The administrative contact person for the committee appears to be his assistant, Maureen WIlliams, at mwilliams@azleg.gov or 602-926-3695 - I'd suggest sending any additional remarks you have for the committee to her. Please do so, if you have anything constructive to add at all - but read the whole set of meeting minutes at the Legs website first - we need to respond directly to Fischer's report; Mona Lynch did a lot towards that end.
This comes to us from Camille Tilley, by the way - she's on top of all of this better than I am most days.
--------------------------
HOUSE STUDY COMMITTEE ON SENTENCING
Minutes of Meeting
Members Present
Representative Goodale Representative Ash, Chairman
Representative Hendrix
Members Absent
Representative Konopnicki (excused) Representative Tovar (excused)
Representative Sinema (excused)
Opening Remarks
Chairman Ash remarked that the state’s
financial situation has compelled legislators to re-evaluate state government and
this seems like a good opportunity to review the state’s sentencing structure.
There have been 30 years for evaluation since the Sentencing Code was reenacted
in 1978; there have been some good results, but some things need to be looked
at in light of technological advances and other methods of incarceration,
sentencing and rehabilitation.
Mrs. Goodale welcomed everyone
and said she is excited about the opportunity to look at new research and what
has been working in other states. She served as a probation officer in
Mohave County for 33 years where she interacted with many people in the criminal justice system from the judiciary to the prisons. She believes it will be possible to develop a better product that will serve everyone while preserving public safety, which is first and foremost, and fiscally watching taxpayer dollars.
Mohave County for 33 years where she interacted with many people in the criminal justice system from the judiciary to the prisons. She believes it will be possible to develop a better product that will serve everyone while preserving public safety, which is first and foremost, and fiscally watching taxpayer dollars.
Mr. Hendrix stated that he appreciates
Chairman Ash taking a lead on this issue and he looks forward to being
involved.
Testimony on Sentencing
Representative Jerry Madden,
Texas House of Representatives; Vice-Chairman, House Corrections Committee;
Member, House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence Committee, via
teleconference, stated that Texas has been held up as the leading example of what
is now called justice reinvestment. He said he had no experience in the criminal
justice system until 2005 when he was appointed Chairman of the Corrections
Committee by the Speaker of the Texas House of Representatives who gave him the
directive not to build new prisons because they cost too much. When the Texas
Legislature entered the 2007 Session he was informed that the prison population
would increase by 17,000 by 2012. It costs about $42 per day to house each
prisoner and Texas had over 150,000 prisoners.
Representative Madden related
that he worked with a Senator who is knowledgeable about the prisons to make sure
the system is cost-effective and things are done the right way. The probation
system was reviewed to determine how it is working. Most prisoners were not
directly sentenced, but violated probation, and 13,000 were technical
violations, so to lower those numbers, it was necessary to determine how to
break the cycle of recidivism. The best and cheapest place to do that is when
people are young so they never get into the system; the second place is in the
school system; the third place is probation; the fourth place is in the prisons
by providing the right programs; and the last place is when prisoners are on
parole and back in the community.
He said in reviewing who is in
prison, it was determined that many have drug or mental health problems, many
are school dropouts or low performers and many have a combination of those issues.
The three types of prisoners are the really bad individuals that if let out of
prison return immediately for which it is a waste to spend money on, those who
will never return to prison for which the only item he would consider spending
money on is education so they become better taxpayers and the majority that he
calls swingers who may or may not return depending on what programs and
treatment are provided and their drug habits or alcoholic problems. The swingers
are the prisoners that were concentrated on in Texas, and a critical item in
doing that is good risk assessment.
Representative Madden noted that
in Texas money was added for treatment of probationers with mental health
problems and support was provided to the Nurse-Family Partnership at a cost of
$8 million to break the cycle at a young age. To break the cycle in schools, some
things in school districts were changed such as no longer allowing violations
of the code of conduct to be a misdemeanor, reviewing gang and bullying
activities, along with intervention and support for juvenile probation. Much time
and effort was spent to make sure there were enough probation workers with
proper caseloads, as well as intermediate sanction facilities, substance abuse
facilities and specialty courts were expanded to give judges more options.
He said that in prison the
therapeutic treatment program for drug addicted individuals was expanded and a
program was put in place for alcoholics.
Representative Madden stated that
for parole additional substance abuse treatment beds and intermediate sanction
facilities were provided. The parole rate was reviewed and the
Parole Board was asked to review the guidelines for release of the lowest-risk
prisoners; Texas had about a 26 percent parole rate that was raised 3 to 4
percent without impacting public safety, which is the number one priority. He
added that there are wonderful think tanks that can develop ideas.
Representative
Madden advised of the successes achieved in Texas:
- The projected cost of between $1.5 billion to $2 billion to build prisons and $40 million to run each prison per year was not incurred, but about $240 million was used for the additional programs.
- To date, the prison population has been reduced by about 2,500 prisoners.
- It is difficult to measure success for recidivism because there is a three-year measurement period, but some intermediate tracking can be done. The parole revocation rate dropped by 29 percent the first year and another 3 percent in the second year, and there were fewer people in the juvenile and adult probation systems.
- Crime rates and violent crime rates are down.
- The state is having trouble filling the additional 3,200 specialty beds for drug abusers because the specialty courts were increased and are keeping people out of the facilities and within the community, which means crime victims are being paid, more child support is being paid and the taxpayer burden is lessened.
- The revised forecast indicates there is no need to build new prison beds, at least in the next three to five years.
He suggested for the short term
that Arizona concentrate on probation, which is where a quicker savings can be
realized, dealing with and working on progressive sanctions, looking at specialized
courts to help keep people in local areas, and parole rates to see if low-risk
prisoners can be paroled without endangering public safety.
In response to
questions, he
indicated that money will have to be invested in all of those areas,
except
possibly parole. Additional funding was not provided for ankle
bracelets in Texas and only a few minor changes were made to the
definition of any crime. In reviewing ankle
bracelets, he found that some money can be saved with certain people;
ankle bracelets
are a definite incentive for many not to go out drinking, for example.
He said
sentencing reform was not addressed in Texas.
Chairman Ash asked if Texas provided for early release of some prisoners.
Representative Madden replied that there was not an early release program specifically, but people were eligible for parole review and the Parole Board was asked to look at the parole rates. A risk analysis was already set up by the Legislature as a guideline for parole, which was not changed, but by putting programs in place, providing intermediate sanction facilities and additional caseload funding, parole departments can watch parolees better within the community. Some people will probably not endanger public safety while on parole, which otherwise might have been put aside for another year or two.
Representative Madden replied that there was not an early release program specifically, but people were eligible for parole review and the Parole Board was asked to look at the parole rates. A risk analysis was already set up by the Legislature as a guideline for parole, which was not changed, but by putting programs in place, providing intermediate sanction facilities and additional caseload funding, parole departments can watch parolees better within the community. Some people will probably not endanger public safety while on parole, which otherwise might have been put aside for another year or two.
Dana Hlavac, Deputy County
Manager, Mohave County Criminal Justice Services, addressed the Committee about
his perception of issues involving the sentencing laws of Arizona and made
13 specific recommendations (Attachment 1).
13 specific recommendations (Attachment 1).
Dr. Daryl R. Fischer, Author “Prisonersin Arizona, A Profile of the Inmate Population [March 2010],
related that
he is the former Research Manager for the Arizona Department of
Corrections (ADC).
The report he authored was commissioned by the Arizona Prosecuting
Attorneys’
Advisory Council (APAAC) and provides the most in-depth statistical
profile of
the Arizona prison population ever attempted. As of September 30, 2009,
ADC
housed 40,514 inmates, including 40,431 sentenced for crimes committed
in Arizona. The purpose of the study was to help in the debate
concerning alternatives to
incarceration and early release of state prisoners as a budget-cutting
measure. Since non-violent first offenders are usually the first group
to be
considered for some type of early release, the thrust of the study was
to
determine how many inmates fell into this category. It was also
possible to
develop a broad array of statistics detailing the present and past
criminal
activities of Arizona prisoners.
Dr. Fischer reviewed statistics
from the report and noted that the fact that 94 percent of inmates are violent
or repeat offenders runs counter to perceptions of some outside observers who
stated publicly that as much as half of the prison population consists of
non-violent first offenders, the kind normally targeted for some type of early
release. He said the criminal justice system is working fairly well. There
are not a large number of non-violent first offenders in custody and those that
are in prison are there for definite reasons.
He stated that the conclusion of
the analysis is that the state appears to be getting its money’s worth for the current
$1 billion annual investment in the prison system. A previous study conducted
while he was with ADC showed that recidivism rates were reduced by 25 percent
for inmates who actively participated in rehabilitation programs prior to
release. The greatest reductions in recidivism were recorded by inmates who
served 10 years or more. Inmates need to be prepared to successfully return to
the community, and when adequately funded, ADC does a good job of making sure
that happens.
Dr. Fischer conveyed that as far
as the overall picture of crime, the incarceration rate in ADC increased by
18.3 percent since 1995; the crime rate dropped by 42 percent since 1995 and reached
the lowest level on record since 1966. Violent crimes are at the lowest level
since 1971, which he believes is mostly due to implementation of Truth-in-Sentencing
in 1994 and the dedicated efforts of police, prosecutors, prison officials,
etc., to keep dangerous felons behind bars. Prison population growth in
Arizona appears to have leveled off, and according to the Phoenix Police
Department, violent property and drug crime in the city dropped by 24 percent
over the last two years, which bodes well as far as future prison population
growth. He added that the entire report is available at www.apaac.state.az.us.
When asked if crime rates have dropped
nationally, Dr. Fischer responded affirmatively and said it correlates with the
fact that many states adopted some form of Truth-in-Sentencing, which he believes
serves as a deterrent to crime to some extent. There is no proof that
incarceration reduces crime, but while an active criminal is locked up, that
person is not committing crimes.
Chairman Ash noted that only 5.8
percent of the ADC prison population are non-violent first offenders, but just
2.8 percent of those might be considered for early release. Dr. Fischer responded
affirmatively, noting that there may be a question of why that lowest group is even
in prison. He mentioned that although a high percentage of the prison
population consists of repeat offenders who have high recidivism rates, that is
not the case for all inmates. Many older inmates have lower recidivism rates, which
does include repeat offenders. The older inmate population could be targeted
for early release, but unfortunately, many are convicted of more serious offenses
such as murder and child molestation. He recommended consideration of
alternatives for people with sentences of one year and under, many of which are
convicted of less serious crimes and have no history of violence. Many have
priors, but if those are not too serious, it may be appropriate to divert those
prisoners to the counties to ease fiscal pressures on the state.
When asked about Representative
Madden’s description of the three types of inmates,
Dr. Fischer replied that he developed a risk assessment instrument for ADC that sorts offenders into high, medium and low-risk groups. Low-risk inmates will succeed no matter what is done for them; high-risk inmates have recidivism rates that seem to be relatively insensitive to much intervention; and the medium-risk (swing) group can go either way, which is where he believes the majority of resources in the prison system should be diverted to try to rehabilitate.
Dr. Fischer replied that he developed a risk assessment instrument for ADC that sorts offenders into high, medium and low-risk groups. Low-risk inmates will succeed no matter what is done for them; high-risk inmates have recidivism rates that seem to be relatively insensitive to much intervention; and the medium-risk (swing) group can go either way, which is where he believes the majority of resources in the prison system should be diverted to try to rehabilitate.
Robert Hirsch, Pima County
Public Defender, reviewed a handout relating to the way drug and alcohol
offenders are handled in Arizona (Attachment 2). He questioned if it is the right
thing to do and if money should be spent to incarcerate people for small
quantities of drugs since most are addicts who cannot help themselves. He
submitted that it is best not to worry about priors, but to worry about
treatment to get people off drugs and alcohol and out of the prisons. He
endorsed New York’s Drug Treatment Alternative to Prison (DTAP) program and
offered the following strategies for efficient crime control:
· Develop sentencing guidelines in non-violent offenses that enable
judges to make treatment and community confinement decisions based on
evidence-based practices.
·
Implement cost-effective and workable programs for drug and
alcohol offenders in lieu of prison.
He added that Pima County needs money allocated for community treatment to take care of these people and make
some changes.
Derek Rapier, Greenlee County
Attorney; Chairman, Arizona Prosecuting Attorneys’ Advisory Council (APAAC),
advised that APAAC commissioned the study by Dr. Fischer because of the financial
problems of the state and the fact that the criminal justice system is not
budget protected by referendum or otherwise; it has been protected throughout
the years by a notion that the first duty of government is to keep the public
safe. Additionally, there has long been a notion that prisons are filled with
first-time non-violent, mostly drug user offenders, which is not accurate.
He said the drug problem in
Greenlee County usually involves methamphetamine and/or marijuana, which has
been attacked in a multidisciplinary fashion by providing more counseling in
jails and long-term treatment, but there has to be some “teeth” in that if recovery
is not taken seriously, there will be consequences because people do not accept
things such as property crimes and murders. He said he would love to have a panoply
of options available, but he is not willing to suggest that because the mental
health system or substance abuse treatment are funded, sentencing should be
changed and these people should be released.
Mr. Rapier contended that the
statistics in Dr. Fischer’s study show that the right people are in prison,
i.e., repeat and violent offenders (94 percent). He opined that there is great
danger in making changes in Arizona without the investment in alternative systems
that
Representative Madden talked about, which the state has not been willing
to
fund. He indicated that anecdotal situations provide a snapshot and not
a true
picture of the overall problem, which is one of the values of Dr.
Fischer’s
study. The prosecuting community does not suggest that simply throwing
people
in prison is the one factor in reducing the crime rate, but it is not
something
that can be ignored. There have been reductions in crime rates, not
only in Arizona, but across the country, particularly in states where
mandatory sentencing has
taken place. Truth-in-Sentencing has resulted in a finite system where
people who
are sentenced to ten years know they will serve eight-and-a-half years.
There
was also a reduction in overall sentence prison exposure that some may
argue
was not enough or in certain crime areas was not sufficient, but an
attempt was
made to address that, and there is honesty in the system now that was
not
present before.
Mr. Rapier submitted
that if a
policy is pursued not to incarcerate child pornography defendants,
children in Arizona will be at increased risk; it is disingenuous to say
there is no link between child
pornography and child sex crimes. He cannot explain or quantify that
link, but
he is confident in saying that reducing that crime will result in
increased
risk to children.
Chairman Ash mentioned a
newspaper article about a man who was sentenced to 14 years in his wife’s
slaying, yet someone with no prior criminal history who looked at 11
pornographic pictures was sentenced to 100 years. Mr. Rapier opined that judges
should be given more discretion to handle those types of cases concurrently or
consecutively. He added that he is not opposed to looking at alternative solutions,
but pointed out that someone who is released from prison and on the street
likely poses some risk.
Jeremy Mussman, Deputy
Director, Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, expressed concern that
the report by Dr. Fischer is being portrayed as a roadblock to any changes in
the criminal justice system. He noted that during an interview, Dr. Fischer
said “I did this report for the prosecutors, but if I was doing it on my own, I
would take a more balanced approach,” and Dr. Fischer repeatedly explained that
the report does not address risk to the community.
Mr. Mussman opined that the
report creates categories that are quantified based upon macro information that
is not tied to specific individuals who are in custody, and at times the
information is based on anecdotal information that is not part of the charge
for which the defendant was actually convicted. It does not address the
specific risk analysis of each individual, and Dr. Fischer specifically
referenced that he has a risk analysis tool that ascertains whether or not
individual defendants are a high risk to the community.
He continued that APAAC provided
him with the database to Dr. Fischer’s report where he found information showing
that anyone who has a G (general risk) or V (violent risk) rating of 3 or lower
is low-risk. Based upon that data, there are 6,641 individuals currently in
custody that are at the lowest end of the risk scale (Attachment 3). At $56
per day that calculates to a savings of $375,000 per day and over $136 million
per year for that group alone. By looking at anyone who is G3 or V3, the
calculation is upwards of $500,000 per year. He submitted that this data needs
to be cross-referenced to figure out the following:
·
How much money can be saved immediately by early release and
which individuals can be released.
·
What inmates do in ADC to have such a low-risk factor.
·
What can be done to encourage inmates to take advantage of
rehabilitation programs.
·
How these people ended up in ADC in the first place, especially
G1 and V1 individuals who are low-risk and self-correcting, but after exposure
to the ADC environment may leave prison and be a danger to the community.
Mr. Mussman asked that a small
stakeholder group be created to analyze this data and develop recommendations.
Senator John Huppenthal,
related that he chaired the Judiciary Committee for two years and read
research
to use best practices to guide policies. As he encountered groups that
are
intent on reducing the prison population, it struck him that it is a
noble
objective, but it needs to be a secondary objective. In New York State,
the objective was to reduce crime, and a reduced prison population was a
byproduct. He
suggested an experiment in Arizona with accountability measures at the
local
level as was done in New York City by Chief William Bratton, which
resulted in
a huge reduction in crime and the prison population. Another element
would be to
increase the circulation rate of the prison population with guidance
from
researchers. Also, Texas has more differentiation in prison
populations, i.e.,
special prisons for extremely low-risk inmates, to reduce the cost of
operating
prisons, which should be a key piece.
He added that he worked with the
Pew Foundation on legislation to implement an incentive system for people on
probation whereby the length of probation is reduced using a specific formula if
an individual is drug-free and meets community service and restitution
requirements. The results appear to be very good so far; an all-time record of
successful completion of probation was reached and revocation rates to prison decreased
by 12 percent. He said perhaps this type of incentive can also be used with
prison populations.
Mona Lynch, Associate
Professor, Criminology, Law and Society, University of California Irvine;
Author “Sunbelt Justice: Arizona and the Transformation of American
Punishment” [Stanford University Press 2009], reviewed Arizona’s
history in relation to the prison population and sentencing reform from the
late 1970s to 2010 when Arizona is now faced with an unprecedented budget
shortfall and immense pressure to make fixes to the criminal justice system. She
made the following statements about Dr. Fischer’s report:
·
It does not speak to creating an efficient and effective criminal
justice policy; it is as if prison or nothing is the underlying assumption.
There is no discussion of other interventions that may be more cost-effective
and more effective in general.
·
There is a theory that incarceration works when much research
suggests that is wrong, particularly for drug offenders. It does not consider the
unintended negative consequences of imprisonment for the people in prison, as
well as families and communities.
·
It states that the prison population increase has contributed to
crime decline, but crime has gone down everywhere, which many people believe is
an aging factor, i.e., the crime-prone group is smaller now than in the 1980s.
·
There are inferences about causality with no data to measure
causality.
·
The suggestion that longer sentences are more rehabilitative is
problematic because an older population is leaving prison that is now in their less
crime-prone years. Similarly, offenses that may result in long sentences typically
have low recidivism rates; they may be very serious but do not tend to be high repeat
types of crimes.
·
It does not consider alternative explanations for recidivism,
including the failure of incarceration relative to other potential interventions.
Ms. Lynch endorsed the idea of
creating a bipartisan stakeholder group to categorize populations to be let out
as a short-term response, but opined that some long-term solutions are also
necessary, which means more money directed toward programming in prisons rather
than simply warehousing. Graduated release is considered an important way to
get people back into communities through re-entry facilities, etc., and those
types of low-cost releases can be done if sentences are shortened. The difficulty
will be determining the parameters of populations to be left in prison and
those that can be better served in other types of facilities.
She said New York, Kansas, New Jersey and Michigan all used a combination of sentence reform, alternatives to
prison programs, early release programs, graduated release programs, investment
in specialized courts and specialized treatment programs, etc. A report by
Judith Greene tells how four states greatly reduced the prison population. Ms. Lynch made the following suggestions:
Judith Greene tells how four states greatly reduced the prison population. Ms. Lynch made the following suggestions:
- Decide which offenders need to be in state custody as opposed to alternative local sanctions, calculate the optimal size to work with for long-term planning, make sure offenses that might be better addressed at the local level are legally eligible for local sanctions and consider whether the marginal cost of some lengthy sentences outweighs the marginal gains financially and on public safety grounds.
- Build upon successes such as the incentive program mentioned by Senator Huppenthal.
- Incentivize counties to manage offenders locally, develop effective crime prevention and/or early intervention programs and discourage sending an inordinate number of offenders to the state for incarceration.
- For offenders in prison, adequately fund custodial and after-care interventions that have been demonstrated to reduce recidivism.
- Consider using “carrots” and “sticks” to encourage local collaboration in these kinds of efforts.
Chairman Ash pointed out that Ms.
Lynch is from California and paid her own way to testify.
David Gallagher, Executive
Director, Arizona Addiction Treatment Programs, Incorporated, stated
that he
represents an out-patient clinic for licensed behavioral health,
substance
abuse and Driving Under the Influence (DUI) diversion and out-patient
treatment.
The company contracts with the Administrative Office of the Courts and
most referrals
are from Maricopa County Probation. He talked about the prevalence of
alcohol
and drug abuse among young people and adults. He said some progress and
changes have been made in Juvenile Court, at least in Maricopa County,
through a program that Senator Thayer Verschoor came up with that was
implemented in
October 2009. Also, people from the Adolescent Substance Abuse Program
are developing
good ideas about diversion, prevention and educating probation officers
and
parents.
Public
Testimony
Sandra Guziejka, representing
self, Gilbert, testified that she has a son in ADC who is a non-violent
offender and questioned why he cannot be released on electronic monitoring,
especially since she and her husband are willing to be responsible for him on
house arrest until his sentence is completed. When Chairman Ash noted that Truth-in-Sentencing
requires inmates to complete 85 percent of their sentence, Mrs. Guziejka responded
that her son has done that.
Chairman Ash stated that her son
should be eligible for release on community supervision and noted that posting
of a bond is used in many areas of the economy to ensure performance, which he
believes some families would be willing to do. Mrs. Guziejka clarified that
her son has a disability and is not able to produce urine samples in front of
anyone, so he was allowed to do dry cell testing. All of a sudden, he was not allowed
to do that, so he filed a lawsuit for violation of his civil rights. He never
tested positive for anything and he is asking for alternative methods of
testing, but he is losing some good time because of it and his contact visits have
been reduced.
Chairman Ash noted that he cannot
get into specific issues, but as a policy measure, it is necessary to explore
the options for releasing people early who are not a threat, particularly if
the inmate has family or community support. He added that he will look into
the situation.
Raymond Beckmann, representing
self, Chandler, said he has an incarcerated stepson who is serving a
five-year plea bargain sentence for merely possessing child pornography on his
tainted computer. In 2001, over 10 different people and minors had access to his
open passwords and unsupervised computer in his apartment. Parental controls
and blocks did not exist at that time, and only today is sexting by preteens
and cyberbullying being defined, which were definite behaviors that were perpetrated
on his son’s computer. False accusations, ignorance, poor lawyers and
prosecutorial misconduct are reasons for this miscarriage of justice. His son will
be labeled a lifetime sex offender and will be severely restricted by those
rules as long as he lives on the outside, which are almost impossible for any
human being to comply with, and if he violates those rules, he will be
resentenced for the same prison time he originally served.
He asked the Members to eliminate
the Adam Walsh Act and not adopt a new version, submitting that it has been
proven not to work and it does not protect children in Arizona. He indicated
that there is a need to reform Arizona’s unjust existing sex offender and child
pornography laws, which are overly broad and flawed. He raised the following
points:
- Why has the required time to serve been changed from 65 to 85 percent?
- There is no consideration in the laws for early release for sex offenders, especially the non-contact, non-dangerous, non-violent, no possession of child pornography types.
- It is against the U.S. Constitution and it should be against state law to create and punish a class of people for the rest of their lives.
- Why is computer not included in the classification of A.R.S. Section 13-3553 since sexual exploitation of a minor is not clearly defined; it is a computer crime and should be properly identified as such.
- Grouping all sex crimes together is too much.
- There is great disparity of punishment for child pornography possession countrywide. California classifies child pornography as a misdemeanor and New Mexico does not even apply possession of child pornography. All other states apply minimal sentence times.
Mr. Beckmann concluded by stating
that he and his wife cannot believe their son is now a convict, suffering in
prison, surviving amongst real criminals because he owned a computer that was
tainted with several illegal images that he was charged with merely
possessing. He is not a criminal, child pornographer, pedophile, predator or a
sex offender, yet Arizona brands him for the rest of his life. Prosecutors are
out for convictions and not necessarily the truth. Defense attorneys are
greedy and his son was forced to enter a plea of five years because the mental
and financial resources of the family were depleted. He asked for early
release of those who are not a threat to society to give them a chance to live
again.
Jeanne Thompson, representing self,
Chandler, stated that she is the mother of an imprisoned sex offender and
an activist. She stated that she is happy that Tonya Craft, who was facing 400
years in prison on 22 counts of child molestation, was acquitted on May 12,
2010, even though she is not claiming victory because of the scars left in the
aftermath. In comparison, her son was advised not to go to trial because the
risk was too great; if a computer expert proves child pornography images exist on
someone’s computer, that person is sentenced to 10 years per image. Also,
after indebting the family for $70,000, it was not possible to come up with
another $20,000 to $50,000 to take the case to trial. Additionally, their son
was suffering in
Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s inhumane jail and could not take any more abuse. The
family endured five nightmare years fighting for her son and another five years
while he has been in prison, yet their story will go on for the rest of their
lives unless changes are made to the horrendous sex offender law. She asked
the Members not to sign up for the Adam Walsh Act because adults, convicts and ex-convicts
need to be protected and afforded constitutional rights.
Chairman Ash said this is an area
of law that needs to be looked at that he has discussed with prosecutors and
defense attorneys; there are many sad cases.
Tom Tilley, Free Courtney
Bisbee Coalition, Scottsdale, said his daughter is in prison. Charges were
pressed for 75 years and she was offered 44 days time served. He told her he
would never admit to something he did not do and now he is paying the price for
saying that because she had a chance to get out of prison. Also, she has to be
registered as a sex offender, so there is something very wrong.
Camille Tilley, Free Courtney
Bisbee Coalition, Scottsdale, stated that their daughter,
Courtney Bisbee, an honors graduate from the University of Southern Florida, came to Arizona with her husband, got a divorce and took a job at the Horizon High School in Paradise Valley. She has been in Perryville Prison for four-and-a-half years. She was arrested by a SWAT team at her home in Scottsdale in front of her four-year-old daughter because of a false allegation by a teenager. She said her daughter needs to be reunited with her daughter. She provided CDs, Freedom March for the Wrongfully Convicted [June 27, 2009] (Attachment 4) and Lawyers Anti-Andrew Thomas Protest [December 21, 2009] (Attachment 5).
Courtney Bisbee, an honors graduate from the University of Southern Florida, came to Arizona with her husband, got a divorce and took a job at the Horizon High School in Paradise Valley. She has been in Perryville Prison for four-and-a-half years. She was arrested by a SWAT team at her home in Scottsdale in front of her four-year-old daughter because of a false allegation by a teenager. She said her daughter needs to be reunited with her daughter. She provided CDs, Freedom March for the Wrongfully Convicted [June 27, 2009] (Attachment 4) and Lawyers Anti-Andrew Thomas Protest [December 21, 2009] (Attachment 5).
Chairman Ash said there are
serious problems; no system is perfect, but improvements need to be made.
Without objection, the meeting
adjourned at 1:23 p.m.
_______________________________
Linda Taylor, Committee Secretary
May
27, 2010
(Original minutes, attachments and
audio on file in the Chief Clerk’s Office; video archives available at http://www.azleg.gov)
---------- DOCUMENT FOOTER ---------
HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEE
ON SENTENCING
May 14,
2010