Legislature(2015 - 2016)SENATE FINANCE 532
03/30/2016 01:00 PM Senate FINANCE
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 | |
| SB91 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 91 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 30, 2016
1:34 p.m.
1:34:13 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair MacKinnon called the Senate Finance Committee
meeting to order at 1:34 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Anna MacKinnon, Co-Chair
Senator Pete Kelly, Co-Chair
Senator Peter Micciche, Vice-Chair
Senator Click Bishop
Senator Mike Dunleavy
Senator Lyman Hoffman
Senator Donny Olson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Jordan Shilling, Staff, Senator John Coghill; Nancy Meade
Director, General Council, Alaska Court System; Quinlan
Steiner, Public Defender, Department of Administration;
Dean Williams, Commissioner, Department of Corrections;
John Skidmore Director, Criminal Division, Department of
Law.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Jeff Edwards, Executive Director, Parole Board, Anchorage.
SUMMARY
SB 91 OMNIBUS CRIM LAW and PROCEDURE; CORRECTIONS
SB 91 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
SENATE BILL NO. 91
"An Act relating to protective orders; relating to
conditions of release; relating to community work
service; relating to credit toward a sentence of
imprisonment for certain persons under electronic
monitoring; relating to the restoration under certain
circumstances of an administratively revoked driver's
license, privilege to drive, or privilege to obtain a
license; allowing a reduction of penalties for
offenders successfully completing court-ordered
treatment programs for persons convicted of driving
under the influence; relating to termination of a
revocation of a driver's license; relating to
restoration of a driver's license; relating to credits
toward a sentence of imprisonment, to good time
deductions, and to providing for earned good time
deductions for prisoners; relating to the
disqualification of persons convicted of certain
felony drug offenses from participation in the food
stamp and temporary assistance programs; relating to
probation; relating to mitigating factors; relating to
treatment programs for prisoners; relating to the
duties of the commissioner of corrections; amending
Rules 32 and 35(b), Alaska Rules of Criminal
Procedure; and providing for an effective date."
1:36:55 PM
JORDAN SHILLING, STAFF, SENATOR JOHN COGHILL, discussed the
presentation, "SB 91 ACJC Pretrial and Sentencing
Recommendations Sponsor: Senator John Coghill 3-30-2016"
(copy on file).
Mr. Shilling displayed slide 1, "Pretrial Recommendations."
He stated that the commission found that the pretrial
population was the fastest growing prison population in the
state. He explained the reasons behind the increase in the
pretrial prison population.
Mr. Shilling looked at slide 2, "Pretrial Recommendations":
1. Expand the use of citations in place of arrest for
lower-level nonviolent offenses
2. Utilize risk-based decision-making
3. Implement pretrial supervision
4. Focus supervision resources on high-risk defendants
Mr. Shilling addressed slide 3, "Cite vs. Arrest":
The Commission recommended expanding the use of
citations in place of arrest for lower level non-
violent offenses.
76 percent of pretrial admissions to prison are
for misdemeanor charges.
56 percent of pretrial admissions to prison are
for non-violent misdemeanor charges.
1:40:41 PM
Senator Bishop queried the training of the officers. Mr.
Shilling replied that he assumed that the departments and
various agencies would educate the officers.
Senator Bishop stressed that there must be an execution of
the law. Mr. Shilling replied that it was important for law
enforcement to comply with statute.
Mr. Shilling discussed slide 4, "Pretrial Recommendations":
1. Expand the use of citations in place of arrest for
lower-level nonviolent offenses
2. Utilize risk-based decision-making
3. Implement pretrial supervision
4. Focus supervision resources on high-risk defendants
Mr. Shilling highlighted slide 5, "Growth in Pretrial
Population Linked to Large Number of Nonviolent Offenders
Held Pretrial, Longer Stays Behind Bars":
Pretrial population up 81 percent in last decade
Half of pretrial defendants are detained on nonviolent
charges, including misdemeanors
Defendants staying longer pretrial than they used to
Mr. Shilling addressed slide 6, "Research Shows: Detention
Should be Linked to Risk, Limited for Low-Risk Defendants":
Pretrial risk assessment can help predict likelihood
of pretrial failure (far better than a defendant's
ability to pay bail); and
Pretrial detention can lead to worse outcomes,
particularly for low-risk defendants.
Senator Hoffman wondered whether those awaiting pretrial be
able to have the assessment. Mr. Shilling replied that,
after the defendant was arrested, they were brought to a
Department of Corrections (DOC) facility.
Senator Hoffman pointed his question to those currently in
facilities. Mr. Shilling replied that the provision was not
retroactive. He explained that the effective date was 18
months in the future.
Mr. Shilling continued to discuss Kentucky's experience
with the provision.
1:46:46 PM
Mr. Shilling discussed slide 7, "Pretrial Recommendations":
1. Expand the use of citations in place of arrest for
lower-level nonviolent offenses
2. Utilize risk-based decision-making
3. Implement pretrial supervision
4. Focus supervision resources on high-risk defendants
Mr. Shilling highlighted slide 8, "Implement Pretrial
Supervision":
Minimal supervision with court date reminders
Basic supervision (in-office appointments, phone
calls, field visits)
Enhanced supervision (higher frequency contacts, drug
and alcohol testing, electronic monitoring)
Research shows that enhanced supervision should be
focused on those who are most likely to fail pretrial.
Senator Hoffman queried the pretrial implementation in a
village, such as Aniak. Mr. Shilling replied that the new
level of enhanced public safety and supervision would not
be available for all parts of the state. He did not know
the location of the supervision, and deferred to
Commissioner Williams for more information regarding
implementation.
Mr. Shilling looked at slide 10, "Sentencing
Recommendations":
5. Limit the use of prison for lower-level misdemeanor
offenders
6. Revise drug penalties to focus the most the severe
punishments on higher-level drug offenders
7. Utilize inflation-adjusted property thresholds
Align non-sex felony presumptive ranges with prior
presumptive terms
8. Expand and streamline the use of discretionary
parole
9. Implement a specialty parole option for long-term
geriatric inmates
10. Incentivize completion of treatment for sex
offenders with an earned time policy
Mr. Shilling discussed slide 11, "Vast Majority of
Admissions to Prison Are Misdemeanants." He stated that
most of the misdemeanors were low level, nonviolent
misdemeanors. The commission recommended changes in
misdemeanor sentencing in order to "stem" the large number
of low level offenders who occupied the expensive limited
number of beds. The commission recommended reducing some
low level Class B misdemeanors to the level of violation.
He shared that Senator Coghill had deviated slightly from
that recommendation upon introducing the bill. He shared
that, of the approximately 80 Class B misdemeanors, SB 91
only reduced approximately 5 of those Class B misdemeanors
to violations. Those reductions were considered more
"benign" Class B misdemeanors. He shared that the
commission recommended changing addressing the crime of
driving with a suspended license to differentiate from
those who were driving with a suspended license with an
underlying revocation from a DUI.
1:52:09 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered how the mandate would be
initiated and monitoring statewide. She furthered queried
the technology to support implementation of a mandatory
requirement. Mr. Shilling replied that the commission
recommended that the individual would serve their term of
imprisonment at home, under the supervision of a probation
officer, if the electronic monitoring was unavailable. He
furthered that the person would serve time under house
arrest, should a probation officer be unavailable.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked whether a third party custodian
would be responsible for monitoring the person in their
home. Mr. Shilling responded that the bill did not
eliminate third party custodianship.
Senator Bishop wondered if a village public safety officer
(VPSO) could act as a probation officer. Mr. Shilling
agreed to provide that information.
Co-Chair MacKinnon requested options about the types of
officers who could serve as third party custodians.
Mr. Shilling addressed slide 12, "Sentencing
Recommendations":
5. Limit the use of prison for lower-level misdemeanor
offenders
6. Revise drug penalties to focus the most the severe
punishments on higher-level drug offenders
7. Utilize inflation-adjusted property thresholds
Align non-sex felony presumptive ranges with prior
presumptive terms
8. Expand and streamline the use of discretionary
parole
9. Implement a specialty parole option for long-term
geriatric inmates
10. Incentivize completion of treatment for sex
offenders with an earned time policy
Mr. Shilling highlighted slide 13, "Over Last Decade, More
Offenders Entering Prison for Drug Crimes, and Staying
Longer":
Over past 10 years-
admissions to prison for felony drug offenses has
grown by 35 percent, driven in large part by a 68
percent increase in admissions for MICS 4
offenders; and
length of stay for Alaska's felony drug offenders
has increased by 16 percent.
Mr. Shilling addressed slide 14, "Research Shows: Long
Prison Sentences for Drug Offenders Have Low Deterrent
Value":
There is no significant effect of longer prison stays
on recidivism rates (i.e. staying in prison longer
does not make an offender less likely to recommit a
crime).
In addition, some studies find that severe punishments
such as felony convictions and prison terms may have
criminogenic effects, causing offenders to be more
likely to commit crimes in the future.
1:57:58 PM
Senator Bishop surmised that the report stated that one in
15,000 drug deals were made before an arrest was made. Mr.
Shilling agreed.
Mr. Shilling highlighted slide 15, "Sentencing
Recommendations":
5. Limit the use of prison for lower-level misdemeanor
offenders
6. Revise drug penalties to focus the most the severe
punishments on higher-level drug offenders
7. Utilize inflation-adjusted property thresholds
Align non-sex felony presumptive ranges with prior
presumptive terms
8. Expand and streamline the use of discretionary
parole
9. Implement a specialty parole option for long-term
geriatric inmates
10. Incentivize completion of treatment for sex
offenders with an earned time policy
Mr. Shilling discussed slide 16, "Felony Theft Threshold in
Alaska Has Not Kept Pace with Inflation."
Mr. Shilling addressed slide 17, "Research Shows: Raising
the Felony Theft Threshold Has No Impact on Crime":
Between 2001 and 2011, 23 states raised their felony
theft thresholds. In these 23 states, the change in
threshold had no impact, up or down, in the state's
overall property crime rate.
In fact, property and larceny crime rates fell
slightly more in the 23 states that raised their
thresholds from 2001 to 2011 than the 27 states that
did not.
Senator Dunleavy wondered whether there was a consideration
regarding the financial hardship as a result the absence of
an item. Mr. Shilling replied that the issue was
considering when addressing the paying of restitution. He
stated that the consideration was not addressed in
sentencing.
2:02:16 PM
Senator Hoffman supported the escalators, in order to avoid
a larger factor. He felt that the stolen item was the same
product, with a vast difference in dollars. He remarked
that there may be an added value of larger products in
rural Alaska that would put people over the threshold,
because of the high cost of living. Mr. Shilling replied
that there was a disparity in how the law was applied,
based on where you live.
Co-Chair MacKinnon urged the court to consider the cost
differential.
Senator Hoffman wanted something other than a rural
exemption.
Co-Chair MacKinnon queried the committee that removed the
link to the consumer price index (CPI) Mr. Shilling replied
that it was the State Affairs Committee. He remarked that
the increase for vehicle theft was removed, so it remained
at $750. He shared that the threshold for fraudulent use of
an access device was lowered to $50 as the dividing line
between a felony and a misdemeanor.
Senator Hoffman queried the committee's justification for
the changes. Mr. Shilling replied that he was not privy to
many of the policy discussions when developing the
amendments. He stated that there was some history
surrounding the threshold for fraudulent use of an access
device.
Senator Bishop wondered if there was an elimination of the
CPI. Mr. Shilling replied that in order to implement the
five year adjustment of the CPI, the bill "piggy backed" on
existing language in the minimum wage statute. That statute
relied on the Department of Labor and Workforce Development
(DOLWF) calculation of the CPI.
2:07:06 PM
Senator Olson queried the commission's position on those
changes. Mr. Shilling replied that the commission
unanimously recommended that the property crime threshold
be raised to $2000 and linked to inflation.
Senator Olson queried the commission's position on the
change in the access device. Mr. Shilling replied that they
recommended that
Mr. Shilling highlighted slide 18, "Sentencing
Recommendations":
5. Limit the use of prison for lower-level misdemeanor
offenders
6. Revise drug penalties to focus the most the severe
punishments on higher-level drug offenders
7. Utilize inflation-adjusted property thresholds
8. Align non-sex felony presumptive ranges with prior
presumptive terms
9. Expand and streamline the use of discretionary
parole
10. Implement a specialty parole option for long-term
geriatric inmates
11. Incentivize completion of treatment for sex
offenders with an earned time policy
Mr. Shilling looked at slide 19, "In 2005, Alaska Moved
From Presumptive Terms to Presumptive Ranges." He stated
that the legislature had raised sentences in 2005 in
response to a US Supreme Court case: Blakeley v.
Washington. Following that case, states were required to do
sentencing differently. He stated that Alaska moved from a
presumptive term system to a presumptive range system. He
noted that, in developing the ranges, the legislature used
the former term as the bottom of the new range. He remarked
that there was some intent language in that bill. He noted
that it was the expressed intent of the legislature that
there not be an overall increase in the amount of active
imprisonment time. He stressed that using the former term
as the bottom allowed for only upward movement in length of
sentences.
Mr. Shilling discussed slide 20, "Change in Felony
Sentencing Led to Increases in Length of Stay Behind Bars":
From 2004 to 2014, average length of stay for:
Class A felonies grew 80 percent;
Class B felonies grew 8 percent; and
Class C felonies grew 17 percent
Mr. Shilling highlighted slide 21, "Align Ranges with Prior
Terms." The commission recommended a wider range to include
a shorter length of stay than the presumptive term.
Mr. Shilling stated that there were six recommendations
that did not receive unanimous support.
Senator Bishop stressed that there should be training and
rehabilitation to reduce recidivism. Mr. Shilling replied
that the justice reinvestment initiative was focused on
that issue.
Senator Bishop remarked that the efforts to alter the
current system was an attempt to reduce recidivism.
2:13:01 PM
Mr. Shilling discussed slide 22, "Sentencing
Recommendations":
5. Limit the use of prison for lower-level misdemeanor
offenders
6. Revise drug penalties to focus the most the severe
punishments on higher-level drug offenders
7. Utilize inflation-adjusted property thresholds
8. Align non-sex felony presumptive ranges with prior
presumptive terms
9. Expand and streamline the use of discretionary
parole
10. Implement a specialty parole option for long-term
geriatric inmates
11. Incentivize completion of treatment for sex
offenders with an earned time policy
Mr. Shilling highlighted slide 23, "Parole Eligibility
Applied Inconsistently." He stated that eligibility for
discretionary parole was restricted to the most serious
crimes: unclassified felonies. He stated that unclassified
felonies included crimes such as murder. The discretionary
parole also included the lowest level felonies: first and
second time class C felonies; and first time class B
felonies. He stated that the commission recommended
expanding eligibility to those individuals; and expanding
eligibility to sex offenders, except for repeat class A and
unclassified sex offenders. He stated that the commission
determined that reducing ass sex offender sentencing should
not be included in the recommendation. The commission
recommended an examination of sex offenders on a more
individualized case by case basis.
Mr. Shilling addressed slide 24, "For Those Who are
Eligible, Parole Underutilized":
On any given month in 2014, an average of 463 inmates
were eligible for discretionary parole, and an average
of only 15 parole hearings were held.
Anecdotal reports point to long waits for parole
hearings and archaic and confusing application
procedures as reasons why offenders choose not to
apply for parole.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered if there were only fifteen
applications for the fifteen hearings held. Mr. Shilling
replied in the affirmative.
2:15:49 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon queried who received the parole
application; and how the applications were available to the
inmates.
JEFF EDWARDS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PAROLE BOARD, ANCHORAGE
(via teleconference), replied that once an inmate became
eligible, there was a list generated by the institutional
staff. The list was then posted throughout the institution.
There was a deadline for the inmates who wished to apply
for discretionary parole to fill out the application.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered if institutional officers
denied incomplete packages. Mr. Edwards replied in the
negative. He explained that the packet would be returned,
if it was found that they are incomplete.
Co-Chair MacKinnon queried the number of inmates who did
not have a GED, had trouble reading, or had dyslexia. Mr.
Edwards did not know the answer to the question. He
explained that there was an outsourcing technical
assistance to specifically address the application process.
He stated that the previous application would be difficult
for someone with a fifth grade education. There was a
recent alteration to the application to make it less
complex with fairly simple questions. He agreed to provide
a copy of the application to the committee.
Senator Dunleavy queried the difference between
discretionary and administrative parole. Mr. Edwards
replied that the basis of administrative parole deems a
certain class of inmate who met the specific requirements
to be automatically released without a hearing. He
explained that discretionary parole addressed a separate
class of inmate that would, if eligible, appear before the
board for a hearing. He stressed that a hearing must be
heard for administrative parole, should the victim of a
crime request a hearing.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asserted that one in five people have
dyslexia, or a related issue. Mr. Shilling did not know if
that was true.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered if the current system would
change to allow for everyone to qualify for parole. Mr.
Shilling replied in the affirmative. He stated that once a
person became eligible for parole, they were granted a
hearing.
Mr. Shilling continued to discuss slide 24. He addressed
the issue of administrative parole.
2:21:44 PM
Senator Dunleavy queried examples of individuals on
administrative parole. Mr. Shilling replied that some class
C, such as theft under $750 or some drug cases, would be
allowed administrative parole. He furthered that there were
some violent crimes, such as assault, were class B and
class C felonies. He stated that criminally negligent
homicide was a class B felony. He shared that the sponsor
was open to making adjustments to that policy.
2:22:45 PM
Mr. Shilling discussed slide 25, "Sentencing
Recommendations":
5. Limit the use of prison for lower-level misdemeanor
offenders
6. Revise drug penalties to focus the most the severe
punishments on higher-level drug offenders
7. Utilize inflation-adjusted property thresholds
8. Align non-sex felony presumptive ranges with prior
presumptive terms
9. Expand and streamline the use of discretionary
parole
10. Implement a specialty parole option for long-term
geriatric inmates
11. Incentivize completion of treatment for sex
offenders with an earned time policy
Mr. Shilling highlighted slide 26, "Population of Oldest
Offenders Has More than Doubled in Past 10 Years." He
stressed that the geriatric prison population had more than
doubled in the last ten years. He stated that it was due to
the significant increase in sentences in recent years.
Mr. Shilling looked at slide 27, "Alaska's Oldest Offenders
Least Likely to Recidivate Upon Release." He remarked that
the geriatric offenders were the least likely to
recidivate. He stated that there was no special option for
parole for this cohort of offenders in Alaska. He stressed
that geriatric offenders were the least likely to
recidivate. He added that geriatric inmates cost two to
three times more to incarcerate than other inmates. The
commission recommended a parole option, specifically for
geriatric inmates. They recommended an option for a parole
hearing, if an inmate was between the ages of 55 and 60,
and served ten years of their sentence. The recommendation
was changed in the state affairs committee to exclude
unclassified felons and sex offenders. He remarked that it
was currently likely that the policy would have no impact,
because those were the only types of offenders who served
long sentences.
Co-Chair MacKinnon noted that everyone in the committee
would be considered "geriatric."
Mr. Shilling noted that the State Affairs Committee
adjusted the geriatric age from 55 to 60.
Mr. Shilling addressed slide 28, "Sentencing
Recommendations":
5. Limit the use of prison for lower-level misdemeanor
offenders
6. Revise drug penalties to focus the most the severe
punishments on higher-level drug offenders
7. Utilize inflation-adjusted property thresholds
8. Align non-sex felony presumptive ranges with prior
presumptive terms
9. Expand and streamline the use of discretionary
parole
10. Implement a specialty parole option for long-term
geriatric inmates
11. Incentivize completion of treatment for sex
offenders with an earned time policy
Mr. Shilling highlighted slide 30, "Sex Offender Treatment
Proven to Work, But Underfunded in Alaska":
A cost-benefit analysis compiling all credible
evaluations of sex offender treatment found that in-
prison treatment had a cost-benefit ratio of $1.87
(i.e. for every $1 spent on treatment, there is a
$1.87 dollar benefit returned to the state and state
residents).
However, in Alaska, the need for in-prison sex
offender treatment far outstrips the supply.
Currently, the waitlist for treatment is at least four
years long.
Mr. Shilling discussed slide 29, "Sex Offenders Staying 86
Percent Longer Behind Bars Over Past 10 Years." He stressed
that sex offenders were spending much longer in prison than
in the past.
2:27:31 PM
Senator Bishop assumed that the report showed almost a
dollar for dollar return on investment. Mr. Shilling
agreed.
Co-Chair MacKinnon shared that she had a specific view
based on her experience as an executive director of a rape
crisis center. She remarked that in any given evening there
could be as many as four people victimized at one time. She
stressed the importance of evaluating the recommendation.
She remarked that objectivity was sometimes lost when
personal opinion or past experiences affect policy
examination. She remarked that there were many different
ways to examine "reoffending."
Senator Dunleavy wondered if the discussion was related to
the sex offender.
Co-Chair MacKinnon replied that the consideration of the
investment return should be weighed against the
recommendations of victim advocacy agencies in order to
understand the research.
Senator Dunleavy felt that there could be a situation with
two teenagers only three years apart who were engaged in a
mutual relationship. He stressed that the situation was
much different than a geriatric person and a child.
2:32:37 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon shared that she had a similar
conversation as related to consensual sex, such as
statutory rape. She stated that it was a difficult issue
for victim advocacy groups. She remarked that she
understood the gravity of assigning a person as "sex
offender" for their entire life. She wondered if the
statute was a three year differential, once over the age of
18. Mr. Shilling replied that he did not know.
Co-Chair MacKinnon noted that an audience member was
indicating in the affirmative.
Senator Dunleavy stressed that an expert in the field may
help the committee understand the issue.
Co-Chair MacKinnon shared that there would be some victims'
rights agencies available to provide information.
Mr. Shilling shared that there were many advocates
available for more information.
Senator Bishop felt that his question may not be answered.
He wondered if alcohol addiction was the same as sexual
addiction.
Co-Chair MacKinnon had a similar question.
Senator Dunleavy stressed that he would like to hear
someone that was focused on the science of sex offending.
Co-Chair MacKinnon shared that she would hear more
information from experts.
2:40:15 PM
NANCY MEADE DIRECTOR, GENERAL COUNCIL, ALASKA COURT
SYSTEM, stressed that the Court's position was neutral on
the legislation. She stated that the sentencing provisions
were statutes that the Court simply provides. She stated
that the pretrial provisions directly impacted the courts.
2:42:31 PM
AT EASE
2:43:04 PM
RECONVENED
2:43:20 PM
Ms. Meade stated that the bail was set by judges based on
recommendations, looking at the offense and what needed to
occur to maintain public safety. She remarked that there
was a constitutional right to bail. She remarked that the
commission was concerned that more propel were in jail
before the proof of innocence. She stated that there would
be a risk assessment on each person that was arrested. She
stated that the court would be provided with information,
in order to have bail set 24 hours before the arrest. She
stated that the bill may undergo a rewrite.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered how and who would adopt a risk
assessment tool. She understood that there were other
states that used an assessment tool at a high rate of
success. Ms. Meade replied that the Department of
Corrections (DOC) would use the assessment tool.
Co-Chair MacKinnon surmised that DOC would select the risk
assessment.
2:48:51 PM
Senator Bishop assumed that there was a matrix that was
"off the shelf", because the report was using data from
other parts of the country. Ms. Meade replied that several
states already used the pretrial assessment tool, including
Kentucky. She stated that DOC would decide whether to
adjust the other state's tools.
Co-Chair MacKinnon queried suggestions on the significant
changes in bail statutes. She remarked that the court may
not have the flexibility. Ms. Meade replied that the court
did not have a problem with no discretion, rather that it
was a change from the current system. She shared that,
currently the court had the discretion to set bail amounts
and conditions.
Co-Chair MacKinnon encouraged work with her staff. Ms.
Meade agreed.
Co-Chair MacKinnon queried additional comments. Ms. Meade
replied that the court was ready to implement the pretrial
provisions. She stated that there were other provisions
that she would speak to at a later date.
Co-Chair Kelly asserted that the Court system took
positions on bills.
2:53:07 PM
QUINLAN STEINER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, DEPARTMENT OF
ADMINISTRATION, introduced himself. He testified in support
of the initiatives in the bill. He stated that he was a
member of the commission, and shared some conversations
regarding their recommendations.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered how restitution as a reward or
penalty system was discussed. Mr. Steiner replied that the
discussion was conducted in terms of the sentencing
statutes. He shared that there was a sentencing statute
that provided for payment, and child support was the
highest restitution. He shared that jail time was not a
deterrent for theft. He stressed that there was more
opportunity for rehabilitation when jail time was not
applied to a crime.
2:58:27 PM
AT EASE
3:02:14 PM
RECONVENED
3:03:09 PM
DEAN WILLIAMS, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
commented on the pretrial services section of the bill. He
remarked that he had expressed the importance of the
reinvestment portion of the bill. He observed that the plan
was a starting place, and he echoed Mr. Schilling's
comments. He felt that there was wisdom in the timeframe of
the implementation model. He stressed that, upon passage of
the bill, the work would immediately begin in the
department. He felt that allowing for time was essential to
properly implement the program.
Co-Chair MacKinnon queried the objectivity of the proposed
risk assessment. Commissioner Williams replied that the
risk assessment had not been designed. He was happy to
examine an "off the shelf tool." He stressed that the
assessment tools were assumed to me non-interviewed, rather
it was about the gathering of the data.
3:07:41 PM
Senator Hoffman wondered how the parole section would work,
and wondered if the bill allowed for an inmate to decline
parole. Commissioner Williams shared that he had never seen
an issue of someone declining parole, but agreed that it
could occur.
Senator Hoffman remarked that some were not applying for
parole, because they did not want parole. Commissioner
Williams replied that there was some confusion about
eligibility. He remarked that some did not apply for
parole, because they did not want the conditions of parole.
He felt that parole and probation provisions in the bill
would change the workload in DOC. He added that the
additional individuals in parole would require examinations
of DOC operations.
Senator Hoffman felt that the parole provision would save
the state a considerable amount of dollars for
reinvestment. He queried any contemplation of how those
dollars would be reinvested in the parole department.
Commissioner Williams replied that he was working with the
executive director of the commission about how to possibly
expand the opportunities.
3:10:50 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered how the monitor device
provisions would treat Alaskans fairly. She wondered
whether electronic monitoring was available in small and
remote communities. Commissioner Williams replied that
there was an issue of the use of the word "may" and "shall"
as to require the electronic monitoring for first time
offenders.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered if there was additional
feedback. Mr. Edwards replied that he had a high level
overview.
Co-Chair MacKinnon noted that Legislative Budget and Audit
(LB&A) had commissioned a report for DOC to examine cost
saving measures and make recommendations to the
legislature. She remarked that there may be an opportunity
to allow some flexibility for prison exit for low risk
offenders. She remarked that there may be some changes that
would not allow for that possibility. She stated that it
was asserted that approximately one-third of the population
would never reoffend or commit a crime after
incarcerations; one-third would or should be locked away,
because they were high-risk to society; and one-third would
require objective criteria to determine the possibility of
rehabilitation. She wondered if that was an accurate
assertion. Mr. Edwards agreed with those statements, in an
overall perspective. He shared that the parole board had
developed and adopted a tool to place the inmates in those
specific thirds. He shared that the board had evaluated
those categories and risks, and remarked that the release
decisions were not "gut instinct", and were rather
extremely systematic.
3:17:39 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon recalled a study that would provide an
objective tool with some risk assessments to allow for the
proper justice for the crime. She wondered whether there
were conversations related to that issue. Mr. Edwards
responded in the affirmative, and felt that the bill would
target those individuals and the automatic granting of
release of those who were low risk, such as first time
felons.
Co-Chair MacKinnon surmised that it was believed that the
issue was related to administrative parole.
3:20:22 PM
JOHN SKIDMORE DIRECTOR, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF
LAW, stated that he had served as a prosecutor for 15
years. He stated that he was not a member of the Criminal
Justice Commission. He thanked the committee and the bill
sponsor for all of the work. He stated that the Department
of Law (DOL) supported the risk assessment tool. He stated
that DOL supported the shift of the felony theft threshold
to align with inflation. He stated that increasing the
threshold to $2000 could provide the return of property
quickly, because misdemeanor crimes were solved more
quickly than felonies. He shared that there should be a
correction on page 48 related to the aggravator, and how
the aggravator for a misdemeanor offense was proven. He
noted that there were two separate burdens of proof: the
jury and the judge.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered if there was anything related
to sentencing and pretrial that was not included in the
bill. Mr. Skidmore replied that there were always concerns
that the criminal division, and encouraged the committee to
adhere to recommendations from the commission.
Co-Chair MacKinnon announced that amendments on the current
bill were due by 5pm on Friday. She discussed the schedule
for the remainder of the week.
SB 91 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
3:32:26 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 3:32 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 91 Pretrial Sentencing 033016.pdf |
SFIN 3/30/2016 1:00:00 PM |
SB 91 |
| SB 91 version LS0541 G work draft OVR written feedback.pdf |
SFIN 3/30/2016 1:00:00 PM |
SB 91 |
| SB 91 NFIB Opposition Letter.pdf |
SFIN 3/30/2016 1:00:00 PM |
SB 91 |