Right on Crime, Wrong on Crime- Alaska Edition

This is part 3 of a continuing series.  This edition of Right on Crime Wrong on Crime will focus on Alaska.  

Crime is a big problem in Alaska. The state has not seen the dramatic reductions over the past decade that most of the rest of the country has experienced. There are several reasons for that, including a severe recession triggered by a slump in oil prices and a serious problem with opioids. 

In 2016, the legislature in Alaska was one of the first states to look at revising is bail system and its criminal justice system.  Marc Levin with the Texas Public Policy Foundation and Right on Crime argued that Alaska should go further than setting up post conviction reforms, but should also revise the criminal justice system pre-conviction in several areas by reclassifing certain felony crimes to misdemeneanor and by implementing other reforms relying on the defendant to appear for court based upon their own promise and without the use of surety bondsmen for many non-violent offenders.

At the time, Marc Levin promised Alaskans that the bill "at its core [involved] policies that protect Alaskans."  He also claimed that the bill would deliver substantial financial savings to the state by reducing "exploding costs."

The whole concept behind the proposals by Right on Crime had a counterintuitive quality.  It seemed curious to many people that you could reduce penalties crime and still at the same time reduce crime.  Logic would say that if you reduce penalties, then crime will increase, but Marc Levin argued the opposite that reducing penalties would have the opposite impact.  Similar arguments were made in California and New York.

Based upon the recommendations of Right on Crime, Alaska implemented one of the nation’s first catch and release pretrial programs. The legislature passed Senate Bill 91. This piece of legislation revamped sentencing guidelines and made changes to other longstanding criminal justice policies including the reclassification of many felonies to misdemeanors. 

After the bill was passed in 2016, Marc Levin wrote an Op Ed for the Juneau Empire touting the reforms. Mr. Levin said that Alaska Lawmakers should celebrate their landmark "successful" criminal justice overhaul.  Mr. Levin stated that SB 91 focused on strengthening alternatives to incarceration for nonviolent offenders while also boosting treatment programs for those in prison, claiming that nearly all of whom would ultimately return to society. Mr. Levin also argued that this investment would reduce recidivism rates.  He also argued that this reduction of reoffending would reduce crime, and as a result fewer offenders would cycle through the system repeatedly, reducing the number of victims and the cost to Alaska citizens.  

However, the promises of SB 91 were never realized.  Shortly after the passage of these reforms, criminals began reoffending at much higher rates and defendants’ failure to appear rates for court increased substantially.  In Alaska, violent crime had been trending up since the start of the century and car thefts were rising rapidly. It didn’t take much to convince legislators -- and their constituents -- that SB 91 was itself in need of an overhaul. “We’ve had a spike in crime,” says state Rep. Gabrielle LeDoux, who supported repealing the law altogether. “It really has not been a happy outcome.”

State Senator Mia Costello was a co-sponsor of SB 91, but she soon became convinced it was a mistake.  According to Costello, "One of the reasons for having laws on the books is to send a message to the community about what is and what isn’t acceptable. We’ve gone the opposite direction, where criminals are feeling emboldened by this law."  

Even with crime increasing and defendants failing to appear for court, Marc Levin continued to defend the bill, calling attacks on the bill "misrepresentations."

Marc Levin co-authored an Op Ed for the Alaska Dispatch News arguing that the reforms needed more time to work, although he admited that the uptick in crime was a cause for concern and should be addressed. 

In 2018, Ms. Costello lead the charge to repeal SB19. The legislature rejected the proposals made by Right on Crime and TPPF and rolled back many of the dangerous and ineffective aspects of the bill. The legislature also passed several additional bills that gave judges more discretion in bail decisions and allowed judges to  consider criminal histories, including out of state criminal histories, in setting bail.

Alaska is a great example of a state that evaluated the effect of its prior decision and decided to take action and change course to remedy the detrimental results. Alaska concluded that the promises of the bail reform movement were not realized and took action that was in the best interest of their citizens. Therefore, instead of eliminating its commercial bail system, Alaska found ways to improve it. Overall, the catch and release system implemented in Alaska did nothing to fix the original problem and only increased public outrage and public safety fears. 

Texas’ Mark Levin with the Texas Public Policy Foundation and Right On Crime, along with former Texas State Representative Jerry Madden, now a Senior Fellow with Right On Crime, were both instrumental convincing Alaska's law makers to pass  SB 91 which included the use of a risk assessment tool. During hearings seeking to repeal the law, Madden and Levin brought back to Alaska and questioned strongly by members of the legislature after the failed results of SB 91 and were quoted as saying, “These policies take time for people to understand them.” 

A further note is that these two same individuals are at the forefront of recommending the same failed policies in Texas and other jurisdictions that they proposed in Alaska.  However, they do not disclose that the reforms were later repealed in Alaska and found to have failed.  The negative effects of the bad bail reform measures proposed by Right on Crime and TPPF demonstrate that the same proposals are advocated in every jurisdiction.  When chaos ensues, Right on Crime and TPPF claim that more time is needed.  Then when the reforms are repealed they go to the next jurisdiction and start all over advocating for the same failed policies that failed and they learn nothing from the prior experience.  They do not disclose the problem raised.  They do not add concerns or other disclosures to their presentations.  Right on Crime continues to advocate for the same policy changes.  It is almost like they are arguing they know best irrespective of past performance.

Other Articles in the Series:

Part 1- Right on Crime Wrong on Crime- California Prop 47.  To see more CLICK HERE.  

Part 2- Right on Crime Wrong on Crime- New York Edition.  To see more CLICK HERE.