Legislature(2015 - 2016)GRUENBERG 120
03/14/2016 12:30 PM House JUDICIARY
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB205 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 205 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 205-CRIMINAL LAW/PROCEDURE; DRIV LIC; PUB AID
12:33:45 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX announced that the only order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 205, "An Act relating to conditions of release;
relating to community work service; relating to credit toward a
sentence of imprisonment for certain persons under electronic
monitoring; relating to the restoration under certain
circumstances of an administratively revoked driver's license,
privilege to drive, or privilege to obtain a license; allowing a
reduction of penalties for offenders successfully completing
court- ordered treatment programs for persons convicted of
driving under the influence; relating to termination of a
revocation of a driver's license; relating to restoration of a
driver's license; relating to credits toward a sentence of
imprisonment, to good time deductions, and to providing for
earned good time deductions for prisoners; relating to early
termination of probation and reduction of probation for good
conduct; relating to the rights of crime victims; relating to
the disqualification of persons convicted of certain felony drug
offenses from participation in the food stamp and temporary
assistance programs; relating to probation; relating to
mitigating factors; relating to treatment programs for
prisoners; relating to the duties of the commissioner of
corrections; amending Rule 32, Alaska Rules of Criminal
Procedure; and providing for an effective date."
CHAIR LEDOUX described HB 205 as "probably one of the most
significant bills, certainly for House Judiciary, and probably
for the entire legislature this session."
12:34:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to adopt CS for HB 205, labeled 29-
LS0896\H, Martin/Gardner, 3/10/16, as the working document.
There being no objection, Version H was before the committee.
12:35:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT thanked numerous individuals for their
assistance with HB 205 as the committee would like to see fewer
Alaskans in prison due to the 27 percent increase over the last
10 years. The intent is to determine how to rehabilitate
individuals who have committed crimes, and invest in them so
they don't reoffend and return to prison, thereby, causing an
increase in the Department of Correction's budget, and
ultimately building another prison in a few years. She noted
that a year ago Governor Bill Walker, the Alaska Legislature,
and the Alaska Court System requested assistance from the Alaska
Criminal Justice Commission, and before this committee are the
commission's 21 recommendations that HB 205 is based upon. The
key goals are implementing an evidence-based pre-trial practice,
focus on prison beds for serious and violent offenders, and look
at the individuals in the state's prison population, which
includes folks who have not victimized people, misdemeanants,
people with parole violations, and the population runs the
gamut. She pointed out that this bill attempts to strengthen
probation and parole supervision when people get out of prison
and then they return to prison within one year. The report
considers methods of successful reentry into communities as the
goal is for rehabilitation, and that the state would gain
savings. She stated, "I really ... I am going to miss
Representative Gruenberg. Through this process I had many
spirited debates with Representative Gruenberg about this bill,
and about portions of this bill. And he had so graciously
offered to help carry it on the floor, and I will miss him for
that because he had a depth of knowledge that ... you know, no
one can compare to, and his passion for this subject. So, with
a little bit of heartache today, I'm glad to see Representative
Kreiss-Tomkins is here. And I know Max is looking down at us
right now, and at moments in time I'm sure many of us will
channel some of his questions and some of his attitudes toward a
perfect bill." She opined that in taking the bill, piece by
piece, the committee will have a re-write of Alaska's criminal
justice system, and there will be opportunities for re-
investment that are meaningful to everyone in keeping Alaskans
out of jail.
12:40:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER, in speaking as a commissioner of the
Alaska Criminal Justice Commissioner, emphasized that the
commission consists of an impressive group of people, such as
prosecuting attorneys, defense attorneys, corrections, mental
health, the attorney general assisted, and the Alaska Judicial
Council administered the commission and were also engaged in the
process. He noted he may be leaving people out, but his point
is that there were many meetings and the commissioners were
always there working on the issues. He emphasized that the
commissioners' expertise far surpasses anything he could
contribute to the bill, and that he was there as a layman. It
is justice reinvestment because there is money to be saved, and
he said he was appalled by the population increase in pretrial
lockups that can be dealt with administratively. This
legislation is just a step in that it is an ongoing maintenance
step and it doesn't solve all the problems, but it sure makes a
good start, he stated.
12:43:04 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX pointed out that "This is the first meeting that
we've had without Representative Gruenberg and it hardly seems
real that we are conducting a Judiciary Committee meeting with
... without him. We hope that we will be channeling, not the
rabbit hole questions, but some of the really, really good and
insightful questions that he always had."
12:44:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN commented that this bill affects many people
and that his major overall concern is that it is an omnibus bill
with a laundry list of everything in the justice system, In the
event one portion of the bill is not agreed upon, he said he
would hate to see it go down in flames.
12:46:15 PM
KRIS SELL, Lieutenant, Juneau Police Department, advised that
she is a Lieutenant in the Juneau Police Department and the Vice
President of the Alaska Peace Officers Association. She
emphasized that she is speaking solely as a commissioner of the
Alaska Criminal Justice Commission. The commission is made up
of people who do not usually get together in the same room in a
non-adversarial sense, because it includes attorneys, judges, a
defense attorney, law enforcement, victims' rights
representatives, and others. She admitted that for the first
year on the commission she mentally had her arms crossed over
her chest the entire time because she did not want anyone out of
jail. She advised that she became a police officer because she
wanted to be tough on crime, to protect people, she would risk
herself to do it, and found herself believing that the only
criminal she could trust was one in prison. It was a hardened
view, she acknowledged, until the commission began reviewing
studies with the science of corrections and it made sense with
things she had seen in the field, such as arresting the same
person over and over again, and finding them becoming more anti-
social each time, more detached from the community, and more
dangerous to her and the other officers working in the streets.
She said she could see disenfranchising happening as people went
through the system, and she also saw people begging for help
with drug, alcohol, and mental health problems. Yet, she noted,
these people were not receiving help in the system. While
walking through the jails she saw inmates watching television
and playing cards, people she knew to have serious problems,
addiction problems, or possibly not even literate and able to
obtain a law abiding job if they wanted one. I struck her that
serious work needed to be done by these people who were sitting
around napping and watching television rather than being
confronted with the things that they needed to deal with to get
better, she said.
12:50:04 PM
LIEUTENANT SELL described her process as painful as she knew she
had to start acknowledging there was something to the science of
corrections. "Tough on Crime" worked really well for a while
because it brought down crime rates, but the investment wasn't
what everyone expected it to be. She pointed out that she had
testified [prior to her work on the commission] against making
any drug possession a misdemeanor, and that she still doesn't
like that bill because it didn't have the reinvestment piece.
She pointed to the issue of, "if people are not in jail, then
where?" People need treatment or supervision or something to
help reintegrate themselves back into law abiding society
because many times just taking their word for it won't do it.
She referred to the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission report,
agreed that it may need some changes, and stated the commission
will not take the changes personally. It is a massive piece of
legislation and it took the commission years to go through [the
data, studies and research]. The intention is to save enough
money to make the reinvestment meaningful and, she cautioned,
during these tough economic times to not adopt the bill without
the reinvestment piece because if the bill just shortens
incarceration the legislature will have taken the current
revolving door and made it spin faster. She reiterated there
must be meaningful addressing of why people start engaging in
crime, which is what makes this bill work.
12:53:17 PM
BRENDA STANFILL, Commissioner, Alaska Criminal Justice
Commission, advised she works with the Interior Alaska Center
for Non-Violent Living in Fairbanks, and she is not necessarily
speaking for the center although her board strongly supports her
involvement in this issue. She advised that it was a challenge
to come into the commission and take away her pre-formed ideas,
thereby hearing what was being said and addressing those issues.
The commission was asked to perform a data-driven, evidence-
based process because previously the data was based upon outrage
and things that didn't go right, and trying to criminalize their
way out of social issues.
MS. STANFILL noted that from a victim advocate's standpoint, it
was thought that fixing it would be taking someone out of the
environment and putting them in jail and during their time in
jail they would have a realization that they should do things
differently, and would. Although, she noted, over the years she
has found that when people have this kind of behavior it's
because that's what they know, and many times do not know how to
do it differently. When discussing pretrial, the discussion
must include the reinvestment portion as this is not a budget
savings bill. She described the bill as a "budget transfer
bill" and saving money on one said by doing something on the
other side. Thereby, she said, in the long run making people
safer in their communities, addressing public safety, and
ultimately there will be less victimization.
12:55:34 PM
MS. STANFILL advised she was on the pretrial subcommittee and
would share "the data that we used when we came out of each
recommendation." She offered the power point "Alaska Criminal
Justice Commission: Justice Reinvestment Report, House Bill 205:
Criminal law/procedure; driver's licenses; public aid."
MS. STANFILL turned to "Recommendation 1: Expand the use of
citations in place of arrest for lower-level nonviolent
offenses" [page 15], and advised that current statute offers law
enforcement the ability to not arrest, although it not often
used. This allows law enforcement a greater ability to think
through whether the person is a risk to public safety, and if
not, they could issue a citation with a court date rather than
taking them to jail. When the commission looked deeply into the
data of Alaska, it found that 76 percent of the pretrial
admissions to prisons were for misdemeanor charges, 56 percent
of the pretrial admissions to prison were for non-violent
misdemeanor charges. The commission then focused on whether
something could be changed. She said that 81 percent is the
growth in Alaska's pretrial detainees over the last 10 years,
and national research revealed that if an individual is detained
more than 24-hours it can actually lead to worse outcomes than
similar defendants not detained. This change will create a
presumption of citation for misdemeanors and class C felonies,
excluding persons offenses, domestic violence offenses,
violations of release conditions, or offenses for which a
warrant or summons has been issued. The commission realized
this was a high level recommendation and believe that through
the legislative process it would work through those specifics of
the presumption. She offered that much work has been performed
on the Senate side to do additional carve outs because the
commission did not have a list of every crime that was there in
order to decide which ones should be carved out. She said, from
the victim advocacy standpoint, they appreciate the willingness
of the legislature to really look at ascertaining that the
presumptions are for those people who truly can receive a
citation and not impact public safety.
12:58:48 PM
MS. STANFILL turned to "Recommendation 2: Utilize risk-based
release decision-making," and offered that when a person is put
in jail, most of the time it is based strictly upon how much
money they have as to whether they are released from jail. In
the event a person commits a high-level crime but has means,
they are able to bail out. Therefore, there has been no
consideration of their risk to communities rather it has been
whether they can afford the bail schedule. Currently, she
explained, if a person is arrested for drunk driving and taken
to jail they do not have to go before a judge because they can
put up however much money is on that bail schedule, and be out
of jail within an hour. Currently, few crimes actually require
a person to see a judge before being let out of jail, and this
recommendation allows that it would no longer be based solely
upon money, but based upon risk. The State of Alaska would
create a risk assessment to decide who it is that is getting out
of jail, and who stays in jail, which will require work but the
commission has been given good examples of things that have been
done and that "it appears we would have some technical
assistance to help us do this."
1:00:16 PM
MS. STANFILL advised that the recommendation also includes a
grid of which types of offenses would be let out on their own
recognizance with different measures in place. The
recommendation included going to a bond that is not cash but
rather a performance bond where a person agrees to do certain
things but not actually having to put cash up front. However,
she said, there would be a cash collection at the back-end if
they violated the bail, and the collections unit would garnish
paychecks and permanent fund dividends to collect on the
forfeited unsecured bonds and unpaid victim's restitution. She
related that the law cannot allow a person to get out of jail
free and if they violate there are no penalties. The
recommendation allows people of lower income to get out of jail
as long as they are not a risk to public safety. She pointed
to the study performed by the Alaska Judicial Council revealing
the disparity in ethnicity between who is, and is not, able to
make bail. She said that 52 percent of defendants were never
released during the pretrial period and the figure is based upon
a case file review by the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission.
The commission also found the following: that the majority of
defendants in Alaska with bail of $500 or more are unable to pay
it; 36 percent of individuals with secured bail under $500 were
unable to post bond; 57 percent with secured bail between $500-
$1,000 were unable to post bond; and 62 percent with secured
bail between $1,000-$2,500 were unable to post bond. She
remarked that the money piece has an impact as to whether
someone can be released pretrial.
1:02:34 PM
MS. STANFILL turned to "Recommendation 3: Implement meaningful
pretrial supervision," and stressed the word "meaningful" as the
recommendation is not to just let people out of jail and hoping
they show up and not commit more crimes. She pointed out that
within the risk assessment there would be a determination of the
risk level and possibly put them on a 24/7 program, or
electronic monitoring that measures whether drugs or alcohol are
in a person's sweat. She explained that this requires creating
a pretrial program because none of the pretrial process works if
there is no reinvestment into a pretrial system through the
Department of Corrections. Another suggestion is that the
Alaska Court System issue court date reminders to criminal
defendants because it has been found in other states that it has
had a tremendous impact on people showing up for their court
date. She related that research found that restrictive release
conditions, such as pretrial supervision leads to better
outcomes for higher risk offenders, but they lead to worse
outcomes for lower risk defendants. Therefore, it is necessary
to review all of the requirement and not offer a one size fits
all in pretrial, and actually craft the legislation in a manner
that meets the needs of those coming out on pretrial release to
address public safety.
1:04:46 PM
MS. STANFILL turned to "Recommendation 4: Focus supervision
resources on high-risk defendants," and pointed out that
sometimes youthful offenders do things they normally would not
do, it's a onetime thing, they are extremely remorseful, and get
whatever help they need. Therefore, the state does not need to
focus so many resources on people that have other things going
on, but rather focus resources on high-risk defendants. The
commission noted that "As we have gotten more tools to let
people out of jail pretrial, instead of just using those as
individual tools we've tended to heap on top of one another. So
you might require bond, in addition to 24/7, in addition to a
third-party, and that all of these together has made it where
people cannot get out of jail." The recommendation suggests
specifically reviewing what must be done in order to assure
public safety is being addressed. It also restricts third-party
custodians to conditions where it is not possible to offer
pretrial supervision, such as there is no supervision in that
location, or there is no other way to keep the public safe. She
offered that it may be in the case of a sexual offender where it
is not so much about knowing where the person is at, but rather
know who they are with which many times would take the third-
party eyes on them. She pointed out that this recommendation
looks at how to be certain the state is addressing the condition
that each person needs. She reiterated that it involves
creating the pretrial system, and [employing] people with the
ability to assess based upon a structured risk assessment that
would then hook in specific recommendations for the defendant
with it. She advised that 75 percent of defendants offered
third-party custodian conditions were unable to meet that
condition, possibly due to location or the background of the
people they know and; therefore, were never released during the
pretrial period.
UNKNOWN SPEAKER advised Chair LeDoux that Greg Razo was next.
1:07:51 PM
GREGORY RAZO, Chairman, Alaska Criminal Justice Commission,
advised that he is a Vice President at Cook Inlet Region, Inc.,
and has been a lawyer for 31 years in Alaska, and that he has
known Representative LeDoux for almost all of that time. He put
forth that the work on the commission has been difficult and
time consuming because the commission was required to review a
tremendous amount of data. At the end of the day a number of
things came out as to the drivers of the Alaska prison
population and themes the commission used throughout the various
recommendations. He advised, the recommendations are supported
by scientific evidence, and are actually contrary to what the
average person would believe, which goes to Lieutenant Sell's
statements. He related that one of the most striking things
that occurred during the commission was during the commission's
rural outreach. He advised that he is the Alaska Native member
of the commission and has been working with justice issues for
Alaska Natives for many years. In conjunction with the Alaska
Mental Health Trust in November, the commission had an
opportunity to visit Nome and Kotzebue, and while in Nome, the
Commissioner of Corrections invited the commissioners to tour
Anvil Mountain Correctional Center, and during the second day
they met with prisoners in a town hall meeting and he was
allowed to ask questions. He advised that during the first day
he was almost ashamed to be there as an Alaska Native man as he
walked through. He described approximately eight cells strictly
for people for Title 47 offenses, for offenses that were not
criminal at all, and the cells were mostly full and were there
because they were a danger to themselves or others. He surmised
that the Department of Corrections was treating mental health
problems in the prisons by simply locking people up. They next
visited the two mods inside the prison where the prisoners were
locked up. He doesn't know what he was expecting, he related,
but he realized that everyone in the prison was an Alaska Native
person, with the exception of two non-Native people. He said he
couldn't believe it and people were playing cards, sleeping,
watching television, and were there for serious issues or they
wouldn't be there. The prisoners were not dealing with anything
other than killing time in prison, which he described as such a
waste to have people that are potentially useful people just
being warehoused in this zoo out in the woods. The commission
also saw the people living in Nome and Kotzebue and he advised
that Alaska has tremendous amounts of qualified people with the
desire and will to work with the population that is intoxicated,
but they do not have the resources to do it. He referred to the
town hall meeting and asked prisoners to raise their hands if
they were incarcerated due to an alcohol related offense and
everyone in the prison with the exception of six people raised
their hands. He then asked prisoners to raise their hand if
they were imprisoned due to a drug related offense, and the
other six people raised their hands. He offered that Alaska has
an addiction problem with such significance that it is costing
millions and millions and millions of dollars in the Department
of Corrections (DOC), yet little is done to pay for the
treatment of that problem.
1:13:38 PM
MR. RAZO related that a lot of time was spent on the report, and
he described the legislation as the tip of the iceberg as much
as it is an omnibus criminal reform bill. He pointed out that
there were so many issues that were not part of justice
reinvestment that are still on the plate for the commission.
The commission has been asked to look at all of the Title 4
offenses, the alcohol related offenses, which have criminal
sanctions associated with them. Also, the Title 28 driving
offenses, and the barriers to reentry which is probably the most
significant part of what the commission really needs to dig in
on. He referred to the barriers to people coming out of prison
that include the fact that they can't drive, can't get a job,
can't find treatment in the areas they are from, and all of
those issues are still on the commission's plate, and he will
make sure that the commission gets to the end of that.
1:14:31 PM
MR. RAZO turned to "Recommendation 5: Limit the use of prison
for lower-level misdemeanor offenders," and said that research
shows that short jail stays do not reduce recidivism compared to
probation. He offered that sending someone to jail will make it
more likely they will become a criminal again. He remarked,
"Compared to defendants sentenced to probation, individuals
sentenced to short jail stays of probation have a significantly
higher likelihood of future arrest and incarceration. Even when
you control for other variables. The average crime and
increasing effect of jail remain statistically significant." He
pointed out that it is true in all of recommendations 5a, 5b,
5c, and 5f, particularly within recommendation 5c, which is
reclassifying first and second time theft offenses under $250 as
non-jailable misdemeanors. He reiterated that the research
shows that jail space doesn't reduce recidivism, more than
probation does, and can increase it. In 2014 the commission
looked at it as a benchmark and noted that 324 offenders were
admitted to prison for theft in the fourth degree which is a
misdemeanor theft under $50. More than half of those offenders
stole goods under $50, and that offenders convicted of theft of
less than $250 stayed an average of 23 days behind bars, post-
conviction. He pointed out that 23 days in jail for a low-level
misdemeanor theft crimes that are not violent, or particularly
dangerous. He discussed that 82 percent of prison admissions
are misdemeanors, 60 percent of those prison admissions are non-
violent misdemeanors, and that the state has a limited use of
prison alternatives outside of probation. Therefore, the
commission looked at the alternatives that can be placed on a
person in addition to probation, in addition to community
supervision, such as electronic monitoring, the use of fines,
and other sanctions that don't cost as much as sending someone
to jail. He stressed that cost is not the driver here but in
September the commission received letters from the leadership of
both houses and the governor asking the commission to look at
what it would take to avert future prison growth and reduce the
prison population by 15 percent and 25 percent. He said that
just to reduce future prison growth is 1,416 beds, to reduce it
by 15 percent is 2,180 beds, and 25 percent, which is the number
used in the commission's report, it is 2,689 beds. Significant
changes need to come from these recommendations and from the
legislature's work on HB 205 to accomplish this if the state
will actually see a reduction in Alaska's prison population, and
it must be followed by reinvestment, he expressed.
1:19:14 PM
MR. RAZO noted, with regard to driving while intoxicated (DUI)
offenders in 5e, the research reveals that jail sentences are
associated with higher recidivism rates and prison alternatives
even when controlling for differences among offender groups.
Therefore, a short sentence for a DUI offender has a higher
chance of resulting in recidivism for doing it again. This
finding is consistent for offenders with multiple DUI
convictions and he stressed that the jail isn't the sanction
that's working. He described himself as a businessman and when
two out of three people coming out of prison will go back to
prison within three years, the state is not getting reduction in
public safety, and "we're not doing any corrections, we're not
doing corrections in the corrections department." The best DUI
responses emphasize replacement of jail time with low cost
monitoring programs, the use of community based interventions
like electronic monitoring and intensive probation provide
better treatment results because the offender can learn to
adjust their consumption within their normal living environment.
He pointed out that DUI misdemeanor offenders comprise almost
one-fourth of all post-conviction admissions to prison in 2014.
The state needs to target misdemeanor DUI offenders as they come
back to prison at a higher rate, so what the state is doing
doesn't work.
1:21:07 PM
MR. RAZO turned to "Recommendation 6: Revise drug penalties to
focus the most severe punishments on higher level drug
offenders," and explained that research across multiple states
with meta-analysis reveals that longer stays in prison do not
reduce recidivism more than shorter prison stays. There is no
significant effect of longer prison stays on recidivism, and
sending someone to longer and longer terms in prison by itself
does nothing to reduce recidivism. Some studies revealed that
severe punishment such as felony convictions and prison terms
actually increase criminogenic effects causing offenders to be
more likely to commit crimes, which is true for drug offenders.
He said that admissions to prison post-conviction felony drug
offenses have increased by 52 percent, driven in large part by a
68 percent of simple possession of drugs in the fourth degree,
and felony drug offenders are spending 16 percent longer behind
bars. The conclusion of the statistics is exactly what the
commission said, the science simply does not support the way the
state is doing things right now, he said. Research shows that
the 13 states plus the District of Columbia classifying drug
possession as a misdemeanor have slightly lower rates of violent
crime, property crime, and drug use than the states that
classify drug possession as a felony, and Alaska needs to
consider this research. The commission recommends a revision of
the classification of commercial drug offenses in that there are
two types of drug dealers, the ones that sell a small quantity
of drugs to support their drug habit, and then the commercial
people in the drug business to make thousands and thousands of
dollars. He said the demarcation of commercial drug offenses
recommendation attempts to deal with that. He reiterated that
long prison sentences for commercial drug offenders have a low
deterrent value, the chances of someone actually being caught
for selling drugs is 1 in 15,000, and with such a low risk of
detection drug dealers are unlikely to be dissuaded by the
remote possibility of a longer stay in prison. Some studies
have shown that severe punishment, such as felony convictions
and prison terms, may have criminogenic effects which is
especially true of drug offenders.
1:26:06 PM
MR. RAZO turned to "Recommendation 7: Utilize inflation-adjusted
property thresholds," and stressed that there is absolutely no
relationship between the value of the felony theft threshold and
whether a person is going to steal. States that have raised the
felony theft threshold have actually seen reduction in some
small amounts in the rate of theft; therefore, it does not make
an offender less likely to commit a crime by increasing the
prison stay. In Alaska, he pointed out, admissions to prison
after conviction for theft in the second degree, between $750
and $25,000, has grown by 52 percent, and the research shows
that nationwide the felony theft threshold has no impact on
property crime and larceny rates.
1:27:30 PM
MR. RAZO turned to "Recommendation 8: Align non-sex felony
presumptive ranges with prior presumptive terms," and offered
that "In 2005, the Alaska Supreme Court issued a case called
Blakely, -- Blakely v. State and in the Blakely decision, the
way that Alaska was doing presumptive sentencing was tossed
out." [Blakely v. Washington, 542 US 296 (2004).] The Alaska
legislature, in an attempt to deal with that court decision,
rather than giving a specific presumptive sentence, imposed a
range of sentences. The intent was not to increase the amount
of time that people would stay in prison, but in looking back 10
years, has been exactly what happened with the change in the law
in 2005. The recommendation attempts to roll back the
legislature's actions so that Alaska can at least get back to
the way it was in 2005, and control this increase seen in the
courts in long prison sentences. He reiterated that long prison
sentences don't reduce recidivism any more than short prison
sentences do. He pointed out that since the 2005 shift, the
felony length of stay has increased by 31 percent, class A
felonies - right below the most serious unclassified felonies -
have gone up by 80 percent, class B felonies have increased by 8
percent, and class C felonies have increased by 17 percent.
Consequently, what happened is exactly what the legislature did
not want to have happen with the change in law in 2005, and
asked the committee to take a hard look at this particular
recommendation.
1:29:49 PM
MR. RAZO turned to "Recommendation 9: Expand and streamline the
use of discretionary parole," and advised the commission found
that only a small amount of people in prison were applying and
appearing before the Parole Board for discretionary parole The
commission assumed prisoner were not applying because they
believed they would be unsuccessful. Although a substantial
number of offenders currently spending time in prison are
eligible for discretionary parole they are not applying, which
means that in any given month in 2014 an average of 462 inmates
were eligible for discretionary parole, and an average of only
14.8 applied and parole hearings were held.
1:31:11 PM
MR. RAZO turned to "Recommendation 10: Implement a specialty
parole option for long-term, geriatric inmates," and said this
is for offenders who have the potential to be paroled beyond
probation at age 55. He offered that it simply costs a great
deal of money to keep people in prison at this age and the
chance of them reoffending is very, very small. Evidence shows
that these people simply do not reoffend at any significant
rate, and this recommendation gives the legislature the option
to take action so the prisoners can be considered for specialty
parole. He noted that researchers have consistently found that
age is one of the most significant predictions of criminality,
with criminal or delinquent activity peaking in late adolescence
and decreasing as people age. In Alaska, he said, offenders
released at age 55 and older were far less likely to be
rearrested than the average for all offenders. Geriatric
inmates are a costly population to incarcerate, he related, and
nationwide prisons spend approximately two to three times more
to incarcerate geriatric inmates than younger individuals.
Further, he pointed out, the number of offenders in Alaska's
prisons age 51 and older has doubled in the past 10-years, and
he described it as the fastest growing age group. The baby-boom
population is expanding as expected, and in 2005, 410 offenders
were age 51 and older, in 2014 that number jumped to 833.
1:33:02 PM
MR. RAZO turned to "Recommendation 11: Incentivize completion of
treatment for sex offenders with an earned time policy," and
related that, "believe it or not," the evidence shows that
treatment of sex offenders works. He described this population
as "really easy to hate on for very sound reasons," but the
state wants this population who is ultimately coming out of
prison to not offend again for public safety and no more
victims. He remarked that if the state provided more treatment
for this population, both in prison and out with intense
community supervision, he opined there will be a significant
increase in public safety, less victims, and less recidivism.
The Alaska Judicial Counsel's studies on recidivism in 2008-2009
in Alaska found that sex offenders had substantially lower rates
of rearrests within one year than other offense groups. The
same study, he noted, found that sex offenders were reconvicted
for a new sex offense within two years at a rate of 2 percent.
Sex offenders today are staying in prison 86 percent longer than
they did 10-years ago because the state has been tough on crime
on sex offenders and the results are as a person would expect,
if the state is going to increase the length of sentences then
there will be a lot of sex offenders in jail for a longer term.
He pointed out that the state is just beginning to see the
effects of the tough on crime on sex offenders, and it will
continue to increase for a number of years.
1:35:10 PM
LIEUTENANT SELL turned to "Recommendation 12: Implement
graduated sanctions and incentives," and explained that the
graduated sanction incentives could allow the state to
relentlessly address the problems people have going into prison,
and whether or not the subject is coping with those. She said
the encouragement is for swift, certain, and proportional
responses, similar to raising children and their deaf ears to a
punishment in the far future. When trying to influence behavior
at the beginning of people's lives, consequences to behavior
have to be swift, certain, and proportional. She said that when
speaking with people addicted to drugs, they are thinking at
most in four hour increments because that is when they need to
use again. She said that telling them they had better not use
because if they do, in 6-12 months they may have to serve the
rest of their sentence, doesn't mean anything. Therefore, she
pointed out, the emphasis is on swift, certain, and proportional
sanctions, and allowing for both positive and negative sanctions
because incarceration is only one tool in the toolbox and the
commission is trying to add additional tools for the graduated
sanctions and incentives. This recommendation requires a lot of
work on the part of the Department of Corrections. She stressed
that the department is staffed by really good people who want to
make a difference, who know their jobs, and know the people they
are caring for in the Department of Corrections. She suggested
the possibility of giving them enough resources to have more
tools to influence that behavior."
1:37:58 PM
LIEUTENANT SELL turned to "Recommendation 13: Reduce pre-
adjudication length of stay & cap overall incarceration time for
technical violations of supervision," and said this is part of
the swift, certain, and proportional consequences because if a
person does something they shouldn't be doing there will be a
consequence, and then another consequence, and then the
consequences will continue to ratchet up. She acknowledged that
it is difficult for officers to be taunted by felons on the
Probation Accountability and Certain Enforcement (PACE) program
who says "Yeah, I made a mistake I'll see you in three days."
She said that it can have an emotional reaction and even so, the
fact is that swift, certain, and proportional sanctions that
happen immediately have to be better than random severe
sanctions. She stressed that it doesn't make sense that leaving
everything up to chance wouldn't encourage people to gamble with
what the outcome might be when violating their probation.
1:39:07 PM
LIEUTENANT SELL turned to "Recommendation 14: Establish a system
of earned compliance credits," and described it as part of the
positive sanctions in that if a person complies with their
probation, if they do the things they are supposed to do, they
can earn compliance credits because there must also be positive
tools as well as negative. All of the studies, she said, show
that people respond best if positive rewards can be involved in
a system, and people checking in with the court, "bloom in court
when they get to say I had 30 days where I didn't do anything
that was prohibited, I have been off drugs or alcohol for 30
days." There is a pride in that which helps to establish a
sense of pride and hope, whereas the most common characteristic
of people not doing well with incarceration in the current
justice system all have a lack of hope, she pointed out.
1:40:09 PM
LIEUTENANT SELL turned to "Recommendation 15: Reduce maximum
lengths for probation terms and standardize early discharge
proceedings," commented that she struggled with this but the
science is clear that for the most part people will violate
probation in the first year, and recidivism is usually
frontloaded. The dollar becomes less productive the longer the
person is on probation and the state is putting that effort into
supervision, she said. The recommendation was difficult for
her, she noted, but the science had to supersede.
1:41:06 PM
LIEUTENANT SELL turned to "Recommendation 16: Extend good time
eligibility to offenders serving sentences on electronic
monitoring," and characterized this as the traditional
electronic monitoring as one of things that "if not prison, then
where, if not jail then where." She explained that electronic
monitoring is working with people while they try to maintain
their jobs, maintain their family commitments, and do the things
that are protective factors for them rejoining the community as
a productive member. Yet, it doesn't just trust them to behave,
she remarked. This is an alternative and, she commented, it can
be turned into a positive incentive for good time; therefore,
the commission recommended increasing electronic monitoring and
good time associated with it.
LIEUTENANT SELL advised she would skip Recommendation 17 because
it is not in the bill.
1:42:45 PM
GRACE ABBOTT, Staff, Representative Charisse Millett, Alaska
State Legislature, advised Lieutenant Sell that Recommendation
17 is HB 205, Version H.
1:42:52 PM
LIEUTENANT SELL turned to "Recommendation 17: Focus ASAP
resources to improve program effectiveness," and advised that
alcohol treatment resources were discussed because alcohol is
overwhelmingly the substance abuse drug of choice filling
Alaska's prisons. The commission found there are not enough
resources in the state's alcohol treatment and not enough
alcohol treatment available for the people ready to take the
step of getting off alcohol, she said. The intent is to
increase alcohol resources and provide direction as to who the
state is sending to alcohol court. She noted there have been
occasions when people addicted to drugs were sent to alcohol
treatment because there was not a more appropriate place to put
them. Therefore, it would necessary to review defense
categories associated with the alcohol programs.
1:43:59 PM
LIEUTENANT SELL turned to "Recommendation 18: Improve treatment
offerings in CRCs and focus use of CRC resources on high-need
offenders," and advised that Crisis Recovery Center (CRCs) are
commonly known as half-way houses. The commission's intent is
to makes CRCs more effective by continuing the treatment and,
she suggested, considering the treatment as being a continuum
through the arrest and incarceration. A risk assessment is
performed at the time of arrest that identifies that person's
criminal drivers, and those are addressed throughout the
incarceration and as the person transfers into the community and
essentially practices being a law abiding citizen with some
supervision, and the last step is often the half-way house. She
explained that the commission would like to improve those
outcomes by having treatment at the half-way house because it is
known that it is not a "30-day and done" proposition when
discussing getting a person off drugs, or alcohol, or managing a
mental health disorder, or two or three of those factors.
Having the treatment available in the half-way house and making
sure the contracted half-way houses are meeting those
obligations with an admission criteria that puts the resources
where the risk is, she explained. It is also known that when
mixing high-risk and low-risk offenders in the same half-way
house, the high-risk offenders teach criminal behavior to the
low-risk offenders and, in essence, recruiting them to a
criminal life style, she pointed out.
1:45:54 PM
MS. STANFILL turned to "Recommendation 19: Require collection of
key performance measures and establish an oversight council,"
and said that the commission did not want to base
recommendations on statistics solely from other states and not
have its own way to measure whether it was having the same
effect in Alaska. She noted that the state currently has a
Criminal Justice Commission set up that is very invested in what
is being done and stressed that it makes sense that that
oversight council stays in place whether it is this Criminal
Justice Commission or another one. She further stressed that
there must be a group coming together regularly, collecting the
key performance measures and making modifications. She
described this as the first step in this process and the
commission expects it would come back and review what worked,
didn't work, and make modifications through the legislature and
statutes moving forward.
1:47:30 PM
MS. STANFILL turned to "Recommendation 20: Ensure policymakers
are aware of the impact of all future legislative proposals that
could affect prison populations," and noted that the
recommendation addresses the modification area in that sometimes
there is a "knee jerk" reaction based upon something that
happened. In the event the state increases sentences or makes a
change, it would require a 10-year fiscal impact [study]
prepared in order to ascertain the impact on the prison growth
and population.
1:48:06 PM
MS. STANFILL turned to "Recommendation 21: Advance crime victim
priorities," and described it as definitely not the last of the
recommendations, or one that can be done without, because
victims, and victim's rights are at the forefront. The ultimate
goal is to lower recidivism rates so less people are committing
crimes, thereby, less victims. She informed that committee that
information was researched, meetings took place throughout the
state, plus the commission hosted two round-tables in order to
advance victims' priorities. The recommendation requires that
the district attorney's office make a focused and enhanced
effort to increase the number of crime victims signed on for
court notifications through Victim Information and Notification
Everyday (VINE). Another recommendation included reviewing and
revising policies and procedures related to inmates' phone calls
because now that inmates must pay for their phone calls it is
harder for inmates to call people they shouldn't call. She
offered that many of the recommendations can be accomplished
through regulation and not through statute. Further, she
explained, not specifically within this recommendation but tied
to it are the reinvestment priorities.
1:50:45 PM
MS. STANFILL said, as a victim advocate for 20-years, it is
scary to think of letting people out of jail, and that she still
has a bit of a knee-jerk reaction even though she has seen all
the data. There is a 2010-2015 victimization study, she opined,
that revealed the $3 million investment and prevention that
focused on domestic violence and sexual assault and reducing
victimization against women actually had an 8 percent decrease
in victimization which related to 3,000 less instances of
victimization last year. She suggested putting $1 million into
prevention efforts may be a huge number, but the legislature
consider that none of this works unless considering the
reinvestment priorities. She explained that part of the
reinvestment is pretrial, and part of that must be prevention.
She referred to how the state is working with victim services in
remote and bush communities, noting that transportation is an
issue, getting a sexual assault exam, getting out of the
community in a manner that the victim's confidential rights are
still protected. She included access to treatment because it is
known that the prime time for treatment is when something just
happened, the person is arrested knowing they have a problem and
want help yet, unfortunately, there is a six-month wait just to
receive an assessment. She added, with regard to reinvestment
priorities, to be certain when people are released from prison
that they actually have a reentry support system services. She
said she looks forward to the crafting of this bill discussing
reinvestment.
1:53:19 PM
LIEUTENANT SELL turned to the last slide and advised that her
comments relate to the question, "What were you thinking?"
Sometimes people get into trouble and they can't figure out how
to navigate the system to get a driver's license back, possibly
can't afford some of the restrictions, such as requiring a
breath test to start their car, and end up driving revoked and
driving suspended. She estimated that the Juneau Police
Department probably cites driving revoked or driving suspended,
based on a different crime, two or three times every single day.
The limited driver's license is often necessary for people to
maintain employment, especially in communities without public
transportation or shift work, and it will allow them to live law
abiding lives instead of the "stacking and steamrolling" of
offenses when a restriction is put on someone contrary to their
ability to make a living and support their families. The
administrative license revocation has to do with the possibility
of a person not being found guilty. Currently, she said, the
Department of Motor Vehicles takes the driver's license away on
DUIs, and maybe that is not appropriate. She offered that there
is a sense of justice that if the person is not convicted, that
possibly the license should not go with it, even though she
knows many people that are guilty and yet are not convicted.
She turned to the issue of food stamps, and offered that there
were many discussions as to whether a person with a felony
conviction should ever get food stamps. She remarked that while
she understands the cynicism that food stamps can be diverted
just like drugs to get people off heroin can be diverted, is
denying people food really the way to get them to address their
higher level problems. Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs and, she
asked, if a person doesn't have food or shelter, do they really
do things to make them more valuable to the community. She
pointed out that denying food is difficult and she was unsure
whether it was done to change behavior as much as "possibly
making ourselves feel better because we've punished somebody who
was doing wrong, and maybe that's not the best motive." The
commission also has some ideas about the reentry program and Ms.
Abbott would explain.
1:56:43 PM
MS. ABBOTT advised that the reentry program is a concept as to
how to direct the Department of Corrections (DOC) to help people
to reenter the community, to become functioning and contributing
members of their community. It requires that DOC assist
reentering inmates to come up with a plan, and instruct them on
resources available in the community for things like, state
identification. She noted that some of these may fall under the
food and shelter requirement, but are helpful in assisting
people with reentry.
1:57:41 PM
LIEUTENANT SELL referred to community work service and advised
that many offenders are ordered into community work service,
especially low-level offenders and if an inmate does not
complete their community work service, they go back to jail for
certain periods. She described that as "overly generous of us,"
and opined that the state shouldn't house them to watch
television and take naps for not doing their community work
service. She suggested reverting it to a fine, thereby, saving
the state money with the potential to bring in money rather than
continually spending it on those not meeting their low-level
obligations. Therefore, she explained, there is a consequence
and the state currently spending $142 per day is not the correct
consequence.
1:59:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN surmised that CRCs are places the state
can more effectively use for pretrial release, and also where
the person receives sentencing credit in the pretrial release
treatment programs. He asked whether that is part of
Recommendation 18.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN restated his question at Lieutenant Sell's
request, and noted there have been different discussions
throughout the year in the House Judiciary Standing Committee
regarding sentencing credit for pretrial release in different
programs. He asked whether Recommendation 18 is where the
committee should look to as to how those programs play into the
whole dynamic of improving the effectiveness of community
rehabilitation programs, and in reducing recidivism.
LIEUTENANT SELL asked for clarification as to whether
Representative Claman was asking whether the community
rehabilitation treatment program could reside within a half-way
house. She asked whether she had misunderstood the question.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN offered that there are half-way houses,
not run by DOC, such as the Clitheroe Center in Anchorage, where
people are often released pretrial and are ultimately seeking
sentencing credit while in the rehabilitation program. With
regard to Recommendation 18, he asked whether that is where HB
205 addresses some of those questions.
LIEUTENANT SELL referred to Recommendation 18b and responded
that it adopts quality assurance procedures ensuring that non-
DOC CRCs meet contractual obligations with regard to safety and
offender management, so treatment could play into that. She
noted the issue of not mixing high-risk and low-risk offenders
together, any more than mixing those offenders for people
already released from a prison.
2:02:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN referred to driver's licenses and people
committing criminal alcohol offenses, losing their license
entirely and their ability to go to work. He asked how the
state balances not having people drive intoxicated with a
penalty of not being able to drive, yet at the same time
recognizing that if they don't go to work it creates another set
of problems.
LIEUTENANT SELL pointed to the limited driver's license and said
that currently it is "addressed under temporary driver's
license, even after somebody is arrested for the first 10-days
they can apply for a hearing and ask to be able to drive to
work, ask for a limited access." In that manner, the person is
given an option to be law abiding instead of the constantly
racking up driving revoked and driving suspended charges.
2:04:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN pointed to the administrative revocation
and opined that it is an unfortunately common experience for
those charged with DUI, "is they ... they show up in court and
they do all these things and then they start getting these
letters from DMV saying how their license is being
administratively revoked. And I think on the criminal law
enforcement side ... I share your favorite ... the fact that you
like administrative revocation because some people who probably
were driving intoxicated ... while intoxicated are able to find
technical ways to get around the criminal charge and they
usually don't really follow carefully enough on the
administrative charge and they get their license revoked
anyway." From the offender standpoint, the dual system of
criminal charges and administrative charges are incredibly
confusing to the public in that they do not follow the same
tract and do not communicate with each other. He asked whether
Recommendation 18 assists people in navigating with some degree
of certainty.
2:05:10 PM
LIEUTENANT SELL related that, "As a famous jurist once said, our
system is designed to let nine guilty people go free rather than
wrongly convict one innocent person." She said when someone
stands on the frontlines of watching that happen, sometimes the
person feels that "Okay, now that I've got my hand around your
throat, I'm not letting go" and getting over that is a tough
journey, and she thanked Representative Claman for his patience.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN stated that he is not entirely clear that
is the quote he heard from that gentleman, but he would not
correct Lieutenant Sell.
2:05:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked Chair LeDoux whether she would
consider bringing up Jordan Shilling and Ken Truitt, who are
staff to Senator Coghill and himself, who were in the trenches
with the commission, with the idea of asking them whether they
have something that the presentation of the bill was weak on.
He advised that he does not have anything specifically on his
mind.
2:06:38 PM
JORDON SHILLING, Staff, Senator John Coghill, Alaska State
Legislature, was available.
2:06:42 PM
KEN TRUITT, Staff, Representative Wes Keller, Alaska State
Legislature, was available.
MR. SHILLING advised that he did not have anything specific to
include.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER replied, "That's great so that way she
knows we weren't passing notes back and forth, it's just honest
inspiration."
MR. TRUITT commented that working as staff to the legislative
representatives on the commission, it was surprising and
heartening to see, with the broad spectrum of interests at the
commission, how well everyone worked together. Specifically, he
pointed out, the defense side working with the law enforcement
side was heartening and encouraging to see, witness, and be a
part of, with the professionalism that every member brought to
the table.
2:08:16 PM
LIEUTENANT SELL pointed to Commissioner Quinlan Steiner, the
defense attorney on the commission, and offered he may be
helpful with questions.
2:09:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS referred to Recommendation 9, and
noted that he was impressed with the comment that sex offender
treatment is highly successful statistically. He ask her to
expound on the methods and whether that type of success in
reducing recidivism or re-violation relates to other classes of
criminality.
LIEUTENANT SELL deferred to another commissioner stating that
she has deferred to the science of the matter, but she spent a
good portion of her career hunting sex offenders. She related
that it is difficult for her and another commissioner could
articulate it better.
2:10:29 PM
MR. SHILLING advised that sex offender treatment is proven to be
effective and that the Washington State Policy Institute
prepared a cost benefit analysis on sex offender treatment and
it shows that for every dollar spent on sex offender treatment
there is a good return for that money. He will provide the
research. Basically, he advised, sex offenders in Alaska have a
lower recidivism rate than most cohorts of offenders, and the
Alaska Judicial Council conducted a study showing that the
recidivism rate for sex offenders is 18 percent, and the
recidivism rate for a repeat sex offense is approximately 2
percent. He described the program as arduous and the longest
most difficult program in the DOC path. It takes 18-30 months
to complete and not everyone does complete it, so in order to
incentivize that treatment the commission recommended a credit
for sex offenders who complete that program, knowing the
treatment is effective.
2:11:30 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX pointed out that there are various types of sex
offenders such as the 18-year old charged with statutory rape
with a 15-year old, but also the 18-, or 25-, or 45-year old who
may be charged with having sex with a 2-year old or 3-year old.
She pointed out that those are very different crimes, and asked
whether the analysis is for both of those crimes, in that she
has heard that the research states that people with a 2-year old
and 3-year old can never be rehabilitated.
MR. SHILLING opined that the recidivism numbers he recited apply
to sex offenders across the board, and he will research the
commission as to whether it has data specific on the different
types of offenses. He agreed that sex offenses cover a very
broad spectrum in that some are the Romeo and Juliet scenarios,
and some are incredibly heinous acts that many people believe
that those individuals cannot be rehabilitated.
CHAIR LEDOUX advised she would like additional information
regarding that particular area.
MR. SHILLING added that the policy the commission recommended
did not differentiate between the two extremes, it recommended a
pure policy with the understanding that the legislature would
scrutinize it.
CHAIR LEDOUX reiterated that she would like to see the
statistics between those two types because it is important.
2:13:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS pointed out there is a treatment
program that appears to work extremely well for a certain class
of offense, and asked whether for other classes of criminal
offenses why there are treatment programs or if there are
treatment programs that the state is not using, that have
similarly successful statistical outcomes in reducing recidivism
or recommitting criminal activity.
MS. SHILLING responded that DOC has a variety of programing that
research has shown works which includes sexual abuse treatment,
substance abuse treatment, and mental health treatment,
although, he does know what portion of DOC's budget consists of
treatment. He offered that DOC completed a recidivism study a
few years ago showing that substance abuse treatment reduced
recidivism by 21 percent, so it's effective. It is important to
know that with the state's current fiscal climate it is
difficult to reinvest in things like treatment if the savings is
not found in other areas. In other words, he said, the state
needs to quit spending so much on things that the research shows
doesn't work, and start spending it on things known to work,
such as treatment.
2:14:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS commented that he is interested in
the concept of social impact bonds that basically tie long-term
savings treatments with an alignment of fiscal incentives. He
asked whether the commission explored social impact bonds and
its use within Rikers Island, New York, or other jurisdictions
in the United States.
MR. SHILLING replied that the commission did not specifically
discuss social impact bonds as the commission was very outcome
focused, as those bonds are, and offered that he is aware New
York is having success with those bonds.
2:15:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS referred to Recommendation 10
wherein it was noted that the geriatric population within the
prisons is the fastest growing population, and asked whether it
is attributable to younger people sentenced with longer prison
terms and getting old in prison, or because older people are
being arrested.
2:16:11 PM
MR. SHILLING pointed out that the reason is due to the
legislature increasing sentences across the board, whether it be
low-level or high-level felonies. Therefore, he said, there is
a stacking up in the state's older prisoners, and that geriatric
prisoners cost two to three times as much as most inmate, yet it
is known that those prisoners are the least likely to commit
crime with the lowest recidivism rate. He opined that the
geriatric growth is due to increased sentences for sex offenses,
and increased sentences for class A, B, and C felonies all
across the board.
CHAIR LEDOUX recommended that the committee members direct their
questions to the commissioners today while they are available.
2:16:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN referred to the distinction between sexual
abuse of a minor offenses and sexual assault offenses which tend
to involve adults and asked how those breakdown into successful
treatment. He opined that adult on adult sexual assaults,
especially with more than one sexual assault on their record,
that their ability to rehabilitate tends to be "quite poor." He
reiterated that sexual abuse of a minor offenses in teen-agers
is very different than a 50-year old and a 5-year old and he
would be interested to know the breakdown.
CHAIR LEDOUX reminded Representative Claman that Mr. Shilling
said he would provide the committee with research.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked for more detail in the research.
2:19:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS referred to Recommendation 2 that
created a matrix of risk scores for pretrial release, and asked
whether it is based upon something executed in another state,
and further asked for examples of a risk criteria that may be
considered.
LIEUTENANT SELL advised that she could answer the first question
and explained that it is based upon experiences in other states
in that "we did not make up anything, we did not get that
original, we wanted to use ... tactics that had been used in
other states so that we could see how they've been impacted ...
how those states had used those." She continued that the
commission reviewed a risk assessment tool currently being used
with the potential of altering it for Alaska's application. She
explained that states that executed a major criminal justice
reformation are using the risk assessment tool, such as Georgia,
South Dakota, Kentucky, Mississippi, and others. A risk
assessment tool has been a cornerstone because those states
achieved anywhere from 9 percent to 21 percent savings in their
incarceration costs, she said.
2:21:37 PM
TERRY SCHUSTER, Senior Associate, The Pew Charitable Trusts,
explained that with regard to pretrial risk assessment, the two
types of failure measured include: failure to appear for court
hearings, and new criminal activity during the pretrial period
between arrest and verdict which is generally a short period of
time and most people during that time do not fail. Therefore,
pretrial failure rates are low which makes them harder to
predict, and the predictive issues tend to be static factors -
things that don't change. For example, reviewing criminal
history or court records to determine prior failures to appear
in court that would make them higher-risk and thus extra weight
would be attached. Different jurisdictions will execute a study
to determine who is failing pretrial, who is committing new
criminal activity pretrial, who is failing to appear for their
hearings, and what do they have in common, and he noted that
those studies will be different jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
The idea behind creating a risk assessment tool, he explained,
is to take Alaskan data and attempt to identify what it is here
that might be predictive of pretrial failure and then build a
risk tool around that. Once a risk assessment tool is created
it must be validated year-after-year to ascertain that it
continues to be predictive, he said.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS acknowledged that the risk factors
differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and requested examples
of risk factors identified in another jurisdiction, such as
Mississippi, Georgia, or South Dakota.
2:23:55 PM
MR. SCHUSTER corrected the record and advised that not all of
those states have pretrial risk assessment tools because there
are various types of risk assessment tools, such as measuring
risk of long-term recidivism, so something that may be
predictive of recidivism over multiple years may not be
predictive of pretrial failure. In other states there are
factors related to someone having a prior certain type of
offense, for example, a prior theft offense in some
jurisdictions may be predictive of pretrial failure, he said.
There are jurisdictions have an interview with the defendant to
receive social history, such as ties to the community, and in
some jurisdictions ties to the community is predictive of
pretrial success, and in others it has not been found to be
predictive of pretrial success. He offered that it is a
difficult question to answer on the spot without looking at a
data set.
2:25:16 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX referred to driving under the influence (DUI) and
asked whether the idea is to eliminate the automatic 3-days for
the first offense.
LIEUTENANT SELL opined, not necessarily because when the
commission discussed not having the administrative revocation it
was in the context of a case being dismissed, or a person not
being prosecuted, or found not guilty.
MS. ABBOTT explained that the goal is not to eliminate the
automatic 3-days, "administrative revocations, like Lieutenant
Sell mentioned, would refer to only people who the court has
decided deserves their license back." This allows the two
branches of government to communicate and for the Division of
Motor Vehicles (DMV) to offer the license back.
CHAIR LEDOUX advised that her question was not in the context of
license revocation, but on DUIs. She referred to prior
testimony wherein it was stated that with minor offenses jail
did not work. Therefore, she was wondering whether this bill
eliminates the 3-days for the first DUI offense.
MS. ABBOTT answered that the goal is to encourage electronic
monitoring in those cases.
2:27:15 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX commented that when she lived in Kodiak and drank
with other young professional people and possibly drank more
than now, the idea of actually going to jail for 3-days was a
humiliation and that it actually did deter a lot of people from
having that last drink, or they took the cab.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT agreed that it was a deterrent, and
opined that the deterrent of a restricted license is also a fear
because there are jobs wherein the employee cannot have a
restricted license. She said the committee could discuss the
whole limited versus restricted conversation, but that is still
part of the DUI process.
CHAIR LEDOUX pointed out that the discussion is that when it
comes to licenses, the state does not want to require things
that make people lose their jobs.
2:29:09 PM
LIEUTENANT SELL offered that she understands what Chair LeDoux
is expressing and that she is not sure that the person getting
their name in the paper plus an ankle monitor on for 3-days
"would necessarily be a lot more fun than going to the half-way
house for a lot of ... DWIs are served now over weekends so that
people's employment is not compromised." She said she respects
the fact that Chair LeDoux is among the 20 percent of people
that actually think about cause and effect at the time of making
those decisions. She suggested leaving other consequences in
place as she does not want the first DWI to be painless, but the
issue can be addressed for less than $142 per day.
2:30:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN, in response to Chair LeDoux's question,
opined that there are no proposed changes to Title 28 and
removing the 3-day mandatory minimum. Today, he commented, if a
person is convicted of DUI and sentenced to the 3-day mandatory
minimum some people are being sentenced to house arrest on an
electronic monitor for 3-days. Those that do not go on house
arrest are generally serving it in half-way houses rather than
lock-up facilities, especially first-timers. In terms of work
management it is "pretty manageable with a job," he opined.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN offered that he was surprised because he had
the concept that 3-days in jail meant 3-days incarcerated behind
the bars rather than an ankle monitor or a half-way house to
relax. He asked whether typically a person does not go behind
bars but rather an ankle monitor of a half-way house.
2:31:39 PM
QUINLAN STEINER, Director, Public Defender Agency, Department of
Administration, advised that currently there are options for
serving the mandatory 3-days not in a prison setting, it could
be on electronic monitoring or in a half-way house. Also, DOC
has the option to place a person on electronic monitoring or in
a half-way house. He noted that it tends to get set up in
advance if the person has money and the facilities to do that.
He opined that the penalties, even though it is not specifically
a jail sentence in a DOC facility, are fairly significant
penalties because the costs are extremely high, and the
restrictions on a license can be dramatic and influence future
employment and, in fact, it can often end a person's employment.
He noted that some of the initiatives discussed about the
license and limited license will allow people to meet the
conditions of their probation and sentence to promote their own
rehabilitation while maintaining their employment. He stressed
that employment is a significant factor for future recidivism
and the lack of it is one of the things the commission found.
2:33:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked whether it is the prerogative of the
judge to sentence a person behind bars as compared to a half-way
house, or is it statute or regulation.
MR. STEINER advised that the judge will set the sentence, the
statutes guide how it can be served. Under the statute it could
be permissible now to obtain electronic monitoring, or DOC has
its own regulations and permissive scheme, he explained.
2:33:46 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX asked whether anyone on the commission had ever
served time and then was rehabilitated.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked whether Chair LeDoux was asking for
confessions.
CHAIR LEDOUX expressed no, the idea is that someone who has
actually been through the system may have something valuable to
offer.
2:34:34 PM
GREGORY RAZO, President, Alaska Criminal Justice Commission,
replied that that fact never came up.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER interjected that the fact did come up
after the fact, and the commission realized the difficulties in
the obvious logistics of it and making it work, was too late
once the commission "got rolling." He opined that most of the
commissioners received a steady stream of letters from inmates,
with some letters being quite articulate and some letters with
very interesting points.
2:35:18 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX referred to geriatric inmates and the cost of that
population, and noted that when a person serves 25-years in
prison and is released when they turn 50, will it actually cost
any less because once they are on the street again they will
require medical care and they probably do not possess many job
skills. She expressed that she is not suggesting that the cost
by itself is a reason to keep someone, who is not going to
commit a crime again, in prison but is it actually a cost saving
measure.
2:36:42 PM
MR. SCHUSTER responded that it is a difficult question to answer
and offered that some of the costs for anyone incarcerated are,
room and board, food, everyday housing, paying for heat, and
everyday costs of operating a facility where a group of people
live. Constitutionally, he put forth, when someone is
incarcerated the state must pay for all necessary medical care;
therefore, when an inmate is diagnosed with cancer or liver
failure or any number of health issues, the state pays for their
treatment. These types of health issues are seen more often in
inmates over the age of 50 or 60, and those costs start stacking
up and when those groups of inmates are released into the
community they almost always qualify for Medicaid and/or
Medicare. Therefore, a lot of those costs are paid by a
combination of state and federal dollars, but a lot is covered
by federal dollars and the $142 incarceration costs are not
spent. He pointed out that it is hard for people who have been
incarcerated for long periods of time to actually reenter their
community and be successful because those people may not have
strong family connections any longer that are willing to take
them back in. He noted that part of the reentry planning for
the commission, which DOC has been doing on its own aside from
the commission's recommendations, is attempting to individualize
a reentry plan for each person. For example, each inmate
reentering the community must come up with their own plan and
identify their needs and what will help them have long-term
success in the community, he said. In order for people to do
well at reentry and have long-term success they actually need to
come up with an individualized plan. He pointed out that
reinvestment is a large area when discussing reentry supports
and services, such as how to get a person to a reentry center
and connect them with the services they need, and to partly pay
for it by finding the money elsewhere.
2:39:41 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX said she understands the cost of housing, and was
pointing out that whether the state pays for cancer treatment,
or liver failure, or heart disease, or anything one might end up
with after a certain age, that there is probably a good chance
the state will also pay for it when they are on the outside.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN opined that at age 65 a person can receive
Medicaid and/or Medicare, and asked whether an incarcerated 65-
year old person is eligible.
MR. SCHUSTER responded that eligibility for Medicaid and
Medicare is suspended during incarceration and the state pays
their health care. Although, he said, the exception is that if
someone is hospitalized outside of a prison setting and are
there for more than 24-hours, that service can be paid for by
Medicaid and Medicare revenue.
2:41:34 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX opined that with Medicaid expansion it would
include prisoners, but maybe not.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER clarified that Medicaid expansion does
cover prisoners when they are in the hospital and not
incarcerated.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked that when a person outside the prison
is on Medicare and commits a crime, whether they lose Medicare
at that time.
MR. SCHUSTER answered yes, the person loses their eligibility.
The state is self-insured and everyone in state prison
facilities has health care and prescriptions provided by state
health care providers, such as contract medical services in the
state.
CHAIR LEDOUX moved to the sectional analysis after ascertaining
there were no further questions.
2:43:37 PM
MS. ABBOTT offered a written analysis and paraphrased as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
Citation v. Arrest:
Section 42
12.25.180 - When Peace Officer Shall Issue Citation or
Take Person before the Court (Amended)
Establishes a presumption to cite and summons to court
for nonviolent misdemeanors and class C felonies, with
exceptions including significant danger to self or
others, and specified crimes. For infractions or
violations, provides that a peace officer may bring
the person before a judge if the violation is for a
violation of conditions of release or for disorderly
conduct.
Section 43
12.25.180 - When Peace Officer May Issue Citation or
Take Person Before the Court (New Section)
Forbids civil action for damages for failure to comply
with this section.
Section 44
12.25.190(b) - When Person to be Given Five-Day Notice
to Appear in Court (Amended)
Reduces the minimum duration, when issued a citation,
before the first appearance from five days to two
days.
Section 45
12.25.190 - When person to be given five-day notice to
appear in court. (New section)
Requires that a notice to appear is at least five
working days after the issuance of a citation.
Risk-Based Release Decision Making:
Section 41
12.25.150(a) - Rights of prisoner after arrest
(Amended)
Decreases time with which arrested person appears
before the court from 48 to 24 hours. Bars hearing
from taking place 48 hours after arrest.
Section 46
12.30.006(b) - Release Procedures (Amended)
Conforms to renumbered statutes.
Section 47
12.30.006(c) - Release Procedures (Amended)
Requires judicial review and reconsideration of the
conditions of release for instances where the
defendant is detained pre-trial due to those
conditions, unless the judicial officer finds that
less restrictive release conditions cannot reasonably
ensure the appearance of the person in court and
safety of the victim, other persons, and the
community.
Section 48
12.30.006(d) - Release Procedures (Amended)
Allows for defendant's inability to pay to be
considered as a factor to at bail review hearings.
Specifies that a defendant may only receive one bail
review hearing for new information relating to the
person's inability to pay.
Section 49
12.30.006(f) - Release Procedures (Amended)
Conforms to creation of a pretrial services office,
authorizing a pretrial services officer to arrest a
person without a warrant for violating a court order.
Section 50
12.30.006(h) - Release Procedures (New Subsection)
Directs the first appearance to occur within 24 hours
after a person's arrest absent compelling
circumstances.
Section 51
12.30.011 - Release Before Trial (Amended)
Limits judicial discretion to detain low- and
moderate-risk pretrial defendants charged with non-
violent, non-DUI misdemeanors and low-risk pretrial
defendants charged with non-violent, non-DUI Class C
felonies. This section prevents the use of secured
monetary bail for lower-risk defendants while ensuring
conditions can be imposed to require defendants to
refrain from alcohol consumption, to avoid all contact
with victims, and to keep regular contact with a
pretrial services officer. In determining the
conditions of release, the court shall consider the
conditions of release recommended by the pretrial
services officer and the person's pretrial risk
assessment score.
Section 52
12.30.011 - Release Before Trial (New Subsection)
Creates a presumption of release on personal
recognizance or unsecured bond, with appropriate
release conditions, for low-risk defendants and for
most nonviolent misdemeanor and Class C felony
defendants who are not included in Section 54. The
court can overcome this presumption and order
partially- or fully-secured money bond if it finds on
the record that no less restrictive conditions can
reasonably assure court appearance and public safety.
Section 53
12.30.016(b) - Release Before Trial in Certain Cases
(Amended)
Conforms to creation of a pretrial services office,
authorizing a pretrial services officer to search a
person's residence for the presence of alcohol under
conditions to refrain from alcohol.
Section 54
12.30.016(c) - Release Before Trial in Certain Cases
(Amended)
Conforms to creation of a pretrial services office,
authorizing a pretrial services officer to search a
person's residence for the presence of a controlled
substance under conditions to refrain from consuming
from controlled substances. A judicial officer may
order a defendant to participate in a random drug
testing program with testing to occur at least once a
week, or random drug testing by the pretrial services
division.
Section 56
12.30.021(a) - Third-Party Custodians (Amended)
Restricts availability of third-party custodian
release conditions to cases in which pretrial
supervision is not available, secured money bond has
not been ordered, and no other combination of release
conditions can reasonably assure court appearance and
public safety.
Section 57
12.30.021(c) - Third-Party Custodians (Amended)
Changes the restrictions on people who are eligible to
serve as third-party custodians to prohibit those who
are likely to be called as witnesses, as opposed to
those who may be called as witnesses.
Section 63
12.55.051 - Enforcement of Fines and Restitution (New
Subsection)
Authorizes the Department of Law to garnish a
permanent fund dividend to collect restitution ordered
by the court.
Section 142
43.23.065(b) - Exemption of and Levy on Permanent Fund
Dividends (Amended)
Conforms to ensure that forfeiture of an appearance or
performance bond is not exempted from permanent fund
dividend garnishment
Pretrial Supervision of High-Risk Offenders:
Section 99
33.07.010 - Pretrial Services Program (New Section)
Establishes a pretrial services program at the
Department of Corrections to conduct pretrial risk
assessments, make recommendations to the court
regarding release decisions, and supervise pretrial
defendants who are released. Directs the Commissioner
to adopt a risk assessment tool and relevant training
and regulations.
Outlines duties of pretrial services officers to
conduct pretrial risk assessments, make
recommendations to the court regarding release and
conditions of release, and provide supervision for
defendants released pretrial. Authorizes pretrial
services officers to make pretrial diversion
recommendations and to arrest defendants who have
failed to appear or violated their release conditions.
Requires pretrial services officers to recommend
release on personal recognizance or unsecured bond for
nonviolent, non-DV misdemeanor and Class C felony
charges, low- or moderate-risk DUI charges, and other
low-risk charges, with limited options for departing
from this requirement if the pretrial services officer
finds that no combination of non-money conditions can
reasonably ensure court appearance and public safety.
Section 152
Uncodified Law
Amendment to Court Rule 38 of the Alaska Rules of
Criminal Procedure providing for hearing reminders to
defendants.
SENTENCING:
Misdemeanors:
Section 13
11.46.460 - Disregard of a Highway Obstruction
(Amended)
Reclassifies the crime of disregard of a highway
obstruction to a violation punishable by up to $1,000
fine.
Section 22
11.56.730(a) - Failure to Appear (Amended)
Conforming to reclassifying several elements of the
crime of failure to appear as a violation punishable
by a fine up to $1,000.
Section 23
11.56.730(c) - Failure to Appear (Amended)
Conforms failure to appear penalties to no longer be a
Class C felony.
Section 24
11.56.730 - Failure to Appear (New Subsection)
Reestablishes the punishment of failure to appear, as
a Class A misdemeanor to apply to defendants missing a
scheduled hearing to avoid prosecution or to
defendants not making contact with the court within 30
days after not appearing at a scheduled hearing,
Failure to appear is a violation punishable by a fine
up to $1,000
Section 25
11.56.757(a) - Violation of Condition of Release
(Amended)
Conforms to the reclassification of the crime of
violation of a condition of release to a violation.
Section 26
11.56.757(b) - Violation of Condition of Release
(Amended)
Reclassifies the crime of violation of condition of
release to a violation punishable by a fine up to
$1,000.
Section 27
11.56.759(a) - Violation by Sex Offender of Condition
of Probation (Amended)
Conforms to renumbered statutes.
Section 28
11.61.110(c) - Disorderly Conduct (Amended)
Conforms disorderly conduct penalty to no longer be 10
days.
Section 29
11.61.145(d) - Promoting an Exhibition of Fighting
Animals (Amended)
Reclassifies the crime of attending an exhibition of
fighting animals as a violation for the second
offense. Maintains third and subsequent offenses as a
class A misdemeanor.
Section 30
11.61.150(a) - Obstruction of Highways (Amended)
Conforms to the reclassification of the crime of
obstruction of highways to a violation.
Section 31
11.61.150(c) - Obstruction of Highways (Amended)
Reclassifies the crime of obstruction of highways to a
violation punishable by a fine up to $1,000.
Section 32
11.66.200(c) - Gambling (Amended)
Reclassifies the crime of unlawful gambling to a
violation punishable by a fine up to $1,000.
Section 79
12.55.135(a) - Sentences of Imprisonment for
Misdemeanors (Amended)
Provides for a presumptive range of zero to thirty
days for class A misdemeanors, excepting offenses with
mandatory minimums above thirty days or if the
conviction is for crime of assault in the fourth
degree involving domestic violence. Allows the
presumptive range to be overcome if the prosecution
proves that the conduct constituting the offense was
the most serious included in the definition of the
offense or the defendant has past criminal convictions
similar in nature to the offense in question.
Section 80
12.55.135(b) - Sentences of Imprisonment for
Misdemeanors (Amended)
Truncates the maximum term of imprisonment for a class
B misdemeanor to ten days.
Section 81
12.55.135 - Sentences of Imprisonment for Misdemeanors
(New Subsections)
Provides that for a person convicted of theft in the
fourth degree, concealment of merchandise, removal of
identification marks, unlawful possession, issuing a
bad check, or criminal simulation, the court may not
impose a sentence of more than five days of suspended
imprisonment and a term of probation of more than six
months if the person has previously been convicted two
or more times for a similar theft-related offense. The
court may not impose a sentence of active or suspended
imprisonment if the person has not been previously
convicted or has previously been convicted once, of a
theft-related offense.
Provides that the court may not impose a sentence of
imprisonment of more than 24 hours for a person
convicted or disorderly conduct.
Provides that for a person convicted of misconduct
involving a controlled substance in the fifth degree
11.71.050(a)(4) or misconduct involving a controlled
substance in the sixth degree 11.71.060(a)(2), the
court may not impose a sentence of active imprisonment
unless the person has previously been convicted of a
drug crime and may not impose a sentence of suspended
imprisonment greater than 30 days, if the person has
no prior convictions, and no greater than 180 days if
the person has been previously convicted of a drug
crime.
Provides that if the state seeks to establish a fact-
based aggravating factor at sentencing, the factor
must be established by clear and convincing evidence
before the court sitting without a jury. If the state
seeks to establish a law-based aggravating factor at
sentencing, the factor must be presented to a trial
jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt, unless the
defendant waives trial by jury, stipulates to the
existence of the factor, or consents to allow the
court to establish the aggravator by clear and
convincing evidence without a jury.
Section 86
28.15.291(a) - Driving While License Suspended
(Repealed and Reenacted)
Conforms to section 87 by differentiating DWLS
offenses related to DUI license revocations and those
unrelated to DUI license revocations.
Section 87
28.15.291(b) - Driving While License Suspended
(Repealed and Reenacted)
Reduces the mandatory minimum for second time DWLS
offenders whose license revocation is related to DUI
offenses to 10 days. Removes the mandatory minimum
for first time DWLS offenders whose license revocation
is related to DUI offenses. Reduces the penalty for
non-DUI-related DWLS offenses from a misdemeanor to an
infraction.
Section 89
28.35.030(k) - Operating a Vehicle… Under the
Influence (Amended)
Requires first-time DUI offenders to serve a mandatory
term of electronic monitoring. If unavailable,
imprisonment is determined by the department.
Section 90
28.35.030(l) - Operating a Vehicle… Under the
Influence (Amended)
Conforms to provisions requiring a fiscal analysis of
legislation that causes an increase or decrease in the
prison population. This recommendation was removed,
making this conforming section unnecessary.
Section 92
28.35.032(o) - Refusal to Submit to Chemical Test
(Amended)
Requires first-time refusal to submit to a chemical
test to serve a mandatory term of electronic
monitoring. If unavailable, imprisonment is
determined by the department.
Section 93
29.10.200(21) - Limitation of Home Rule Powers
(Amended)
Conforms to the requirement that a municipality may
not proscribe a greater penalty for a municipal
ordinance than what is imposed for a state crime with
comparable elements.
Section 94
29.25.070(a) - Penalties (Amended)
Conforms to the requirement that a municipality may
not proscribe a greater penalty for a municipal
ordinance than what is imposed for a state crime with
comparable elements.
2:57:38 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX interrupted Ms. Abbott, and reminded Ms. Abbott
that the sectional analysis is contained within each member's
packets. She suggested, rather than reading what the various
sections do, to point out anything in particular she believes
the committee should focus on.
MS. ABBOTT replied that she will do whatever the committee
prefers, and offered the committee an opportunity to read the
analysis, and mark sections in which there are questions for
subsequent "deep dives" into the specific recommendations and
specific sections within the report of 21 recommendations.
CHAIR LEDOUX agreed with Ms. Abbott's suggestion, and asked
whether anyone had questions or should the committee hold
questions until the committee gets to those specific sections.
2:58:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT noted that policy calls will have to be
made by the committee, and those policy calls will self-identify
in reviewing the sectional analysis that references the
recommendations. She pointed out there are statute changes that
may be more controversial than others, such as earned credit
probation, sex offender treatment program credit, and the theft
threshold. The committee will review sections that "offer
members more heartburn" when discussing "right on crime" and
criminal activity, she offered, as there certainly will be push-
back on the larger policy questions. She recommended that the
committee review the documents and prepare questions.
3:00:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN said he compared the committee hearing
schedule with the color coded sequence of how these are grouped
together and there is a remarkable connection between the color
codes and when different issues will be discussed. He noted
that this is helpful and that the committee does not need to
hear the "speed version" because it will be looking at the
details.
CHAIR LEDOUX thanked Ms. Abbott for the sectional analysis
document.
[HB 205 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| ACJC Justice Reinvestment Report.pdf |
HJUD 3/14/2016 12:30:00 PM |
HB 205 |
| HB 205 - CS Version H.pdf |
HJUD 3/14/2016 12:30:00 PM |
HB 205 |
| HB 205 - Version H - Sectional Analysis Visual Aid.pdf |
HJUD 3/14/2016 12:30:00 PM |
HB 205 |
| HB 205 - Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HJUD 3/14/2016 12:30:00 PM |
HB 205 |
| Alaska Criminal Justice Commission Recommendations - Powerpoint.pdf |
HJUD 3/14/2016 12:30:00 PM |
HB 205 |
| HB 205 - Version H - Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HJUD 3/14/2016 12:30:00 PM |
HB 205 |