Legislature(1997 - 1998)
04/07/1998 03:40 PM Senate STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 287 - WAIVER OF PAROLE CONSIDERATION
CHAIRMAN GREEN brought SB 287 before the committee as the final
order of business.
Number 314
ANNETTE KREITZER, staff to Senator Loren Leman who is the prime
sponsor of SB 287, read the following sponsor statement into the
record:
"In 1994, the Legislature passed, and the voters approved a
constitutional amendment that strengthened the rights of victims of
crime. Among the rights enumerated is the right of a victim to be
present at parole hearings.
"Senate Bill 287 addresses the emotional trauma for victims when an
inmate, eligible for parole, waives that parole hearing and
essentially ends up on an automatic schedule of reappearances
before the Parole Board.
"This situation is not a common one, but it is still traumatic for
the victim of the victim's family to gird themselves up for a
planned parole hearing and to have that hearing canceled within 24
hours at the direction of the inmate, only then to be rescheduled
and canceled every 30 days.
"This bill puts the inmate on a schedule set by the Board, while
meeting the ex post facto requirements of Alaska's Constitution in
Article I, Sections 1 and 7 and the U.S. Constitution in Article I,
Section 15.
"The bill is supported by Victims for Justice."
Ms. Kreitzer said the sponsor acknowledges, along with
representatives from the Parole Board, that this is not a common
situation, but the bill tightens a loophole and puts the inmate on
the schedule of the Parole Board. If an inmate waives their right
to a hearing, it puts the inmate on a six-month schedule to come
back before the board.
Ms. Kreitzer directed attention to a proposed committee substitute,
which was drafted after discussions with the Parole Board.
Number 284
SENATOR MACKIE moved the adoption of CSSB 287(STA) as a working
document. Hearing no objection, the motion carried.
MS. KREITZER explained that in subsection (d) on page 1, the
committee substitute seeks to make plain that rather than before
the issuance of the board's decision, it is actually talking about
the hearing. This subsection would apply to a hearing on a
prisoner's application for discretionary parole. Also, a sentence
was added on line 14 providing that if a prisoner who has applied
for a discretionary parole fails to appear for a scheduled hearing
when requested to appear, the board shall consider the prisoner's
application as being withdrawn under this subsection. That was
contained in the regulation that is being annulled in Section 2.
She added that nothing in the legislation prohibits the department
from coming back in the future and writing a new regulation that's
clearer.
Number 251
SENATOR MACKIE questioned the need for the bill if the problem is
with a Department of Corrections' regulation. MS. KREITZER
responded that it is a small problem and it's not something the
department may want to take up in regulation. SENATOR MACKIE said
he has a problem with trying to legislate regulations.
Number 190
MICHAEL STARK, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law, who
serves as counsel to the Department of Corrections and to the
Parole Board, said both the Department of Correction and the Parole
Board are sensitive to the needs of victims and try to accommodate
those whenever possible; however, they do not believe that SB 287
is necessary, that it addresses a problem that doesn't exist. He
said the incident that occurred, which was the catalyst for this
bill, was one individual who had applied for parole and shortly
before the scheduled hearing withdrew his application because he
wanted to get an independent psychiatric examination, hoping that
such an examination would improve his chances for parole. So the
individual had a legitimate basis for asking the Board to postpone
his hearing. The scheduled hearing was canceled, the victim was
notified, and the victim was unhappy about that incident.
Mr. Stark said the legislation will not fix the problem it is
attempting to fix. What it will do is make that prisoner
ineligible to apply for parole for another six-month period.
However, when the prisoner applies again and if something comes up
and the prisoner decides to withdraw his application again at the
last minute, the victim will have to be notified again at the last
minute.
Number 150
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked how soon, under current regulation, a hearing
can be rescheduled if a prisoner cancels a scheduled hearing. MR.
STARK replied that the Parole Board meets quarterly on
discretionary parole applications, and the regulations require that
a prisoner submit an application at least seven weeks before the
next scheduled hearing in order to be considered. He added that he
does not believe the Board, without statutory authority, can say
that a person won't be heard for six more months. He thinks under
existing statute they probably have a right to be considered if
they meet the requirement in submitting their application at least
seven weeks in advance. He reiterated that this type of incident
has not been a problem.
Number 125
SENATOR WARD said this bill is reacting to a victim, and he asked
Mr. Stark what harm he sees with the legislation. MR. STARK
responded that he doesn't see any egregious harm with the adoption
of the bill.
SENATOR WARD said if there is no harm to it, and if it makes the
victims more comfortable to know that there is a procedure in
place, would that be in the Parole Board's opinion a good policy,
or do they not consider the victim into the scenario. MR. STARK
answered that the Board is very concerned about victims and any
inconvenience that might be imposed on them, but they don't believe
this bill addresses that. If the prisoner resubmits his
application in six more months, the very same thing could occur.
Number 070
SENATOR DUNCAN moved that CSSB 287(STA) be passed out of committee.
CHAIRMAN GREEN objected and stated that the committee needs to take
more testimony on the bill before moving it out. A roll call vote
was taken with the following result: Senator Duncan voted "Yea"
and Senators Ward, Mackie and Green voted "Nay." CHAIRMAN GREEN
stated the motion failed.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|