It is with great concern that law enforcement throughout Alaska monitors the ongoing dialogue regarding Senate Bill 91 and its impact on our communities. Though SB 91 is a major catalyst, crime in Alaska is a far broader issue than just this one piece of sweeping legislation. The state's fiscal crisis, SB 91, and the "Presiding Judge's Bail Order" all combine to adversely impact public safety.
SB 91 was enacted on the promise of rehabilitation and treatment for our offenders as an alternative to incarceration. A program of this magnitude requires a huge front-end investment to develop the policies, processes, infrastructure and manpower necessary to optimize results. However, the process was never funded, engineered or given the foundation to function. Only now are components of this process being realized, with pre-trial services coming online in January 2018.
Cart before horse
SB 91 is a classic example of "putting the cart before the horse." Though labeled the "reinvestment act," there is virtually nothing to reinvest, or anything in which to reinvest. The budget crisis has assured that any cost savings will be used to meet operational needs, rather than treatment and diversionary programs. The promises proposed by SB 91 can't be fulfilled given the current fiscal situation. As implemented, the changes required by SB 91 will require years before functionality. The people of Alaska are experiencing the void created between what was and what may be. However, what may be is not here yet and has no definite timeline.
[Three-part series: People in Anchorage are fed up with crime. Did SB 91 make it worse?]
This has created dysfunction that directly impacts the public, whom we serve.
SB 91 not only reduced penalties for all but the most serious crimes, it also put into place an unworkable progressive penalty schedule. First-time Class C felonies are subject only to probation. Class A misdemeanors are subject to probation, or "community corrections." Class B misdemeanors may result in ONE day in jail with the possibility of up to 10 days based on multiple convictions. Many misdemeanors have been reduced to violations. The officer issues a "ticket"; the defendant promises to appear, and, if convicted, can receive "up to" a $1,000 fine. Keep in mind that none of this has an impact unless the case is actually prosecuted and leads to a conviction.
:quality(70)/s3.amazonaws.com/arc-wordpress-client-uploads/adn/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/20071126/Hi-res-color-logo.png){kind=logo}
In one jurisdiction, of 210 arrests made in 2017 where dispositions have been received, 19 percent have resulted in conviction. Dismissals account for 81 percent of these dispositions. Of the 81 percent, over half were dismissed or declined because the case was "disproportionate to resources." In the three prior years, the conviction rate ranged from 43 percent to 59 percent. Clearly, something is broken and the correlation to SB 91 should be clear.
This has statewide relevance. SB 91 imposed the minimal penalty possible for most criminal acts. Progressive penalties require previous convictions. With most cases dismissed, those convictions will not occur, and the defendant is free to reoffend with implied impunity.
Does this mean that prosecutors aren't working hard? Absolutely not! It comes down to resources. In light of budget cuts and reduced sentences for most offenses, prosecution of those offenses is disproportionate to the consequences of a conviction. As the crime rate increases, prosecutors receive more cases that require more time — all to be managed with fewer resources.
Get out of jail free
Contemporaneous to the passage and implementation of SB 91, the "Presiding Judge's Bail Order" was issued in April 2016. The order creates a new bail schedule. Under the order, virtually all persons who are arrested are released on their own recognizance (no bail posted). The schedule is offense-based — not based on the person's history. Therefore, a person can be arrested repeatedly and released on their own recognizance multiple times — with no repercussions. If a person on release violates conditions of release, the most the police can do is take them to jail where they are issued a citation, and again released on their own recognizance.
The only immediate sanction an "arrestee" receives is to be arrested and processed through jail. Unless they commit a narrow range of offenses, they will be released from jail — no bail posted — after signing a promise to appear. Learning does occur: Offenders learn that if they are apprehended, this is the cycle. It does not deter continued criminal behavior.
The effect: Police continue to respond to solve the immediate problem and protect the community; prosecutors work to manage increasing caseloads with scarce resources and ineffective sentencing guidelines; and correctional facilities continue to process offenders, and release them, only to see them repeatedly come back through the door. It has become a frenetic cycle that cannot continue without exhausting public patience, resources and the further degradation of public safety.
[Texas experience makes it clear: Alaska should give SB 91 time to work]
Yet, even when faced with rising crime and public dissatisfaction, our leaders continue to press the redemptive value of the implemented changes.
By the numbers
In an article by the sponsor of SB 91, it is stated that that criminals — not SB 91 — are to blame for rising crime. This seems like a nonsensical approach. From the same discourse (numbers inserted): "The answer from lawmakers, police, courts and victims is found in 1) laws that work, 2) laws that hold people accountable for their crime, 3) increase public safety, 4) change criminal behavior, 5) demand restitution, 6) facilitate swift action by our legal systems, 7) protect victims, 8) protect individual rights, and 9) provide a way of re-entering society safely and productively." The same article stipulates that 7,000 cases have not been prosecuted over the past few years.
By the numbers:
1) Nearly every law enforcement agency and association opposed SB 91; the change was too broad and the implementation schedule undefined. There was (and is) no infrastructure in place to support the various components to achieve the stated goals. The law as written does not work. The sanctions have no effect.
2) Seven thousand cases, so far, were not prosecuted. The public should be incensed and has a valid perception of a decrease in public safety.
3) Recidivism is increasing — but not in the manner measured by the ACJC. The individuals who repeatedly violate the law are not being prosecuted (7,000) or are not concerned with a threat of insignificant sanctions.
4) Criminal behavior has changed; read your local newspaper or talk to someone who has been repeatedly victimized. There is a constant cycle of victimization. The change in criminal behavior is an increase in criminality, not a decrease.
5) Restitution? Look at the numbers. Progressive sanctions built into SB 91 are based on convictions. With 7,000 crimes not being prosecuted, the required convictions to incur sanctions never occur, nor will restitution be ordered. Recent information from the Alaska Police Standards Council indicates, "Less than 15 percent of misdemeanants; and less than 5 percent of felons pay the fines and surcharges imposed as part of a sentence. Assessing fines is an ineffective enforcement strategy as the vast majority of offenders ignore them." The sad reality is that restitution may be ordered by the court, but an offender faces no sanctions for ignoring the order.
6) Swift action by our legal system: nearly universal release from jail with no bail posted; high dismissal rates; and ineffective penalties even if convicted.
7) and 8) Protect victims and individual rights: I hope you have read everything up to this point.
9) Providing re-entry strategies is something that is absorbing a great deal of energy and time but is far from the goal. The process is yet to be defined but will require rehabilitation, treatment, jobs, ongoing support and the will to succeed.
Recommendations
Addressing these issues will take the investment of time, energy and resources — all of which are in short supply. However, here are some places to start:
• Adopt the changes in Senate Bill 54. It is a start but does not address the fundamental flaws in SB 91.
• The Alaska Department of Law must receive more resources to do the job, particularly for prosecutors.
• Restore judicial discretion. Implement realistic sentencing guidelines that assess the total behavior of the individual.
• Fulfill the promises of SB 91 — fund drug and alcohol rehabilitation programs both inside correctional institutions and in communities.
• Place statutory limitation on releasing repeat offenders on their own recognizance or promissory bond.
• Restore the bail schedule. Require mandatory default of bail posted upon failure to appear and at the completion/resolution of any case where the defendant owes past due fines/fees/restitution.
• Enable courts to sanction those who fail to pay fines and restitution by using jail time or community service. Civil collection simply doesn't work in the majority of cases and is a waste of time and effort.
You may be one of the many who are frustrated with safety in their community but don't know how to voice their concerns. Contact your legislators and let them know how you have been affected. We are all in this together.
For a directory of state officials, visit http://w3.legis.state.ak.us/pubs/doso.php.
John Papasodora is chief of police in Nome and president of the Alaska Association of Chiefs of Police. Other members of the police chiefs' association signing on to this piece are Mike Holman, chief of police in Unalaska; Ronda Wallace, chief of police in Kodiak; Josh Dossett, deputy chief in Ketchikan; Brad Johnson, deputy chief in Fairbanks; Thomas Clemons, chief in Seward; Ed Mercer, chief in Juneau; Steve Dutra, chief in North Pole; Peter Mlynarik, chief in Soldotna; and Barry Wilson, captain and C Detachment commander for the Alaska State Troopers.
The views expressed here are the writers' and are not necessarily endorsed by Alaska Dispatch News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary@alaskadispatch.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@alaskadispatch.com.