The Alaska Criminal Justice Commission, which developed the policy foundations for Senate Bill 91, on Monday offered a set of new recommendations that would roll back some of its provisions.
The controversial bill, which was signed by Gov. Bill Walker in July 2016, aims to reduce prison overcrowding and recidivism by rehabilitating low-risk offenders instead of sending them to jail.
Those provisions moved away from stereotypically tough-on-crime policies such as longer jail sentences, and instead called for more crimes to be punishable by probation, electronic monitoring and alternatives to prison. Some of the changes have proved unpopular both with law enforcement, some of whom feel they do not have the tools necessary to enforce the laws, and the public that is seeing a rising tide of property crime.
That was the message sent by commission members as they presented the recommendations to the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the Alaska Senate Majority, which held a press conference Wednesday to discuss the changes and the timeline to roll out the proposed amendments in bill form.
Sen. Peter Micciche, R-Soldotna, stressed that the Senate Majority remains committed to public safety — and that SB 91 was about improving the status quo approach to reducing crime and was never about reducing costs.
“What we were doing clearly wasn’t working,” Micciche said, using rising heroin deaths across the state as one example.
But, he said, the Senate Majority was listening to the public and now is making the necessary adjustments.
Sen. John Coghill, R-North Pole, who was instrumental in the passage of SB 91, said that during the implementation process complaints arose that law enforcement does not have effective tools to hold criminal defendants accountable and get them into drug treatment programs.
Coghill noted that SB 91’s progress has been affected both by a revised bail schedule and by budget impacts.
The commission made 14 recommendations, some of which are merely technical fixes that will be addressed by one of two bills that are to be drafted, Coghill said. He added he anticipates that, along with a second bill to address the policy calls, will roll out in the next few weeks.
The recommendations do include several policy changes intended to improve public safety.
According to the commission’s presentation on Monday, those recommendations were “heavily” debated. Coghill noted that they were not evidence-based but instead relied on factors such as public condemnation and input from law enforcement.
One of the recommendations will increase penalties for theft in fourth degree in order to impact repeat offenders. Theft in the fourth degree is a Class B misdemeanor, and SB 91 limited the penalties for this offense: for a defendant’s first and second convictions of this offense, no jail time could be imposed and for a defendant’s third or subsequent conviction of this offense, the maximum terms was five days suspended with six months of probation.
Business owners, law enforcement officers and prosecutors, however, told the commission this provision emboldened some offenders to commit more lower-value theft crimes. The commission now is recommending that for third-time theft in the fourth degree offenders, this offense would be punishable by up to 10 days in jail.
Another significant change is a recommendation that enacts a presumptive term of 0-90 days for Class C felonies for first-time felony offenders. SB 91 had mandated that Class C Felonies are punishable by a suspended term of 0-18 months for first felony offenders, but the commission felt it needed more incentive to get offenders in treatment and give judges discretion in sentencing some jail time.
According to commission member Brenda Stanfill, a victims rights advocate from Fairbanks, that recommendation engendered the most debate.
“There were several proposals put forward to increase penalties, including stiffer penalties for violent felonies,” Stanfill said, adding the range does allow a judge to impose no jail time.
The third most significant change, Micciche and Coghill said, is a recommendation that violation of conditions of release be returned to misdemeanor status, punishable by up to five days in jail.
In 2015, the commission recommended that violation of conditions of release be downgraded to a non-criminal violation, punishable by a fine. But SB 91 included an arrest provision so that defendants who violated conditions of their release could be arrested and held in jail until the judge in their underlying case could review bail. But some of those arrested were being released as soon as they were brought to jail, despite a change to the bail form by the Alaska Court system, the commission noted.
“Public condemnation has played a huge part in this,” Coghill said Monday during the committee hearing. “We cannot ignore the public, who feel so violated.”
That was a message that was repeated Wednesday as well, although Micciche also charged that some of the criticism leveled at SB 91 ignored the facts, including the rising rate of violent crime in the three years before the bill was passed.
Micciche said SB 91 never removed the ability of law enforcement to arrest a suspect if there was a public safety risk, saying, “There are some misunderstandings. … We need to work on outreach.”
He urged the public to engage their legislators out on public safety issues via email at senatemajority@akleg.gov, reiterating, “We are listening.”
• Contact reporter Liz Kellar at 523-2246 or at liz.kellar@juneauempire.com
