SENATE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
January 19, 2005 Hearing Room 343
1:00 p.m. Tapes 5 - 6
MEMBERS PRESENT: Sen. Ginny Burdick, Chair
Sen. Charles Starr, Vice-Chair
Sen. Roger Beyer
Sen. Floyd Prozanski
Sen. Charlie Ringo
Sen. Vicki Walker
Sen. Doug Whitsett
STAFF PRESENT: Joe O'Leary, Counsel
Dale Penn, Committee Assistant
MEASURES/ISSUES HEARD & WITNESSES:
Current Status of Oregon Forfeiture Laws
Craig Prins, Executive Director, Oregon Criminal Justice Commission
Meredith (Bud) Bliss, Staff for Asset Forfeiture Oversight Advisory Committee
Prison Population Forecast
Sue Porter, Department of Administrative Services, Office of Economic Analysis
Department of Corrections Overview as it Relates to Prison Population
Max Williams, Director, Department of Corrections
Measure Introduction
These minutes are in compliance with Senate and House Rules. Only text enclosed in quotation marks reports a speaker’s exact words. For complete contents, please refer to the tapes.
|
TAPE/# |
Speaker |
Comments |
|
TAPE 5, A |
||
|
003 |
Chair Burdick |
Calls the meeting to order at 1: 08 p.m. Announces the agenda for the day. |
|
FORFEITURE LAWS – INFORMATIONAL MEETING |
||
|
016 |
Craig Prins |
Executive Director, Oregon Criminal Justice Commission. Begins discussion of the current status of Oregon forfeiture laws. Submits packet of information as well as 2003 Asset Forfeiture Oversight Report (EXHIBITS A - C) |
|
057 |
Prins |
Describes the difference between civil forfeiture and criminal forfeiture. Talks about the forfeiture laws passed by Oregon in 1989. Describes the charge and makeup of the Asset Forfeiture Oversight Advisory Committee. |
|
076 |
Prins |
Gives statistics on annual average forfeitures before Ballot Measure 3. |
|
077 |
Meredith (Bud) Bliss |
Staff for Asset Forfeiture Oversight Advisory Committee. Discusses the difficulty in gleaning that information. |
|
100 |
Prins |
Summarizes where these laws are currently beginning in 1997. Notes information on Measure 3 in EXHIBIT A and explains the impact of Measure 3 on forfeitures. Cites HB 3642 and HB 2429 (2001). |
|
145 |
Prins |
Points out that both bills have a sunset clause which means the legislation will “go away” if those sunset clauses are not removed. Notes that Measure 3 is before the Supreme Court for its constitutionality (single-subject rule) and should come out Spring 2005. |
|
171 |
Prins |
Discusses choices to be made by the legislature if Measure 3 is found to be unconstitutional by the Oregon Supreme Court. |
|
205 |
Prins |
Discusses where the proceeds coming from this should go towards; should it go to law enforcement, treatment, general fund, etc. |
|
230 |
Sen. Prozanski |
Asks if taking the sunset clause off the criminal forfeiture is an option? |
|
232 |
Prins |
Replies yes, and then discusses the options if Measure 3 is found unconstitutional. |
|
245 |
Sen. Prozanski |
Asks that if we do nothing, what is the result? |
|
250 |
Prins |
Responds that if you want Measure 3 to be statutory, you’d need to keep the sunset in place 24/7. |
|
260 |
Sen. Prozanski |
Raises concerns on court’s decision on Measure 3, and the state’s response. |
|
268 |
Prins |
Replies that with the meth problem, and other pressures, there needs to be pressure from the legislature to find a middle ground between the two sides. If measure 3 is found unconstitutional, another measure might be introduced. |
|
289 |
Chair Burdick |
Asks how forfeiture could be used as a tool in the meth area. |
|
295 |
Prins |
Replies that most local meth labs are small, there isn’t as much money in breaking down those labs. Mentions larger drug facilities (usually out of state) are higher money making operations under forfeiture for the state. |
|
325 |
Chair Burdick |
Asks if current system of criminal forfeiture is a money loser with regards to meth? |
|
332 |
Bliss |
Replies that large scale marijuana operations are the more common at the moment, and that forfeiture can bring some money in with that. |
|
347 |
Sen. Prozanski |
Discusses the problems with seizing meth property, and the contamination of said property. |
|
375 |
Prins |
States that there has been an increase in meth forfeitures. |
|
378 |
Bliss |
States that crack-cocaine was the highest forfeiture revenue, then marijuana four years ago, and now in the past couple years, it has been meth. |
|
PRISON POPULATION FORECAST – INFORMATIONAL MEETING |
||
|
418 |
Sue Porter |
Department of Administrative Services, Office of Economic Analysis. Submits EXHIBITS D – F and begins discussion on prison population growth from graph on page 2 of EXHIBIT E. |
|
482 |
Porter |
Discusses effect of Measure 11 on prison population. |
|
500 |
Porter |
Discusses the impact of Senate Bill 1145, relating to offenders with12 months left on their sentence. |
|
TAPE 6, A |
||
|
056 |
Porter |
Discusses Table 2, reporting prison population “snapshot” comparison, and current Measure 11 effects. |
|
081 |
Chair Burdick |
Asks to restate earlier statistical information concerning inmate demographics. |
|
083 |
Porter |
Reiterates statistics. |
|
089 |
Chair Burdick |
Asks if they break the information down by health status or by disabilities. |
|
091 |
Porter |
Replies that they haven’t been asked to do this yet, but can produce some numbers. |
|
094 |
Chair Burdick |
Conveys she wishes to get a clear definition of disabilities in the prison system, and the number associated. |
|
095 |
Sen. Prozanski |
Asks for a list of inmates with injuries or disabilities, because when under our care we pay their health care costs, but when released, the federal government provides money for their care. |
|
111 |
Sen. Walker |
Asks why the statistics show higher older offenders. |
|
117 |
Porter |
Replies that part of it is Measure 11, and part is due to the aging population. These particular individuals are overwhelmingly sex-offenders. Insists that they can find out the information relating to age and incarceration. |
|
135 |
Sen. Prozanski |
States that because Measure 11 placed many of these offenders in prison, causing the higher age population in prison. |
|
143 |
Sen. Walker |
States that, since Measure 11 was enacted in 1995, they should have been around 40 when convicted, and so shouldn’t the inmate, at that age, “be an upstanding citizen” and not be committing crimes. |
|
150 |
Chair Burdick |
Asks how much it costs to hold these people, discusses redirecting resources to where critical problems really are. |
|
161 |
Porter |
Gives cost figures. |
|
172 |
Porter |
Discusses the definitions of Measure 11 terms. |
|
210 |
Porter |
Discusses Figure 3 on page 3 of EXHIBIT E. |
|
255 |
Porter |
Discusses Table 4 on page 4 of EXHIBIT E. |
|
280 |
Porter |
Discusses Table 5 on page 5 of EXHIBIT E and it’s accuracy as a forecasting litmus test. Mentions other reports they have done, and their website. |
|
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OVERVIEW – INFORMATIONAL MEETING |
||
|
316 |
Max Williams |
Max Williams, Director Oregon Department of Corrections (DOC). Submits testimony (EXHIBIT G).Discusses a transitional plan to organize incoming prison population. Mentions actions already taken, and limitations with adding more beds in different facilities. Notes they are using rental beds in some counties. |
|
369 |
Williams |
Describes new construction of Warren Creek facility, set to open September 2005. |
|
377 |
Chair Burdick |
Recesses the meeting for the fire alarm. |
|
382 |
Chair Burdick |
Reconvenes meeting at 2:12 p.m. |
|
437 |
Williams |
Discusses medical care and services for inmates, and increase in cost of incarceration. |
|
453 |
Williams |
Details that many of these inmates come in with severe or harsh medical needs. Stresses that many are drug related, especially in regards to meth. |
|
480 |
Williams |
Discusses the Managing the Mental Ill Taskforce he created to address this issue. |
|
512 |
Chair Burdick |
Asks if there have been more management difficulties since Measure 11 has been adopted. |
|
TAPE 5, B |
||
|
037 |
Williams |
Responds to the status of administrative duties, and dictates the challenges administrators face and how they deal with them. |
|
060 |
Williams |
Talks about recidivism issue, the other important aspect of DOC; making sure inmates do not come back into the system. States dollar cost relating to a returning inmate. |
|
076 |
Chair Burdick |
Asks about these numbers, is this a yearly cost for their incarceration. |
|
081 |
Williams |
Speaks about costs for recidivating inmates. States that revenue available to curbing recidivism has lessened of late. |
|
110 |
Vice-Chair Starr |
Asks about the Oregon Accountability Model. |
|
117 |
Williams |
Replies that his predecessor created this model; details its use and makeup. Also talks about how his staff uses it to move inmates back into the community. |
|
145 |
Williams |
Mentions SB 267 which relates to using evidence-based practices, and his Department’s responsibilities relating to its use. Discusses an intense alcohol and drug rehabilitation program in several facilities. |
|
168 |
Chair Burdick |
Asks if DOC is seeing more meth perpetrators in these programs. |
|
171 |
Williams |
States that most people with these problems are in prison for another, relating crime, not the actual use of drugs. Says they’re trying to ascertain and quantify which drugs each inmate had problems with. |
|
200 |
Williams |
Details meth addiction information. Goes on to talk about the population in prison with a drug or alcohol addiction, and the DOC’s capability to deal with this problem. |
|
223 |
Sen. Whitsett |
Asks what percentage of increase in inmates, after Measure 11 was put in place, is related to meth. |
|
235 |
Williams |
Responds that usually those inmates are in prison due to different crimes, not for the actual use of drugs, therefore it’s almost impossible to detail solid facts. |
|
255 |
Sen. Whitsett |
Asks if possible to find numbers for relationship between meth and Measure 11 inmates. |
|
266 |
Williams |
Responds that they are trying their hardest to quantify meth addiction. |
|
275 |
Vice-Chair Starr |
States that encouraging community involvement and outreach reduces recidivism, would like to see more of it. |
|
294 |
Williams |
Answers affirmatively, and that many organizations, state agencies and communities are sponsoring a panel to decrease recidivism. |
|
317 |
Sen. Walker |
Asks how Oregon compares with national average of recidivism, and what the profile is of those inmates who do return. |
|
330 |
Williams |
Using a standardized definition, we do not have an abnormal recidivism rate. Reiterates the definition needs to be the same across the board, and details his idea of recidivism. |
|
380 |
Williams |
States that recidivism has increased, and lists his criteria of why and his categories of those inmates. Details sex offenders as an age-defying crime class. |
|
405 |
Sen. Walker |
Asks about sex offenders and the treatment for them. |
|
408 |
Williams |
Details another program, not tailored to sex offenders, used on them (cognitive restructuring). |
|
413 |
Sen. Walker |
Asks if, after release into the community, do they wait to start this program or do they start it during their last few months of incarceration. |
|
432 |
Williams |
Answers that roughly 90 days before release, this program begins. Discusses reconnection with community for inmate, and the process DOC goes about to place inmates back into the community. Says sex offenders are higher risk and require higher amounts of resources. |
|
467 |
Sen. Prozanski |
Believes there is a higher percentage of a drug and alcohol problem with inmates. Discusses programs for placing inmates back into communities. Details new developments of California DOC. |
|
511 |
Williams |
States his understanding of California’s DOC and discusses transitional services. |
|
TAPE 6, B |
||
|
050 |
Williams |
Details public safety message of transition and discusses desire of DOC to focus on decreasing repeat offenders. |
|
075 |
Sen. Whitsett |
Asks about resource problems with DOC and the counties. |
|
090 |
Williams |
Responds that there is always a resource problem among the DOC and the different communities, details the situation some communities go about to get criminals out of their jurisdiction, to decrease the strain on their own resources. |
|
110 |
Chair Burdick |
Closes informational meeting. Opens a work session for the purpose of introducing committee bills. |
|
WORK SESSION – INTRODUCTION OF COMMITTEE BILLS |
||
|
113 |
Joe O’Leary |
Committee Counsel. Reads LC drafts for introduction (EXHIBITS H & I). |
|
111 |
Vice-Chair Starr |
MOTION: Moves LC's: 1603, 1604 BE INTRODUCED as committee bills. |
|
|
|
VOTE: 6-0-1 EXCUSED: 1 - Beyer |
|
122 |
Chair Burdick |
Hearing no objection, declares the motion CARRIED. |
|
123 |
Chair Burdick |
The motion CARRIES. |
|
125 |
Chair Burdick |
Closes the work session and adjourns the meeting at 2:51 p.m. |
EXHIBIT SUMMARY