Legislature(2007 - 2008)HOUSE FINANCE 519
02/28/2008 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB351 | |
| HB193 | |
| HB307 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 310 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 312 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 307 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 193 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 351 | TELECONFERENCED | |
2:22:34 PM HOUSE BILL NO. 307 An Act relating to penalizing certain misdemeanor domestic violence offenses as felonies. REPRESENTATIVE LINDSEY HOLMES, SPONSOR, offered to answer questions of the Committee. AT EASE: 2:24:07 PM RECONVENE: 2:27:11 PM Co-Chair Meyer MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1, Page 2, Line 8, deleting all material and inserting, "Applies to convictions on or after the effective date of this Act". Vice-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED for discussion purposes. Co-Chair Meyer recalled previous discussion regarding the pro or retro-activity and if it could reduce the fiscal impact. 2:28:26 PM DOUG WOOLIVER, ADMINISTRATIVE ATTORNEY, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM, directed his comments to the bill. He pointed out that the Court System is the agency that generated the fiscal notes. He apologized for the tardy note from the Courts and offered to answer questions of the Committee regarding the notes. 2:30:06 PM Vice-Chair Stoltze asked the sponsor's intent regarding the pro & retro activity of the bill. Representative Holmes replied she realizes both sides of the matter; however, noted concerns voiced by the Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault regarding offenders who already have a couple strikes. The Network worries about victims who are not perpetrators but have already plead guilty. Representative Holmes understood the merit of making the legislation prospective. Vice-Chair Stoltze asked if Representative Holmes supports Amendment 1. Representative Holmes replied she does not oppose it, however, could not say that she actually supports it. She expects to see the bill move forward so that the law can be enforced. She said she will respect the Committee's decision given the high fiscal cost. 2:34:27 PM Representative Hawker asked the consequences to the Department of Corrections if the amendment did not pass. DWAYNE PEEPLES, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, explained that the Department of Corrections had a difficult time determining the fiscal impact, consequently chose the numbers determined by the Courts. He assumed it could take up to three to four years to build a point of heavy incarceration. He deferred to the Courts. Representative Hawker stated that deferring the implementation date, would only be a deferral of the phased- in fiscal cost. Mr. Peeples assumed that was correct. Mr. Wooliver advised that would not be the only variable and with the passage of the bill, could also change the manner in which cases are plead and prosecuted. 2:37:58 PM Representative Hawker acknowledged that there will be additional variables, difficult to quantify. He understood that the intent of the bill is: · Punish the guilty, and · Create and establish a disincentive for people to become guilty. Representative Hawker questioned how much of a deterrent the bill is expected to create. Mr. Wooliver did not know; however, from other cases, increasing a penalty does not necessarily decrease the incidences of crime. Representative Joule observed that over the years, indeterminate fiscal notes continue to grow the operating budget. In response, Mr. Wooliver explained that the Courts can not determine the long-term effect from indeterminate notes on the General Fund's operating budget. Mr. Peeples added that the Department of Corrections does not track such impact or information. Representative Joule worried about the State being able to sustain funding for the legislation over the long-term. 2:44:55 PM Co-Chair Chenault acknowledged that the legislation is good, however, any indeterminate fiscal notes concern him. For the Department of Corrections alone, the costs will amount to $12 million dollars by 2014. He appreciated the department's effort to provide accurate dollar costs. He said that he supports the bill, however, Committee members should realize actual costs of such legislation. 2:46:52 PM Co-Chair Meyer pointed out that the amendment temporarily impacts the fiscal notes. Representative Nelson maintained that a perpetrator with two prior convictions, indicates a person that has a serious problem. She worried about patterns established during domestic violence altercations. Some domestic violence cases are never reported. She believed that there is a lot of psychology involved in the convictions. She stressed that this legislation is a "Lot more than a fiscal impact; it is a human impact, which affects children". Once children become involved, the impact can affect other department fiscally, down the road. 2:50:02 PM Representative Gara echoed comments made by Representative Nelson and asked about the corrections included in the fiscal notes. Co-Chair Chenault responded that for the record, he had requested notes representing "real" numbers. Representative Gara agreed. Representative Gara asked if the amendment does pass, would then only the third conviction qualify as a felony charge. Mr. Peeples pointed out that the Department of Corrections assumes that if the amendment does pass, only the third conviction would be determined a felony, accompanies a longer jail sentence. He said the Department of Corrections was relying on the Court System assessment. Representative Gara concluded, if Amendment 1 should pass, the person charged with misdemeanor domestic violence, whether they plead or go to trial, would only go to jail for a misdemeanor charge and it would not affect their jail sentence. He understood that the jail sentence would not be affected until the third offense occurs. 2:53:33 PM Mr. Wooliver advised that the Alaska Court System would make the same analysis. As long as the offense remains a misdemeanor, there will be little or no impact on the Courts. The impact is reached when the misdemeanor becomes a felony. The Courts are attempting to determine how long it will take a domestic violence offender to get to their third domestic violence offense. Representative Gara asked if the sponsor would include the amendment based on the current analysis. Representative Holmes responded that when the bill was written, she assumed it would be retrospective and thought that the offense would start at the bill's effective date. Following discussion with prosecutors, it was obvious it becomes more difficult to make it prospective. She preferred it be retrospective, however, would support implementation either way. 2:58:03 PM Representative Crawford questioned if the legislation could act as a deterrent, helping to break the domestic violence cycle. He urged that funds be placed into prevention education. Representative Holmes agreed that the aspect of prevention must be addressed, pointing out that the Task Force report on domestic violence and sexual assault will be available soon. It provides many recommendations in how to addressing the need for prevention. If it passes, it will become the cornerstone of that work. Representative Crawford recommended intervention at the time of the second offense. Representative Holmes supported that idea. 3:04:35 PM Representative Kelly noted that he would not object to passing the bill out of Committee; however, emphasized his concerns. He spoke in support of Amendment 1, because it adopts lower fiscal notes. He worried that the crime is being classified as a "hate crime" because of the domestic violence association tag. Mr. Wooliver advised that the crime itself would remain the same and that no one is ever charged with a domestic violence crime, but rather with an th assault in the 4 degree. Representative Kelly assumed that the set of circumstances were identical, but that one would be moved to a felony if associated with domestic violence. Mr. Wooliver acknowledged under HB 307 that was correct. Representative Kelly expressed frustration on the number of issues the Committee has addressed dealing with domestic violence. He commented on his philosophical reasons that domestic violence has become such an epidemic in our society. 3:08:29 PM Representative Thomas questioned if the fiscal note took into consideration, costs to protective children services. Mr. Peeples testified that the note only addresses the incarceration costs. Representative Thomas noted the amount of press regarding domestic violence issues resulting from servicemen returning from Iraq. He pointed out that if a military person receives three convictions, they stand to loose their military career. He asked who assumes the military base jurisdiction. Mr. Wooliver was not sure about crimes committed on military bases. Representative Thomas urged that the convicted receive counseling. He related personal experience during the Viet Nam war era. 3:10:19 PM Representative Joule said he would vote against the amendment. Representative Gara summarized issue regarding how to punish people engaged in the domestic violent conduct. It is difficult to prevent the behavior through a sentencing bill. The legislative concern is not what happens at the third sentencing but what happens the next time the behavior occurs and how will that victim be protected. He suspected that the Courts will order some type of treatment before the sentence is over. He asked about a provision providing a condition of probation, before contact is allowed between the defendant and the victim and also that counseling be completed. 3:15:04 PM Mr. Wooliver stated that would not impact the Court's note, pointing out that currently, there is a requirement for batterer's counseling. He was not sure at which offense it become law. There exists practical implementation concerns regarding the availability of treatment. Representative Gara recommended that for the defendant to be considered for probation, counseling should be mandatory after each conviction and making the third felony prospective. 3:16:52 PM Representative Holmes recalled the discussions within the Task Force. She noted concerns that the probation periods are often shorter than the counseling programs, creating timing issues. She thought that the idea was a good one; however, she would need adequate time to address the programs availability, who pays and what hopefully, could be expected to be accomplished. 3:17:54 PM Representative Crawford inquired what was expected for the defendant to move a charge from a misdemeanor to a felony. He asked the duration of a no-contact order. ANNE CARPENETI, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, LEGAL SERVICES SECTION-JUNEAU, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, stated that the longest domestic violence protective order is six months; violating a protective order is classified as a Class A misdemeanor. 3:20:17 PM Representative Crawford understood that a protective order would be applied for by the victim. Ms. Carpeneti said yes. Representative Crawford asked if there could be a court mandated separation time. Ms. Carpeneti explained that generally, when a person applies for a domestic violence protective order, the law states that the judge is not supposed to let the perpetrator back in the home, which was litigated and found defective. It was challenged on appeal and found to have constitutional problems. Representative Crawford asked how people are able to live together again after there has been a domestic violent act committed. Ms. Carpeneti explained that at a certain point, there is a resolution of the case with no conditions of bail. Sometimes the orders are disregarded. Mr. Wooliver added that those are domestic violence restraining orders and are different than a condition of probation. The case referenced by Ms. Carpeneti was ruled unconstitutional because it was open-ended. Now, a long- term domestic violence restraining order lasts for one year, which are civil matters, not criminal cases. 3:23:35 PM Co-Chair Chenault asked about the perpetrator being allowed back into the home. Ms. Carpeneti advised that feature of the law has been determined defective. Co-Chair Meyer referenced previous discussion regarding the retroactivity potential. Ms. Carpeneti concluded at present time, when prior convictions are taken into consideration, there is no formal fact finding available for domestic violence. She did not think those findings would be adequate in defining a new offense. Co-Chair Meyer pointed out that during previous discussion, Representative Holmes agreed to the original prospective intent. Co-Chair Meyer acknowledged the encompassing Committee discussion and recommendations of Representative Gara. He suggested that the bill be held for further discussions between Representative Holmes, Representative Gara and his office. 3:27:00 PM Co-Chair Meyer WITHDREW Amendment 1. There being NO OBJECTION, it was withdrawn. Representative Hawker addressed the larger issues relative to the fiscal notes. He requested that representatives for the notes be present at the next discussion. HB 307 was HELD in Committee for further consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|