HOUSE BILL NO. 38 "An Act relating to criminal sentencing; relating to the availability for good time credit for offenders convicted of certain first degree murders; relating to mandatory life imprisonment, parole, good time credit, pardon, commutation of sentence, modification or reduction of sentence, reprieve, furlough, and service of sentence at a correctional restitution center for offenders with at least three s e r i o u s f e l o n y convictions; and amending Alaska Rule of CriminalProcedure 35." Representative Con Bunde was invited to join the committee. Co-chairman Halford advised that amendment #1 was previously adopted and that amendments #2, 3 and 4 would be reviewed. Senator Zharoff called attention to a letter from the Department of Law correcting their position on the bill that they neither support nor oppose HB 38. Senator Phillips appreciated letter from Anne Carpeneti. Senator Donley referred to amendment #4 and the existing law requiring mandatory ninety-nine year sentences for very serious classes of homicide. This amendment would extend the prohibition on good time to those crimes currently subject to the mandatory ninety-nine year term of imprisonment. An ascending level of punishment must be kept for more serious crimes and homicide ought to have the most serious level of punishment in the statutes. Senator Rieger commented on release under furlough and what types exist. Senator Donley stated there is furlough for personal family matters, the early furlough program, death in the family; furlough also refers to when the prisons are overcrowded and they decide to let someone loose early. This is a special classification not relevant to parole, probation, mandatory or discretionary parole. This is a creative way to free up room in the prisons. Representative Bunde advised furlough only applies to medical, family visitation or funeral and furloughed person would be accompanied by a corrections officer. In cases of murder there is no furlough. Discussed "good time". Senator Rieger referenced the medical furlough and when the measure was pushed through so federal funds could be picked up for medical care and doesn't want to catch something here that will cost the State a lot of money. Senator Donley stated that his amendment #4 just conforms this to the prohibition on any type of furlough for the third strike bill. Someone who falls in this category is banned from any type of furlough. Representative Bunde commented that there is furlough allowed but they must be accompanied by a corrections office. Senator Frank asked for further clarification on this amendment. Senator Donley stated that any third time offender who falls under this bill would not be eligible for furloughs or good time. This would include anyone under the ninety-nine year mandatory homicide statute also. Senator Sharp also commented on the amendment regarding good time. Co-chairman Halford concurred and stated there would be no fiscal impact on this amendment. He also voiced his concern that no administration would try to furlough people convicted of the worst aggravated murder. Representative Bunde also concurred and felt amendment #4 did not fall out of the scope of the bill. Co-chairman and Senator Phillips discussed Senator Rieger's comments on medical furlough and the costs. Co-chairman Frank also voiced concern over release of a long term prisoner with terminal illness and then they could pay for their own medical. Co-chairman Halford advised that WITHOUT OBJECTION amendment CS. Senator Donley introduced amendment #3 and his concern over "good time" for multiple offenders. A reoffender can be put back in for the term of their probation or any discretionary parole period but they don't lose their good time. This bill will take away good time between the second and third offense. Representative Bunde commented that "good time" only applies after you are the third time loser. A second time felony offender could still get out on good time. Senator Donley advised that the amendment #3 provided that a second time felony offender would lose good time earned for first offense. Senator Phillips agreed. Senator Frank asked if second offense would generally be a presumptive sentence and Senator Donley advised that a second felony offense would be. The judge would have no discretion in the sentence other than with aggravators. He would have flexibility in dealing with how much of the former mandatory and discretionary parole that could be reinstated. An offender under this amendment would have to go back and serve any good time earned in addition to the sentence. Senators Donley and Phillips discussed a hypothetical armed robbery and how under this amendment the "good time" earned for the second stretch would be lost and the offender would have to go back and serve any good time earned on the first offense. A judge would be prevented from running this concurrent with the sentence imposed. Representative Bunde voiced concern in protection of the public and what can be afforded. This amendment would have significant fiscal impact. The idea is laudable but would prefer that it be drawn as a separate bill. He agreed with Senator Phillips that the concept of his bill is to lock up the offender but doesn't feel that locking up a second time felony offender for an additional three years, earned "good time", would serve as a detriment. Would rather achieve a bill for the worst predators that is still affordable. Senator Donley called to the attention of his colleagues that we are faced with a federal mandate that states are complying with for truth in sentencing, which requires that an 85% standard be adopted. States not adopting this standard will lose federal funds. Our liberal "good time" provision would not comply with this standard. Representative Bunde agreed that this was a good amendment and would support a new bill. Senator Phillips commented on the fiscal impact and would this kill the bill. Representative Bunde advised that he made a number of compromises that he would not have made if not concerned about the fiscal impact. Co-chairman Halford will defer to the sponsor. Senator Zharoff voiced concern in keeping the criminals off the street and that by imposing service of "good time" on second felony offense this would keep the offender off the street long enough so they would not commit the same crime again. Representative Bunde concurs with the premise. Department of Corrections is constitutionally required to rehabilitate people and "good time" is used as a reward for rehabilitation. "Good time" keeps convicts reasonably happy and something to work towards. The fiscal drag of including this amendment will keep the three strikes bill from passing. However, Senator Zharoff felt that keeping an offender in for a longer period of time would mean that upon release they would be in an older age group and therefore a lessor potential of committing a third offense. Representative Bunde agreed but would rather see the good pass now than wait for the perfect which may not be possible. Upon a vote taken amendment #3 FAILED ADOPTION. Senator Donley introduced amendment #2. The maximum monetary penalty for murder is $500,000. Under Alaska State law the maximum is only $75,000. Under the amendment class A felony should be $250,000 and $500,000 for homicide. We are severely under the Federal standards and courts should have the discretion to issue these kinds of fines if appropriate in these serious cases. Representative Bunde agreed with the goal but not the vehicle. It goes outside the scope of the basic three strikes bill. The gain is not worth the challenge to the bill. Would support a second bill on this matter. Senator Halford inquired as to if a fine proposal was ever received from the Court System. Senator Rieger stated he would be happy to work with Senator Donley on a day fines bill that he has in subcommittee to see if some penalties can be drafted that make some sense. Senator Donley WITHDRAWS amendment #2 pending consultation with the prosecutors. The bill is discretionary and only gives judges more options. Senator Sharp MOVES SCSCSHB 38 (FIN) as amended with accompanying fiscal notes with individual recommendations. Senator Donley commented on discrepancy between public defender and prosecutor fiscal notes. He had no objection to moving the bill and Co-chairman Halford agreed. Senator Donley felt it would be important to talk to the criminal justice folks; specifically in Bethel there is a full time public defender but the prosecutor just flies in occasionally. A serious need for additional prosecutors was indicated. This also included Kotzebue. Appropriate fiscal notes would help deal with this imbalance between the prosecutors and the defense. Co-chairman Halford stated he was willing to changing the recommendation on the fiscal notes. Senator Frank commented on how this money could be allocated between OPA and the Public Defender. Some discussion was held regarding possible allocations. Senator Rieger inquired would there be a slow down on the calendaring of trials because of the budget. Senator Donley again referred to the collateral attacks as discussed at the last hearing. Senator Frank commented on the possibility of limiting the use of funds to look at prior convictions. Senator Donley said that he was still looking into this matter. Co-chairman Halford stated that there was a proposal to amend the fiscal notes splitting an equal amount between the public defenders and the public advocates. NO OBJECTION being heard SCSCSHB 38 (FIN) with individual recommendations and modifications to the fiscal notes was MOVED out of committee.