I want to start by saying that I am writing this letter from Lemon Creek Correctional Center. I am serving time for a non-violent theft offense that occurred in 2009. Originally, almost my entire sentence was suspended. I have spent the last sever years in and out of jail, all due to drug- and alcohol-related probation and parole violations. It’s people like me — and there are many — that are the scope of Senate Bill 91 and House Bill 205.
Hundreds of sections compose these two bills. Some of that focus is to incentivize the completion of voluntary treatment classes. If eligible offenders complete said classes, they would be awarded additional good time, resulting in an earlier release. I want to emphasize that the language used in the bills excludes violent offenders from any sort of early release. This seemed to come as a shock to my neighbor two cells down that sex offenders, like him, would be categorized as violent and therefore excluded from the “good time” incentives. This logic evaded me, at least until I read Martin W. Moody’s letter in the Empire, “The Dark side of SB 91 and HB 205.” Maybe, (at least some) sex offenders don’t consider sex offenses as violent.
In following the legislative session, specifically regarding SB 91 and HB 205, a specific question of public safety has repeatedly come up when discussing the potential early release of non-violent offenders. It cannot be denied that lawmakers have done an amazing job at balancing public safety concern and radical reform.
During times of public opinion, formal and informal, individuals opposed to SB 91 and HB 205 have expressed some very cliché ideas about drug offenders, many of which describe very isolated events. Moody’s letter was another example of the unfortunate stereotype used to describe drug offenders as a whole. However, the behavior that Moody described was that of a sexual predator. Lure the victim in, then exploit them. These people are not the scope of SB 91 and HB 205, nor should they be confused as such.
After seven years of “revolving door” stays in jails statewide, I can honestly say that Alaska’s Department of Corrections has become a day care for drug addicts. The idea behind SB 91 and HB 205 is to improve Alaska’s correction system and move away from expensive warehousing of inmates. The radical changes promoted in SB 91 and HB 205 will mean a solid foundation for recovery, embrace accountability and foster reentry into our communities. I am embarrassed that anyone, let alone an inmate would try to detract from solutions and perpetuate fear of change. My only hope is that the public will embrace the perspective I have tried to share.
• Michael Starr is an inmate at Lemon Creek Correctional Facility.
