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

As of 1975, Alaska’s criminal laws were based primarily on Oregon criminal statutes as they existed at the close of the nineteenth century, with new statutes added and old statutes amended over the succeeding 75 years by Alaska territorial and state legislatures in a piecemeal approach to revision. This resulted in a criminal code containing outdated statutes, obsolete terminology, a number of overly specific statutes, a haphazard approach to mens rea (the culpable mental state with which a defendant must perform an act in order to be convicted of a crime) and the lack of a coherent, rational sentencing structure. 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. (The Commission was reestablished in June 1976 as a Subcommission of the newly formed Code Commission.) Staff services for the Criminal Code Revision Commission and Criminal Code Revision Subcommission were provided by the Criminal Justice Center at University of Alaska, Anchorage (John Havelock, project executive director; Barry Jeffrey Stern, reporter/staff counsel; Sheila Gallagher, Reporter/Staff Counsel; and Peter Smith Ring, research director). The tentative draft proposed by the Criminal Code Revision Subcommission was substantially amended by the Alaska State Legislature prior to its approval as the Revised Alaska Criminal Code in June 1978 (effective January 1, 1980).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 SubcommissionIntroduction to Tentative Draft, Part 4 // TENTATIVE DRAFTS AND COMMENTARY / I. Attempt and Related Offenses / II. Criminal Mischief / III. Business and Commercial Offenses / IV. Escape and Related Offenses / V. Offenses Relating to Judicial and Other Proceedings / VI. Obstruction of Public Administration / VII. General Provisions / VIII. Prostitution and Related Offenses / IX. Gambling Offenses // APPENDICES / I. Derivations of Tentative Drafts / II. Amendments to Authorized Gambling Statutes in Title

Alaska Criminal Code Revision — Tentative Draft, Part 6: Sentencing: Classification of Offenses Chart; Index to Tentative Draft, Parts 1-6

As of 1975, Alaska’s criminal laws were based primarily on Oregon criminal statutes as they existed at the close of the nineteenth century, with new statutes added and old statutes amended over the succeeding 75 years by Alaska territorial and state legislatures in a piecemeal approach to revision. This resulted in a criminal code containing outdated statutes, obsolete terminology, a number of overly specific statutes, a haphazard approach to mens rea (the culpable mental state with which a defendant must perform an act in order to be convicted of a crime) and the lack of a coherent, rational sentencing structure. 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. (The Commission was reestablished in June 1976 as a Subcommission of the newly formed Code Commission.) Staff services for the Criminal Code Revision Commission and Criminal Code Revision Subcommission were provided by the Criminal Justice Center at University of Alaska, Anchorage (John Havelock, project executive director; Barry Jeffrey Stern, reporter/staff counsel; Sheila Gallagher, Reporter/Staff Counsel; and Peter Smith Ring, research director). The tentative draft proposed by the Criminal Code Revision Subcommission was substantially amended by the Alaska State Legislature prior to its approval as the Revised Alaska Criminal Code in June 1978 (effective January 1, 1980).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 SubcommissionIntroduction to Tentative Draft, Part 6 // TENTATIVE DRAFTS AND COMMENTARY / I. Overview of Sentencing in Existing Law / II. Article 1. Purposes and General Provisions / III. Article 2. Classification of Offenses / IV. Article 3. Suspended Imposition of Sentence / V. Article 4. Probation and Unconditional Discharge / VI. Article 5. Fines / VII. Article 6. Restitution / VIII. Article 7. Community Work Service / IX. Article 8. Imprisonment / X. Article 9. Suspension and Restoration of Civil Rights; Certain Occupational Disabilities Prohibited / XI. Article 10. Appeal of Sentence / XII. Article 11. Definitions // APPENDICES / I. Definitions / II. Revisions to Title 33 [Parole] / III. Classification of Offenses Chart / IV. Index to Tentative Draft, Parts l–

Alaska Criminal Code Revision — Tentative Draft, Part 3: Offenses against Property

As of 1975, Alaska’s criminal laws were based primarily on Oregon criminal statutes as they existed at the close of the nineteenth century, with new statutes added and old statutes amended over the succeeding 75 years by Alaska territorial and state legislatures in a piecemeal approach to revision. This resulted in a criminal code containing outdated statutes, obsolete terminology, a number of overly specific statutes, a haphazard approach to mens rea (the culpable mental state with which a defendant must perform an act in order to be convicted of a crime) and the lack of a coherent, rational sentencing structure. 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. (The Commission was reestablished in June 1976 as a Subcommission of the newly formed Code Commission.) Staff services for the Criminal Code Revision Commission and Criminal Code Revision Subcommission were provided by the Criminal Justice Center at University of Alaska, Anchorage (John Havelock, project executive director; Barry Jeffrey Stern, reporter/staff counsel; Sheila Gallagher, Reporter/Staff Counsel; and Peter Smith Ring, research director). The tentative draft proposed by the Criminal Code Revision Subcommission was substantially amended by the Alaska State Legislature prior to its approval as the Revised Alaska Criminal Code in June 1978 (effective January 1, 1980).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 SubcommissionPreface: Organization of the Criminal Code Revision Subcommission / Introduction to Tentative Draft, Part 3 // TENTATIVE DRAFTS AND COMMENTARY / I. Theft and Related Offenses / II. Burglary and Criminal Trespass / III. Arson, Criminal Mischief and Related Offenses / IV. Forgery and Related Offenses / V. General Provisions // APPENDICES / I. Derivations of Tentative Drafts / II. Existing Law / III. Index to Commentary on Tentative Draf

Commentary on the Alaska Revised Criminal Code (Ch. 166, SLA 1978) and Errata to the Commentary

Originally published in Senate Journal Supplements 47 and 48, Tenth Alaska Legislature (1977–1978). As of 1975, Alaska’s criminal laws were based primarily on Oregon criminal statutes as they existed at the close of the nineteenth century, with new statutes added and old statutes amended over the succeeding 75 years by Alaska territorial and state legislatures in a piecemeal approach to revision. This resulted in a criminal code containing outdated statutes, obsolete terminology, a number of overly specific statutes, a haphazard approach to mens rea (the culpable mental state with which a defendant must perform an act in order to be convicted of a crime) and the lack of a coherent, rational sentencing structure. 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. (The Commission was reestablished in June 1976 as a Subcommission of the newly formed Code Commission.) Staff services for the Criminal Code Revision Commission and Criminal Code Revision Subcommission were provided by the Criminal Justice Center at University of Alaska, Anchorage (John Havelock, project executive director; Barry Jeffrey Stern, reporter/staff counsel; Sheila Gallagher, Reporter/Staff Counsel; and Peter Smith Ring, research director). The tentative draft proposed by the Criminal Code Revision Subcommission was substantially amended by the Alaska State Legislature prior to its approval as the Revised Alaska Criminal Code in June 1978 (effective January 1, 1980).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.Memorandum from Barry Stern, Staff Counsel, Criminal Law Revision Subommission (12 June 1978) / Chapter 16. Parties to Crime / Chapter 31. Attempt and Solicitation / Chapter 41. Offenses Against the Person / Chapter 46. Offenses Against Property / Chapter 51. Offenses Against the Family / Chapter 56. Offenses Against Public Administration / Chapter 61. Offenses Against Public Order / Chapter 66. Offenses Against Public Health and Decency / Chapter 76. Miscellaneous Offenses / Chapter 81. General Provisions / Errat

Alaska Criminal Code Revision — Tentative Draft, Part 1: Offenses against the Person

As of 1975, Alaska’s criminal laws were based primarily on Oregon criminal statutes as they existed at the close of the nineteenth century, with new statutes added and old statutes amended over the succeeding 75 years by Alaska territorial and state legislatures in a piecemeal approach to revision. This resulted in a criminal code containing outdated statutes, obsolete terminology, a number of overly specific statutes, a haphazard approach to mens rea (the culpable mental state with which a defendant must perform an act in order to be convicted of a crime) and the lack of a coherent, rational sentencing structure. 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. (The Commission was reestablished in June 1976 as a Subcommission of the newly formed Code Commission.) Staff services for the Criminal Code Revision Commission and Criminal Code Revision Subcommission were provided by the Criminal Justice Center at University of Alaska, Anchorage (John Havelock, project executive director; Barry Jeffrey Stern, reporter/staff counsel; Sheila Gallagher, Reporter/Staff Counsel; and Peter Smith Ring, research director). The tentative draft proposed by the Criminal Code Revision Subcommission was substantially amended by the Alaska State Legislature prior to its approval as the Revised Alaska Criminal Code in June 1978 (effective January 1, 1980).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 SubcommissionPreface: Organization of the Criminal Code Revision Subcommission // INTRODUCTION / I. Outline of Alaska Revised Criminal Code / II. Why A Revised Criminal Code / III. Introduction to Tentative Draft, Part 1 // TENTATIVE DRAFTS AND COMMENTARY / I. Homicide and Related Offenses / 2. Assault and Related Offenses / 3. Kidnapping and Related Offenses / 4. Sexual Offenses // APPENDICES / I. General Definitions / II. Derivations of Tentative Drafts / III. Existing Law / IV. Status of Criminal Code Revision in Other States / V. Index to Commentary on Tentative Draf

Alaska Criminal Code Revision — Tentative Draft, Part 2: General Principles of Criminal Liability; Parties to a Crime; Attempt; Solicitation; Justification; Robbery; Bribery; Perjury

As of 1975, Alaska’s criminal laws were based primarily on Oregon criminal statutes as they existed at the close of the nineteenth century, with new statutes added and old statutes amended over the succeeding 75 years by Alaska territorial and state legislatures in a piecemeal approach to revision. This resulted in a criminal code containing outdated statutes, obsolete terminology, a number of overly specific statutes, a haphazard approach to mens rea (the culpable mental state with which a defendant must perform an act in order to be convicted of a crime) and the lack of a coherent, rational sentencing structure. 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. (The Commission was reestablished in June 1976 as a Subcommission of the newly formed Code Commission.) Staff services for the Criminal Code Revision Commission and Criminal Code Revision Subcommission were provided by the Criminal Justice Center at University of Alaska, Anchorage (John Havelock, project executive director; Barry Jeffrey Stern, reporter/staff counsel; Sheila Gallagher, Reporter/Staff Counsel; and Peter Smith Ring, research director). The tentative draft proposed by the Criminal Code Revision Subcommission was substantially amended by the Alaska State Legislature prior to its approval as the Revised Alaska Criminal Code in June 1978 (effective January 1, 1980).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 SubcommissionIntroduction to Tentative Draft, Part 2 // TENTATIVE DRAFTS AND COMMENTARY / I. General Principles of Criminal Liability / II. Parties to Crime / III. General Principles of Justification / IV. Attempt and Related Offenses / V. Robbery / VI. Bribery and Related Offenses / VII. Perjury and Related Offenses // APPENDICES / I. Derivations of Tentative Drafts / II. Existing Law / III. Index to Commentary on Tentative Draf

Re-Thinking Minnesota\u27s Criminal Justice Response to Sexual Violence Using a Prevention Lens

Sexual violence is one of the most difficult issues we face in the human condition. Even with the many strides that have occurred in recent years to support a victim-centered response, survivors who seek help from the legal, medical and mental health systems, among others still “may face disbelief, blame, and refusals of help instead of assistance.” It is a problem that demands a response from all levels of society. And yet this response is lacking. The key question we as a society confront is what changes will satisfactorily balance justice for victims with offender accountability, attempts at rehabilitation through treatment, and high community expectations about public safety? This article offers background on what the discussion about prevention of sexual violence can look like, a theoretical analysis of the policy conundrum facing our lawmakers and some examples of how prevention and intervention strategies can be put into practice in Minnesota law as advanced through MNCASA’s legislative agenda with the hope that a new direction can be charted toward the best possible public policy response for the state

Minnesota\u27s Criminal Sexual Conduct Statutes: A Call for Change

Minnesota criminalizes five degrees of Criminal Sexual Conduct (“CSC”). The base conduct prohibited in fifth degree CSC is nonconsensual sexual contact. The four higher degrees of CSC require one or more aggravating elements in addition to a nonconsensual sexual act. The two aggravating elements which distinguish the degrees of CSC in Minnesota are force and personal injury. These aggravators are supposed to separate out the worst offenses and offenders for the harshest punishment. But problematic statutory definitions and judicial interpretations have created overlap in the meaning of force and injury. Because the same conduct satisfies both the force and injury elements, there is no difference between the degrees of CSC—higher and lower degrees of CSC prohibit exactly the same conduct. This means defendants who engage in identical conduct can receive vastly different sentences. As currently written and enforced by the courts, Minnesota’s CSC statutes violate equal protection under the Minnesota Constitution.2 The legislature should act swiftly to remedy this problem

The Exception that Swallowed the Rule: Fixing the Multiple-Victim Exception to Minnesota Statute Section 609.035

This article proposes that the Legislature should amend section 609.035 to address the problems with the court-created version of the multiple-victim exception. First, the Legislature should amend the statute to allow for the imposition of multiple sentences in cases involving crimes committed against multiple victims. Second, in keeping with Minnesota’s goal of maintaining a rational, proportional sentencing system, the Legislature should limit the district court to imposing no more than two sentences per behavioral incident. Third, the Legislature should codify Minnesota Supreme Court case law holding that the court can only impose a sentence for the most serious offense committed per victim, using comparison of the statutory maximum sentences and the offense’s severity-level rankings under the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines to determine which of several offenses is most serious. These charges will ensure that Minnesota’s sentencing system is applied consistently and even-handedly and that criminal defendants receive sentences commensurate with their culpability