Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/07/1999 06:07 PM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 1(JUD)
"An Act conditioning the award of good time and
release on mandatory parole on the attainment of
certain minimum educational standards for prisoners
serving certain sentences."
Senator Dave Donley spoke to this bill. This issue came up
during discussions studying the propensity for prisoners to
reoffend once they were released. Many studies showed that
the number one factor in recidivism among felons was
whether or not they could read and write. It was found that
many states were beginning to adopt standards prisoners
obtain their GED before release that required for good time
credits that shortened sentences that.
He noted that Alaska was one of the few states that did not
comply with the federal standards of serving 85% of
sentences.
SB 1 stated that in order for prisoners to have good time
release, they had to obtain their GED. He felt this would
be an incentive and referenced TV privileges.
The bill was amended in Senate Judiciary to allow for those
prisoners that did not have the capacity to obtain their
GED. He listed the exemptions, language barriers, age and
social circumstances.
The bill only applied when the GED program was available so
an inmate that did not have that program available, they
would not be discriminated against.
He spoke of examples from other states. An example of how
bad the problem was, Alabama tested inmates as they entered
the system and found that the recitism rate mirrored the
education rate.
If a prisoner was released and could not read or write it
would be difficult to get a job and they would be tempted
to return to crime.
He spoke to the fiscal notes. Co-Chair John Torgerson
pointed out that there were new fiscal notes that were not
zero. Senator Dave Donley added that this would apply only
to those serving more than two years.
Senator Al Adams felt the bill was a good concept but
needed some changes. He felt an incentive needed to be
added. He said the amendment was not written correctly but
he hoped Senator Dave Donley would help correct it.
Co-Chair John Torgerson asked if this would leave the
original good time release in place but only add an
additional sixty days early release. Senator Al Adams
affirmed but added that this amendment was in its early
stage and felt it would reduce the fiscal note.
Senator Al Adams answered it would and explained.
Co-Chair John Torgerson page 1 lines 9-12 said that if the
inmate already had a diploma and - would that amendment
change that section. His point was that if you already had
your diploma when entering,
ROXANNE STEWART, staff to Senator Al Adams, clarified that
the intent was that if you already had your diploma, you
would not get the additional 60 days off.
Senator Dave Donley spoke of the national standards and
said that Alaska was behind. This amendment would move
away from truth in sentencing. It did make progress toward
motivating prisoners to get an education.
Senator Dave Donley asked about the provision for the 99-
year mandatory sentencing. Senator Al Adams said that
portion was a drafting error and should not be included.
Senator Dave Donley commented that it was a policy call.
Senator Al Adams said the problem with the truth in
sentencing issue was that it was difficult to measure
between states. Many states had shorter initial sentences.
He referred to earlier testimony heard in committee
relating to other bills.
Co-Chair John Torgerson had a similar thought based on the
fiscal notes, but also understood Senator Dave Donley's
concerns.
Senator Dave Donley offered another middle ground option to
go halfway. Without the GED prisoners would be eligible for
only half the 33.3%. He believed that many prisoners would
be getting their GED's and would not affect the fiscal
notes as greatly as predicted.
Senator Lyda Green wanted to know if in the attachment to
the PDA fiscal note they brought up a good point. Who
would do the testing to see who would be exempt from the
provision? She speculated it would become expensive if the
department had to pay for the psychologist to analyze the
prisoner's ability to get the GED.
Senator Dave Donley allowed that if a great number of
prisoners challenged they were not capable. The department
would have to find a way to do that. However, he felt the
benefits of the education would outweigh the long run costs
of reoffenders.
Senator Lyda Green commented that some may be able to make
educational advancements but still be unable to earn their
GED. She suggested some allowances be made for those
efforts. Senator Dave Donley said other states set
different standards and that could be done here as well.
Senator Gary Wilken noted fiscal note #5 comments.
Co-Chair John Torgerson asked for clarifications of Senator
Dave Donley's suggestion of halving the requirements.
Senator Dave Donley said he would need assistance from the
drafters. The intent was to allow those who did not get
their GED, they would only obtain half of their reduction
rather than not get any early release.
Senator Dave Donley aquested to Senator Al Adams's comments
that different states had different measurements.
BRUCE RICHARDS, Program Coordinator, Office of the
Commissioner, Department of Corrections, testified. Senator
Al Adams explained that they were trying to use the good
time release, as an incentive to get prisoner's to obtain
their GED. He wanted to know if this would affect the
department in the different *.
Bruce explained his understanding of the two amendments.
Senator Al Adams's would reduce the amount of the fiscal
notes because it would not affect the good-time release for
incarceration time. Senator Dave Donley's would affect.
Co-Chair John Torgerson asked if the department anticipated
a negative fiscal note with the adoption of Senator Al
Adams's amendment. Bruce thought it might. He noted that
there could be costs because the burden of proof as to how
had their diplomas would fall on the department. He didn't
think that would be very costly.
Co-Chair John Torgerson wanted to know if it would be
possible to use Senator Al Adams's concept on a sliding
scale. 60 days for a two-year sentence. 90 days for a 5-
year sentence. Bruce commented on the incentive for
inmates receiving less compensation as the next prisoners
did. He also said it could be complicated for the
department to implement.
Co-Chair John Torgerson asked if it would be a big
incentive difference for the inmates if *. Bruce would
have to research. He still felt if would be a zero fiscal
note for either scenario.
Co-Chair John Torgerson said the goal was to get the
prisoners to obtain their GEDs, which offered a better
incentive. Bruce commented that if it were him personally
that he would be motivated by the potential for early
release.
BLAIR MCCUNE, Deputy Director, Public Defenders Agency,
Department of Administration, testified via teleconference
from Anchorage. This had been a good discussion. He felt
there would be difficulties for his agency on enforcement.
There would be a zero fiscal note.
He pointed out page 2 line 18-30 he felt it should be clear
that the language of "incapable of obtaining a diploma"
That needed to be clarified. An inmate might be capable
but not have time to bring himself through the diploma.
There was a statute he noted in the analysis section of the
fiscal note relating the treatment programs. He felt these
mechanisms could be one approach.
He commented that prisons were overcrowded and prisoners
were often transferred once they entered into a program.
He was in favor of testing for GED.
Co-Chair John Torgerson wanted to know if Alaskan prisoners
house out of state had access to these programs. Bruce
affirmed they did.
Co-Chair John Torgerson requested Senator Dave Donley to
work on his amendment. Senator Al Adams asked if they
could work to draft one amendment to address.
Co-Chair John Torgerson ordered the bill held in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|