State Sen. Chris Elliott suggests restrictive bail measures, ‘Good Time’ law reforms amid Bibb County deputy slaying

In light of last week’s killing of Bibb County sheriff’s deputy Brad Johnson, Alabama’s so-called “Good Time” laws have been placed under the microscope.

Austin Hall, the alleged cop killer who holds an extensive rap sheet in numerous counties, has been charged with three counts of capital murder and one count of attempted murder.

Facing a barrage of charges stemming from previous violent conduct, the 26-year-old career criminal made bond in April and was released from Alabama Department of Corrections’ custody.

In a statement earlier this week detailing the circumstances that led to Hall’s release, Attorney General Steve Marshall noted that the alleged shooter was rewarded under the state’s “ultra-lenient” Correctional Incentive Time laws.

The laws allow inmates to accrue “good time” while in custody, with the incentive of early release if they continue to refrain from bad behavior while carrying out their sentences.

In his release outlining Hall’s case, Marshall noted reforms that the state should consider to prevent future instances such as what occurred in Johnson’s slaying.

“Had the shooter served his entire sentence, he would not have been able to commit his brazen crime spree across our State, which ended in capital murder,” advised Marshall in the statement. “Furthermore, an inmate who escapes custody should never, under any circumstance, be rewarded with early release.”

In a conversation with Yellowhammer News, State Sen. Chris Elliott (R-Daphne) asserted that the legislature should hold discussions centered around the attorney general’s suggestions.

“Everything that the attorney general said in his public releases, the legislature ought to take up point by point — every suggestion he’s made,” said Elliott. “We need to look at every last one of them.”

One specific reform to Alabama’s Good Time laws that Elliott would like to see is the creation of disincentives for bad behavior. Additionally, the senator noted that there should be instances where inmates are ineligible to accrue good time.

“The Good Time laws should be changed so the individual that escapes, like this individual previously had, should not be eligible for good time,” he asserted.

Alongside reforming Correctional Incentive Time laws, Elliott suggested that legislation should be considered to provide judges with further guidance regarding bail for certain criminals.

“The other issue in the Brad Johnson case here is that this guy should have never been out on bail, in my opinion,” he lamented. “I cannot believe the judge in this case ordered bail. He completed his sentence with the good time but he had how many pending charges? It’s crazy. So we need to dig into the circumstances and figure out not just why the judge decided this, but why the judge was allowed to do this in the confines of the law and whether or not we need to provide some additional guidance for our judges.”

Elliott, who is one of the upper chamber’s leading tough-on-crime lawmakers, acknowledged that there were positive measures in place that served to rehabilitate certain offenders.

However, the senator proclaimed that some offenders, such as Hall, lack the moral compass that would allow them to be rehabilitated. In these cases, Elliott said, Alabama’s justice system should ensure that the inmate would never be granted release from custody.

“But there are also some really, really bad people who are going to be bad people for their entire life and they should never see the light of day again,” declared Elliott. “There’s no amount of rehabilitation, there’s no amount of help — it’s done. And that’s when we’ve just got to say ‘Sorry, you’re a bad guy and you’re staying in here forever. We are not trying to let you out, we’re not trying to rehabilitate you. We’re trying to protect the public from you.’ And in my mind, that is one of the absolute first jobs of government is to provide public safety, and that’s what we’re going to have to do here.”

Elliott noted that while preferring judges to hold the ability to make decisions without legislative intervention, Hall’s case might necessitate the legislature enacting measures to offer further guidance to judges regarding the issuance of bail.

He concluded, “Typically, I don’t like doing that. I like our judges to be able to judge, right? But when they are not rendering the judgement within the law that the legislature thinks they need to be, we can change the law to make sure that happens. And that might be what we need to do here.”