Legislature(2019 - 2020)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
02/27/2019 01:30 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 | |
| Overview of Alaska Criminal Justice Commission - Criminal Justice Data | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
February 27, 2019
1:32 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Shelley Hughes, Chair
Senator Lora Reinbold, Vice Chair
Senator Mike Shower
Senator Peter Micciche
Senator Jesse Kiehl
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION: Alaska Criminal Justice Commission - Criminal
Justice Data
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
MS. SUZANNE DIPIETRO, Executive Director
Alaska Judicial Council
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented an overview of the Alaska Criminal
Justice Commission - Criminal Justice Data.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:32:49 PM
CHAIR SHELLEY HUGHES called the Senate Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:32 p.m. Present at the call to
order were Senators Kiehl, Micciche, Shower, Reinbold and Chair
Hughes.
^Overview of Alaska Criminal Justice Commission - Criminal
Justice Data
Overview of Alaska Criminal Justice Commission - Criminal
Justice Data
1:33:08 PM
CHAIR HUGHES announced that the first order of business would be
an overview of Alaska Criminal Justice Commission - Criminal
Justice Data.
CHAIR HUGHES made opening remarks.
1:34:39 PM
SUZANNE DIPIETRO, Executive Director, Alaska Judicial Council,
Anchorage, explained that the Alaska Judicial Council (AJC) by
statute provides staff for the Alaska Criminal Justice
Commission (ACJC), so she would be testifying as staff to the
commission.
1:35:34 PM
MS. DIPIETRO began the PowerPoint on the Alaska Criminal Justice
Commission - Criminal Justice Data. She reviewed slide 2,
"Information Collected and Analyzed by ACJC, AS 44.19.647."
• Information about sex offense cases
• Trends for supervision violators
• Crime trends
• Trends in pretrial outcomes
1:35:51 PM
MS. DIPIETRO reviewed slide 3, "Sex Offenses Victimization,
Reporting to Law Enforcement, Prosecution, Conviction & Beyond."
She described the process used for processing sex offenses, such
that law enforcement would refer cases to prosecution,
prosecutors would file charges, the courts would determine the
guilt or innocence and sentencing, and the Department of
Corrections would supervise sex offenders on parole.
1:36:26 PM
MS. DIPIETRO reviewed slide 4, "Forthcoming Alaska Criminal
Justice Commission Report to the Legislature AS 44.19.645(4)."
She stated that the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission (ACJC)
just completed its report on sex offenses. This effort was
commissioned by the legislature and the ACJC would present its
findings next week. Most of the information she would summarize
today was derived from the report, she said.
1:36:42 PM
MS. DIPIETRO reviewed slide 5, "Sex Offenses Report, Data
Limitations."
• Exact figures on victimization are impossible,
but victimization surveys indicate that sexual
violence is pervasive in Alaska
• No one study has followed all sex offenses in
Alaska from report through to disposition
• Existing data indicate that many people who
commit sex offenses are not reported, arrested,
or prosecuted
• Many reasons for this, including societal
pressure not to report and standard of proof
required for criminal cases
She said that it is often difficult to obtain accurate
information on the level of victimization in the state, which
the committee discussed at a previous hearing. In terms of sex
offenses, the state has never had a study that followed sex
offenses from victimization through the reporting, prosecution,
and conviction process. She offered to piece together the
information on each stage of the process to provide a sense of
the order of magnitude and how sex offense cases move throughout
the system. Many victims do not report victimization, so many
people who commit sex offenses are never arrested or prosecuted
for a number of reasons including societal pressure not to
report and the high standard of proof required for criminal
cases.
1:37:58 PM
MS. DIPIETRO reviewed slide 6, "Sex Offenses Case Processing."
She reviewed the slide consisting of a schematic that described
how sex offense cases are processed in Alaska. She said an
incident occurs and if it is reported to law enforcement, law
enforcement would investigate. If enough evidence exists to move
forward, the case would be referred for prosecution. After
evaluating the strength of the case, the prosecutor would decide
whether to move forward, and if so, charges are filed. In the
court process, the defendant would either be acquitted, charges
would be dismissed, or the person would be convicted. The
defendant might be convicted of charges not originally filed. If
convicted, the defendant would be sentenced and referred to the
Department of Corrections. After the defendant has served the
sentence, the sex offender would be supervised on probation or
parole.
1:39:16 PM
SENATOR SHOWER asked whether data was available on the number of
cases prosecuted or not prosecuted.
MS. DIPIETRO said she would cover that during the presentation.
1:39:58 PM
MS. DIPIETRO reviewed slide 7, "Estimates of Incidents of
"Sexual Violence."
2015 Alaska Victimization Survey
? 2.9% of the women surveyed said they had experienced
sexual violence within the previous year;
? Using Department of Labor population estimates, 2.9%
of adult women in Alaska equates to about 7,136
individuals in 2015;
? Reported experiences may not be crimes;
? Some populations excluded from survey.
She explained that the Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual
Assault has twice conducted a victimization survey in
partnership with the University of Alaska Justice Center. This
survey did not ask victims whether a statute had been violated.
Instead, the survey asked victims about "sexual violence." For
example, a question would ask whether a person through threats
or force made the victim have sex against his/her will. She
stated that the surveys were conducted by telephone so people
without phones were not surveyed, which would skew the data. She
reviewed the data, noting that 2.9 percent of the women
responded that they had experienced sexual violence within the
previous year. Although the process to extrapolate the number of
victims was not done using the most rigorous analysis, it helps
to give a sense of the magnitude of victims. She noted that the
victims surveyed were all women.
1:41:48 PM
MS. DIPIETRO reviewed slide 8, "Reports to Law Enforcement."
Victim responses to sexual violence are varied:
? Some victims disclose to someone else;
? Some victims do not disclose to anyone;
? The closer the relationship between the victim and
the attacker, the less likely the victim will report
to police;
? In 2017, 1,475 felony sex offenses were reported to
Alaska law enforcement.
She said that many people do not necessarily report sexual
offenses to law enforcement.
1:42:33 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE related his understanding that the figures
spanned a year, but over ten years the figure would not
correlate to 29 percent. He asked whether that factor was part
of the data set.
MS. DIPIETRO answered that the survey was conducted twice. It
contained some lifetime questions. Some respondents were asked
if they had ever experienced sexual violence in their lifetime.
She said the survey responses were posted online and the figures
were much higher although she did not recall them. She offered
to report back to the committee. She said that in 2017, 1,475
felony sex offenses were reported.
1:43:48 PM
MS. DIPIETRO reviewed slide 9, "Disposition of Reports to
Troopers." She directed attention to the pie chart on the slide
that illustrated the disposition of reports to the Alaska State
Troopers from 2008-2011. She noted that it does not include
municipal law enforcement. First, 37 percent of the cases did
not result in an arrest or referral. Some were closed as
unfounded and others were closed by investigation, which meant
that law enforcement did not find enough evidence to arrest the
perpetrator. She stated that 38 percent of the cases were
referred and accepted for prosecution. Approximately 6 percent
of cases were referred and declined for prosecution. She said
that 19 percent of cases led to an immediate arrest. She
acknowledged that a substantial number of cases were not
prosecuted.
1:45:35 PM
At-ease.
1:46:21 PM
CHAIR HUGHES reconvened the meeting.
1:46:26 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked whether the figures were similar for
municipal law enforcement offices.
MS. DIPIETRO answered that she did not have that data, but she
thought it would be possible to obtain it, particularly in
working with the Anchorage Police Department.
SENATOR KIEHL said he thought the information would be very
valuable.
1:47:14 PM
CHAIR HUGHES asked whether there was any sense of the figures if
men and boys were included. She related her understanding that
about 10 percent of the victims are male.
MS. DIPIETRO said she was unsure, but she recalled that Ms.
Monfreda covered it during a previous committee meeting.
CHAIR HUGHES indicated that the figures would increase if male
victims were included.
1:48:30 PM
MS. DIPIETRO reviewed slide 10, "Outcomes of Arrests by All Law
Enforcement Agencies Combined."
• Sex offense arrests by all law enforcement
agencies in Alaska, 2008-2011
• 1,460 arrests
• 97.1% of these arrests led to prosecution.
She said that 1,460 arrests were made by all law enforcement
agencies. When the response begins with an arrest, it often
leads to prosecution. She said the percentage of those arrested
who were prosecuted was quite high.
1:49:48 PM
MS. DIPIETRO reviewed slide 11, "Prosecution: Charging to
Disposition." This bar chart depicted the number of court cases
disposed in 2017. The most serious initial charge was sexual
abuse of a minor in the first degree. She reiterated the
process, that the prosecutors screen cases for probable cause to
move forward. She described the court process as an adversarial
process that could be resolved by a trial, but most often
through a plea agreement. She provided examples for all the
cases completed in 2017, including those with charges filed in
prior years. Almost all cases with an initial charge of first-
degree sexual abuse of a minor resulted in a conviction of some
charge. She pointed out that 5.3 percent of cases were dismissed
or acquitted, but only 23 percent were convicted of the initial
charge. She directed attention to the bar charts that showed the
remainder were convicted of lesser charges.
1:51:39 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked whether an acquittal rate of one in 20 meant
not enough cases were being charged.
MS. DIPIETRO deferred to the Department of Law. She said that
another slide compares the acquittal and dismissal rate for sex
felonies to other types of felonies. She said that the dismissal
rate for sex felonies was a bit higher than for other felonies.
1:52:21 PM
SENATOR SHOWER asked whether 52 percent of the cases closed in
2017 that were initially charged with first degree sexual abuse
of a minor were ones in which the defendant pled down via a plea
agreement. He offered his belief that it seemed like a pretty
high rate.
MS. DIPIETRO answered that it could be a plea agreement or if it
went to trial, the jury may have found the defendant guilty of a
lesser charge. She said the report will reflect a variety of
other charges.
MS. DIPIETRO reviewed the bar chart on slide 12, "Prosecution:
Charging to Disposition, Court Cases Disposed in 2017: Most
Serious Initial Charge was 1st Degree Sexual Assault." She
pointed out that 11.3 percent were convicted of the original
charge. The remainder of the slide showed 24.2 percent of the
cases were dismissed or acquitted, 12.9 percent were convicted
of misdemeanor offenses, 41.9 percent were convicted of other
felony offenses, 8.0 percent were convicted of class B sexual
assault in the second degree and 1.6 percent were convicted of
class A attempted sexual assault in the first degree.
1:54:05 PM
MS. DIPIETRO reviewed slide 12, "Case Resolutions for Felony Sex
Offenses Compared to Felony Assaults." She said that ties into
Senator Kiehl's earlier question, which was one shared by the
commission. This pie charts shows the differences. The
acquittals in felony assault cases in 2017 were smaller than the
ones for felony sex offense cases. However, the conviction on
any charge was roughly comparable, she said.
1:54:41 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked how Alaska's statistics compared to other
states.
MS. DIPIETRO offered to research it and report back to the
committee.
1:55:01 PM
MS. DIPIETRO reviewed slide 13, "After Conviction."
Virtually all defendants convicted of a sex offense
receive a sentence of incarceration;
Once released from prison, sex offenders are monitored
closely by probation officers (containment model) for
extended periods of time;
Sex offenders are less likely than other felony
offenders to be convicted of a new crime after being
released from prison;
Sex offenders are infrequently convicted of new sex
offenses after being released from prison.
She said the only reason defendants would not receive a sentence
of incarceration would be if the person spent a lot of time in
pretrial detention. She said that offenders released from prison
are felons. She said the Department of Corrections uses a
containment model, which involves close supervision. She said it
was encouraging to learn that offenders are infrequently
convicted of new sex offenses after being released from prison.
1:56:24 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked for her sense of the magnitude of
recidivism.
MS. DIPIETRO answered that it was significantly less likely,
although it would depend on how it was counted. She explained
that staff was working to ensure that the data being used from
different sources would compare "apples to apples." The ACJC was
also working to ensure that the information was consistent with
other studies. It was pretty consistent with national statistics
and findings. She reported that based on 7-8 years of studies,
approximately 1-3 percent of sex offenders were convicted of a
new sex offense. She suggested that many of them would still be
on probation.
1:58:13 PM
CHAIR HUGHES asked whether she had data for post-probation
violations.
MS. DIPIETRO answered that the probation period varies, so she
did not currently have that data point. However, it would be
helpful to have that statistic, she said.
1:58:40 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD said that Senator Hughes found that 63 percent
of sexual offenses were unreported nationwide. She said she
wanted to be certain the committee was aware that the statistics
were convictions not incidences of sexual assault.
MS. DIPIETRO agreed. She said that she was providing small bits
of the data, but the report breaks it down by rearrests and
returns to prison for probation violations.
1:59:59 PM
CHAIR HUGHES recalled that 7,000 sexual assaults occurred per
year, with 1,300 reported, but 100-200 were convicted. She
expressed an interest in what policy makers could do and what
tools law enforcement, prosecutors, and judges needed to change
the conviction rate.
MS. DIPIETRO agreed that 220 people were convicted of a sex
offense in 2017.
SENATOR HUGHES asked for further information on the flowchart of
cases processed [as shown on slide 6].
2:00:56 PM
SENATOR SHOWER referred to page 7. He asked for further
clarification on the populations that were excluded from the
survey.
MS. DIPIETRO answered that victims without a phone, children,
and men were not surveyed. In further response to Senator
Shower, she said that children were younger than age 18. She
said that the commission would like to have better data.
2:01:39 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD remarked that the mean age for rape was 15
years of age. She expressed concern that this group of victims
was not captured.
MS. DIPIETRO said the survey was done by the Council on Domestic
Violence and Sexual Assault and the University of Alaska Justice
Center. She said she didn't know for sure, but she imagined that
it might be harmful to survey minors about their experiences
with sexual victimization.
SENATOR REINBOLD said it was appropriate to get the information.
She said the committee just received the Uniform Crime Statistic
Data and that age was being targeted.
CHAIR HUGHES pointed out that privacy issues also must be
considered. She said that it might mean figuring out how a small
sampling could be done with parental permission.
2:03:27 PM
MS. DIPIETRO reviewed slide 15, "Trends in Criminal Justice,
Probation and Parole." She provided an overview of the probation
and parole process. She said that probation and parole typically
was for the period at the end of the process. The offender has
typically been incarcerated. During this period those defendants
convicted of felonies would be supervised to help them
reintegrate into society and to rehabilitate them. The judge who
presided over the person's sentencing would issue an order
outlining the conditions of probation. These conditions would
outline rules and tasks that the probationer must accomplish
while on probation. The judge would be careful to order things
that would help rehabilitate the offender. The probation
officers would provide tools to encourage and incentivize
probationers to complete the tasks that will lead to their
rehabilitation. The probation officers could also formally
sanction probations via a petition to revoke to the court if
they engage in illegal activities or antisocial behaviors.
2:05:23 PM
MS. DIPIETRO, reviewed slide 16, "Probation and Parole." The bar
graphs on the slide showed the probation and parole discharges
since the new administrative sanctions and incentives were
implemented. She reported a slight dip in successful probation
and parole discharges in FY 2015 - 2016 followed by substantial
increases in FY 2017 - 2018.
2:06:43 PM
MS. DIPIETRO reviewed slide 17, "Supervision Violators." She
explained that the current system was an evidence-based system
that relies on the theory that swift, certain, and proportional
sanctions would be more effective at controlling probationers'
behavior than delayed, uncertain, and disproportionate
sanctions. She explained that the department has caps on the
first three technical violations. The violator would be arrested
immediately, serve his/her time, and be released again. She said
this chart indicates the number of people who have been admitted
to the Department of Corrections on a Petition to Revoke
Probation (PTRP). The slide indicates that 1,426 PTRP's were
issued between January 1, 2017 and December 31, 2018, that 630
were issued for second violations, and 366 for third violations.
The number of PTRPs drops off for the fourth, fifth, and sixth
violations, she said. This slide illustrated the principle that
swift, certain, and proportional sanctions result in fewer
probationary violations. Prior to implementing this system,
sanctioning was inconsistent throughout the state. The new
regime provided more continuity and certainty in the system so
that probationers understand that consequences follow any
violations.
2:08:57 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked whether the previous system had different
punishments for the same crimes.
MS. DIPIETRO answered that the Alaska Criminal Justice
Commission (ACJC) found that some of the weaknesses in the old
system were that probation officers were sanctioning
inconsistently throughout the state for similar behavior. For
example, a missed appointment or drug test failure might be
handled differently by individual probation officers for
probationers. One of the theories was that the punishment should
be certain. Everyone should know the rules, she said.
Probationers should know the consequences for inappropriate
behavior.
She explained that previously supervision violators used 22
percent of prison beds on any given day. Probation officers were
spending 109 days to adjudicate a Petition to Revoke Probation
(PTRP) written primarily for technical violations. She said the
current goal was to sanction violators, connect their actions to
consequences, and get them in and out of the system quickly.
This will avoid clogging up the system, she said.
2:10:43 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked about swiftness, and for a comparison of the
administrative actions to the old system.
MS. DIPIETRO answered that the administrative sanctions and
incentive system includes incentives. Probationers can be
rewarded for pro-social activities such as completing treatment
and paying restitution. The administrative sanctions and
incentives put in place by criminal justice system reform [in
Senate Bill 91 law] were not the kind of sanctions and
incentives that send probationers back to jail. Instead, they
are administrative tools that the probation and parole officers
can use to encourage pro-social behavior and discourage anti-
social behavior without actually sending the offenders back to
jail. The officers can use those options or file a PTRP with the
court. That mechanism means the probationer would be arrested
and remanded to prison for three, five, or ten days, depending
on whether it was the first, second, or third violation.
2:12:11 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD asked for further clarification on the caps for
swift punishment and if it was one, three, or five days.
MS. DIPIETRO answered that caps are not used for probationers
who break a substantive rule or commit a new crime. Caps are in
place for those probationers who commit a technical violation,
such as missing an appointment, or having drugs or alcohol in
their system. She said it is not illegal to miss an appointment,
but they broke the rules and need to be sanctioned. She outlined
the caps for technical violations at three, five, and 10 days
for the first, second, and third violations. After the third
violation, the judge could impose any sanction that he/she found
appropriate.
2:13:40 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD said the Department of Law reported that these
sanctions were not working. She said that if offenders were told
to avoid chemicals, but they do not avoid them, it could be
serious.
She advised members she reviewed the average age for victims of
sexual assault in various parts of the state. She said that the
average age of victims in Western Alaska was 13, in Anchorage it
was 12, and in Southeast Alaska it was 15 years of age. She said
that overall about half of the victims are children, but the
median age was 18 years old. She said the record should reflect
that the Uniform Crime Statistics have shown a dramatic increase
of crimes since 2014 when Senate Bill 64 created the Criminal
Justice Commission. She characterized the increase as a rampant
epidemic of crime in Alaska. She said the commission could
massage the data, but she would be looking to the Uniform Crime
Statistics since those figures relate to real offenses.
MS. DIPIETRO agreed it would be helpful to have a victimization
survey of underage victims. She suggested that she could speak
with Senator Reinbold about other information she might find
more helpful than the data she was providing today.
SENATOR REINBOLD said that the Department of Law has provided
her with sufficient data.
2:16:08 PM
MS. DIPIETRO reviewed slide 18, "Supervision Violators, Average
Length of Stay for Probation/Parole Violations, Sentenced and
Unsentenced, in Days." She reviewed the bar charts of
supervision violators who were not successful. She explained
that the length of stay was going down, but this did not mean
that violators were not being sanctioned. It simply meant that
violators were being sanctioned with shorter amounts of time.
Prior to implementing the new system, a number of Petitions to
Revoke Probation (PTRP) would be stacked up and be adjudicated
all at once. This meant a violator would go back to jail for an
average of 109 days, just long enough to completely destabilize
the violator by taking him/her away from any pro-social
activities the person managed to accomplish. However, evidence
did not support any benefits derived compared to the cost of the
longer incarceration stays.
One interesting point was that successful probation and parole
discharges were increasing, which meant that low-risk offenders
were succeeding and being discharged. The result of discharging
low-risk offenders reduced the caseload and allowed probation
officers to focus on medium and high-risk probationers who need
more supervision. She reiterated that sanctions should be swift,
certain, and proportional, but not necessarily lengthy. She said
that the trends were encouraging.
2:18:35 PM
MS. DIPIETRO reviewed slide 19, "Supervision Violators,
Admissions to DOC for Probation Violations Jan. 1, 2017 Dec.
10, 2018," to a chart that showed the average incarceration in
days for petitions to revoke probation. Graduated sanctions were
instituted to change behaviors by increasing sanctions for each
repeat violation, she said. She said that sanctions were
stepping up, which was exactly what the commission hoped would
happen.
2:19:06 PM
SENATOR KIEHL related his understanding that the first petition
was for three days. However, the chart showed an average
incarceration of 16 days for 1 PTRP.
MS. DIPIETRO answered that the chart included all PTRPs, some of
which were non-technical violations that were subject to longer
incarceration.
2:19:38 PM
MS. DIPIETRO reviewed slide 20, "Supervision Violators in
Prison." The results of the new system using sanctions and
incentives along with informal and formal methods of controlling
behavior were reflected in the two pie charts on the slide. The
number of beds taken up by supervision violators were reduced.
Before new procedures went into effect, supervision violators
represented 20 percent in FY 2015 as opposed to 14 percent in FY
2018.
2:20:20 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked whether she could provide figures in
addition to the percentages shown on the pie charts.
MS. DIPIETRO recalled that the total number of inmates in the
Department of Corrections system was approximately 4,800 -
4,900. In FY 2018, it was approximately 4,600 - 4,700. She
offered to provide the exact figures.
CHAIR HUGHES clarified that reducing the supervision violators
did not mean that more people were incarcerated. She did not
want the public to think that more convicted criminals were in
jail.
MS. DIPIETRO agreed that these were percentages and not actual
figures. She offered to provide actual numbers to the committee.
2:21:34 PM
MS. DIPIETRO turned to the Crime Trends portion of the overview.
She reviewed slide 22, "Long-Term Crime Rate Trend, Alaska 1976-
2017 (Homicide, Rape, Robbery, & Aggravated Assault)." She said
that Ms. Monfreda, Department of Public Safety, gave an
excellent presentation to the committee on the most recent crime
statistics. Some questions were asked about historical crime
trends. This line graph depicts the 30-year trend for violent
crimes of homicide, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault,
adjusted for the change in population to allow for year-to-year
comparison. She pointed out that the line jumps around quite a
bit. She said she was unsure of what caused the dips in 1984 and
2014, but unfortunately violent crime in Alaska has been rising
for a number of decades.
2:22:48 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE observed that drive by shootings, possessing
explosives, arson, and other crimes were not included. Those are
some of the issues that need to be considered since they also
constitute violent crimes, but it was not how Alaska has
regarded them.
MS. DIPIETRO characterized her presentation as a 30,000-foot
view, one that examined the trends.
2:23:39 PM
MS. DIPIETRO reviewed slide 23, "Long-Term Property Crime Rate
Trend, Alaska 1976- (Burglary, Larceny-Theft, & Motor Vehicle
Theft)." She referred to a line graph that depicted the long-
term crime rate downward trend with spikes in 1980 and a low
point in property crime in 2011. One could speculate, but the
interesting takeaway was that the property crime rate was
decreasing until it began increasing in 2015. She said she did
not want to make any comments on the recent crime statistics but
to consider the long view.
2:24:33 PM
SENATOR SHOWER said that the chart did not make any sense to
him. The committee recently reviewed the Uniform Crime
Statistics and he recalled those statistics reported 17,000
crimes related to burglary, theft, and motor vehicle thefts. He
further recalled that the motor vehicle thefts alone were 4,000.
However, this chart indicated a total of 3,539 property crimes
in 2017.
MS. DIPIETRO answered that these figures represented rates and
not absolute numbers. This would also take into account the
changing population. It would be the number of reported crimes
divided by the population. Otherwise it would not be possible to
compare 1976 to 2017 since fewer people resided here.
SENATOR SHOWER commented that it seemed misleading since the
committee was aware of the crime happening in Alaska.
MS. DIPIETRO asked whether he would like to see the actual
numbers. She said that she hopes that no one believes she was
trying to say that the 2017 crime statistic presented by Ms.
Monfreda was inaccurate. She agreed that crime was increasing.
SENATOR SHOWER said the trend appears to show it going down.
2:26:07 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD reported that there were 62 murders, 1,073
reported rapes, 949 robberies, and 4,236 assaults, 139 arsons,
4,250 vehicle thefts, 4,153 burglaries, 17,683 larceny thefts,
for a total of 26,225 violent crimes and 6,320 offenses.
2:26:38 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE offered his belief that the long-term property
crime trend was important to evaluate. Obviously, there has been
a dramatic increase [since 2015-2016], but the rates were much
higher in the 1970s and 1980. He noted the state experienced a
recession in the late 1980s. However, it was imperative the
committee understand the reasons and factors for high crime
rates, such as socio-economic ones since the 1970s. He expressed
an interest in learning what impacts caused the trends to change
besides changes to Alaska's criminal statutes.
2:27:56 PM
MS. DIPIETRO reviewed slide 24, "Violent Crime Rate Trends by
Location." This slide showed a line graph for violent crimes in
Anchorage, Juneau, and Fairbanks between 2003-2017 including
homicide, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. She said that
what happens in Anchorage substantially drives the statewide
statistics since much of the population resides in the area. She
expressed the wish that the Kenai Peninsula figures were also on
the chart.
MS. DIPIETRO reviewed slide 25, "Property Crime Rate Trends by
Location." This slide showed a line graph for property crimes
[including burglary, larceny, theft, and motor vehicle theft in
Anchorage, Juneau, and Fairbanks from 2003-2017. She stated that
the commission considers the statewide view but local police
resources, policing strategies, community cohesion and response,
and social problems such as drugs and alcohol vary from
community to community and affect the trends.
2:29:32 PM
MS. DIPIETRO turned to the "Pretrial Outcomes" portion of the
overview, including bail, supervised release, and racial
disparities. She said that this section would cover the time
period when defendants are arrested or charged with a crime and
what happened during the timeframe when they are considered
innocent, prior to case disposition or the "pretrial" period.
2:30:19 PM
MS. DIPIETRO reviewed slide 27, "Pretrial Outcomes - 2015."
2015 Alaska Pretrial Outcomes (findings from AJC court
file review)
• A 2015 study showed about half of all defendants
were detained pending disposition of their cases;
• Most defendants were given third party custodian
and/or money bond conditions
• Alaska Natives were more likely than Caucasians
to be detained pretrial (about twice as likely).
She said that the Alaska Judicial Council (AJC) did a study with
the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission in 2015. They reviewed a
sample of court case files of people who were arrested and
charged with a crime. They determined who was detained and who
was released on bail. The Constitution of the State of Alaska
gives people who are charged the right to bail. The AJC data
found that people who are detained during the pretrial period
had worse outcomes and received longer sentences. Only half of
all defendants were detained during the pretrial phase, which
was one reason a number of beds in prison were taken up by
pretrial detainees.
MS. DIPIETRO said that Alaska Natives were much more likely than
whites to be detained during the pretrial period. She
characterized that as an extremely robust finding. She said she
found it to be quite unfortunate and shocking. The AJC took into
account the type of charge, prior criminal history, and any
other factors that might explain why Alaska Natives were more
likely than whites to be detained pretrial. The AJC was not able
to determine any legally relevant factors to explain that
finding, she said.
She said that most defendants were given a third-party custodian
requirement and/or a money bond.
2:32:11 PM
MS. DIPIETRO turned to slide 28, "Pretrial Outcomes - 2018." She
reviewed the pie chart that depicted the number of defendants
released before their cases were disposed. This study does not
include bail schedule releases, and 30 percent of all pretrial
defendants in the 2018 sample were released on bail.
She cautioned members that the Alaska Judicial Council and the
Alaska Criminal Justice Commission were still in the process of
the study. Unfortunately, the changes to the pretrial system and
bail system were so recent that not all of the people have made
it through the process to disposition. She offered to provide
some information, but more time was needed to allow cases to be
completed.
MS. DIPIETRO explained the process. She said that when a person
is arrested the person would be brought to a prison facility.
Some people charged with misdemeanors might be released on the
court system's bail schedule. Others who were not eligible for
release would be booked into the facility. They would be given
an arraignment before a judge, typically within 24 hours.
She said that during the arraignment the judge will determine
whether the person should be released during the pretrial period
and what conditions should be placed on them to ensure that the
defendant would appear for the person's court hearing and not
commit another offense while on release. The data depicted on
the pie chart indicated that 69 percent of defendants were
released on bail, and 31 percent were not released.
2:35:31 PM
MS. DIPIETRO reviewed slide 29, "Pretrial Outcomes."
Conditions of release
• Alcohol use/possession restrictions: 38%
• Electronic monitoring: 24%
• Drug or alcohol monitoring or testing: 21%
• About half of all defendants (released and not) had
one or more of these conditions of release.
PED Supervision
• Judges ordered PED supervision for about half of
the people they arraigned.
• About 78% of defendants who had a PED supervision
order were released before their cases were
disposed.
She reviewed the findings of the study related to conditions of
release shown on the slide. She said that since January 2018 the
Department of Corrections Pretrial Enforcement Division (PED)
was created. She said that these officers can supervise
individuals who were released during the pretrial supervision.
She reviewed the PED supervision on the slide. The judge may
also have ordered conditions that the person was unable to meet,
such as a money bond, so not all of the defendants with a PED
supervision order made it out.
2:37:21 PM
MS. DIPIETRO reviewed the bar chart on slide 30, "Pretrial
Outcomes," depicting the rates of release by ethnicity for 2018.
She explained that the release rate was not as disparate as it
once was. She characterized this as a very rudimentary analysis
lacking a super rigorous investigation, but on its face, it
appeared as though the disparity the council had documented
prior to the pretrial system reform were diminishing.
2:38:33 PM
MS. DIPIETRO listed the members of the Alaska Criminal Justice
Commission on slide 31.
MATT CLAMAN, EX OFFICIO, CHAIR ALASKA HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES
BRENDA K. STANFILL, VICE-CHAIR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
INTERIOR ALASKA CENTER FOR NON-VIOLENT LIVING
JOEL BOLGER CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE ALASKA SUPREME COURT
SEAN CASE CAPTAIN, ANCHORAGE POLICE DEPARTMENT
ADAM CRUM, VALERIE DAVIDSON, EX OFFICIO COMMISSIONER,
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES
KEVIN CLARKSON, JAHNA LINDEMUTH ATTORNEY GENERAL,
STATE OF ALASKA
AMANDA PRICE, WALT MONEGAN COMMISSIONER, ALASKA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
GREGORY P. RAZO, ALASKA NATIVE JUSTICE CENTER
DESIGNEE; VICE PRESIDENT, CIRI
STEPHANIE RHOADES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE (RETIRED),
STATE OF ALASKA
QUINLAN G. STEINER, ALASKA PUBLIC DEFENDER
TREVOR N. STEPHENS SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE, STATE OF
ALASKA
NANCY DAHLSTROM, DEAN WILLIAMS, COMMISSIONER, ALASKA
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
STEVE WILLIAMS COO, ALASKA MENTAL HEALTH TRUST
AUTHORITY
SHELLY HUGHES, JOHN COGHILL, EX OFFICIO ALASKA STATE
SENATE
2:39:01 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE said the greatest impact on his community was
from defendants in the pretrial phase because they reoffended
while out on bail. Aa a legislator, he would like to know how to
make effective changes, but this overview does not provide the
means to do so. It talks about the percentage of people who are
released or not released during the pretrial period, but it does
not show the impacts to law enforcement. However, he offered his
belief that it impacted public safety fairly negatively. He
asked how many defendants failed to appear for court and how
many violated conditions of release. He said he needs more
information and data to help determine that answer. Now she can
see why the [legislature] has been feeling so strongly that "we
took the wrong path." He said that the increase in property
crimes has not made him a big fan of this approach.
MS. DIPIETRO said that those types of questions were included in
the study. She questioned whether she should speak about the
preliminary findings today since not all the cases have been
resolved. She said the preliminary data has been discussed at
the Criminal Justice Working Group. She avoided releasing
findings on failure to appear rates or new criminal activity and
would need to revise it six months later when the cases that
affect the rates were resolved. However, she understood the need
for information now. The preliminary results showed the failure
to appear rate has increased a little. The new criminal charge
rates were a little lower than pre-Senate Bill 91 law. She said
the data seemed inconsistent with members' experiences. She
asked members to keep in mind that prior to the pretrial system
change, just 50 percent of defendants were released and about 37
percent of those people had a new arrest during the pretrial
period. The arrest rates could be improved upon. The preliminary
findings, without data from people still in the system show that
the rate has decreased. Once the cases are resolved, those
figures could increase, but right now it was lower than 37.
2:43:47 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE noted that she just mentioned lower charges and
pointed out that the legislature was led to believe that other
states had lower charges, fewer people in prison, and more
people in pretrial services. At the time changes were made to
the criminal justice system, he said no one ever made a
correlation to lower crime rates. "And we were sort of led to
believe that there would be lower crime rates," he said. The
lack of reporting, decriminalizing some crimes, fewer arrests,
and frustrated law enforcement could have a direct correlation
to lower crime rates rather than actually reducing crime. He
said that there is a disconnect from what was being reported and
what actually was happening in communities. That disconnect
needed to be eliminated. He offered his belief that the he was
swayed by figures from the Pew Charitable Trust and others. The
same data points are being used and it just misses the point, he
said.
CHAIR HUGHES offered her belief that Senator Micciche has made
an excellent point. She asked whether the goal was to have less
people incarcerated or less crime on the street.
2:45:18 PM
SENATOR SHOWER echoed Senator Micciche's comments regarding
"disconnect" between data and the criminal activity in the
communities. He said he was convinced that some of the changes
such as reducing sentencing affect the statistics but has not
actually lowered the crime rate. Instead, crime rates increased
after enacting the crime bills. He offered to hold discussions
with Ms. DiPietro on this issue.
2:46:41 PM
MS. DIPIETRO responded that the studies and research that the
Alaska Criminal Justice Commission (ACJC) relied on were studies
to reduce recidivism in the criminal justice system. Certainly,
recidivism among people who had committed crimes and were in the
system create part of the crime rate, but it was not the whole
picture. People who have been through the criminal justice
system do not account for all of the reported crime in Alaska.
Other people also committed crimes and that was part of the
crime rate. Those two things cannot be equated.
She made the distinction between recidivism among people in the
system, who were the ones the criminal justice system tried to
reform and would like a better outcome versus the people who
committed crimes who have not been part of the system. She said
she did not wish to argue against the point being made, but she
thought it was important to distinguish between the different
types of criminal activity.
CHAIR HUGHES said that when the legislature changed the laws by
downgrading crimes, it skewed the data. Even though some crimes
were no longer being counted, crime rates have increased, so if
those crimes were being counted, the crime rate would be even
higher.
2:48:55 PM
SENATOR KIEHL suggested that as the legislature considers the
correlations related to the crime bills, it would be valuable to
see similar correlations to recent statutory changes that
increased penalties for violent crimes and its impact on violent
crimes, and whether these crime rates have increased or
decreased. He also expressed interest in the correlation between
increased law enforcement officers and prosecutors, as well as
the number of cases not prosecuted, on crime rates and whether
that could provide a better explanation.
2:49:24 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD referred to recidivism and ways to affect [the
recidivism rates]. For example, under Senate Bill 91 law first
time felony convictions did not result in jail time, so those
offenders could continue to commit crimes in her community,
which has experienced dramatic increases in crime. In addition,
dismissing cases also affects the overall statistics.
She said that the people in her district want reductions in
offenses. In response to the high number of Alaska Natives in
the system, she pointed out the racial profile of crimes against
victims and reported that 444 suspects were Alaska Native, 9
Asian, 51 black, 75 unknown and 111 Caucasian. She honed-in on
the data that showed a disproportionate number of Alaska Native
suspects and a disproportionate number of Alaska Native victims.
She offered her belief that the number of Alaska Native victims
has not been pointed out in the presentations she has heard. She
said she was more interested in reducing the number of offenses
than massaging data and stopping "bad guys" from being
imprisoned.
MS. DIPIETRO clarified that she did not say the absolute number
of Alaska Natives being held in pretrial was higher than the
absolute number of Caucasian offenders being held, just that it
was disproportionate. She reassured Senator Reinbold that the
commission intended to study the recidivism of people who were
charged or convicted, whether they had a sentence of
incarceration or not. She agreed with Senator Reinbold's comment
that not everyone who was convicted was incarcerated. She said
that it was important to pay attention to both.
2:52:28 PM
CHAIR HUGHES said she was intrigued that Ms. DiPietro indicated
that there seemed to be no explanation for the higher rate of
Alaska Natives, but with the change in criminal statutes the
data seemed to be more balanced. She expressed interest in
researching the reason for the substantial change since an
explanation was not given. She noted that Ms. DiPietro also
mentioned recidivism for sex offenders was lower than for
overall offenses. She asked for additional information on what
happened within the system, such as any new programs or other
explanation for the impact on sex offender recidivism.
2:53:49 PM
At-ease.
3:05:07 PM
CHAIR HUGHES reconvened the meeting and reviewed upcoming
committee announcements.
3:06:01 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Hughes adjourned the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting at 3:06 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| ACJC - criminal justice data for SJUD.pdf |
SJUD 2/27/2019 1:30:00 PM |
ACJC Presentation |