Legislature(2017 - 2018)SENATE FINANCE 532
10/23/2017 03:00 PM Senate 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 | |
| Presentation: Crime and Justice Policy Review | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
FOURTH SPECIAL SESSION
JOINT MEETING
SENATE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
October 23, 2017
3:02 p.m.
3:02:37 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Hoffman called the Senate Finance Committee
meeting to order at 3:02 p.m.
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Lyman Hoffman, Co-Chair
Senator Anna MacKinnon, Co-Chair (via teleconference)
Senator Click Bishop, Vice-Chair
Senator Gary Stevens
Senator Peter Micciche
Senator Donny Olson
Senator Natasha von Imhof
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT
none
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator John Coghill, Chair
Senator Mia Costello
Senator Bill Wielechowski
Senator Mike Dunleavy
Senator Pete Kelly
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT
none
ALSO PRESENT
Senator Kevin Meyer; Senator Cathy Giessel; Senator Tom
Begich; Senator David Wilson; Senator Dennis Egan; Walt
Monegan, Commissioner, Department of Public Safety; John
Skidmore, Director, Criminal Division, Department of Law.
SUMMARY
^PRESENTATION: CRIME and JUSTICE POLICY REVIEW
3:03:43 PM
Co-Chair Hoffman reviewed the meeting agenda. He stated
that the joint committee would discuss SB 54, which was
comprised of amendments to SB 91 [criminal justice reform
legislation passed in 2016]. He thought everyone was aware
that the Senate had acted by passing SB 91, which was now
signed into law. He continued that the committee had acted
on SB 54, which was the Senate's version of fixes to the
bill. The bill was currently in the other body awaiting
action.
Co-Chair Hoffman emphasized that it was important to stay
focused on fixing the problems that were in SB 91. He
stated that the members of the Senate strongly believed
fixes needed to happen to SB 91 in the form of SB 54. The
committee would hear from the Department of Law.
3:06:20 PM
Chair Coghill noted that SB 91 had been the product of
recommendations from the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission
(ACJC), which had been formed by SB 64 [passed during the
2013-14 legislative session]. The commission had
investigated the question of Alaska's high rate recidivism,
and had come up with 21 recommendations. Most of the
recommendations had ended up in SB 91, which was meant to
make the best use of funds. Additionally, the legislation
was intended to strengthen probation and parole, reinvest
where possible, and incentivize compliance with good
behavior. The legislation had increased mandatory minimums
which had not been congruent with public condemnation.
Chair Coghill continued to discuss SB 91, detailing that
there was required risk assessments and post-jail planning.
Defendants would be released on pre-trial supervision for
in a coordinated way the first time. He qualified that the
pre-trial supervision provision had not totally come to
fruition. The bill had required more severe penalties on
drug dealing and drug trafficking; and had changed some of
the lower-level penalties. He went on that SB 91 had
established court reminders and had enhanced victim's
advocacy significantly.
Chair Coghill continued to discuss the history of SB 91. In
the process of the implementation, the sponsor had realized
that the probation set forward for some crimes was not
sufficient. Additionally, property theft was on the rise
and law enforcement lacked sufficient tools. Additionally,
there were violations to conditions of release. To respond
to public outcry, police input, and the Department of Law
(LAW); solutions came out in the form of SB 54, which the
Senate had passed the previous year.
Chair Coghill discussed SB 54, explaining that the bill
recriminalized the violations of conditions of release so
there would be a penalty to cause a change of action or put
offenders in jail if need be. He specified that the first-
time C Felony was debated at length. At a recommendation
from LAW, in SB 54 the sponsor expanded the sentencing for
a first-time C Felony to up to a year of jail time.
3:10:11 PM
Chair Coghill explained that SB 54 had expanded theft
crimes (felonies) and escalated B felonies; wherein the
first time had monetary fine potential and further
violations had jail time potential. The department had
shown the sponsor that the provisions of SB 91 were not
sufficient to get offenders to change behavior.
Additionally, SB 54 put an aggravator on an A Misdemeanor,
which allowed judges more discretion. The four changes
delivered tools to the police and answered some of the
challenges of the courts. When the Senate had passed the
bill, there was expectation that debate would follow
concerning C Felonies. He discussed debate over the
proposed changes contained in SB 54.
Chair Coghill had found that over the previous months that
LAW, the courts, and the police force had recognized that
the tools would be sufficient to implement public safety.
The changes were not implemented yet. He wanted to
demonstrate what had been done to answer the concerns
created by SB 91. He added that SB 55 had been signed into
law, and was comprised of technical issues. He emphasized
that the focus of the presentation was to demonstrate that
SB 54 had addressed some of the serious public safety
concerns.
3:12:39 PM
WALT MONEGAN, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY,
testified in support of SB 54. He was delighted to speak on
why he considered SB 54 to be necessary. He relayed that
the department had numerous meetings in which there was
public testimony, and there had been a number of
individuals who had expressed dismay at the results of SB
91. He thought the public condemnation aspect of SB 54 was
sorely needed. He stated that the department had worked
with LAW and ACJC to put forth the provisions of SB 54.
Senator Kelly asked if SB 54 met the commissioner's desires
for a bill to correct provisions of SB 91.
Commissioner Monegan was not entirely sure of any
amendments proposed in the other body.
Senator Kelly stated there were no amendments yet.
Commissioner Monegan stated that the department supported
everything that was in SB 54; including the additional
discretion to judges.
3:15:30 PM
Senator Stevens referred to objections to SB 91 and thought
many had considered that the entire bill needed to be
withdrawn or repealed. He thought every major bill needed
modifications as it went through the process. He asked the
commissioner to comment on the idea of complete replacement
of SB 91.
Commissioner Monegan discussed his history in law
enforcement. He acknowledged that it had been critical to
address the high rate of recidivism prior to the passage of
SB 91. He referenced SB 64, which he had been asked to
review while in leadership at the Alaska Native Justice
Center. He thought things could be done in a more humane
way. He thought SB 91 created the opportunity to address
each individual that was in the criminal justice system,
and tried to get them to change their ways rather than just
incarcerate them. He discussed the negative effects of
incarceration without rehabilitation. He had supported SB
91 but acknowledged that some tweaks needed to be made. He
was in support of SB 54 and SB 55.
Senator Olson referred to criticism of SB 91, and wondered
if the positive effects of the legislation had enough time
to effect factors such as recidivism, particularly in rural
areas. He wondered if in addition to the change in the law,
there had been a change in society from the opioid epidemic
getting a strong foothold. He thought blame on effects of
SB 91 could have been misplaced.
Commissioner Monegan thought that Senator Olson had made a
good point in reference to blame. He acknowledged a rise in
crime in concert with a drug epidemic in the United States.
There was an uptick in all crime areas, with the exception
of arson and homicide.
Senator Olson asked if Commissioner Monegan stood by his
statement that SB 54 was absolutely necessary.
Commissioner Monegan answered in the affirmative.
3:20:50 PM
Senator Micciche thought that there did not seem to be a
correlation with increased Department of Public Safety
(DPS) spending and a decreased crime rate. He considered
the number of empty positions in the department and
recalled funding five additional trooper positions the
previous year. He recalled a requested a report from DPS as
to how the vacancies would be filled. The report was to
also address the reason for the vacancies and how to retain
the individuals. He asked if it was true that the crime
rate began increasing in 2011 and began rapidly increasing
in 2014. He recalled that SB 91 began to take effect in
mid-2016.
Commissioner Monegan agreed that the crime rate was indeed
rising long before the passage of SB 91, because of factors
such as the opioid crisis, reduction in state troopers, and
reductions in the Anchorage Police Department. He stated
that normally when there was a loss of troopers or police
officers, existing personnel would be tasked with
responding to higher priority crimes. He remarked that
"people crimes" would always trump property crimes. He used
the analogy of a "perfect storm" to describe the reduction
in force and the drug-induced uptick in crime.
3:24:35 PM
Senator Micciche stated that the Senate had taken the
departments' suggestions and ACJC's suggestions to heart,
and had passed both SB 54 and SB 55. He hoped the other
body agreed with the changes contained in SB 54. He thought
it was important for people to know that the Senate would
do what it took to help relieve the increase in crime in
the state. He did not think that SB 91 and SB 55 were the
final solution, and thought more work needed to be done. He
thought it was necessary to understand how to interrupt the
flow of drugs, and to understand what some of the socio-
economic issues were in the state. He discussed the cycles
of crime in the state, and thought they also followed the
economic downturn in the state.
Commissioner Monegan agreed that crime was cyclical and
followed economic changes. He asserted that a downturn in
the economy pressured individuals to commit crimes in order
to satisfy drug habits. He reiterated that the opioid
crisis was a national problem. He thought that SB 54 could
give some of the tools back to enable the system to hold
individuals accountable.
3:27:12 PM
Senator Wielechowski relayed that he had sat on the Senate
Judiciary Committee during hearings on SB 91. He recalled
that the attorney general, the commissioner of DPS and the
commissioner of Department of Corrections were asked if the
passage of SB 91 would have a detrimental impact on public
safety. The committee was told definitively that it would
not. He wondered if the testifiers had been wrong. He asked
what sort of decreases in crime the state could expect if
SB 54 was passed.
Commissioner Monegan thought that no one had envisioned
such a widespread drug epidemic. He thought his
predecessors had been very confident that SB 91 would not
have a detrimental effect to public safety but acknowledged
that perhaps not all mitigating factors had been foreseen.
He was not able to quantify a future decrease in crime as a
result of SB 54. He thought in addition to what was being
done in intervention and education, the actual apprehension
of C Felony offenders combined with the optional sentencing
up to one year might be more incentive for individuals to
seek treatment. He considered the point of SB 91 to be
treating individuals in a more correct and humane manner.
3:30:02 PM
Senator Wielechowski referenced data on un-prosecuted
crimes due to a lack of prosecutors. He noted the high
incidence of violence against women in the state. He
wondered how it was possible to change the culture of
violence in the state.
Commissioner Monegan thought that in order to effect change
in a culture, there needed to be a collaborative effort
between education, enforcement, and treatment. He used the
adage "it takes a village to raise a child" to describe the
importance of collective action to aid in correct decisions
for the state. He thought that the answer should start with
SB 54.
Senator Wielechowski asked if Alaskans should consider that
the passage of SB 54 would solve the crime problem in
Alaska, or if there was more work to be done. He asked if
the commissioner had specific policy ideas for the
legislature to consider trying and address the crime
problem.
Commissioner Monegan thought that SB 54 was a good first
step on what he considered a journey. He emphasized that SB
91 would require a process, like all criminal justice
efforts. He thought there were always changing factors that
affected the process. He thought it was helpful that ACJC
had been extended. He asserted that the council members
were subject matter experts from across the state and could
provide oversight as more issues came to light. He thought
that SB 91 was not fully built yet, and used the example of
pre-trial staffing, which was not yet in place. He thought
that given time, there would be a clearer picture of the
effects of SB 91.
3:34:24 PM
Co-Chair Hoffman thought that the importance of the ACJC
and its reports could not be overstated. He wanted the
people of the state to understand that the legislature was
continuing to look at what problems might arise, which was
why the extension of the commission was so important.
Senator von Imhof asked if the legalization of marijuana
had an effect on any type of crime; or if it increased the
frequency of accidents, which would take time from public
safety officers.
Commissioner Monegan thought it was still too early to
pinpoint any problems that resulted from legalization of
marijuana. He thought it was easier to identify problems
with alcohol. Anecdotally he had gleaned that problems
usually occurred when there was a mix of alcohol and
marijuana. He recalled arresting an individual that was on
drugs.
3:37:05 PM
Senator Dunleavy referred to increased crime and the
resultant change in activities of residents (such as the
purchase of guns and home surveillance technology) of the
state who were feeling affected. He thought Alaska had a
wide tolerance for behaviors, more so than any other state.
He thought there had been a significant view in the way
people viewed their fellow Alaskans, and in people's daily
activities. He thought people were starting to feel as if
they were under siege and had to take matters in to their
own hands. He wondered what to tell the people of Alaska.
Commissioner Monegan thought that the issues of being safe
and feeling safe were different issues. He thought many
police agencies strove for the feeling of safety through
presence, outreach, and showing crime statistics. He
referred to publicity of increased crime and suggested that
it helped to disrupt the feeling of safety. He did not
think it was bad to be cognizant of one's own personal
property and how to stay safe.
Commissioner Monegan addressed the question of increased
home protection measures. He believed individuals should
research the legality of the matter. He advised that if
someone was considering using deadly force, it was
important to be consciously aware of when it was justified
and when it was not.
3:40:26 PM
Senator Dunleavy asked if the current crime rate was
something to become accustomed to, or rather was it a
temporary condition that could be addressed.
Commissioner Monegan referred to the cyclical nature of
crime and recalled that the crime rate in the 1980's had
been higher than currently. He did not recall as much crime
in the news in the 1980's when he was a patrolman. He
thought crime was cyclical and that the state would come
out of it. He thought that the state would experience the
current crime rate until the perpetrators of the crimes
were dealt with. He thought SB 54 would make it possible to
hold people accountable in a way they currently were not.
Senator Kelly remarked that the state was experiencing a
nation-wide trend. He referred to the confirmation of
United States Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and noted
that an amazing amount of time was spent on the opioid
problem and rise in crime. He thought other states had seen
huge increases in crime that had not been seen in Alaska.
He stated that crime resided in the hearts of men and
women, and not in the statute books. He did not think
legislation would magically get rid of crime. He thought
the answers to the problem were more complex than the
passage of SB 54.
3:43:30 PM
Vice-Chair Bishop thought that parts of his district had
felt the effects of crime issues sooner than individuals in
a bigger city. He stated that the Senate had taken the
matter to heart and worked on the issue. He referred to the
addition of troopers in DPS. He referred to personal
experience being a victim of crime and having proximity to
opioid abuse. He considered that the legislature was taking
a measured approach to make the changes correcting SB 91.
He agreed with the assertion that the legislation would
need time to work.
Vice-Chair Bishop referred to a discussion with a trooper
the previous summer, who had relayed there was about 50 or
60 known individuals causing a problem in his district. The
trooper considered that if the individuals could be
apprehended, a large part of the problem would be solved in
Fairbanks. He wondered if the commissioner could estimate a
similar number for the city of Anchorage.
Commissioner Monegan was not aware of a number for
Anchorage. He referenced the homelessness issue and
suggested that 10 percent of the population accounted for
90 percent of the police transports. He thought the
comments by the trooper had some basis in other issues. He
thought if such individuals were held accountable for what
they were doing, the percentage would go down.
Vice-Chair Bishop hoped that the bill would include
education, training, and treatment so that offenders would
not go back out on to the street to re-offend.
Commissioner Monegan answered in the affirmative.
3:47:45 PM
JOHN SKIDMORE, DIRECTOR, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF
LAW, discussed questions that had been posed from the
public. The questions included what could be done to
address problems, and how could people get the criminal
justice to be more responsive to concerns. He thought the
Senate had already taken action by passing SB 54, which
contained multiple tools that allowed law enforcement to
address most of the problems that people had repeatedly
(vehicle thefts, arrests, immediate release). He thought
all of the concerns had been addressed through various
provisions in SB 54.
Mr. Skidmore emphasized that he agreed with what the
commissioner had stated, that SB 54 was not a silver bullet
that would magically fix everything. The legislation did
return discretion to courts; and provided additional tools
to law enforcement, prosecutors, and courts to try and
respond to some of the problems such as the opioid crisis.
He agreed with Senator Coghill and others in the assertion
that other parts of SB 91 were very important in trying to
address some of the criminal justice issues in the state.
3:49:55 PM
Senator Olson thought one criticisms of the bill had been
that judges were not exercising every tool at their
disposal. He thought Mr. Skidmore had commented that the
courts had been re-empowered to mitigate the crime rate. He
was referring to a time frame from ten years previously to
about five years previously.
Mr. Skidmore was not familiar with the criticism that
judges were not exercising the discretion they had to try
and address problems. He relayed that ACJC had found that
sentencing offenders to lengthy periods of incarceration
(when they were low risk offenders) was not helpful and
could be counter-productive. One of the things SB 91
attempted to do was to adjust sentencing discretion
downward slightly in order to be more similar to that in
2005-2006. He thought that the discretion had been limited
more than it should have been for first-time Class C
felonies.
Mr. Skidmore detailed that SB 54 did not try to adjust all
sentencing provisions in law. He thought SB 54 focused on
areas where discretion had been limited too much; including
first-time Class C felonies, which it adjusted zero to one
year. The zero to one-year sentencing range encompassed two
types of jail: active imprisonment and suspended time. The
provision would return discretion to the judges and was
trying to strike a balance.
3:53:39 PM
Senator Olson used the example of a judge sentencing a
high-risk individual to five years with two years
suspended. He thought judges had suspended sentences to the
point where criminals became more antisocial.
Mr. Skidmore found it difficult to comment without knowing
specifics of the example, but thought the analogy concerned
an individual who was a repeat felony offender. He thought
there needed to be some sanction for such individuals. He
knew that almost anyone sentenced to time in jail would be
released, and the suspended time was hanging over the
offender's head while on probation. He knew that DOC was
focusing on trying to reduce recidivism through considering
what could be done while someone was in custody, and what
could be done when an individual was released and returning
to society.
Senator Dunleavy thought there was speculation as to
whether the administration would make criminal justice
reform a priority focus for the coming year. He wondered if
there would be resources moved within the budget to focus
on the issue. He referenced Alaska's Liquid Natural Gas
project as an area from which funds might be switched.
Commissioner Monegan stated that the administration had
just recently had a cabinet retreat; at which time the
governor had relayed his intention to work towards a safer,
smarter, and stronger state. The governor had expressed
that his priority was public safety. The commissioner
acknowledged the concerns of member's constituents.
3:58:23 PM
Senator Wielechowski recalled that the criminal division
had cut 31 prosecutors and staff, and thought that
(according to the attorney general) there had been 7,000
fewer prosecutions between 2015 and 2016 as a result of the
cuts. The previous year the legislature had added back 3
prosecutors, and he asked if Mr. Skidmore believed that the
department had enough prosecutors and staff so that
criminals were not being set free without consequences.
Mr. Skidmore stated that the division needed more
prosecutors, while acknowledging the state's fiscal
limitations. He thought the LAW budget was an ongoing topic
of discussion in the administration. He stated that the
department would follow the lead that was given to them
based on the resources that were available.
Senator Wielechowski considered that the administration's
top priority was public safety and asked how many more
prosecutors and staff the division would need. He had heard
a statistic that 90 percent of crimes were drug or alcohol
related, and roughly 50 percent of crimes were committed by
people with mental health issues. He wondered if the state
was devoting enough resources to substance abuse treatment
and mental health treatment.
Mr. Skidmore contemplated society and the criminal justice
system, and thought the issue of criminality was not solved
by merely considering how many prosecutors were needed. He
emphasized that more prosecutors would be needed if there
was more law enforcement on the streets. He contended that
if there were more prosecutors, then more defense attorneys
and judges would be needed as well as more space for
whatever sanctions were imposed. He did not think the
issues were straightforward. He thought it was important to
consider society and the entire system as a whole.
4:01:43 PM
Senator Micciche thought there seemed to be no correlation
between spending and the crime rate. He asked if Mr.
Skidmore agreed with the statement.
Mr. Skidmore was unsure of how to answer. He qualified that
law enforcement and prosecutors responded to the crimes
that existed. He pondered if it would drive down the crime
rate if the state simply responded to crimes that existed.
He thought that with increased spending for the criminal
justice system as a whole, it would be easier to hold
people accountable and get them the needed treatment.
Conversely, when the system was cut back, there was less of
the necessary structure needed to help people. He did not
want to say there was causation.
Senator Micciche referred to other states that were
spending money on the opioid problem, and still
experiencing increased crime rates. He did not think that
the numbers were correlated. He asked if there was an
increase in opioid abuse. He discussed prescription drug
and opioid fatalities in the state, which had followed the
national trend of increasing significantly. He asked about
other ways to measure an increase in opioid abuse that led
to crimes.
Mr. Skidmore thought the question of how to quantify opioid
abuse was not an easy question to answer. He thought it
seemed to make sense to look at the amount of treatment
that was available in the state, as well as if there had
been an increase or decrease in the use of the treatment.
He wondered about a way to measure criminal cases and the
percentage associated with alcohol or drugs. He thought the
legislature could undertake measures to require the data to
be gathered.
Mr. Skidmore anecdotally agreed with Senator Wielechowski's
assertion that 90 percent of cases were related to drug or
alcohol use. He discussed his wife's practice as a
healthcare provider and the increased patient struggles
with alcohol and drugs. He did not doubt that the problem
of opioid abuse was increasing, but thought it was
difficult to measure. He thought trying to treat those that
were suffering from opioid addiction was one of the most
important things the state could do, and he thought it was
what the criminal justice reform efforts had tried to
achieve.
Mr. Skidmore thought SB 54 continued towards the goal of
assisting those suffering from opioid addiction and abuse.
He stated that one of the reasons the department had
supported the zero to one-year sentencing discretion for
the court (for first-time C felonies) was that it was the
same amount of time that the judge legally had to order an
offender into residential treatment. He stated that
residential treatment was needed for many types of opioid
abuse. He suggested that treatment was one of the steps
that could be taken to address the problem.
4:06:57 PM
Senator Micciche referenced interrupting the flow of
illegal drugs into the state. He discussed the many
geographic access points to the state, and the propensity
for preventing drugs from entering. He wondered about the
constitution, and how it might hamper public safety and
prosecution. He asked if privacy was a problem. He asked
about the departments vision for further prevention
efforts.
Mr. Skidmore stated that the administration certainly
wanted to expand efforts to interrupt the flow of drugs
into the state. He knew that the administration had
recently spent time analyzing the problem and believed they
had come up with concrete steps they were hoping to discuss
publicly. He disagreed with the notion of the constitution
being in the way. He affirmed that the laws of privacy
prevented officers of the law from searching every single
person that entered the state, and attested that he would
not want to live in a place where such a search was
possible. He thought it was important to stop the flow of
drugs while respecting the values that everyone agreed on.
Vice-Chair Bishop remarked that a U.S. Customs agent had
thoroughly checked his bags.
Commissioner Monegan stated that he supported criminal
justice reform for financial reasons as well as
humanitarian reasons. He thought that the savings would
bolster needed services such as substance abuse treatment.
He discussed the importance of a small window of time for
treatment of addiction. He mentioned the long wait time for
treatment. He asked the committee to consider criminal
justice reform as a healing concept rather than just a
punitive concept.
4:11:07 PM
Chair Coghill thanked the commissioner and the director for
their testimony on the bill. He commented on the concern
for public safety by the administration and the
legislature. He emphasized the need for getting resources
to the right place. He remarked that society was producing
problems faster than the agencies knew how to respond. He
considered that some of the reforms were not being
implemented yet. He reiterated three dates to make note of:
July 2016 - reforms began to be implemented, and
reinvestment into programs began
January 2017 - community supervision and parole
policies put into place
January 2018 - pretrial supervision will begin
Chair Coghill emphasized that pretrial supervision would
begin for the first time in the state, which he thought
would be greatly beneficial. He explained that
approximately $26 million had been focused towards
different areas such as victim's advocacy and Department of
Corrections treatment issues. He acknowledged that new
efforts were not immediately functional or perfect. He
recommended that members and the administration review the
ACJC report that came out October 22, 2017. He thought many
of the issues discussed during the meeting would be
addressed in the commission's report, including the next
steps for addressing behavioral health issues.
Chair Coghill appreciated comments by LAW that referenced
returning discretion to judges and tools to hold people
accountable. He mentioned issues after SB 91, and the
resultant public outcry and dissatisfaction of police. He
thought it was important to get the tools in the hands of
LAW and police to ensure that when someone cried out for
help, there was the means to help them.
4:15:02 PM
Senator Micciche referred to his constituency and asked
about car thefts, burglaries, and shoplifting. He referred
to store owners no longer attempting to stop shoplifting
because of lack of response from law enforcement. He
wondered what to tell constituents that believed SB 91 was
the cause of increased crime.
Mr. Skidmore thought that the repeal of SB 91 would result
in the loss of many important steps that had been taken to
reform the criminal justice system. The overall concept of
the effort was to reduce recidivism. He thought there were
important concepts in SB 91 that should not be thrown out.
He thought the areas of concern were regarding Phase 1
(classification and sentencing). After they were
implemented, LAW had determined that some of the reforms
had unintended consequences, and the department had made
suggestions to make alterations to the law. He thought the
right steps had been taken in introducing SB 54. He
acknowledged that SB 54 would not be an immediate solution,
but thought that it provided appropriate discretion for law
enforcement, prosecutors, and judges to try and respond to
crime.
Mr. Skidmore reiterated that repealing SB 91 would undo
many of the good things that had been accomplished. He used
the example of an individual on probation, and the efficacy
of using incentives along with disincentives.
Co-Chair Hoffman thanked the committee members for their
questions. He thanked the testifiers for their
participation. He thought members of the public should
identify that the Senate was concerned about public safety,
and was sincere in its efforts to correct and reverse the
problems facing the state. He reminded that SB 54 was in
the other body awaiting action. He specified that the bill
included an extension of ACJC, and the committee had just
received the commission's latest report the previous day.
He emphasized that the Senate was willing and able to
address the safety of the people of Alaska.
Co-Chair Hoffman discussed the agenda for the following
day.
ADJOURNMENT
4:20:01 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 4:19 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|