CRIMINAL SENTENCING STUDY COMMITTEE

MINUTES

October 20, 1997 - First Meeting of Two

MEMBERS PRESENT

MEETING IN BRIEF

Minutes prepared by Jan Simmons, Legal Counsel
Organizational staffing by Leslie Hickey, Sr. Legal Counsel

  1. Background.
  2. Administrative Matters.
  3. Restorative Justice Advocacy, Inc.
  4. Drug Court.
  5. Sixth Judicial District Department of Correctional Services/Iowa Corrections Association.
  6. Sex Offender Registry.
  7. Court Attorneys Association.
  8. Corrections System Statistics.
  9. Iowa Board of Parole.
  10. Attorney General's Office.
  11. Committee Discussion.
  12. Documents on File With the Legislative Service Bureau.

COMMITTEE BUSINESS

1. Background.
Background. The Criminal Sentencing Interim Study Committee was charged by the Legislative Council to accomplish the following: (1) Review current criminal and sentencing practices on inmate populations at state and adult residential community-based correctional facilities; (2) Conduct a comparative assessment of the relative penalties imposed for various crimes not only on the threat posed by the prohibited criminal conduct, but also by the risk generally associated with particular criminal offenders; and (3) Review and make recommendations concerning sexual predator statutory proposals and the existing Sex Offender Registry. The Legislative Council authorized two Committee meetings for the performance of Committee tasks.
2. Administrative Matters.
Call to Order. Temporary Co-chairperson McKean called the meeting to order at 10:05 a.m.
Election of Co-chairpersons. Representative Mertz moved that Temporary Co-chairpersons McKean and Lamberti be elected permanent Co-chairpersons of the Committee. The motion was seconded, and passed unanimously.
Adoption of Rules. Senator Halvorson moved that the proposed Committee Rules be adopted as presented. Representative Mertz seconded the motion, which was passed unanimously by the Committee.
Opening Remarks. Co-chairperson McKean opened the meeting by noting that the first and most recent revision of the Criminal Code occurred in Iowa in 1976. Since that time, changes have been made to the Code in piecemeal fashion, including the adoption of various mandatory minimum sentences, which has resulted in an increased prison population. Co-chairperson McKean rhetorically queried whether the increased sentencing has decreased crime in any measure, and indicated that he was pleased with this opportunity for a nonpartisan, systemic review of the Criminal Code, though he possessed no preconceived ideas as to what recommendations would result from the Committee's work. He concluded by noting that he hoped that the Committee would meet after its second authorized meeting in November, possibly even during the next session, and again during the next interim, in order to develop proposals for the General Assembly which convenes in 1999.
Future Meetings. The Committee is scheduled to meet on November 21, 1997, at the State Capitol Building in Des Moines.
Adjournment. The Committee adjourned at 3:55 p.m.
3. Restorative Justice Advocacy, Inc.
Overview. Ms. Betty Jean Clark, Chair of the Restorative Justice Advocacy, Inc. Steering Committee, began the presentation with an overview of the issues associated with restorative justice, noting that Minnesota and Vermont are among states that pursue restorative justice concepts. Restorative Justice Advocacy, Inc., is an organization designed to allow Iowa counties the opportunity to engage in restorative justice concepts.
Restorative Justice in Iowa. Mr. Fred Gay, Assistant Polk County Attorney and a member of the steering committee, next noted the recent occurrence of regional conferences on restorative justice, and the widespread perception among the public that the current criminal justice system is not addressing the needs of victims. Restorative justice involves victims and makes offenders more accountable to both the victims and the community.
The Victim-Offender Reconciliation Program (VORP) in Polk County is an example of restorative justice concepts in action. VORP allows victims the opportunity to meet the crime perpetrator. Ninety percent of victims want to meet the offender in order to find out the reasons the offender committed the crime and to explain the consequences of the crime. After participating in VORP, most victims primarily want the offender to receive help, more than punishment.
Mr. Gay closed by encouraging the Committee to continue questioning the appropriateness of current sentences imposed for particular crimes, and to ensure victim input into the criminal justice system.
Restorative Justice Principles. Ms. Elizabeth Chrisinger, Center for Creative Justice in Ames, discussed the principles underlying restorative justice and how restorative justice can and is being used in Iowa and other states to help to rectify the effects of criminal behavior in a manner that involves and empowers victims and makes offenders more accountable for their actions. She described the effectiveness of restorative justice programs in holding criminal offenders accountable to both their victims and the community at large, in providing greater community safety by giving offenders the services they need, and in meeting the particular needs of individual communities by tailoring application of creative sanctions to help deter future criminal conduct. She emphasized the need for collaboration of all persons and portions of the criminal justice system affected by or involved in each case in order to maximize the effectiveness of such programs.
Member Questions. Senator Rehberg asked Ms. Chrisinger about the funding sources for the Center for Creative Justice, and Ms. Chrisinger described the contribution of funds by public groups. Senator Hammond noted Missouri's recent legislation implementing restorative justice concepts.
Representative Richardson asked about data regarding the effectiveness of restorative justice, and questioned whether the programs address the lack of remorse which is prevalent among youthful offenders. The participants responded that studies have shown that participants are less likely to reoffend. With regard to a lack of remorse, most restorative justice programs do inform the victim prior to participation if an offender does not accept responsibility for the crime.
Co-chairperson McKean asked the presenters whether they had specific recommendations regarding sentencing issues, and they indicated they would give the issue consideration. He also indicated interest in obtaining precise figures of the impact of restorative justice methods on recidivism.
4. Drug Court.
Mr. Jim Hancock, Director of the Fifth Judicial District Department of Correctional Services, described both the origins and the nature of the Drug Court which has been in operation in the Fifth Judicial District for approximately one year. The Drug Court is a program for nonviolent offenders with a history of substance abuse, and involves a team approach between courts and relevant agencies. Participation entails completion of several program phases over a period of supervision encompassing approximately nine months to one year, including substance abuse assessment, treatment, and enforcement of probation terms, including weekly urinalyses and other types of programming. Participants receive positive reinforcement for successful completion of the phases of the program, but may be removed from the program due to failing a urine test. The first graduating class is expected during October 1997.
Co-chairperson McKean asked Mr. Hancock whether the existing statutes had posed any problems to the operation of the Drug Court. Mr. Hancock cited as a problem a lack of long-term inpatient or residential treatment services in helping the small percentage of substance abusers who have more serious addictions to overcome their drug habits.
5. Sixth Judicial District Department of Correctional Services/Iowa Corrections Association.
Overview. Ms. Jean Kuehl appeared on behalf of the Sixth Judicial District Department of Correctional Services and the Iowa Correctional Association. Ms. Kuehl discussed how sentencing policy affects the capacity and workload of the community corrections system, experiences of the Sixth Judicial District in trying to manage the populations that are served through the community corrections system, and the policy positions of the Iowa Corrections Association regarding sentencing reform. Overall, she stated that because the corrections system must solve their problems with a finite supply of resources, it is increasingly important to identify what procedures work best, in order to maximize use of those limited resources. Community-based corrections allows local assessment of needs and a local response tailored to address those needs; all parts of the criminal justice system must cooperate in order to address effectively the issues of the system.
Sentencing Reform. With regard to sentencing reform, Ms. Kuehl noted that the prisons are overcrowded, and that sentencing policy affects the size and make of the prison population. She expressed concern that the imposition of mandatory minimum sentences on low-level drug offenders has the effect of forcing the premature release of more violent offenders into the community, and that more drug treatment is needed for drug offenders, not just mandatory minimums. For the criminal justice system to maintain credibility, it must have a comprehensive strategy, including addressing prevention and treatment needs at all stages. Such a comprehensive strategy does not necessarily entail greater financial outlay. The major "cost" experienced by the Intermediate Sanctions Policy Group in the Sixth Judicial District was time: the time needed to identify needs of the system and to develop effective policies.
Ms. Kuehl noted that one of the effects of the requirement that certain offenders serve 85 percent of their sentences is that those offenders are released into the community without any post-release supervision, because they have completely served their sentences and the statute does not provide for post-release supervision. Locking people up is not enough, especially with youthful offenders. There is also a need to explore more options with split-sentencing, day treatment, and similar innovative strategies. Effective consequences are important to success of any strategy, however, and thus there is a need for adequate surveillance and immediate short-term punishments, such as contempt, for those who do not comply.
Pilot Probation Revocation Project. With respect to the pilot probation revocation project in the Sixth Judicial District, Ms. Kuehl indicated that time is needed to work out the challenges presented by the new system before the program is extended statewide. An effective system needs internal consistency and enough flexibility to quickly address identified needs. She noted that during the initial stages of the pilot program, there was a lack of authority for the exercise of contempt power. The Department feels that contempt authority and other intermediate sanctions that provide swift and effective justice for violations of a court order without full revocation of probation are needed, in conjunction with adequate surveillance. She also suggested that exclusion of misdemeanants from the program would be the best way to limit population within the program and allocate limited resources. Granting concurrent jurisdiction with the court might help to alleviate some of the concerns that have arisen relating to provision of initial appearances within the required time limits.
Member Questions. Co-chairperson McKean asked Ms. Kuehl what changes she would recommend with regard to current sentencing practices. She indicated the need to eliminate mandatory minimums, to pursue intermediate sanctions, and to expand programs such as the Drug Court. Co-chairperson McKean also asked whether Ms. Kuehl could identify any other states as a model for post-release supervision practices, and she indicated she would research the issue.
Representative Garman asked what characteristics would qualify a person as a low-level drug offender. Ms. Kuehl indicated that it is primarily a consideration of past criminal behavior, and of current and future threat and needs. She also remarked that a low-level user who is also a small-time dealer tends to be regarded as different from a high-stakes dealer.
6. Sex Offender Registry.
Overview. Ms. Betsy Dittemore and Mr. Steve Conlon of the Iowa Department of Public Safety discussed the current operations of the Sex Offender Registry. Their discussion addressed the total number and statewide distribution of current registrants, the documentation process used for the registry and public notification, and the activities of the Department in the verification of offender addresses and dissemination of information regarding offenders.
Statistical Information. Currently, almost 2,000 persons are registered. This includes only persons who were convicted or under supervision for a sex offense as of July 1, 1995. The number includes both adults and juveniles, unless registration is waived by the juvenile court judge. A person must be registered for a 10-year period following each offense. The registration process, as well as the process of public notification, was detailed. A person has 10 days to report changes in address to the local sheriff, and the state sends out an annual verification of address form. Failure to file is an aggravated misdemeanor for a first offense.
Since July 1, 1997, approximately 3,900 queries have been made from the public and law enforcement, which represents a significant increase over past years. A person can file a written request listing both a name and address for verification with a sheriff. Public notification is also done if an offender is deemed to be "at risk" within a defined geographic area. An offender has an opportunity for a hearing prior to such a public notification.
Costs. Current registry expenditures were described as around $60,000, although it was clarified that a request for an additional $551,000, including 11 additional FTEs, will be submitted in the next fiscal year to run the registry and conduct the risk assessments for the public notification process.
Member Questions. Senator Black asked if out-of-state offenders who moved into the state were slipping through "cracks" in Iowa's registration requirements. Mr. Conlon said that some were, where the elements of their crime were not identical to the elements of Iowa crimes which trigger registration requirements, and that they were therefore not required to be registered in Iowa. A better method might be to require all offenders who must register in any other state to also register upon moving to Iowa.
Senator Hammond asked if they had any data on the effectiveness of chemical castration, but they had no information on the issue. Co-chairperson McKean asked about costs charged to defendants who must register. Mr. Conlon responded that the defendant is charged a $200 criminal fee, and 80 percent of that amount goes to DCI.
Senator Rehberg asked about the requirement that a person filing a query must have both the name and address of an offender for verification. Mr. Conlon confirmed that those are the items required under the present statute, but that other states require a match of name and one other item, such as address, social security number, or other information. He noted that a person can also request notification of all "at risk" offenders in the area. Senator Mertz asked about notifying a neighborhood, and Mr. Conlon noted that such notification raises difficult issues, including how often the notification should be made and how broadly it should be made.
7. County Attorneys Association.
Overview. Mr. Rich Phillips and Mr. Kevin Parker, Association legislative co-chairpersons, described the Association's positions relating to the 85 percent service of sentence requirement, the Sixth Judicial District probation revocation pilot project, sexual predator commitment proposals, and juvenile justice issues.
They noted that the 85 percent service requirement has had the impact of encouraging plea agreements while helping to deal positively with a negative public perception of criminal sentencing practices. They expressed the Association's opposition to the Sixth Judicial District's administrative probation revocation pilot project, emphasizing the need for county attorney and judicial involvement in the revocation process.
Sexual Predators. With regard to a possible civil commitment process for sexual predators that would be modeled after the Kansas system upheld this summer by the United States Supreme Court, both Mr. Phillips and Mr. Parker indicated that although their organization has not yet taken a formal position on the details of such a law, their preliminary concern is that the state should pay for commitments under such a process, rather than utilizing the current cost allocation method for mental health commitments of county of legal residence, because of unique characteristics about the sexual predator population. Both men also expressed public safety concerns, if such a process allowed for the release of dangerous individuals back into society.
Juveniles. Mr. Phillips and Mr. Parker also emphasized that the juveniles entering the juvenile court system are very violent and that detention and shelters are often inappropriately used because of the lack of appropriate placement options for juveniles. Both men agreed that additional residential placement options are needed.
8. Corrections System Statistics.
Effects of Mandatory Minimums. Mr. Fred Scaletta, Iowa Department of Corrections, began his presentation with an explanation of how the Department implements statutory "good time" reductions to inmates' sentences for good behavior, including how "good time" is applied to sentences with mandatory minimums. Mr. Scaletta also indicated that the real impact of mandatory minimum sentences on inmate populations has been minimal, except for certain drug offenses, because the average length of stay of most inmates (according to application of the "good time" formula) tends to exceed any mandatory minimum imposed as part of the full sentence. In addition, he noted that since application of the 85 percent rule began for certain offenses committed since July 1, 1996, the corrections system presently includes only 63 inmates who are subject to that rule.
Other Estimates. However, Ms. Lettie Prell, Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning, Department of Human Rights, projected that in 10 years, the number of inmates in the correctional system under the 85 percent rule would be 879, and in 20 years would be 1,889. Ms. Prell also described the current and future composition of the prison population based on offenses committed, and noted that the total capacity of the prison system, including the new Fort Dodge facility, is 5,897 beds, but that the total system population is expected to be over 9,000 by the year 2006, because of the increase in the average length of stay.
Ms. Prell noted that the three most common offenses which resulted in incarceration are nonviolent offenses: drug offenses, theft, and burglary. The fourth most common offense, assault, is the first violent offense among those offenses which most frequently result in incarceration. She also noted a marked increase in the number of probationers in prison, with 48 percent of those probationers having been convicted of new offenses, and only 23 percent of whom have committed "technical" violations of their probation.
Member Questions. Co-chairperson McKean asked if the Department had recommendations to make to the Committee. Mr. Scaletta indicated that recommendations would be forthcoming.
9. Iowa Board of Parole.
Overview. Mr. Walt Saur provided information regarding trends in prison admissions, probation revocations, and parole returns; information regarding median sentences and median time served; the effectiveness of prison on criminal behavior; the use of videoconferencing by parole authorities; and the effectiveness of treatment for sex offenders. Mr. Saur also described how improved communication between the various segments of the criminal justice system could assist the system as a whole in dealing with criminals and criminal behavior.
Mr. Saur noted that the current trend is to put offenders into prison instead of on probation, which is a change in the trend that was experienced in the 1980s. However, he noted studies which show that prison is not an effective crime deterrent. Nationally, Iowa's rates of recidivism rank low.
Member Questions. Co-chairperson McKean asked about the possible benefit of structured sentencing. Mr. Saur did not have a real position on the issue. Senator Hammond asked if he had any figures regarding possession of drugs as compared to delivery of drugs, but he did not have any information on that issue.
10. Attorney General's Office.
Sexual Predators. Mr. Gordon Allen spoke briefly with regard to the Sexually Violent Predator Study conducted by the Attorney General's Office, which was recently changed and reissued after the United State Supreme Court upheld the Kansas civil commitment procedure for sexually violent predators this summer in Kansas v. Hendricks. Essentially, the Attorney General's Office has concluded that a similar civil commitment process would be constitutional if implemented in Iowa, but it would be costly, and would apply to only a few offenders. The Attorney General would endorse such legislation, however.
11. Committee Discussion.
Co-chairperson McKean noted that all requests for additional information needed by Committee members prior to the next meeting should be addressed to the Legislative Service Bureau. He also asked if there were other issues the Committee members would like to see addressed at the next meeting. Representative Richardson indicated that he is interested in the possibility of developing special facilities for violent sexual offenders. Senator Rehberg indicated an interest in electronic monitoring and in post-conviction bonds.
12. Documents on File With the Legislative Service Bureau.
a. Background Statement prepared for Committee members by the Legislative Service Bureau, including supporting documents.
b. Rules of Procedure, adopted by the Committee on October 20, 1997.
c. Federal Bureau of Justice Administration (BJA) Monograph on National Assessment of Structured Sentencing.
d. Restorative Justice: Questions & Paradigm Assumptions, from the Minnesota Department of Corrections (handout from Betty Jean Clark).
e. Fundamental Concepts of Restorative Justice (handout from Betty Jean Clark).
f. Reparative Probation Boards (handout from Betty Jean Clark).
g. Restorative Justice Advocacy Steering Committee Pamphlet.
h. Missouri Senate Bill 430 (Restorative Justice).
i. Materials from Jean Kuehl: Recommendations of the Iowa Corrections Association; Iowa Corrections Continuum Chart; Minutes from the Intermediate Sanctions Policy Group.
j. Sex Offender Registry Presentation (handout packet from Steve Conlon).
k. Article: "How Powerful is Prison as a Crime Fighting Tool?" (handout from Walt Saur).
l. Delaware survey on use of videoconferencing by parole boards (handout from Walt Saur).
m. Prison population charts (handout from Walt Saur).
n. Parole grant charts; [Reverse side] Article: "Fewer Convicts Repeat Crimes" (handout from Walt Saur).
o. Chart: Median sentences compared to median time served for certain crimes (handout from Walt Saur).
p. Article: "Treatment Works" (handout from Walt Saur).
q. Executive Summary: BJA Report on sex offenses and offenders (handout from Walt Saur).
r. Charts: Trend in Admissions; Trend in Probation Revocations; Trend in Parole Returns (handouts from Walt Saur).
s. Rand Drug Policy Research Center Research Brief: Are Mandatory Minimum Drug Sentences Cost-Effective?

OTHER INFORMATION FOR THIS COMMITTEE:

| Charge | Members | Staff | Final Report |

Return To Home Site index

Comments about this site or page? webmaster@legis.iowa.gov

Please remember that the person listed above does not vote on bills. Direct all comments concerning legislation to State Legislators.

© 1995 Cornell College and League of Women Voters of Iowa

Last update: FRI Jan 23 1998
sw/sam