CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 11(JUD) "An Act relating to good time credits for prisoners serving sentences of imprisonment for certain murders." Senator Dave Donley spoke to the bill he sponsored. He told the committee that Alaska had possibly the most liberal good-time laws in the nation as it allowed reduction of sentences by one-third for good-time. The federal standard recommended to all states was that 85- percent of sentences be served. In Alaska, good time reduced that to 66-percent. At least 29 states had adopted the federal standard. SB 11 would implement the federal standards in an indirect way, for those serving time for first- and second-degree murder for Alaska. It would say that good time for those who had committed first- and second-degree murder would be only one-half of what it would be for any other type of crime in Alaska. It was still slightly below the federal standards, but was close and would only apply to those serving time for first- and second-degree murder. He noted a great moral and ethical gap between the crimes of first- and second-degree murder and other crimes and they should be dealt with differently. The reason there were no fiscal notes was because the prisoners were already serving lengthy sentences and costs would be incurred beyond the five-year projection of the fiscal notes. He continued saying the idea only partially came from the desire to comply with the national standard. He spoke about attending a ceremony honoring victims of violent crimes and hearing from family members with concerns that many of the perpetrators were already being released from prison under the good-time rules. Senator Al Adams appreciated the cause of the bill with the victim's families. However, he was concerned with the fiscal impact and the potential for lawsuits from prisoners challenging the removal of their rights. He detailed the amount of additional time of incarceration for these offenders. Senator Dave Donley said Senator Al Adams was correct in that there would be a fiscal impact in the future but countered that 30 other states had similar statutes and he felt the bill was important. He noted the seriousness of first- and second-degree murder. He spoke to the possibility of only applying the provision to those serving the shorter, second-degree murder sentences. The greatest benefit would occur for those with the shorter sentences, since those inmates would have to serve 83.5-percent of their sentences. However, he believed it would be inconsistent and suspect if it only applied to those convicted of second-degree murder. Senator Randy Phillips commented that if the budget were in a better position, the fiscal argument would not even come up. Senator Sean Parnell felt Senator Dave Donley expressed the distinction of these very serious crimes. He agreed the legislation would serve public policies of deterrence and community justice and restoration. Both related to the victims and the offenders. There was a multitude of public policies that were reflected in this legislation as it related to these very serious crimes. Senator Al Adams believed the fiscal notes should reflect the costs and that the Legislature would have to also fund programs such as the public defender's office that would be impacted. MARGO KNUTH, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law working for the Department of Corrections, testified that this was an expensive proposition. She said if this law had been in effect in the last 12 months, the cost in the last year would be over $1 million. If the law had been in effect since statehood, the cost would be $50 million to date. She said another consideration was the high cost of geriatrics in the prison system. Those costs were not included in her figures above. If the time were extended, the state would be responsible for the cost of care for people in their fifties and sixties. The national average cost of prison for each inmate was $23,000 a year. For prisoners over the age of fifty, the cost jumped to over $67,000 per year. Co-Chair John Torgerson asked if murder one and murder two could be separated without violating the Equal Protection Clauses. Margot Knuth said it could be done but would not address the sponsor's desire to focus the punishment on those convicted of murder two. She continued that this bill would separate the prisoners into two different classes, those sentenced before and those after 1999. This would cause problems for the department. Senator Dave Donley argued that the Legislature was spending a lot of money to provide new technology to the department that would make this easier. He referred to testimony in the Senate Judiciary Committee that some of the sentences served were under ten years. Margot Knuth said none were under ten, the lowest was 14 years. The longest term imposed was 104 years. She read the length of the sentences imposed by the court. There were a few instances were the court exercised its right to give exceptions. Senator Dave Donley asked what was her counter proposal to prevent second degree murder convicts from early release. Margot Knuth said that the Legislature imposing the sentences in criminal cases would be a difficult matter. The way the constitution set up the government, the Judiciary Branch was given the authority to set sentences unless there was a higher mandatory minimum for murder in the second degree. Currently, the mandatory minimum was five years as set by the Legislature. Senator Al Adams asked if there was any good standard used in other states that would work in Alaska. Margot Knuth said the federal government encouraged states to follow an 85-percent truth in sentencing formula for all crimes. However, that would be prohibitively expensive because the sentencing rules were so strict in Alaska. The states that followed the 85-percent rate had much lower initial sentences. She added that the good-time provisions were used on the parole end to allow for parole oversight. This legislation would cause unintended consequences. Sometimes the defendants with the murder two sentences were the ones that should be most closely supervised. Senator Dave Donley said the parole time could be extended in statute. He felt that would be a good idea with or without this legislation. Co-Chair John Torgerson expressed a desire to find out the long-term fiscal impact. BLAIR MCCUNE, Deputy Director, Public Defender Agency, Department of Administration, testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He told the committee that under the equal protection issue, his office would probably have some Rule 35.1 Post Conviction Release Applications filed. However, they were less viable then they had been under the previous version of this bill. He pointed out the federal standards to his understanding was intended to address the entire sentencing structure. Other states had more discretionary parole options than Alaska. He added that when prisoners received very long sentences they tended to be very institutionalized by the time of their release and took longer to reintegrate into the community. He commented on the longer parole time as suggested by Senator Dave Donley. The length of the sentence set the parole period, so it would depend on the length of the total sentence. Co-Chair John Torgerson ordered the bill held in committee. Tape: SFC - 99 #59, Side A