ten years, with only one instance wherein a youth offender was sanctioned in the adult system. MR. NEWMAN stated that under HB 255, the types of offenses and ages of juveniles eligible would be expanded. The division estimates that about 55 more juveniles would be eligible for dual sentencing. The department or the district attorney might determine that some juveniles are not appropriate candidates for dual sentencing, so the actual number of juveniles referred for dual sentencing might prove significantly less. Still, the division believes that expanding the dual sentencing adds one more option to help ensure public safety. He explained that the division also believes that HB 255 could help enable the agency provide seriously dangerous juvenile offenders with an opportunity and motivation to succeed in the juvenile justice system. He offered his hope that the division would be able to provide a range of options with how youth who do not respond to juvenile services can be dealt with, for example, ensuring the possibility of suspended sentences and probation instead of prison. The division also hopes that the bill would require the division to do a better job of understanding and justifying treatment that juveniles receive in facilities; and will help the division to question why the treatment has succeeded or failed, and whether there is a need to recommend transfer of the juvenile to the adult system. MR. NEWMAN stated the division has a number of concerns about the bill as it is currently written. For one thing, it needs to ensure that younger juveniles are not bumped into the adult system prematurely. He said he felt initially that the bill intended to put 12-year-olds into the adult system, which is not the intention of the division or the bill's sponsor. The division also thinks it needs to be clear that youth under the age of 16 or 17 won't be placed in adult prison until they have been given the chance to succeed in the juvenile system. The bill additionally needs to clarify how a youth who successfully completes juvenile treatment can avoid the adult sentence, and the age limits and offense types still need significant scrutiny from law enforcement personnel, criminal prosecutors, correctional officers, public defenders, and the courts. In closing, the division does not want to see any juvenile go to adult jail. Division staff views keeping kids from becoming adult criminals as the most important and rewarding aspect of their jobs. The evidence solidly supports that the juvenile system provides the best outcome to help juvenile offenders avoid a life of crime and victimizing others. While the division wants to continue to work to help juveniles to succeed, the division also has a duty to protect public safety. For these reasons, the division thinks HB 255 merits consideration, he added. 1:48:48 PM CHAIR RAMRAS asked what the recidivism rate is amongst juvenile offenders, and also what the recidivism rate is for those that re-offend as adults. MR. NEWMAN responded that it depends on the definition of recidivism that's used, but the division defines recidivism as those who re-offend in either the juvenile or the adult system within a year of their release from a treatment facility, or within a year from their release from formal probation. That recidivism rate is 28 percent. CHAIR RAMRAS noted that the recidivism rate is considerably less than the recidivism rate of adults, which is about 66 percent. MS. OSTNES reaffirmed that the adult recidivism rate is 66 percent. CHAIR RAMRAS expressed that this bill provides an opportunity to rescue a significant part of the juvenile offender population so that these offenders don't repeat in either of the juvenile or adult system during a one year increment. He asked if there were any other increment used to measure recidivism. MR. NEWMAN responded that the agency did not currently use another increment to measure recidivism. Previously the division used a two-year increment but has since chosen to align with the standard window used by other states. 1:50:23 PM CHAIR RAMRAS surmised that if a juvenile offended at the age of 15 but did not offend again until he/she was 19, the juvenile would not fall into the statistical captured demographic. MR. NEWMAN responded that in some instances, juvenile offenders would not be captured in the division's statistics, but that most juvenile offenders who re-offend tend to commit further crimes sooner, if they are to re-offend at all. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS indicated that he requested the Division of Legislative Audit to research all recidivism rates with different standards since different agencies and groups use different rates. He suggested the when that audit becomes public; the committee could hold a hearing to review its findings on recidivism, perhaps during the interim. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL added that not only are the recidivism rates for juveniles and adults worth reviewing, but that some crimes are considered more serious when committed by 16- to 18- year-olds, so that dynamic should be looked at as well. He noted that "aging out" still could be an issue. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS asked what would be considered a class B felony crime against a person. MS.OSTNES responded a class B felony crime against a person could be assault in the second degree. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS asked for clarification of the definition of assault in the second degree. MR.NEWMAN stated that he believed the difference had to do with whether or not a weapon was used. 1:53:52 PM CHAIR RAMRAS offered his understanding that about $5,000 in discretionary funds had been allocated to the Fairbanks youth facility, and asked what kinds of things might be accomplished with that funding. MR. NEWMAN responded that it would not be enough funding for a renovation or an addition, but it could possibly be spent on more equipment, but he had also heard that the facility needed a climbing wall. CHAIR RAMRAS mentioned that Bernard Gatewood, Juvenile Justice Superintendent II, had indicated the facility could use additional funds for cardiovascular fitness equipment. He asked what might best help to strengthen the youths' spirit and self esteem. MR. NEWMAN suggested that perhaps the most beneficial thing would be to enhance their job skills. One program that has been developed has been the Culinary Arts program and perhaps that could be enhanced. MS. OSTNES noted that one high school teacher goes from school to the youth facility to provide training on how to interview for jobs, and helps juveniles prepare resumes so they can obtain employment. CHAIR RAMRAS suggested that he would mention to Mr. Gatewood that the cardio equipment, culinary program, and job skills enhancement would be good items to consider using the funds for. He indicated he, too, would be interested in obtaining the audit results on recidivism. CHAIR RAMRAS indicated that HB 255 would be held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|