CSSB 11(JUD) - PRISON TIME CREDITS FOR MURDERERS CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the first order of business is CSSB 11(JUD), "An Act relating to good time credits for prisoners serving sentences of imprisonment for certain murders." Number 0063 SENATOR DAVE DONLEY, Alaska State Legislature, came before the committee as sponsor of SB 11. The bill would reduce good time deduction for people convicted of first- or second-degree murder in the state. It would reduce it from 33 percent to 16 percent. The federal government has adopted an 85 percent standard for all sentences in the federal prison system. The federal law also suggested that all states adopt the standard. Alaska has some of the most liberal good time laws in the nation at 33 percent. He noted that over 30 states have gone to the 85 percent standard. He further noted that there is a great discrepancy amongst the states on how they sentence people for different crimes. The argument has been made that Alaska has strong mandatory sentencing laws, but Alaska is not the only state to give long sentences for first-and second-degree murder. The idea in the bill is to set a dichotomy and to say that at least when a person commits a murder that the state will try and follow the national sentencing standard. He noted that the bill actually requires 84 percent, but that's a lot closer to the national standard than where the state is now. Senator Donley further stated that the real issue seems to involve the families of victims of homicide or those who have been victimized by those who have been convicted of second-degree murder. He explained that he went to a memorial service for families of victims of homicide last year in Anchorage, which is how the bill originated. He was approached by several families who had children murdered who see the murderers walking down the street. He didn't have an answer for them other than the good time provisions in sentencing which allow an inmate to go free one-third the time earlier than what was sentenced. The shortest sentence for second-degree murder in Alaska has been ten years; and, with one-third off for good time, that means a person serves about six and a half years. Most of the sentences are longer than that, but there are many, many sentences that are under thirty years. SENATOR DONLEY further stated that SB 11 is excellent public policy. There aren't any real constitutional questions involved because clearly the state has a right to distinguish between people who kill other human beings and those who do not in terms of sentencing. He noted that there would be some fiscal impact in six to eight years. He hopes that the word would get out that the state would take killing a person even more seriously which would act as a deterrent thereby paying for itself. Number 0469 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated the committee just reviewed SB 3, which raised the minimum sentences on offenses against a child including first- and second-degree murder. He asked Senator Donley whether he is familiar with that piece of legislation. SENATOR DONLEY replied SB 3 puts child murderers under the law he wrote about ten years ago that included - for the first time - the 99-years-without-parole provision. Number 0559 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that SB 3 raised the presumptive minimum sentence for second-degree murder from 5 to 20 years. He wondered whether there would be any impact between that bill and this bill for those crimes. Number 0609 SENATOR DONLEY responded, if that is true, it sounds like a good idea. Number 0644 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT noted that SB 3 raises some [offenses] to a 20 year minimum. He further noted that in those cases a person would have to serve 17 years under this bill. Number 0681 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked Senator Donley whether he has seen any study that says removing good time is a deterrent. SENATOR DONLEY replied no. He doesn't know how that would be calculated without getting into the minds of perpetrators. But having laws that don't tolerate killing other people is a good message. He noted the saying, "you got away with murder." Seeing a murderer walk down the street sends the wrong message to families of victims and others in terms of how serious society takes homicide. Number 0740 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked Senator Donley whether there is any federal incentive that the state would gain by changing the statutes as suggested in the bill. Number 0764 SENATOR DONLEY replied, he thinks, that there might be something that parallels what's going on in juvenile justice. That being, federal dollars available for meeting certain criteria. It depends on how the federal law is written. Sometimes its suggestive and sometimes some money is made available even if a state is just studying and moving in a particular direction. Number 0840 SENATOR DONLEY noted, in response to the questions regarding SB 3, that it is 99 years without parole, if the victim is a child and it is a second-degree murder. Number 0928 MARGOT KNUTH, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Commissioner-Juneau, Department of Corrections, came before the committee to testify. In response to Representative Murkowski's question, there is a federal act called Violent Offenders Incarceration Act-Truth In Sentencing (VOIA-TIS) which makes extra money available to the states for being tough on crime. The legislature appropriates those funds each year to help pay for the cost of incarceration of the state's inmates in Arizona. Alaska does not qualify for the truth-in-sentencing portion because its good time is 33 percent rather than 15 percent - the maximum that the federal government allows. The state looked at going to 85 percent and quickly decided that it could not afford it. The amount of money paid out of the truth-in-sentencing portion is a small percentage of the additional costs that the state would incur to increase any length of time for incarceration. Furthermore, there were a few states that went to 85 percent in reliance on the federal funds, but President Clinton has proposed to discontinue that funding this year. Those states are very unhappy, which further confirms Alaska's concerns of not going that route. She further noted that Alaska is one of the toughest sentencing states in the U.S. She read the following average sentence figures into the record: Georgia - 144 months Louisiana - 104 months Missouri - 247 months Minnesota - 144 months New Jersey - 432 months New York - 317 months Tennessee - 173 months Virginia - 91 months Washington - 243 months Alaska - 467 months MS. KNUTH noted that the figures are for anticipated time to be served. Therefore, the figure of 467 for Alaska already takes out good time. There are two questions involved: What is the appropriate amount of time for people to be serving for these offenses? and Can the state afford it? The biggest problem with this suggestion is that most inmates are already over 50 years old by the time they are eligible for release, which is considered old in prison populations and means high medical costs. This bill is talking about increasing the length of time being incarcerated beyond the age of 50, which is an expensive proposition. According to her calculations, the state already has 105 first-degree murder prisoners who would be over 50 years of age by the time they are released, and 21 who would be under the age of 50 by the time they are released. There are 58 second-degree murder prisoners who would be over 50 years of age by the time they are released, and 51 who would be under the age of 50 by the time they are released. If the bill were enacted, there would be a total of 183 over the age of 50, and a total of 52 under the age of 50. She referred to an article entitled, "Should Elderly Convicts be Kept in Prison?", and read from it. She noted that down south it costs an average of $20,000 per year for the typical inmate, while in Alaska it costs $50,000. She knows that Senator Donley is truly concerned about the criminal justice system and she believes that he would put the dollars there, but if this had been in law since statehood it would have cost the state $50 million more than what it has spent thus far. It doesn't show up on a fiscal note because these inmates are in for so long that there isn't any sentence that would increase in just five years, but if a sentence was stretched out, there truly would be a large price tag. Number 1529 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked Ms. Knuth whether it's true that good time is used as a management tool within a prison. She noted that a person doesn't think about it before committing a crime, but once in prison that person measures when he or she is getting out. MS. KNUTH replied that is quite accurate. It's a significant management tool. Some states are concerned that they have lost that tool by going to a higher percentage. It's not much of a tool for murder prisoners, but right now the state's good time is the same time period a person is eligible for discretionary parole. She explained that there are cases that need a significant period of discretionary parole time in order to watch a person after release. Some states are very concerned that they have lost that parole time because it can only be the suspended portion of a sentence. Number 1590 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT noted, according to his calculation, that there would be about a 100-month increase in the average sentence. Number 1627 MS. KNUTH noted the average sentence length for first-degree murder is about 70 years and close to 40 years for second-degree murder. Those figures are deceptive, however, because they only measure those who are currently incarcerated. They don't measure those who have already been released. Number 1679 BLAIR McCUNE, Deputy Director, Central Office, Public Defender Agency, Department of Administration, testified via teleconference from Anchorage. When the federal government went down to 15 percent, they did it in conjunction with a comprehensive review of federal sentencing in general. They decreased good time and pretty much did away with the federal parole system. They also decreased some of the national sentences that could be imposed for federal crimes. MR. McCUNE further stated that, by law, when people are released under good time they are released to the jurisdiction of the parole board. He pointed out that people who are released after lengthy sentences have a hard time readjusting to society, even though their behavior isn't bad in prison. They require a close watch to make sure that they are making progress readjusting. MR. McCUNE noted that there may well be an equal protection challenge brought based on the difference in treating those convicted of a first- and second-degree murder and other offenses, thereby raising a fiscal impact on the department. Number 1889 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Mr. McCune whether there is still a presentence investigation for first- and second-degree murder. MR. McCUNE replied yes. He can't think of a case where a presentence investigation has not been done. Number 1916 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Mr. McCune whether there would be any motivation for a judge to be lenient on a sentence. MR. McCUNE replied there is a truth-in-sentencing provision that says a judge has to set out on the record how much good time is possible to be earned. A judge should not, however, take that into account when sentencing a person. Number 2041 CHAIRMAN KOTT closed the meeting to public testimony. Number 2045 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT noted, according to his calculation, a person committing a crime at the age of 25 would be in prison until the age of 65. The bill would increase that age by another ten years. The question is, does the state want to keep a person until the age of 65 or 75? Number 2108 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Ms. Knuth whether there is any statistical data that show a plot of the average cost per age. He has a hunch the last 10 years would rapidly increase and might be as much as the prior 40 years. Number 2136 MS. KNUTH replied no she has not been able to find a study addressing that. In general, the average cost-of-care for an inmate increases two and a half times each year after the age of 50. Right now, the state spends $50,000 per year for an inmate, which equates to about $150,000 per year after the age of 50. The legislature has seen the cost for medical treatment, such as heart surgery, as the "wild card" in the Department of Corrections' budget. She noted that the supreme court has told the department it must provide ... to a certain level. Number 2207 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Ms. Knuth whether the delta between a person staying in prison versus a person being released and taken care of by society is significant. Number 2228 MS. KNUTH replied it is a lot more expensive to deal with medical issues while a person is incarcerated because of the need to provide security services. She cited there was an incapacitated inmate due to be released who had no family. As a result, a guardian was appointed and that person was transferred to a nursing home at one-third the cost. Number 2281 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Ms. Knuth whether the state is bound by the Cleary decision to provide various medical services to inmates. MS. KNUTH replied the state is bound by a statutory provision and a constitutional provision. [She did not specify which ones] Number 2294 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI said she appreciates the argument of cost, but noted that these people have committed a murder and there are specific sentences for those crimes no matter the cost. Number 2363 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Representative Murkowski whether she would be happy for all first- and second-degree murderers to have no possibility for parole for good time. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI replied that's another subject for another time. MS. KNUTH noted that there is a huge population of first-degree murderers who have 99 or more years to serve that would not get out, but there are exceptional situations that get sentenced for less. She cited as an example women who have been battered for years who finally respond lethally. There is a class of offenders who she would be very uncomfortable releasing at any age because they are perfectly able to commit offenses for in perpetuity - sex offenders. Number 2445 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked Ms. Knuth whether... TAPE 99-38, SIDE B Number 0001 MS. KNUTH replied there are no murderers in halfway houses, and there is nothing in between. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked Ms. Knuth whether the level of incapacitation has to get to a vegetated state. MS. KNUTH replied, if a person was incapacitate and still in the state's custody, a vegetated person could not be in a nursing home. The state would have to keep that person within the confines of a prison or have correctional officers stay around-the-clock at one of the hospitals. Number 0051 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Ms. Knuth whether she knows of anybody who has made it through a 99-year sentence; and, if so, has that person slipped back into a previous behavior pattern. Number 0123 MS. KNUTH replied, she believes, the oldest inmate in the state's custody is around 67 years old. She noted that these people die institutionalized. The department is looking at the population that has sentences of 40 to 50 years. The population that has a sentence of 99 years and up is in essence a life sentence. Number 0157 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN wondered whether the other side of the argument matters. In other words, is this just "window dressing" because the chances are good that it won't matter? MS. KNUTH replied no. The figure of $50 million, mentioned earlier, excludes all of the inmates with a sentence of 99 years and up. The figure is for the inmates that the department expects to see released. She further noted that the figure is based on the cost for care at $50,000 a year. It does not factor in any geriatric medical costs. Number 0193 CHAIRMAN KOTT said the sponsor indicated that the crux of the bill is to get at those murderers walking down the street, not the people with a 99-year-and-up sentence. He asked Ms. Knuth whether a statute can be established discriminating based on age. Number 0227 MS. KNUTH replied no. She noted that for first-degree murder the minimum sentence is 20 years, and for second-degree murder the minimum sentence is 5 years. There are some cases where the court looks at the circumstances and chooses to impose a sentence of 15 years, for example. But the public hears that there has been a murder and the judge only imposed a 15-year sentence. She mentioned the only thing that the legislature can do is increase the mandatory minimum sentence for second-degree murder, but that takes away the opportunity for judges to look at cases individually. Number 0288 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA noted she handled two murder cases that got five year sentences. She explained one was for a woman who was caught drinking while driving and killed another person but had no memory of it. It was real clear from the witnesses and circumstances that she had nothing to do with putting herself behind the wheel of the car. The other case involved an abused wife who snapped and killed her husband. It was real clear from the testimony that she would never be a danger to anybody else. She would be reluctant to give up a judge's discretion because the second-degree murder cases that go down to that level are real unique circumstances. She also mentioned that parole and good time work well under those circumstances. Number 0344 JAMES ARMSTRONG, Legislative Assistant to Senator Dave Donley, Alaska State Legislature, came before the committee to give closing statements on SB 11. He said he's not sure of the 9 states Ms. Knuth is referencing because 30 states have done some type of truth-in-sentencing that goes hand-in-hand with serious crimes. He noted that the state of Illinois has eliminated good time credits and requires entire sentences to be imposed on prisoners for first-degree murder. In addition, he mentioned that the House Judiciary Standing Committee heard SB 1 - the "No Frills Prison Act" - a few years ago. At which time, Senator Donley thought that Act gave the Department of Corrections a lot of discretion for severely medically able parole, but according to discussions with the department, there is a case where a cancer inmate cannot be released because he is not bedridden and could possibly commit the crime again. He noted that Senator Donley is considering looking at that statute again. Number 0430 CHAIRMAN KOTT indicated that the bill would be held over for further consideration.