Now showing items 1-20 of 165

    • Prison Anger Reduction Programs Evaluation Development Project

      Schafer, N. E.; Barnes, Allan R. (Justice Center, University of Alaska Anchorage, 1985-07-31)
      This report describes efforts to develop Alaska-specific norms for the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI), using the Megargee offender classification system, for use in program evaluations in Alaska correctional facilities, specifically for evaluation of three pilot anger reduction programs initiated at Alaska Department of Corrections institutions in late 1984/early 1985: (1) Women in Crisis (at Fairbanks Correctional Center); (2) M. E. N., Inc. (at Lemon Creek Correctional Center, Juneau); (3) Bering Sea Women's Group (at Nome Correctional Center). The report provides assessments of the three programs and the correctional centers where they were held and makes recommendations for completing the development of Alaska-specific MMPI-based norms and for the administration of the MMPI as pre- and post-test for measuring psychological changes — particularly in hostility/frustration levels — in participants in anger reduction programs.
    • Department of Corrections Personnel Survey: Final Report

      Schafer, N. E. (Justice Center, University of Alaska Anchorage, 1985-05)
      Education, experience, and training of personnel are frequently used as measures of quality in correctional agencies. This survey of Alaska Department of Corrections (DOC) personnel, conducted in 1984, revealed that employees in all classifications tended to have more than the minimum education or experience required for their positions. Approximately 66 percent of all DOC personnel (N=636) participated in the survey. Of this number, 47.8 percent reported having at least a two-year college degree and 35.1 percent had a four-year degree. Of the corrections-specific respondents to the survey (N=475), more than 40 percent had prior experience in other justice agencies. A comparison of survey responses with position descriptions showed that a substantial proportion of DOC employees had more than the minimum qualifications required. Overall, survey results indicated that Alaska DOC ranked high nationally in measures of personnel quality.
    • Fire Island Feasibility Study: Summary Report — Final Report

      UAA School of Justice; UAA School of Engineering (School of Justice and School of Engineering, University of Alaska, Anchorage, 1986-12-18)
      This document summarizes the findings the Fire Island Prison Feasibility Study, undertaken to assess the feasibility of locating a correctional facility on Fire Island in the Municipality of Anchorage. The three reports summarized here covered the three major phases of the study: (1) an assessment of future bed space needs of the Alaska Department of Corrections; (2) an evaluation of the physical site and cost estimates for prison construction and operation; and (3) a public opinion survey and open discussion.
    • Fire Island Public Opinion Survey: Summary of Findings

      Barnes, Allan R. (School of Justice, University of Alaska Anchorage, 1986-12-04)
      Under the terms of a contract between the Alaska Department of Corrections and the University of Alaska, Anchorage, to determine the feasibility of placing a prison on Fire Island, the UAA School of Justice in November 1986 conducted a public opinion telephone survey of a random sample of one thousand residents of the Municipality of Anchorage and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough. Results indicated that respondents favored spending money to prevent and deter crime rather than to punish prisoners or to build additional prisons. When informed about the increased cost of construction and operation of a prison on Fire Island in comparison with other potential sites in Southcentral Alaska, they did not favor building a prison on Fire Island. However, in deciding the appropriate location for a new prison, cost of construction was not deemed as important as either the impact of the prison on the local economy or the costs associated with everyday operations and programs of the new prison.
    • Engineering Feasibility Study of Fire Island as a Location for a Future Correctional Facility: Final Report

      Junge, David C.; UAA School of Engineering (School of Engineering, University of Alaska, Anchorage, 1986-09-15)
      This report provides the final results of an engineering assessment and evaluation of a 4,240 acre tract of land on Fire Island for a proposed correctional facility. Fire Island is an island in Upper Cook Inlet about three miles off Point Campbell within the Municipality of Anchorage. The report describes climatic and geophysical factors on the island including temperature, precipitation, wind, topography, geology and soils, seismicity, slide potential, and coastal erosion; facility site evaluation including suitability of soils for building foundations, transportation and site access, utility availability (water, wastewater and solid waste disposal, electricity, and communications), and legal factors (constitutional issues, prison security, and access to prisons); and estimated construction costs. Comparisons with alternative prison sites at Palmer and Goose Bay, both located within the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, are provided. A bibliography of land and facility studies of Fire Island is included.
    • Technical Memorandum: Site Assessment and Site Evaluation [Fire Island Prison Feasibility Study]

      UAA School of Engineering (School of Engineering, University of Alaska, Anchorage, 1986-01)
      This report provides a preliminary assessment and evaluation of a site on Fire Island for a proposed correctional facility. Fire Island is an island in Cook Inlet lying off the western coast of Anchorage, Alaska. The report includes photos of aerial and surficial views of the island and discusses physical and environmental factors on the island including climate, topography, geology and soils, seismicity, and slide potentials; facility site evaluation; utility availability including water, wastewater and solid waste disposal, electricty, and communications; transportation and site access, legal factors including potential constitutional violations (cruel and unusual punishment), prison security, and access to prisons; and estimated facility and project costs. A bibliography of land and facility studies of Fire Island is included.
    • Alaska Correctional Requirements: A Forecast of Prison Population through the Year 2000 — Executive Summary

      UAA School of Justice (School of Justice, University of Alaska Anchorage, 1986-01-03)
      This Executive Summary presents major findings of the full report on the bedspace needs of the Alaska Department of Corrections as projected by the School of Justice through the year 2000. The forecast derived from this study provides evidence of the need for additional institutional capacity in Southcentral Alaska by 1990. Planning should proceed for a capacity of 1,000 beds to be available for use by 1990.
    • Alaska Correctional Requirements: A Forecast of Prison Population through the Year 2000

      Barnes, Allan R.; McCleary, Richard (School of Justice & School of Engineering, University of Alaska, Anchorage, 1986-01-03)
      The growth of the Alaska prison inmate population over the past fifteen years has been substantial. According to available statistics there were 482 institutionalized adult prisoners under control of the Alaska Division of Corrections in January 1971; by January 1980 this population had increased to 770 inmates; and between 1980 and 1985, the number of Alaska inmates almost tripled, rising from 770 to 2,073. Accurate forecasts of the future size and makeup of the prison population are needed as a basis for long-range programs and capital planning. This report presents long and short-term forecasts of the Alaska incarcerated prisoner population and bedspace needs of the Alaska Department of Corrections through the year 2000. The forecasts were developed by taking into consideration historical facts and status quo assumptions. Attention is also given to the impact of the 1980 Alaska criminal code revision on unsentenced and sentenced populations. The forecast derived from this study provides evidence of the need for additional institutional capacity in Southcentral Alaska by 1990. Planning should proceed for a capacity of 1,000 beds to be available for use by 1990.
    • Commentary on the Alaska Revised Criminal Code (Ch. 166, SLA 1978) and Errata to the Commentary

      Alaska Criminal Code Revision Subcommission (Alaska Legislative Affairs Agency, 1978-07)
      This pamphlet contains the Commentary on the Alaska Revised Criminal Code, which was passed by the Alaska State Legislature in June 1978 with an effective date of January 1, 1980. The revision followed four years of work by the Alaska Criminal Code Commission and Subcommission from 1975 to 1978. The Revised Criminal Code represents the first comprehensive revision of Alaska's criminal laws, which from 1899 to 1979 were primarily based on Oregon criminal statutes as they existed at the close of the nineteenth century. Earlier drafts of the commentary on the Revised Criminal Code may be found in the six-part Tentative Draft of the Code prepared by the Alaska Criminal Law Revision Subcommission during 1977 and 1978.
    • Alaska Criminal Code Revision — Tentative Draft, Part 6: Sentencing: Classification of Offenses Chart; Index to Tentative Draft, Parts 1-6

      Alaska Criminal Code Revision Subcommission (Alaska Criminal Code Revision Subcommission, 1978-02)
      The Alaska Criminal Code Revision Commission was established in 1975, and reestablished in June 1976 as a Subcommission of the newly formed Code Commission, with the responsibility to present a comprehensive revision of Alaska’s criminal code for consideration by the Alaska State Legislature. Tentative Draft, Part 6, contains an overview of sentencing in existing Alaska law as of 1978 and the provisions on sentencing and related procedures of the draft Revised Criminal Code, including classification of offenses, probation, fines, restitution, community service, imprisonment, and appeals. Commentary following each article is designed to aid the reader in analyzing the effect of the draft Revised Code on existing law and also provides a section-by-section analysis of each provision of the draft Revised Code. Appendices include definitions, proposed revisions to Title 33 of the Alaska Statutes (parole), a chart of classification of offenses, and an index to the six volumes of the Tentative Draft.
    • Alaska Criminal Code Revision — Tentative Draft, Part 5: General Provisions; Justification; Responsibility; Bad Checks; Littering; Business and Commercial Offenses; Credit Card Offenses; Offenses against the Family; Abuse of Public Office; Offenses against Public Order; Miscellaneous Offenses; Weapons and Explosives

      Alaska Criminal Code Revision Subcommission (Alaska Criminal Code Revision Subcommission, 1978-01)
      The Alaska Criminal Code Revision Commission was established in 1975, and reestablished in June 1976 as a Subcommission of the newly formed Code Commission, with the responsibility to present a comprehensive revision of Alaska’s criminal code for consideration by the Alaska State Legislature. Tentative Draft, Part 5, includes the remaining substantive provisions of the draft Revised Criminal Code not covered in prior parts of the tentative draft: articles on general provisions, justification (part 2), and responsibility (mental disease or defect); remaining sections in the Offenses Against Property chapter (issuing a bad check, littering); articles on business and commercial offenses (part 2) and credit card offenses; offenses against the family; the remaining article in the Offenses Against Public Administration chapter (abuse of public office); two Offenses Against Public Order articles (riot, disorderly conduct, and related offenses; and offenses against privacy of communication); weapons and explosives; and miscellaneous offenses. Commentary following each draft statute is designed to aid the reader in analyzing the effect of the draft Revised Code on existing law and also provides a section-by-section analysis of each provision of the draft Revised Code. Appendices include derivations of each provision of the Code and amendments to provisions contained in the Tentative Draft, Parts 1–3.
    • Alaska Criminal Code Revision — Tentative Draft, Part 4: Conspiracy; Criminal Mischief; Business and Commercial Offenses; Escape and Related Offenses; Offenses Relating to Judicial and Other Proceedings; Obstruction of Public Administration; Prostitution; Gambling

      Alaska Criminal Code Revision Subcommission (Alaska Criminal Code Revision Subcommission, 1977-07)
      The Alaska Criminal Code Revision Commission was established in 1975, and reestablished in June 1976 as a Subcommission of the newly formed Code Commission, with the responsibility to present a comprehensive revision of Alaska’s criminal code for consideration by the Alaska State Legislature. Tentative Draft, Part 4, is composed of nine articles of the Revised Criminal Code: attempt and related offenses (part 2); arson, criminal mischief, and related offenses (part 2); business and commercial offenses; escape and related offenses; offenses relating to judicial and other proceedings; obstruction of public administration; general provisions; prostitution and related offenses; and gambling offenses. Commentary following each article is designed to aid the reader in analyzing the effect of the draft Revised Code on existing law and also provides a section-by-section analysis of each provision of the draft Revised Code. Appendices include derivations of each provision of the Code and amendments to the gambling provisions of Title 5 of the Alaska Statutes.
    • Alaska Criminal Code Revision — Tentative Draft, Part 3: Offenses against Property

      Alaska Criminal Code Revision Subcommission (Alaska Criminal Code Revision Subcommission, 1977-04)
      The Alaska Criminal Code Revision Commission was established in 1975, and reestablished in June 1976 as a Subcommission of the newly formed Code Commission, with the responsibility to present a comprehensive revision of Alaska’s criminal code for consideration by the Alaska State Legislature. Tentative Draft, Part 3, is composed of five articles contained in the Offenses Against Property chapter of the draft Revised Criminal Code: theft and related offenses; burglary and criminal trespass; arson, criminal mischief, and related offenses (part 1); forgery and related offenses; and general provisions. Commentary following each article is designed to aid the reader in analyzing the effect of the draft Revised Code on existing law and also provides a section-by-section analysis of each provision of the draft Revised Code. Appendices include derivations of each provision of the Code; existing law that the Code will revise; and an index to commentary.
    • Alaska Criminal Code Revision — Tentative Draft, Part 2: General Principles of Criminal Liability; Parties to a Crime; Attempt; Solicitation; Justification; Robbery; Bribery; Perjury

      Alaska Criminal Code Revision Subcommission (Alaska Criminal Code Revision Subcommission, 1977-02)
      he Alaska Criminal Code Revision Commission was established in 1975, and reestablished in June 1976 as a Subcommission of the newly formed Code Commission, with the responsibility to present a comprehensive revision of Alaska’s criminal code for consideration by the Alaska State Legislature. Tentative Draft, Part 2, is comprised of seven articles of the draft Revised Criminal Code: general principles of criminal liability; parties to crime; justification; attempt and related offenses (part 1); robbery; bribery and related offenses; and perjury and related offenses. Commentary following each article is designed to aid the reader in analyzing the effect of the draft Revised Code on existing law and also provides a section-by-section analysis of each provision of the draft Revised Code. Appendices include derivations of each provision of the Code; existing law that the Code will revise; and an index to commentary.
    • Alaska Criminal Code Revision — Tentative Draft, Part 1: Offenses against the Person

      Alaska Criminal Code Revision Subcommission (Alaska Criminal Code Revision Subcommission, 1977-02)
      The Alaska Criminal Code Revision Commission was established in 1975, and reestablished in June 1976 as a Subcommission of the newly formed Code Commission, with the responsibility to present a comprehensive revision of Alaska’s criminal code for consideration by the Alaska State Legislature. Tentative Draft, Part 1 is comprised of four articles contained in the Offenses Against the Person chapter of the draft Revised Criminal Code: criminal homicide, assault and related offenses, kidnapping and related offenses; and sexual offenses. Commentary following each article is designed to aid the reader in analyzing the effect of the draft Revised Code on existing law and also provides a section-by-section analysis of each provision of the draft Revised Code. Appendices include general definitions of terms used throughout the Code, including definitions of the four culpable mental states; derivations of each provision of the Code; existing law that the Code will revise; status of criminal code revision in other U.S. states; and an index to commentary.
    • Alaska Criminal Code Revision: Preliminary Report

      Alaska Criminal Code Revision Commission (Alaska Criminal Code Revision Commission, 1976-01)
      The Alaska Criminal Code Revision Commission was established in 1975 with the responsibility to present a comprehensive revision of Alaska’s criminal code for consideration by the Alaska State Legislature. This preliminary report consider the need for a revised criminal code in Alaska and presents proposed drafts, with commentary, of statutes on property-related crimes, general criminal code provisions, and sentencing. A specific recommendation is made to continue the Criminal Code Revision Commission or reconstitute it through formal legislative action in order to provide sufficient time for the complex work needed to revise the criminal code.
    • Notes on Representation of Native Clients

      Conn, Stephen; Hippler, Arthur E. (Institute of Social, Economic and Government Research, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, 1972-09-07)
      Native people, whether influenced by traditional approaches to dispute resolution or by their pragmatic experience with local courts and dispute resolution or by their pragmatic experience with local courts and law enforcement, do not see justice as being done within the forum offered by the state. In search of an authoritative locale for rational dispute resolution, they find arbitrary and apparently irrational treatment in magistrate courts. Conversely, they have found in conciliation before the village council a forum where misconduct is measured against the world that the defendant immediately affects. They find a comprehensible forum in the village to solve their problems or no forum at all. Can participation in a functioning advocacy and adversary system be taught and utilized along with continued functioning of a sub-legal conciliatory system that handles de minimus matters effectively? This paper offers guidance to public defenders and legal services attorneys in representing Alaska Native clients.
    • Staff Paper on Village Councils

      Hippler, Arthur E.; Conn, Stephen (Institute of Social, Economic and Government Research, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, 1975)
      This excerpt from the forthcoming UCLA-Alaska Law Review article "The Village Council and Its Offspring: A Reform for Bush Justice" describes techniques used historically by Alaska Native village councils to resolve disputes. All of these techniques were observed in 1975 in villages where councils still aid in dispute adjustment.
    • Narrative Report to Law Reform Commission of Australia on Results of Field Trip to the Northern Territory Pursuant to the Reference on Customary Law

      Conn, Stephen (Justice Center, University of Alaska Anchorage, 1980-07)
      This submission to the Law Review Commission of Australia (later the Australian Law Review Commission) makes recommendations regarding to what extent existing courts or Aboriginal communities themselves should be empowered to apply Aboriginal customary law and practices in the trial, punishment, and rehabilitation of Aboriginal offenders. The report is based on field interviews in six Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory of Australia as well police, magistrates, solicitors, legal aid field officers, the Crown Solicitor of the Northern Territory; and community advisors and staff of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. The report discusses the relationship between indigenous law and the western law system derived from the British common law system as one of legal pluralism — more than on legal process at work in the same environment at the same time — and draws comparisons between legal pluralism as it exists in Australia with the situation in Alaska.
    • Short Papers Prepared for the Law Reform Commission While in Australia

      Conn, Stephen (Justice Center, University of Alaska Anchorage, 1980)
      These four brief papers were submitted for the consideration of the Law Review Commission of Australia (later the Australian Law Review Commission) in its inquiry about whether it would be desirable to apply, either in whole or in part, Aboriginal customary law to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The author presents suggestions and information based on his research on traditional law ways among Alaska Native peoples and the relationship between indigenous law and the western law system in Alaska.