Legislature(2017 - 2018)Anch LIO Conf Rm
10/16/2017 10:00 AM 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 | |
| SB54 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
October 16, 2017
10:04 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Matt Claman, Chair
Representative Zach Fansler, Vice Chair (telephonic)
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins (telephonic)
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux
Representative David Eastman (telephonic)
Representative Chuck Kopp
Representative Lora Reinbold
Representative Charisse Millett (alternate)
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Louise Stutes (alternate)
OTHER MEMBERS
Representative Dan Saddler (telephonic)
Representative Charisse Millett
Representative Geran Tarr
Representative Andy Josephson
Senator Click Coghill
Senator Berta Gardner
Representative Matt Claman, Chair
Representative Zach Fansler, Vice Chair
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux
Representative David Eastman
Representative Chuck Kopp
Representative Lora Reinbold
Representative Charisse Millett
Representative Louise Stutes
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 54(FIN)
"An Act relating to crime and criminal law; relating to
violation of condition of release; relating to sex trafficking;
relating to sentencing; relating to imprisonment; relating to
parole; relating to probation; relating to driving without a
license; relating to the pretrial services program; and
providing for an effective date."
HEARING ONLY - House Judiciary Standing Committee was not
in possession of SB 54 at the time of this hearing.
WITNESS REGISTER
BRAD MYRSTOL, Ph.D
UAA Associate Professor/Interim Director
University of Alaska Anchorage Justice Center
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of SB 54, offered a
PowerPoint titled, "Crimes Known to Police (Alaska)."
CAPTAIN SEAN CASE, Acting Deputy Chief
Anchorage Police Department
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of SB 54, testified as
to the Anchorage Police Department, and answered questions.
REPRESENTATIVE GERAN TARR
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of SB 54, asked
questions.
ROB HENDERSON, Deputy Attorney General
Central Office, Criminal Division
Department of Law
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of SB 54, presented "SB
54 Highlights" and answered questions.
ACTION NARRATIVE
10:04:03 AM
CHAIR MATT CLAMAN called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 10:04 a.m. Representatives Claman, Kopp,
LeDoux, Reinbold, Millett (alternate), Fansler (telephonic), and
Eastman (telephonic) were present at the call to order.
Representative Kreiss-Tomkins (telephonic) arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
INVITED TESTIMONY REGARDING SB 54
10:04:52 AM
CHAIR CLAMAN advised that the first committee of referral for SB
54 is the House State Affairs Standing Committee, and the House
Judiciary Standing Committee is its second referral. Therefore,
this meeting is solely an informational meeting to hear
presentations from individuals discussing the impacts of SB 54.
As chair of this committee, he said it was important to meet in
Anchorage and give Anchorage community members the opportunity
to attend in person. He reiterated that this is solely an
informational meeting regarding SB 54, and the committee would
not take public testimony. The invited speakers are as follows:
Brad Myrstol, Associate Professor and Interim Director of the
UAA Justice Center; Captain Sean Case, Acting Deputy Chief,
Anchorage Police Department; and Rob Henderson, Deputy Attorney
General, Department of law, he advised.
10:06:26 AM
BRAD MYRSTOL, Ph.D, UAA Associate Professor/Interim Director,
University of Alaska Anchorage Justice Center, advised that his
presentation titled, "Crimes Known to Police (Alaska)" would
involve the Uniform Crime Report data complied monthly during
2014 to 2016. This information was originally compiled in
response to a request from Representative Gabrielle LeDoux
during a committee meeting last week to provide more detailed
information on a shorter timeframe. During the past few years,
the Department of Public Safety (DPS) published statewide crime
total information, on a month-to-month basis, in its Crime
Alaska Report, and this presentation will present that data at
the state level on a month-to-month basis. The data sources for
the computation of the rates included in this presentation
include as follows: crime count information taken from publicly
available and published documents on crime in Alaska; and the
population data used to compute crime rates taken from the
Alaska Department of Labor & Workforce Development (DLWF), he
explained.
10:08:21 AM
DR. MYRSTOL turned to slide 2, titled, "Larceny Thefts (Alaska),
and oriented the committee to the slides as follows: the
vertical axis on the slides is the actual crime rate computed as
crime known to police per 100,000 population; the horizontal
axis has two levels of labeling, located at the bottom is 2014,
2015, 2016 of which are the years of reference, and immediately
above is a series of letters highlighted with a green overlay
representing the first letter of each month. Importantly, he
noted, with the monthly crime rates, the actual magnitude of the
crime rate is substantially lower than "what you would see in
typical annualized crime rate data" because this aggregates by
each month. He explained that in an annualized crime rate there
is the sum total for the entire year divided by the population,
and this presentation is a monthly total divided by that same
population. Therefore, he said, there is a large shift in terms
of the magnitude of the crime rate itself, but the trends
provide important information.
DR. MYRSTOL noted the vertical graying reference line
demarcating the implementation of Senate Bill 91 [passed in the
Twenty-Ninth Alaska State Legislature] in July 2016, which is
just a point of reference. Finally, he explained, the red dash
line is a visual reference providing the average trends through
the data.
10:10:51 AM
DR. MYRSTOL turned to the specifics of slide 2, pointed to the
three marked humps and advised it is a clear indication of a
seasonal effect in the monthly crime rate. During late summer,
early fall, the larceny theft rates in the past three years peak
at that time with a sharp drop-off following that period.
Consistent with that seasonal trend, during the six-month post-
Senate Bill 91 period, there is a considerable drop off in the
larceny theft rate in the statewide totals. He commented, that
is fully consistent with what was seen in the prior two years in
terms of the seasonal drop off and, notably, it did not flatten
out or increase.
10:11:46 AM
DR. MYRSTOL turned to slide 3, titled "Burglaries (Alaska)" and
reiterated that these represent the amount of burglaries known
to police per 100,000 population statewide for each month
beginning in January 2014 and extending through December 2016.
He pointed to a seasonal trend in this data, and advised that
although it is more difficult to see with the naked eye,
essentially the seasonal trend remains the same by peaking in
late summer and early fall, and dropping off at the early winter
months period. The drop off in the post-Senate Bill 91 period
is consistent with the seasonal effect seen during the prior two
years, and he noted that within the burglary rate depicted here
in a three-year period, there is a fairly consistent increase
over time.
10:12:42 AM
DR. MYRSTOL turned to slide 4, titled, "MV Thefts (Alaska)" and
said it is month by month, January 2014 through December 2016.
He pointed out that there is a different pattern in this data,
of which he said he alluded to during his testimony last week
with respect to the behavior of motor vehicle thefts across the
state and various jurisdictions he reviewed, and now reflected
in statewide data. The long and short of it with respect to
this particular slide, he explained, beginning at late winter,
early spring 2015, the trend of motor vehicle thefts changed.
He commented that it appears there is a seasonal trend similar
to what is seen in the other property crimes, and beginning 2015
things changed markedly. During the post-Senate Bill 91 period
there was an increase of motor vehicle theft on a month-to-month
basis, but that is a continuation of a trend that began
approximately one year prior. He noted a significant difference
in overall patterning as compared to preceding burglaries and
larceny thefts.
10:15:07 AM
DR. MYRSTOL turned to violent crimes beginning with slide 5,
titled, "Homicide (Alaska)" and said the reference points are
January 2014 through December 2016. Most notable, relative to
the others, is the amount of variance around the trend, he
offered. Homicides have an extremely low base rate phenomenon
and there is a lot of variation on a year-to-year basis, as well
as the month-to-month basis. In general, he explained, overall
within this three-year period, there is a roughly flat trend
with a variability upwards and downwards depending upon the
month with a slight decrease from July 2016 to December 2016.
10:15:59 AM
DR. MYRSTOL turned to slide 6, titled "Forcible Rape (Alaska)"
the month-to-month crime rate trend between January 2014 through
December 2016, and noted a slight increase overall from point to
point, from beginning at a time series at the end of the time
series, with fluxuation above and below the (indisc.)
throughout. During July 2016 to December 2016, once again there
is a slight decrease in the overall rate on the month-to-month
basis for statewide totals, he said.
10:16:39 AM
DR. MYRSTOL turned to slide 7, titled "Robbery (Alaska)" and
noted a fairly consistent increase overall in the trend from
January 2014 through December 2016, with a slight downturn
between July 2016 and December 2016.
10:17:09 AM
DR. MYRSTOL turned to slide 8, titled "Assault (Alaska)" and
advised that this data represents the assaults per 100,000
population known to police month-by-month January 2014 through
2016. He pointed to a fairly consistent increase overall from
January 2014 through December 2016, and in looking at the
specific period July 2016 through December 2016, there is a
slight decrease in that crime rate.
10:17:46 AM
DR. MYRSTOL turned to slide 9, titled "All Crime Rate (Alaska)"
and said that all of the previous slides of crime rates are
presented on slide 9, and the biggest takeaway of this slide is
to show the relative magnitude differences for two offenses
relative to the other five. He said that with respect to
property offenses, larceny theft is at the top and it varies
from year-to-year. He pointed to property crimes computed in
the Uniform Crime Report (UCR), and said that oftentimes overall
property crimes trends track closely and parallel larceny theft
trends, and it is a similar situation with respect to assaults
and its relationship to violent crime rate totals, wherein
violent crimes aggregated with the significant majority of all
violent crimes known to police and compiled in the UCR, are
assaults.
10:18:53 AM
DR. MYRSTOL turned to slide 10, titled "Summary" and explained
that for each of the seven crime categories depicted in the
previous slides, the crime rate per 100,000 population in July
2016, and the crime rate per 100,000 population in December
2016, and the final column, is a simple percent change between
those two crime rate computations in that particular six-month
period.
10:19:44 AM
DR. MYRSTOL responded to Representative LeDoux that he does not
have statistics for 2017, and explained that typically the
Uniform Crime Report data published in Crime in Alaska are
published on a six-month delay. The 2016 data was released
approximately one month ago, and he would expect the 2017 data
to be publicly available roughly this time next year.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX commented that it appears in 2016, people
living in Anchorage "it didn't have the feeling of not being
safe" as it appears to have in 2017. She asked whether he has
statistics separating areas of the state.
DR. MYRSTOL responded that he does not, and offered that the DPS
performs great work and publishes the monthly data for the
statewide totals, but the jurisdictionally specific data on the
month-to-month basis is not publicly available.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX noted his statement that the statistics
are not publicly available and asked whether it exists.
DR. MYRSTOL answered the he could not speak for DPS as he does
not maintain its Uniform Crime Report Program. Although, he
said, it compiles data as it receives data, but it is a
voluntary program. Therefore, police agencies provide their
data to DPS at different paces depending upon their individual
resources, and some agencies may not be able to submit their
2017 data until the close of 2017. Whereas, he noted, other
departments with more resources may be able to provide data on a
quarterly or monthly basis. The summary account data that is
collected on a month-to-month basis is compiled on a monthly
basis, he said.
10:22:39 AM
DR. MYRSTOL, in response to Representative Reinbold, advised
that the population data was received from DPS and is used as
the population metric with a computation of the rate.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked whether he used FBI reports and
actual reported crime known to the Anchorage Police Department.
DR. MYRSTOL responded that the data in this particular
presentation represent statewide totals, and these are the sum
total of all agencies for the entire state, by month, as
reported to the DPS.
10:23:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD referred to the summary [slide 10] and
asked whether larceny theft is down 30 percent.
DR. MYRSTOL explained that the rates for that particular offense
statewide, and the difference between July 2016 rate and
December 2016 rate, is a decline of 30.6 percent.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked whether Dr. Myrstol was saying
that during that six-month snapshot overall theft was down in
the state by 30 percent.
DR. MYRSTOL replied, "I would not."
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked him to describe what is happening
in the state with regard to theft.
DR. MYRSTOL responded that the accumulation of the increase in
larceny theft, often represented in annual totals, had
accumulated prior to the implementation of Senate Bill 91.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked whether any crime was redefined in
any manner in Senate Bill 91.
DR. MYRSTOL answered that he is not qualified to speak to the
legislation in terms of the particular crimes that were changed.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD related that it is important to be
certain they are measuring the same issues because crimes were
reclassified or redefined.
10:25:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN interjected that Dr. Myrstol has collected
three categories based on crime statistics which are largely
theft, burglary, and motor vehicle theft. In the event the
question is whether the definition of what data is being
collected changed from 2014 to 2016 is a different question than
Representative Reinhold's question asking about specific
statutes that were passed or not passed in Senate Bill 91 and
other legislation. He commented that he was unsure of her
question.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked whether any crimes were redefined
or reclassified in Senate Bill 91, and if the rules were changed
in any manner that the outcomes would be different.
DR. MYRSTOL answered, "Yes."
10:26:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP explained to Representative Reinbold that
homicide, forcible rape, burglary, robbery, and assault did not
change and were not redefined. The dollar threshold of larceny
theft changed, and he opined that motor vehicle theft was not
addressed in that legislation. He offered appreciation that the
municipality tightened up the law on that, which makes it easier
to prosecute people who participate based on criminal negligence
(audio difficulties) versus an intentional knowledge, will be
good for public safety.
10:27:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked Dr. Myrstol to define larceny theft.
DR. MYRSTOL responded, in general, the FBI definition of larceny
theft is a personal taking of property. For example, there is a
clear distinction in the FBI categorization and classification
of larceny theft as distinct from burglary and robbery. There
is a thick coding manual that each agency uses to classify
according to FBI rules, he said.
10:28:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether shoplifting would come under
the definition of larceny theft.
DR. MYRSTOL clarified that he should not have said personal
property, but rather private property. He explained that
larceny theft is actually a specific subcategory of larceny
theft. For example, he noted, when he testified before the
Finance Subcommittee last week, he presented specific
shoplifting data as a subcategory of larceny theft within the
categorization.
10:28:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether Dr. Myrstol has shoplifting
data.
DR. MYRSTOL answered in the affirmative.
DR. MYRSTOL, in response to Representative LeDoux, advised that
he did not have the shoplifting data with him today.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX noted interest in the statistics with
respect to the shoplifting offense because it is the issue
legislators are hearing about from local stores in their
communities.
DR. MYRSTOL advised he would provide the statistics to the
committee.
10:29:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN noted there are the state definitions and
also the three FBI definitions, larceny theft, burglary, and
motor vehicle theft. He asked whether there are any theft
offenses in Alaska that are not included within those three FBI
categories.
DR. MYRSTOL opined, "No," and deferred to the Uniform Crime
Reporting Program folks at the Department of Public Safety
(DPS). However, he further opined, there has been no change in
the FBI definitions of those crimes as they are categorized and
coded for 2016.
10:30:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD described Representative Kopp "as a huge
proponent of Senate Bill 91," and said she would like
Representative Kopp to define how larceny theft changed, and to
explain how store after store dramatically complains about theft
with a 98 percent increase.
10:31:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN stated that Dr. Myrstol is testifying, and
he expressed that the purpose of the committee hearing was not
to interrogate Representative Kopp, who was not a member of the
legislature when Senate Bill 91 passed. He stated he would not
ask Representative Kopp to respond to Representative Reinbold,
and advised that Rob Henderson, Deputy Attorney General, would
testify later in the hearing and may better be able to answer
her question about criminal code definitions.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD said "He said it was redefine larceny
theft. I wanted to clarify he's the one that brought it up."
DR. MYRSTOL asked that Representative Reinbold repeat the
question.
10:32:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD said that Representative Kopp stated
"something about larceny theft. I wanted to give him the
opportunity" to state whether larceny theft was redefined which
Dr. Myrstol said is the taking of personal property. She asked
how to explain "the "vast -- what we're seeing in the
newspapers, which we're seeing on the news, which is here today
versus your statistics" that it has dropped 30 percent, and how
to explain this discrepancy.
DR. MYRSTOL clarified that the difference is based upon what law
enforcement reported. He stressed the importance of
understanding the nature of the data, and its strengths and
limitations for any particular data source being used. The
data, as aggregated in crime in Alaska, are what police
departments are telling the Department of Public Safety (DPS),
and have brought to its attention. Therefore, he said, the
crime rate is computed for these statewide totals as the sum
total of all offenses within a particular category as defined by
the FBI and divided by the total population, and that is how
that rate is computed. He commented that with respect to the
decline for larceny theft, based on the two prior years, would
be perfectly predictable because it is a seasonal effect. The
trend would have suggested there would be a marked decline
following the late summer, early fall of 2016, which would be
his jumping off place, he said. He then referred to [slide 2],
larceny theft, noting a decline in 2016, and said it was fairly
predictable assuming that that seasonal effect is robust in the
data. He apologized that he did not have month-to-month data
available that extends back into a farther period of time where
the data could be modeled more rigorously. He reiterated that
his first explanation would be it is a seasonal effect wherein
there is more theft in the summer. The mechanisms of that may
be any number of things, number of tourists, greater influx of
people into the state, kids out of school, and many hypotheses
could be offered with respect to the particular dynamics of the
seasonal effect. He said that with respect to the decline, he
attributed it to seasonality and the trend.
10:35:15 AM
CHAIR CLAMAN explained that the committee is on a tight schedule
and would take one or at the most two more questions.
10:35:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD stated she would like a yes or no
answer, and asked whether the definition of theft was changed in
any manner or reclassified in Senate Bill 91.
DR. MYRSTOL answered, "Yes."
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked for an explanation ...
CHAIR CLAMAN interjected that Representative Kopp has the last
question.
10:35:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP noted that the data Dr. Myrstol brought
forth was good, and the dollar amount of theft was changed in
that a class B misdemeanor is now less than $250; class A
misdemeanor is $250 all the way up to just under $1,000; and
$1,000 or more is a felony. He referred to what was said to be
his philosophical position, and advised that he is personally
committed to fighting crime, supporting victims, and protecting
taxpayer dollar accountability in every dollar spent on public
safety. He stressed the importance of always speaking about
good justice policy, good reforms, and that it is never believed
"we have finally arrived, and we never have to look at something
again," and always be willing to examine the data. He thanked
Dr. Myrstol for his good data and suggested that DPS provide an
update of more recent data.
10:37:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN referred to the question about the change
in the theft level, and explained that "what was a A misdemeanor
was a B misdemeanor was a felony in theft." He asked whether
that changes the data collected.
DR. MYRSTOL deferred to DPS, and opined that to his knowledge
there is no redefinition in the UCR definitions of larceny
theft. How the statutory provisions enacted via Senate Bill 91,
and the reclassification of particular offenses, may not have
impacted how particular offenses were counted in the post-Senate
Bill 91 period, he explained, but he could not say with any
definitiveness there was zero impact.
10:38:40 AM
CAPTAIN SEAN CASE, Acting Deputy Chief, Anchorage Police
Department, noted that the Anchorage Police Department is in
full support of the passage of SB 54 as it addresses some of the
issues currently being seen that are identified as problems.
The first issue is violating conditions of release, and changing
it to a criminal offense is beneficial to the Anchorage Police
Department. Currently, he explained, when law enforcement
arrests someone and the judge orders conditions of release, the
person can essentially not follow those conditions and no
penalty is associated in the event the person violates those
conditions. He offered that changing it to a criminal offense
with possible jail time is a general deterrence in criminalizing
violations of conditions of release. Also, he said, SB 54 puts
a penalty back into thefts under $250 as Anchorage business
owners have been vocal about the dramatic increases in thefts,
trespass, and assault. He related that giving law enforcement
the opportunity to arrest folks with multiple theft counts and
place them in custody can not only cut down on the thefts but
also cut down on folks returning to the businesses and
trespassing.
10:40:56 AM
CAPTAIN CASE referred to thefts under $250, and noted that
businesses are simply not involving the police department which
is one of the reasons shoplifting numbers stay the same, except
that businesses are showing an increase in those types of
crimes. Business owner have advised law enforcement they do not
call because they do not believe it would be beneficial, he
advised.
CAPTAIN CASE referred to class C felony under SB 54, and advised
that the change is beneficial because law enforcement has seen
increased vehicle theft. He pointed out that vehicle thefts did
not start increasing in response to Senate Bill 91, and that the
increase in vehicle thefts started prior to SB 91.
Nevertheless, he said, there is an increase, and the penalty for
first-time vehicle theft, first-time assault in the third
degree, and first-time burglary of a business all have no jail
time, except that the law changes under SB 54. The Anchorage
Police Department believes that will be impactful for those
crimes, particularly burglary and vehicle theft.
10:42:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether there were additional fixes
he would recommend in SB 54.
CAPTAIN CASE responded that criminal justice reform is an
ongoing process and based on what is heard in the community,
this is a good first step. He opined that the question of what
else can be done becomes a larger conversation because there are
things in Senate Bill 91 that are scheduled to take effect in
January [2018] and its successes will be seen in the future.
Generally speaking, he noted, there are some things that can be
done in addition to SB 54, but the thing to do immediately is
pass this legislation and see what kind of impact this has, and
then continue to address criminal justice reform in Alaska from
that point forward.
CHAIR CLAMAN pointed out that Captain Case is a member of the
Alaska Criminal Justice Commission, and is a regular attendee at
all meetings.
10:43:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX noted that SB 54 could be amended with
respect to other issues, and asked what other issues he might
suggest.
CAPTAIN CASE stressed the need for substance abuse treatment
facilities and mental health treatment facilities in the State
of Alaska, combined with the need to try to divert those
involved in criminal activity at the street level rather than
weeks and months later in the criminal justice system,
particularly those with mental health issues or substance abuse
issues. Thus, he pointed out, when folks get involved in the
prosecution phase there is the ability to impact some of these
offenders early on, which will yield higher results in the long
run.
10:44:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD advised that police officers are
frustrated and discouraged, and that the overall belief is that
they do not like Senate Bill 91. Representative Reinbold
reiterated her ongoing concern with Senate Bill 91, described
the upward turn in crime, and asked whether police officers want
a repeal of Senate Bill 91.
CAPTAIN CASE said he would not speak for the officers, and
agreed there is some frustrations with the officers on the
street. People need to understand that police officer's sign up
to have some sort of impact on issues related to crime in the
street. He noted that when hiring police officers, generally,
the first thing they say is that they want to perform this job
to help people, and the way they have helped people for years is
using the law to put people in jail and protecting those who
cannot protect themselves. When the rules are changed that
creates some disenfranchisement, which does not mean the
traditional model of policing or criminal justice in the state
has to remain the same. Law enforcement can still benefit the
people of Alaska by changing the way "we go about our business."
Currently, he pointed out, the problem is that the state is in
that in-between stage, not all of criminal justice reform is in
place, and a lot of officers are not yet at the next step
because the next step is not even an option.
10:47:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD reiterated that the people "and cops"
are beyond frustrated and asked whether Captain Case believes
the bail schedule has had an impact on the levels of crime being
...
10:48:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN interjected that Captain Case did not
attend this hearing to discuss the bail schedule, and for
Representative Reinbold to focus on the matters Captain Case is
available to testify.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD reiterated the current events happening
in public safety, and commented that the judiciary branch made
dramatic changes to the bail schedule wherein people receive a
slap on their hand if they do not show up for court.
10:49:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GERAN TARR, Alaska State Legislature, referred to
the confusion about the implementation of justice reform on the
side of officers, such that they hear they can no longer arrest
someone. She clarified that it is not that officers cannot
arrest someone, it is what takes place after that arrest,
wherein the person is issued a summons to court versus
previously having jail time. She suggested that a missing
component is education for law enforcement about these changes,
and noted that officers do not have a continuing education
requirement as required for other professions on an annual
basis. She asked how this information should be communicated
with law enforcement to prevent missing pieces where the law has
been changed and the officers receive the full information about
those changes in their day-to-day work.
10:50:50 AM
CAPTAIN CASE responded that some of the confusion starts when
new legislation is introduced that affects the officer on the
street, and then there are three to four versions after several
months. The officers receive the information on version one,
launch down that path, and six-months later there is the
legislation that actually passed. He related that three things
happened, as follows: the loop is not closed on the original
bill; they already have it in their mind as to what this is all
about; and many changes to Senate Bill 91 which was complex and
complicated enough, but then it actually goes down to the street
and it becomes time for the user to fill out paperwork "and hand
it in boxes, and stuff most people don't think about." The
system is very complex, he described, and a minimum of three
agencies are involved with every person law enforcement puts
handcuffs on and escorts to jail because those three agencies
collect different records, keep different records, and track
different records, so it becomes complicated and complex.
CAPTAIN CASE acknowledged there is not a state requirement for
law enforcement and continuing education due probably because it
would bankrupt small agencies throughout the state if they were
required to perform continuing education when they only have two
officers. He said he agrees that a better job must be
undertaken in educating officers and making sure they are on the
same sheet of music. Once the education process begins, he
pointed out, the Anchorage Police Department needs to have a few
more stakeholders at the table so it can understand how the
process works from start to finish. Otherwise, inevitably, it
will train the officers on how to perform a task, they go out
and perform the task, and three months later the officers advise
that everything they were told to do was completely wrong,
ineffective, and does not work. The problem will be something
downstream with a different agency that caused the original
train to run amuck so there needs to be better coordination when
training officers, he said.
10:53:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR commented that on the legislative side, that
must be a lesson learned in terms of making big changes and the
implementation timeline. There is a necessity in making sure
the legislature accommodates a period of time to get the
information out to the officers. She commented that this is
something the legislature will hopefully learn from this
experience, how to improve that issue even with the changes in
54, how to make sure this is clearly communicated, and that
everyone is on the same page.
CAPTAIN CASE answered that the immediate implementation portions
of Senate Bill 91 caused a lot of problems, and a lot of
officer's call prosecutors or district attorney offices to
advise they are not sure what to do with this because it was
literally different yesterday than today. Typically, he
advised, the answer the officers would receive is that they
would try to give the best answer they could, but they were in
the same position as the police officers, and that could be
improved in the future.
10:54:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked Captain Case to explain how
assault in the third degree was changed under Senate Bill 91.
CAPTAIN CASE responded that SB 54 is specific on changing the
jail time of a first-time class C felony, and it also lists
specific offenses which primarily are operating influence
offenses that those do not impact, as it relates to SB 54. He
explained that is the only differentiation about the first-time
class C felonies.
10:55:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON opined that "assaults were supposed to
be unimpacted" and after a review in the spring of 2016 he
realized that was not entirely accurate, "but that is what we
were told." He asked that if someone commits an assault in the
third degree and it is their first-class C felony, whether they
cannot be jailed.
CAPTAIN CASE deferred to Rob Henderson, Department of Law.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP answered that one of the discrepancies is
the difference between statutory definition of offense and
penalties.
10:57:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT opined that Senate Bill 91 redefined all
class C felonies, except unclassified felonies, in some manner
whether it was sentencing or the definition of the crime. She
described the confusion for the public and law enforcement is
based on the fact there was so much definition change and
penalty change that it became an overarching reasoning that it
is a class C felony and "you're just not going to go to jail,"
the penalties remain the same for unclassified felonies.
There is a perception in the public that all class C felonies
changed when there is still a portion of unclassified that had
no distinct changes. She asked whether there is a specific
change predominantly needed outside of the class C felony
changes, such as the "sober law" and being able to hold an
intoxicated individual until they are no longer intoxicated.
CAPTAIN CASE responded that that is probably the biggest impact
in law enforcement currently. For example, a police officer
comes in contact with someone who committed a misdemeanor crime
while under the influence, previously the police officer had the
ability to book those folks into jail until they were sober, or
a sober adult could pick them up, which allows for a cooling off
time. He said that in the event someone is driving under the
influence or commits a disorderly conduct offense and law
enforcement has contact with them and gives them a summons to
appear, but because they cannot be held in jail and are
extremely intoxicated, the police may have a secondary contact
with them later on either as a victim or in committing a new
offense. These folks are not particularly in the best frame of
mind when they committed the crime in the first place and
alcohol is probably a contributing factor, except, when law
enforcement does not have the ability to remove some of those
individuals and put them somewhere to sober up and make better
decisions, it is a problem. That is probably the biggest impact
officers are seeing on the street, watching folks under the
influence leave the scene without law enforcement's ability to
intervene.
11:00:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT asked that in the case of domestic
violence where the person is intoxicated, whether currently
police can hold someone who has committed a domestic violence
assault because it is under an unclassified felony.
CAPTAIN CASE agreed, and he said that domestic violence is
different ...
CHAIR CLAMAN interjected that domestic violence is a mandatory
arrest.
CAPTAIN CASE answered in the affirmative.
11:01:18 AM
CHAIR CLAMAN referred to a shoplifting offense prior to justice
reform efforts and since the passage of Senate Bill 91, and
asked whether businesses called in every shop lifting event to
the police or whether many businesses just did not call police
even before justice reform began.
CAPTAIN CASE said he would venture a guess that there is under-
reporting of everything all of the time.
11:01:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX surmised that SB 54 does not change
anything with respect to whether the police department can hold
someone who is drunk.
CAPTAIN CASE answered in the affirmative.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX surmised that that is something additional
Captain Case would like to see in SB 54.
CAPTAIN CASE replied that it would be beneficial to law
enforcement, and it is not necessary for SB 54 right now.
11:02:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether any other change to SB 54
may be beneficial to law enforcement, other than the mental
health programs he mentioned previously.
CAPTAIN CASE responded (indisc.) at this time.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX inquired as to whether there was anything
else "out there" that Captain Case may being considering.
CAPTAIN CASE answered that the Alaska Criminal Justice
Commission and others throughout the state are performing a lot
of work, which is a much longer conversation. There is nothing
that could be passed immediately and have an immediate impact,
and he commented that Representative LeDoux was asking a "very
complex, multi-tiered question" and there was not a simple
response.
CHAIR CLAMAN surmised that the Anchorage Police Department was
not advocating any amendments to SB 54 at this point.
CAPTAIN CASE answered in the affirmative.
11:04:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD continued to express her concern with
Senate Bill 91, and that if the property is under $250, a person
could steal "one hundred thousand times and you can't have a day
in jail." Currently, she said, a class C felony, which is theft
of a firearm, vehicle theft, animal cruelty, PFD theft, and the
list of class C felonies goes on, and as long as the person does
not have a prior conviction they cannot have a day in jail.
CHAIR CLAMAN interjected that Representative Reinbold was not
asking a question. He explained that SB 54 actually changes the
status and makes it so the very crimes she was describing would
actually have penalties and it sounded like support for SB 54.
He asked that she ask a question of the witness.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked whether Captain Case would prefer
theft to be "back-classified" to pre-Senate Bill 91, and have
harsher penalties with jail time for theft.
REPRESENTATIVE CHAIR CLAMAN said he would narrow Representative
Reinbold's question to be, whether Captain Case proposes a
different treatment of theft than that proposed in SB 54 as a
change from what was approved in Senate Bill 91.
CAPTAIN CASE answered, "No."
11:07:17 AM
ROB HENDERSON, Deputy Attorney General, Central Office, Criminal
Division, Department of Law, turned to slides 2-3, and explained
that the 13 member Alaska Criminal Justice Commission brings a
unique and specific skill set to the table, and it is charged
with evaluating criminal justice issues, what works and what
does not work. In 2015, the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission
found that Alaska's prison population was growing at an
unsustainable rate, and the state could not continue in the same
manner as in the past. He noted that two out three inmates
returned to prison within three years, a 66 percent recidivism
rate, and there was an overreliance on incarceration. The
commission has long discussed, and continues to discuss at
length, that long periods of incarceration have a criminogenic
effect on offenders, and to find alternatives to incarceration
when appropriate. He advised that criminal justice reform is
supported by the Department of Law and this administration, and
the state needs to continue moving in the direction of criminal
justice reform. Senate Bill 91 was not working as designed once
it was implemented into practice, he acknowledged, and SB 54 is
designed to address those issues.
11:10:46 AM
MR. HENDERSON turned to slide 4, and reiterated there were
unintended consequences related to Senate Bill 91 because it
needed more flexibility. Absolutely necessary, he advised, is
that law enforcement, prosecutors, and judges have flexibility
when addressing some of these issues because sentencing is an
individualized process. At the time a judge imposes any type of
sentence, it is required by case law, statute, and the
Constitution of the State of Alaska to consider five
contemplations, as follows: rehabilitation; isolation;
deterrence of offender after release; deterrence of others; and
community condemnation and reaffirmation of societal norms.
These are basic principles in criminal law, and basic principles
every judge is required to go through and announce on the record
when they impose a sentence as the judge goes through and
decides how each principle furthers the defendant's
rehabilitation. In addition to State v. Chaney "the Chaney
factors," judges are required to balance both reformation of the
offender against the need to protect the public and the rights
of victims. These two things will always be at odds, there will
be a tension, this is the goal of every judge imposing a
sentence, he explained.
11:13:04 AM
MR. HENDERSON turned to slide 5, and pointed out that every
situation is different, every offender, every circumstance, even
the same offender who commits the same offense because they will
come in under different circumstances, so sentencing must be
individualized. The factors listed on slide 5, are specific
factors judges will assess when imposing a sentence, and are in
addition to the criteria of the Chaney factors, as follows:
acceptance or denial of responsibility, an offender who accepts
responsibility should be treated differently under the law than
an offender who refuses to take responsibility for their
actions; the same as with substance abuse wherein someone is
asking for help; prior criminal activity, and he said he
intentionally did not say "prior criminal convictions" because
criminal convictions are limited, it is specific, requires that
the person move all the way through the criminal justice
process, and obtain a conviction - a judge is permitted, under
certain circumstances, to assess, evaluate, and give weight to a
person's prior criminal activity even though they had not yet
been convicted because judges will always give consideration to
the victim, their family, and how this offense affected this
community; judges will consider how the defendant acted after
the offense in post-offense behavior; and the motivation for
criminal behavior. Someone motivated by money should be treated
differently than someone motivated by a substance abuse issue.
These are not the only items judges will consider, he said.
11:16:09 AM
MR. HENDERSON turned to slide 6, and explained that at the very
core of SB 54, it tries to balance all of these things together,
and does not depart from the idea and mindset that criminal
justice reform is necessary and appropriate. He said to balance
that against the recognition that judges, prosecutors, and law
enforcement need more tools, and that tool is discretion, the
ability to assess each case individually.
11:16:45 AM
MR. HENDERSON described the three main highlights of SB 54 class
C felony offenses as follows: petty theft; theft in the fourth
degree; and violation of conditions of release (VCOR). The
three terms he said he will continue to use are active time,
suspended time, and probationary time. He explained that active
time is that period of incarceration the judge can impose
immediately upon finding a person guilty at sentencing.
Suspended time is the period of incarceration that will be
withheld from imposition on the condition the person follows
their probation conditions, and in the event they fail to follow
their probation conditions, violate that probation, the court
then has the authority to impose a portion of that suspended
time. Probation term is the length of time a person will be
held under the supervision of the Department of Corrections
(DOC), they will have a probation officer, or the court system
if they are on "informal misdemeanor probation."
11:18:31 AM
MR. HENDERSON turned to slide 7, and explained that SB 54, with
regard to class C felony offenses, changes the presumptive range
from what it is now, which is zero to 18 months suspended
probation, to zero to one year. Under the former law, the
presumptive range for class C felony offenses was zero to two
years, and a judge could impose a sentence of both active and
suspended time anywhere between zero to two years depending upon
the circumstance of the offense. Under current law, it was
changed to zero to 18 month suspended time under a term of
probation. Under SB 54, the range is zero to one-year period of
incarceration, and the zero to one-year period can be active
time, suspended time, and most likely a combination of both. He
explained that suspended time and probation is key to achieving
all of the sentencing factors he previously listed because
prosecutors want individuals on probation, on supervised
release. There are few offenders in which the prosecution will
say "flat time" because the way prosecutors achieve all of those
sentencing goals and finds the balance between deterrence,
isolation, rehabilitation, and such, is that the prosecutor asks
the judge to impose some active time and some suspended time,
and keep that over the defendant's head and put them on
probation. He advised that it is key that all offenders be
released from incarceration under some form of supervision, and
the range of zero to one year of incarceration gives the
prosecutors and the judges the ability to tailor the sentence to
the individual offender. This bill also authorizes judges to
order residential treatment, which is important because
residential treatment is akin to incarceration under the law.
In the event the judge wanted to incentivize or order the person
to treatment, for instance 60-90 days of inpatient residential
treatment, the judge had to have the authority to impose actual
jail time and make that a condition of probation. He explained
that SB 54 allows the judge to order residential treatment, if
appropriate.
11:22:44 AM
MR. HENDERSON explained that first felony conviction does not
necessarily mean first conviction, and every offender and re-
offense is different. He further explained that someone may
have a misdemeanor criminal history or an old felony criminal
history, and all of those things indicate that person should be
treated differently than someone with no criminal history. Zero
to one year allows the judge to treat offenders differently, he
said.
11:23:27 AM
MR. HENDERSON turned to slide 8, and advised that the second key
component of SB 54 is theft under $250, and under state code,
theft in the fourth degree is also known as petty theft. The
discussion is about increasing discretion for judges to impose
jail time, if appropriate, under those specific circumstances.
He noted public concern as to whether or not tools are available
to disrupt that criminal cycle when people engage in repeated
thefts and shoplifts. The bill returns that discretion to
prosecutors and judges to order someone into jail if convicted
of theft and it is their second or third offense.
11:24:28 AM
MR. HENDERSON continued with slide 8, and advised it depicts
that under former law there were graduated sanctions for the
offenses, and under the first two theft offenses, a person could
receive up to 90-days in jail, and the third theft offense,
referred to as recidivist theft, was up to one year in jail.
Under current law, he advised, the first two theft offenses were
changed to just fines or probation and no jail time was
authorized, and at the third offense, the judge was authorized
to impose up to five days suspended. In the event this person
violated their conditions of probation, the judge was authorized
to impose a term of jail for that violation, and the judges
would return the person to incarceration or impose jail time for
the violation of probation, not for the underlying offense.
This bill takes that first offense and allows for up to five
days suspended on the first offense, meaning that on the first
low-level theft the person will receive a sentence of five-days
suspended and probation on the condition they perform well on
probation, and that jail term would not be imposed. Except, he
noted, in the event the person did not perform well on
probation, a jail term would be imposed. On the second or third
offense, the judge has authority to impose active jail time. He
explained that the bill attempts to provide tools so when there
are repeat offenders with the continual cycle of thefts, the
cycle can be disrupted.
11:26:30 AM
MR. HENDERSON turned to slide 9, and explained that the final
main aspect of SB 54 is violating conditions of release.
Captain Case noted confusion and struggle that law enforcement
does not have the tools necessary to address people violating
their bail conditions, and the bill allows up to five days in
jail, if appropriate. This is important because under current
law, a person violating conditions of release is committing a
violation, not a criminal act. He explained that it is an
arrestable violation that may be sanctioned with a fine, except
that description is confusing because, generally speaking,
violations are not arrestable. However, he said, what the law
allows is that it changes that dynamic a bit and "we said that
officers need the ability to arrest on VCORs, but we're going to
keep it as a violation," which is contrary to the way the law
has historically been written and that necessarily created
certain confusion, he said. The practical effect of that was
that judges were apprehensive about holding someone in jail on a
violation, even though it was an arrestable violation, until the
bail hearing in which the original judge could then re-assess
what bail should be in the underlying sentence, he advised.
This bill addresses that issue by making violations of
conditions of release a criminal offense again, a class B
misdemeanor, and it allows for the imposition of up to five-days
in jail, if appropriate. He offered that this will clarify for
law enforcement that it can take someone into custody who is
violating their bail conditions, and it will also clarify for
judges that they can hold that person in jail pending the
subsequent bail review for that underlying offense.
11:29:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX surmised that under SB 54, for the first
offense, the penalty is a "get out of jail free card."
MR. HENDERSON referred to theft in the fourth degree, the petty
theft statute, and explained that under the current iteration of
SB 54, a person convicted of a first-time theft in the fourth-
degree offense would receive a suspended jail sentence.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX referred to the ongoing frequency of
current shoplifting crimes, and asked the rationale for taking
away the judge's discretion under the former law.
MR. HENDERSON replied that this legislation returns that
discretion, acknowledging it is not as much discretion as
existed in the former law, which was 90 days. This, he offered,
is that balance and compromise because it is known that long
periods of incarceration may have that criminogenic effect, and
it is a person's first low-level theft conviction.
11:30:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX referred to long periods of incarceration
possibly contributing to recidivism, and argued that one or two
days did not appear to be a long period of time.
MR. HENDERSON referred to the results of the research, and
explained that it shows that long periods of incarceration had a
criminogenic effect on low risk offenders. He clarified that
that does not necessarily mean offenders with low level
offenses, but low risk offenders. He described that there was a
good assumption that those individuals convicted of their first
petty theft, with no prior criminal theft history, would fall
into the category of lower risk.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX pointed out that the person could have no
prior theft history, but they could have histories for
misdemeanor assaults, and various other deeds, and still only
receive five days suspended, which is the "get out of jail card
for the first theft."
MR. HENDERSON responded that SB 54 limits that prior history to
theft history, and it is possible that someone could have a
prior criminal history that is non-theft related. He remarked
that whether it is a "get out of jail free card" is a policy
question, but there is a sanction of misdemeanor probation with
up to five days in jail.
11:32:48 AM
CHAIR CLAMAN noted, from a practical standpoint and long before
the justice reform process started, with regard to a first-time
theft in the fourth degree (audio difficulties) class B
misdemeanor theft conviction, he asked whether folks were
receiving jail time or a suspended sentence most of the time.
MR. HENDERSON answered that, as a general rule with first time
low-level theft offenders, it was unlikely prosecutors would ask
for jail time on those offenses.
11:33:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked whether Mr. Henderson was in favor
of Senate Bill 91.
MR. HENDERSON replied that he is in favor of criminal justice
reform.
11:33:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD described SB 54 as a baby step in the
right direction, and asked that in his experience, how many
times a person actually stole property prior to being caught and
convicted.
MR. HENDERSON opined that Representative Reinbold's question was
how often, in his experience, someone he was convicting or
asking a jury to convict someone of theft in the fourth degree,
did he know, based on other information, that they had prior
involvement in the criminal justice system, including theft.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD said that before someone is actually
caught stealing oftentimes they have already done it multiple
times ...
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD, in response to Chair Claman's question,
answered that she was focusing solely on theft.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether her question was that
someone was stopped for shoplifting in Fred Meyer, and before
that time, when they were in front of prosecutors five prior
times ...
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD clarified that research has shown there
are dozens of times someone steals before being caught and
convicted, and described that it is a high bar to be caught and
also convicted. She offered concern as to the zero to five days
(audio difficulties) discretionary. She said it is important
that committee members are able to express the concerns of the
people and districts they represent and not be shut out.
11:36:56 AM
CHAIR CLAMAN noted that people are not being shut out, and
Representative Reinbold disagreed.
11:37:11 AM
MR. HENDERSON responded that he had not experienced, during his
time as a prosecutor, where someone had several prior incidents
of shoplifting when he was convicting for the first conviction,
but if he had had that information, it would have been important
to know as the prosecutor. He then referred to the principle
that sentencing has to be an individualized process, and said
that if he knew, through testimony or information from loss
prevention at some of these stores, that a certain individual
continued to come into the store over and over again and this is
the first time they were caught, that is something the judge
needs to know. Equally, he pointed out, if this is the first
time the person had been involved in the criminal justice system
and first theft conviction, the judge needs to know that
information.
11:38:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD surmised that Mr. Henderson believes
people are caught the first time, and asked that with his legal
background, how many times a person had previously stolen by the
time they were caught and convicted.
CHAIR CLAMAN noted that Mr. Henderson had answered that
question, but he would give Representative Reinbold another shot
at clarification.
MR. HENDERSON answered that he could not answer that question of
data and social science, and as a prosecutor he had to operate
with the information before him.
11:39:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP said that speaking from his experience as a
police officer from 1986 - 2009, it was common when bringing
someone into arraignment, if law enforcement had knowledge there
were other problems associated with the person, such as other
arrests still working their way through the system for high risk
behaviors under investigation, law enforcement could ask for a
high bail regardless of what the penalty was at sentencing.
MR. HENDERSON responded that that can still done, but judges can
be hesitant to hold someone in jail on bail when there is no
potential sanction of incarceration. In the event there was
that potential for incarceration, a judge is more likely to
determine that the person needs a high bail for all of the high-
risk behaviors Representative Kopp described.
11:40:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX referred to the time period prior to
Senate Bill 91, and said Mr. Henderson stated that it was
unlikely if a person was a first-time theft offender whether
they would actually get jail time. She asked whether they would
have gotten jail time if this had been their first-time theft
conviction, but they had a myriad of other "things."
MR. HENDERSON answered that if someone had a significant
criminal history outside of a theft and it was their first-time
theft offense, it was likely the prosecutor would ask for jail
time.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX clarified her question that under Senate
Bill 91, and SB 54, there is no jail time even if there is a
myriad of other offenses.
MR. HENDERSON responded that active jail time is not authorized,
only suspended jail time.
11:41:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT referred to Senate Bill 91 testimonies,
and the 5/19/17 memorandum from John Skidmore, through Robert
Henderson to Senator John Coghill, its Executive Summary,
written subsequent to the passage of Senate Bill 91, and she
read as follows: "This means Alaska has the lowest authorized
sentences in the nation for this wide range of conduct." She
asked whether Mr. Henderson had performed the same sentencing
survey as to changing the sentencing for the class C felonies
proposed in SB 54, and whether Alaska still has the lowest
authorized sentences in the nation "for that" with the changes
in SB 54.
MR. HENDERSON advised that he did not believe Alaska is the
lowest in the nation any longer. He then highlighted that the
reason Alaska is the lowest under current law, is due to the way
Alaska categorizes or classifies criminal offenses. He referred
to the Department of Law's (DOL) summary of all class C felony
offenses that fall within Title 11 [contained within the
committee packets] and commented that it is a long list. He
clarified that the summary contains only class C felonies that
fall within Title 11, it does not include Titles 4, 8, 16, 28,
or any other title in the Criminal Code. He pointed out that it
is important because a lot of other states distinguish between
various low-level felony offenses, even within their same
classifications. For example, he said, many states distinguish
between violent low-level felony offenses and non-violent low-
level felony offenses, and Alaska does not. Instead, he
explained, Alaska handles that situation by authorizing the
judge to impose this particular presumptive range, and that
range has been intended to encompass all of that myriad of
conduct. He remarked that it comes back to why it is so
important there is the sentencing range in SB 54.
11:44:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT surmised that other states have larger
classifications and "you kind of chart out what states do and
what their classifications," and folks that want to repeal
Senate Bill 91 and start over, and want to take Mr. Henderson's
memorandum to Senator Coghill and implement some of the wide
ranges. She indicated it would be a better way for the
legislature to serve the public, and keep the public safe, "by
having some of these other states that have implemented this
broad range and more categories of the better way of deciding
criminal justice, and how we sentence and how we convict
people." The proponents of repealing Senate Bill 91 have looked
at this memo, and suggest repealing and implementing Mr.
Henderson's recommendations. She asked whether Mr. Henderson
would like to see a different form, possibly take the other
references in the memo, and change how Alaska does that to more
reflect successful states.
MR. HENDERSON answered that a full repeal of Senate Bill 91 is
dangerous because it has numerous phases and it would be a step
backwards from where the legislature started. He agreed that
Alaska looking to other states is a good place to start. For
example, "how do we" make sure the judges have discretion to
treat violent offenders differently than non-violent offenders.
Other states have addressed that issue and have given Alaska
some guidance, and the Criminal Justice Commission is another
body looking at that issue. He referred to the question of
whether the legislature should start all over, and pointed out
that Senate Bill 91 has multiple phases and some of those phases
have not yet been implemented. He explained that phase one,
reclassification of criminal offenses (audio difficulties) went
into effect July 2016; phase two, changes to probation and
parole, went into effect January [2017], and the question of how
Alaska handles, sanctions, and incentivizes people on probation
and parole is in play now, and judges are still learning and
figuring out what works; and phase three, the pretrial services
unit is important to Alaska and is the first time the state will
be able to supervise offenders in pretrial status, which comes
into effect January 1, 2018.
11:47:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT described that the cart was put before
the horse, and criminal justice reform should have started with
phases two and three, and then if those phases were successful,
to move to phase one because the public is most upset about
phase one. She referred to the 6/17/16, Department of Law's
bill review to Governor Bill Walker, and said it warns about
some of these things in phase one, is a detailed look at phase
one, and it possibly points out some of the flaws seen without
having phase three implemented, especially. In reviewing some
of its recommendations, she said she assumes Mr. Henderson
supports SB 54 in its current form, and asked whether there are
other things DOL would be supportive of if instituted in SB 54.
She asked whether DOL is open to looking at other amendments
that would strengthen SB 54, and if so, would he be willing to
provide a list of additional changes to SB 54 based off of the
6/17/16 memo wherein some issues were pointed out with Senate
Bill 91. A list of amendments was taken from the bill review
letter that she believes conceptually make sense in
strengthening Senate Bill 91, and she surmised that Mr.
Henderson would be supportive.
MR. HENDERSON responded that this is a process, and as Governor
Walker said when proposing SB 54, this is a good and important
first step, and it is too early to tell whether there will be
additional steps. Contained within SB 54 are the issues they
heard from their law enforcement partners that needed to be
addressed quickly, he said.
11:50:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX pointed out that if there is a memo
wherein DOL had "a whole bunch of suggestions to Senate Bill
91," why DOL could not say on the record that it would like
these suggestions implemented.
MR. HENDERSON replied that after this hearing he will review
that memo because if there are suggestions, he wants to be sure
he is clear on the memo.
11:50:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked Mr. Henderson to explain the three
phases.
MR. HENDERSON responded that, generally speaking, phase one went
into effect in July 2016, and was the revision of the
classification and sentencing structure of the Criminal Code.
Class C felony sentences moved from zero to two years, to zero
to 18 months suspended probation; where the presumptive range
was changed; and where it elevated the (audio difficulties)
threshold from $750 to $1,000 felony level theft. That is the
reclassification (audio difficulties), he said. Phase two went
into effect in January 2017, the probation and parole phase, in
which probation and parole instituted a new way to monitor and
surprise offenders on probation and parole. He explained there
are administrative sanctions and incentives to encourage people
to perform well on probation and parole, and the earned
compliance credit is incentive to be on probation for a shorter
period of time. Research shows that if people will reoffend,
they will reoffend (audio difficulties - issues with
construction noises), he said.
11:52:37 AM
[CHAIR CLAMAN had a discussion with unknown speaker asking Chair
Claman to repeat his request for people to mute their lines.]
11:53:11 AM
MR. HENDERSON noted that earned compliance credit was
implemented because the research shows that people who will
violate their probation or reoffend once released will do that
within the first six to twelve months after their release. In
the event a person can be incentivized to stay the course,
engage in their ordered treatment, and do all of the things the
state wants them to do, they are much more likely to succeed.
Phase three is bail and pretrial release, which goes into effect
on January 1, 2018, and at that point, the Department of
Corrections will have 60 new pretrial service officers to
supervise and assess offenders on bail release. The officers
will use an evidence based risk assessment tool in assessing
bail offering judges more information when assessing bail as to
low, medium, and high-risk individuals. The risk assessment
tool will assess two separate factors: the risk of a person
committing a new criminal act, and the risk of failure to appear
because at this point the person is presumed innocent. The
tool, he reiterated, will allow DOC to provide judges with more
information as to what the bail should be, and under what
conditions.
11:55:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN advised that the construction company had
been advised the meeting would conclude at 11:30, which is
roughly 30 minutes past time. He advised Representative
Reinbold that he would give her one brief question, and if it
was not brief, she would not be allowed to ask it.
[Discussion between Chair Claman and Representative Reinbold
regarding asking a question.]
11:56:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked whether Mr. Henderson believes
public safety is the government's top mandate, noting her belief
that it is dangerous not to repeal Senate Bill 91.
MR. HENDERSON answered that as a prosecutor, public safety is
one of his number one priorities.
11:57:07 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 11:57 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| UAA Justice Center Presentation - Crime Rate Trends 2014-2016 10.16.17.pdf |
HJUD 10/16/2017 10:00:00 AM |
|
| Department of Law Presentation - SB 54 10.16.17.pdf |
HJUD 10/16/2017 10:00:00 AM |