Legislature(2003 - 2004)
05/08/2003 09:00 AM 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. 85(STA)
"An Act relating to sentencing and to the earning of good time
deductions for certain sexual offenses."
This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
Co-Chair Wilken stated this bill "increases the penalties for
repeat sex offenders. In addition repeat sex offenders are not
eligible to reduce their prison time for good time behavior."
Co-Chair Wilken noted new fiscal notes were submitted for this
legislation.
SENATOR HOLLIS FRENCH, sponsor, testified that Alaska has "long
held the unfortunate position as leading the nation in per capita
reported rapes." He asserted that a small portion of the population
create a majority of this problem and therefore, this legislation
addresses repeat sex offenders.
Senator French explained that upon conviction of a second sex
offense, this bill imposes a separate and more stringent category
of presumptive sentencing and removes the "good time". He remarked
that this bill is punitive and designed to treat repeat offenders
in a "more serious manner" by sentencing them to longer terms and
keeping them in prison longer. He noted the provisions would affect
unclassified, A, B and C felony classification.
Senator French qualified that this bill would result in increased
costs to the State; however, he asserted that these repeat sex
offenders "cycle through the system" at a significant rate. He
exampled that of the over 700 sex offenders currently incarcerated,
over half have been incarcerated ten or more times. He suggested
that some savings could therefore occur in the "transaction costs"
of releasing and the reincarceration of these offenders.
Senator Bunde noted he was involved in a previous effort of
drafting Alaska's "three strikes" statutes. He asked if the sponsor
had reviewed these statutes and whether they could be applied to
repeat sex offenders.
Senator French replied that the statutes would address the more
serious cases of sexual assault; however, the qualifying previous
conviction criterion is stringent and therefore difficult to apply.
He stated that the proposed legislation specifically relating to
sexual offenders would avoid the sentencing other offenders to a
40-year term upon conviction of a C felony.
Senator Bunde wanted to work with the sponsor to readdress this
issue.
Senator French assured the Committee of his willingness to do so.
BARBARA BRINK, Director, Public Defender Agency, Department of
Administration, testified via teleconference from an off net
location in Anchorage, in favor of efforts to reduce repeat sex
offences. However, she expressed concerns with the bill,
particularly with the elimination of the good time credit. She
questioned the rationalization of holding certain offenders in
prison for longer terms because of concern of future crimes they
might commit. She suggested that this could be in violation of
equal protection rights because it singles out a particular offense
rather than a class of offenses.
Ms. Brink cautioned that although the Public Defender Agency (PDA)
fiscal note is in an indeterminate amount, she stressed that costs
would be incurred. She predicted increased litigation would result
due to the more serious consequences and the removal of discretion
for the prosecution to negotiate sentencing. She pointed out that
many clients of the PDA are rural indigent Natives, and that many
of the offenses include serious substance abuse issues that are not
addressed in this legislation.
Senator French acquiesced that the prospect of additional trials is
possible; however by increasing the severity of all classifications
of repeat sex offenses, the bill would allow the prosecution to
negotiate a lesser offense. He informed that sexual abuse of a
minor cases are "notoriously" difficult to prosecute because
typically the only witness is a child who usually has some type of
relationship with the accused. In such cases with other convincing
evidence, he stated that the offender could be convicted of an
unclassified felony and receive a maximum sentence of 30 years.
However, he continued that in cases with an incentive to avoid
trial, such as extensive trauma to the child, or difficulty with
other witnesses or evidence, the prosecutor could negotiate a
lesser charge. He stated that although the offender would receive
"an enormous break" with regard to the potential prison sentence,
the actual sentence would still be significant. He therefore
predicted more cases would be settled.
Senator Bunde commented that similar arguments of increased trials
were made in opposition to the three strikes legislation; however
the court system has not been overloaded.
Senator Taylor clarified that the standards of the three strikes
statutes is high and subsequently difficult for prosecutors to
invoke.
Senator French agreed and detailed that to invoke this provision,
an offender must be convicted of three unclassified or Class A
felonies in separate cases. He noted that upon a second conviction,
an offender would receive a significant jail term and probably not
be out of prison to commit a third major crime. He pointed out that
this provision is normally reserved for the most serious offenders,
those who commit homicide, first-degree rape, etc.
Senator Taylor commented that Alaska historically imposes longer
sentences than most other states for comparable crimes and
therefore the three strikes statute is not often invoked.
PORTIA PARKER, Assistant Commissioner, Department of Corrections,
described the Department fiscal note, which was calculated based on
the high recidivism rate of sex offenders. She listed that of the
727 sex offenders currently interned, 581 or 80 percent have been
"through the State system" at least once before, with an average
recidivism rate of 6.24 times. Of the 80 percent, she furthered, 52
percent of the inmates have been previously incarcerated ten or
more times. She informed that bookings, inmate transfers and other
costs related to processing inmates in and out of custody are the
highest costs to the Department. She pointed out this does not
include other costs to the judicial system, including arrests,
court time, prosecutors and public defenders. Therefore, she stated
this legislation would reduce those expenses and result in minimal
increases.
Senator Taylor noted the significant recidivism rates of sex
offenders. He asked if data was available to predict the number of
offenders who would be impacted by this legislation within a given
period of time.
Ms. Parker replied that upon further research, an estimate could be
produced. She noted that many current inmates serving sentences for
sex offenses had committed different crimes resulting in their
previous convictions. She stated that 15 percent of the 727 inmates
serving time for a sex offence have a prior sex offense conviction.
Senator Taylor clarified that 15 percent is serving a second
sentence for a sexual crime.
Ms. Parker affirmed.
Senator Taylor asked the length of sentence these inmates received
for their second sex offense.
Ms. Parker did not have this information.
Senator Taylor requested this information, commenting that before
changes are made to the current process, it should be determined
whether changes are necessary. He suggested that these offenders
could already be receiving comparable sentencing.
Senator Taylor did not oppose the legislation and did not want it
delayed, however he expressed concern with the argument that this
could result in violations of equal protection.
Senator French noted similar legislation has been adopted in six
other states and is under consideration in additional states. He
opined that the equal protection challenge would be "thwarted"
because other provisions are directed at repeat drunken driving
offenders. He explained that these provisions do not treat a
specific class unfairly, but rather demonstrate a rational basis
for the State's actions, that being high recidivism and significant
harm caused by these crimes.
Senator Taylor directed the record must reflect Senator French's
comments in the event this legislation is challenged in court. He
furthered that the provisions identify specific violations as well
as a unique character and personality type. He remarked that these
offenders could be treated as a "definable and a separate group"
without violating the equal protection clause of either the Alaska
or the US Constitution.
LAURIE HUGONIN, Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual
Assault, testified in Juneau that during fiscal year 2002
approximately 2,000 victims of sexual assault sought assistance
from various programs in Alaska. She cited the Child Welfare League
data that one in four girls and one is six boys would be sexually
assaulted before the age of 18. She furthered that sex offenders,
particularly child abusers, usually commit multiple violations
before entering the judicial system. While treatment is beneficial
to reduce recidivism, she stressed that the safest course of action
to prevent repeated sexual assaults is to keep offenders out of the
community. She referenced studies showing that treatment does not
completely change an offender's behavior, but rather delays the
amount of time before re-offending occurs.
Ms. Hugonin understood the benefits of encouraging inmates to
behave while serving their sentences; however, the safety of the
community is more important and repeat sex offenders should be
incarcerated for as long as possible.
Ms. Hugonin noted that other states that do not allow for good time
for sexual offenders despite extending good time provisions to
other classifications of prisoners. She listed Arizona, which
utilizes this provision for sex offenders; Tennessee requires
offenders convicted of child rapists and multiple rapists to serve
the entire sentence imposed by the court "undiminished by any
sentence reduction credits"; Oregon does not allow "earned time"
for a class of crimes including sexual assault and sexual assault
of a minor; and Illinois reduces the amount of "good time"
available for sex offenders. She also informed that this
legislation would not impose the strictest provisions, as the State
of Iowa requires offenders convicted more than once of a felony
sexual predatory offense to serve twice the maximum period of
incarceration.
Senator Taylor expressed that although he supports the concept of
this legislation, DNA evidence and other events have occurred
resulting in exoneration of convicts. He told of a case in the
State of Washington in which a group of people who operated a day
care center were, "persecuted by a zealous district attorney who
attempted to show a valid case of child sexual abuse." Senator
Taylor stated this situation, in which the defendants were cleared,
should be avoided in Alaska.
Senator Taylor charged that legislation relating to sex offender
registers and increased penalties for "sex oriented crimes", "and
to be blunt, it's a sexy thing to do for a Legislator because it
carries a lot of political hammer out there with the public." He
qualified that the public intends the Legislature to make every
effort to punish and reduce sexual offense, which he supported.
However, he cautioned that "responsibility and integrity" must be
invested in district attorneys and prosecutors.
SFC 03 # 83, Side A 10:33 AM
Senator Taylor continued that each time he has requested data on
child sexual abuse cases investigated by the Department of Health
and Social Services, the annual statistics indicate an average of
70 percent of all investigations found no "basis in fact". He
contended that during these investigations, children are removed
from families and "arrests are made." He was therefore concerned
with increased penalties and sex offender registration lists.
Senator Taylor offered a motion to report CS SB 85 (STA) from
Committee with individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal
notes.
Without objections CS SB 85 (STA) REPORTED from Committee with a
zero fiscal note #1 from the Department of Law, a zero fiscal note,
dated 4/29/03 from the Department of Corrections, and an
indeterminate fiscal note dated 4/29/03 from the Department of
Administration.
Co-Chair Wilken comment on need to keep tomorrows debate focused.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|