Criminal Justice Reform

SB 1548 – juvenile; natural life; parole eligibility 

Sponsored by Senator David Farnsworth 

Summary: 

This bill would end the practice of sentencing kids to life in prison without a chance of parole. 

Background: 

Under A.R.S. § 13-751, courts can impose sentences for juvenile offenders of either life or natural life for first degree murder charges. Under a natural life sentence there is no eligibility for parole. Comparatively, life sentences come with a possibility of parole after either 25 or 35 years.  

Modifying A.R.S. § 13-751 to eliminate the possibility of natural life sentences would have the effect of eliminating juvenile life without parole sentences.  

227 people are currently serving either life with parole or de facto life sentences in Arizona for crimes committed before they turned 25.¹ We are waiting for records from ADCRR for the number of juvenile life without parole sentences.  

Provisions: 

The bill would make juveniles sentenced to life without parole for crimes committed before they turned 18 eligible for parole after serving 25 years of their sentence. For de-facto life sentences, it will make people eligible for parole after serving 35 years of their sentence.  

Rationale: 

The Legal Decision Making Lab at Montclair State University describes kids sentenced to juvenile life without parole as “low-impact releases.”³ It also found that eliminating juvenile life without parole sentences is significantly more cost-effective. They estimated nearly $1 million in annual savings over the first 10 years for the Department of Corrections. ³ 

Arizona Attorneys for Criminal Justice found only 1 out of 12 kids given a life sentence has been re-arrested after being released. ² 

In two separate cases, mandatory juvenile life without parole sentences were ruled unconstitutional at the federal level in 2012 and it was made retroactive in 2015. ⁵ 

Texas, North Dakota, South Dakota, and West Virginia are just a few states that have ended this practice ⁶.  

Stand for Children Arizona polling found that 62% of Arizonans support eliminating Juvenile Life Without Parole sentences, including 49% of Republicans.  

Sources: 

1. Sentencing Project; 2. Arizona Attorneys for Criminal Justice; 3. Legal Decision Making Lab at Montclair State University; 4. National Institute of Health; 5. Restore Justice Foundation; 6. Campaign for the Fair Sentencing of Youth 

HB 2265 – Courts; Fees; Assessments 

Sponsored by Representative Neal Carter 

Summary: 

This bill will eliminate fines and fees charged to access constitutional protections in the criminal justice system including those for public defenders, jury trials, or appeals. It will also forgive any fines and fees previously charged and not yet paid.  

Background: 

The amount of money raised by these fines and fees is only a small fraction of the total expenses paid by Arizona, the 15 counties, and municipalities.  

• Public defender fees raised only $2.5 million statewide while the 5 largest counties spent over $260 million on public defenders.¹ 

• Appeal fees raised only $177,000.¹ 

A study from the Fines and Fees Justice Center found that paying for collections on fines and fees can cost more than the owed amount. One county, spent more than 115% of each dollar received trying to collect. ⁴ 

An analysis by NPR found that nearly 25% of people in jail in one county were there only because of failure to pay their fines and/or fees. ⁶ This leads to additional, unnecessary incarceration costs. 

In past legislative sessions, the Arizona legislature eliminated fines and fees for juveniles. The most recent report from the courts showed they eliminated early $40 million in fines and fees for over 110,000 individuals.  

The Fines and Fees Justice Center found that charging fines and fees leads to more hardships including “housing insecurity, food insecurity, and general financial hardship.”² At the same time, they found charging these fines and fees makes communities less safe.² 

The Rosenberg Foundation found these fines and fees are often paid for by family members rather than the individual originally charged.³ 

In Wisconsin, a report from the Fines and Fees Justice Center found that increasing fees by $200 led to more felonies by those charged the fee. ⁵ 

Provisions of HB 2265:  

• The courts may not make any assessments related to the appointment or services of a public defender in criminal cases, including: 

• An indigent administrative assessment 

• Any reimbursement to the county for the cost of legal services 

• A jury fee may not be imposed in a criminal case, though it may be imposed in a civil case if the court believes relief is proper 

• The court may not impose an appellate filing fee on a criminal defendant 

• The supreme court may not impose additional fees on filings for a jury trial in a criminal case 

• The courts may not impose new fees that are not specifically authorized by statute 

Stakeholders 

This legislation is supported by a coalition of organizations including the Fines and Fees Justice Center, Justice Action Network, and Stand for Children. If you have questions, please contact Jessie Armendt at (602) 828-0060 or [email protected], Steve Kaiser at (602) 332-6121 or [email protected], or Edie Lefevre at (818) 912-0686 or [email protected]. 

Citations 

1. Policy Advocacy Clinic at UC Berkeley Law; 2. Fines and Fees Justice Center; 3. Rosenberg Foundation; 4. Fines and Fees Justice Center; 5. Fines and Fees Justice Center; 6. NPR 

Summary: 

This is a list of bills supported and opposed by a coalition of organizations working to build a stronger and more fair criminal justice system.  

Bills We Are Supporting: 

The following list of supported bills below will help build a stronger criminal justice system here in Arizona.  

• HB 2265 – Courts; Fees; Assessments (Representative Neal Carter) – prohibits courts from imposing fees for constitutional rights, including appeals, jury trials, or public defenders. 

• SB 1140 – expungement of misdemeanor records (Senator Shawna Bolick) – allows people charged with or arrested for a misdemeanor and found not guilty to apply for the charge to be expunged. 

• SB 1110 – home confinement; eligibility; electronic monitoring (Senator Kevin Payne) – makes people convicted of certain crimes who have served at least one year of their sentence and are within 18 months of release eligible to complete their sentence at home 

• SB 1032/HB 2063 – appropriation; independent correctional oversight office (Senator Shawnna Bolick/Representative Walt Blackman) – provides funding for the Independent Criminal Oversight Office created during the 57^th Legislature, 1^st Regular Session 

Other issues we support: 

• Allowing judicial discretion for 

• Re-sentencing after 25 years for crimes committed before the individual turned 25 years old  

• First Responders and military as a ‘safety valve’ 

• Ending the practice of allowing Juvenile to receive a sentence of Life Without Parole 

• Allow for early Release Credits 

• Allow for the expungement of certain kinds of records after a certain amount of time.  

• Allow adjustments for inflation on the rates of pay, etc in prison. 

• Creating a pathway for offenders to age off of the Sex Offender Registry 

Bills We Are Opposing 

• SB 1061 – fentanyl; sale amount; nine grams (Senator Wendy Rogers) – decreases to 9 grams the minimum amount of fentanyl required to be sold for specific charges 

• HB 2132 – fentanyl; possession; sale; amount; sentencing (Representative Quang Nguyen) – decreases the minimum amount of fentanyl required to be sold for specific charges 

• SB 1170 – narcotic drugs; sales; minor; sentencing (Senator Carine Werner) – if someone sells drugs to a minor that later dies, requires a sentence of between 10 and 25 years.