Juneau’s city attorney prefers to use the word “discrepancies,” rather than “loopholes” in regard to the issues with the new criminal justice reform law.
Members of the public from around the state testified before the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission on Jan. 27 about problems with sentencing provisions in Senate Bill 91 that took effect last July.
Some residents commented about what they called “catch-and-release” or issuing tickets for infractions for what would have been crimes and then letting violators walk away.
One person who identified herself as Mat-Su resident Vicki Wallner said local criminals seem to have the upper hand.
“These criminals know the law better than we do and they are out of control,” Wellner said. “The box stores … People don’t go to jail for shoplifting anymore. It’s not even basically a crime.”
City and Borough of Juneau Attorney Amy Mead also presented testimony to the commission by teleconference. She said drafting issues in SB 91 created statutory language that was different than the original intent. That’s led to gaps or hiccups in the judicial process with judges having their hands tied.
Let’s say you were arrested for fighting someone in front of the downtown bars after closing. Before implementation of SB 91, you might be charged with disorderly conduct, a Class B misdemeanor, and specifically be ordered to serve up to 90 days in jail and pay as much as $1,000 in fines.
Now, under the new law’s sentencing guidelines, Mead said someone convicted on the same charge can get out after only 24 hours in jail.
“They’re savvy. They know that,” Mead said. “I’ve heard reports that officers get taunted by people who know that they can’t get more than 24 hours in jail. So, why bother.”
Another of the discrepancies in the new law noted by Mead includes the various penalties for assault.
For someone who punches, scratches or kicks another person, that could mean a Class A misdemeanor charge of fourth-degree assault. The maximum sentence is up to a year in prison.
If you use an instrument to assault someone, break their bones, or cause permanent physical injury, that could lead to a more serious charge of assault, a Class C felony. But that sentence only carries a maximum of 18 months suspended for a first-time felon, or no time to serve in prison unless the offender later commits another crime or violates their probation, like failing a drug test. Those already convicted of a previous felony would serve one to three years in prison, while those already convicted of two felonies would have two to five years to serve.
Related to the above shoplifting example, Mead said a first conviction for a misdemeanor larceny charge used to include a sentence of a year on probation under City and Borough of Juneau code. Probation was capped at six months for the second or third conviction.
But, under the new law, state statutes are now silent on the first or second offense. Mead said judges have been interpreting that as requiring no probation at all.
In addition, Mead said she was told by the Commission that jail time was not the answer for repeated larcenies. Cognitive behavioral therapy is supposedly cheaper and more effective.
“I don’t think we have a cognitive behavioral therapist in town that we could ask the court to require the people to go to as a term of probation,” Mead said. “As I mentioned before, right now, we can’t even get probation on a first or second offense even if we had someone in town. Let’s say we get past that, well, now we need someone in town who’s willing to take these people. If I get that, then maybe we could get somewhere. But, right now, we don’t have these things.”
Offenders who committed a crime while under the influence of alcohol might be sent to JASAP, or the Juneau Alcohol Safety Action Program, to help them deal with their alcoholism and change their behavior. But Mead said SB 91 has removed that as an option for all crimes except for driving while intoxicated.
And, what about domestic violence cases involving alcohol? JASAP is no longer available.
Mead said she understands and stands behind the Commission’s philosophy on criminal justice reform, but she feels the cart may have been put before the horse.
“I think that where we’re going – if can eventually get there – it really is going to make a positive change,” Mead said. “I’m frustrated now, though, because we don’t have the tools we need in order to implement the idea behind criminal justice reform. I’m concerned. What if we don’t ever get those?”
Mead is referring to the funding for social service organization and programs that were part of the criminal justice reform bill. Jail and prison beds cost money, and any savings incurred from not locking up every single offender was intended to be rolled into preventative and rehabilitative programs, but the money has just started rolling out to various agencies and programs.
(Corrected to reflect that no second bill is necessary for the reinvestment portion of criminal justice reform, clarified presumptive ranges for Class C felonies, and corrected spelling of Vicki Wallner.)
