Legislature(2007 - 2008)
04/07/2008 02:53 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB230 | |
| SB260 | |
| SB285 | |
| SB185 |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 185(STA)(title am)
An Act relating to the central registry of sex
offenders and child kidnappers and to the registration
requirements for sex offenders and child kidnappers;
and providing for an effective date.
Representative Hawker MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #1 (Copy on
File):
Page 3, line 26
Delete "belongs to"
Insert "has been registered by"
Vice-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED for DISCUSSION.
7:59:42 PM
Representative Hawker explained that the Amendment provides
for the Department to confirm whether an address belongs to
a person on the sex offender/child kidnapper register.
SENATOR BILL WIELECHOWSKI, SPONSOR, voiced his support for
the Amendment.
Vice-Chair Stoltze REMOVED his OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, Amendment #1 was adopted.
8:02:28 PM
Representative Hawker MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #2 (Copy on
File):
Page 3, line 27 through page 4, line 1
Delete all material
Vice-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED for DISCUSSION.
Representative Hawker explained Amendment #2. The section
being deleted from the bill in its entirely is the provision
that allows the Department of Public Safety (DPS) to provide
the list of the registered email/chat addresses to
commercial internet providers and security firms. The
original purpose of the section was to warn the public.
However, DPS has expressed concerns about publishing the
list. Once the list is out, it cannot be controlled. The
intent of the Amendment is not to weaken the bill, but to
protect the innocent public in situations with similar
addresses.
8:07:23 PM
Senator Wielechowski said he would not object to the
Amendment.
Vice-Chair Stoltze wondered what DPS thought.
LAUREN RICE, LEGISLATIVE LIAISON, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
SAFETY, stated that the Department was not opposed to the
Amendment.
Vice-Chair Stoltze WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
OBJECTION, Amendment #2 was ADOPTED.
Representative Gara clarified that it was more accurate to
say "the internets" than "the internet."
8:10:00 PM
Co-Chair Chenault MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #3 (25-
LS0985\KA.1, Luckhaupt, 3/29/08, Copy on File):
Page 1, line 1, following "kidnappers":
Insert ", to penalties for certain sex offenders,"
Page 2, following line 4:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"*Sec. 2. AS 12.55.015 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(j) In addition to penalties authorized by this
section, the court shall order a defendant
convicted of a violation of AS 11.41.410 -
11.41.440 where the victim of the offense was
under 13 years of age to be subject to electronic
monitoring for the remainder of the person's life
on the person's release from a correctional
facility."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 4, line 4:
Delete "This Act applies"
Insert "Sections 1 and 3 - 5 of this Act apply"
Page 4, following line 7:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(b) Section 2 of this Act applies to persons
convicted of offenses committed on or after the
effective date of this Act."
Reletter the following subsection accordingly.
Page 4, line 9:
Delete "sec. 3"
Insert "sec. 4"
Representative Gara OBJECTED.
Co-Chair Chenault explained that the Amendment would require
offenders to wear electronic monitoring for the remainder of
their lives if convicted of certain crimes involving
children under the age of 13. He stated his strong feelings
about protecting youth from predators.
AT EASE 8:12:57 PM
RECONVENE 8:13:35 PM
There was a discussion clarifying the details of the
Amendment regarding the ages of the offender and the victim.
Representative Gara questioned whether the State should pay
for electronic monitoring. Co-Chair Chenault stated that
studies show that there is no reform for the offenders. They
tend to re-offend. He thought the cost was not the issue.
8:17:55 PM
Representative Gara proposed that the Amendment might be
appropriate for rape, which is sexual assault in the first
degree. He questioned having lifetime monitoring for other
situations covered by the statutes listed. He thought
although it was a crime for a 16 year old to touch a 12 year
old through their clothing, that deserved a different
punishment. Co-Chair Chenault clarified that the Amendment
was directed at pedophiles that prey on young children.
8:20:47 PM
Representative Nelson asked for an amendment to the
Amendment to exclude non-intercourse consensual touching.
Representative Gara said there was a dividing line in the
statutes between the most serious and least serious
offenses. Sexual assault in the first degree involves
forced, non-consensual penetration. He thought the Amendment
should apply to sexual assault in the first degree with
someone under 13 years old.
Vice-Chair Stoltze stated concerns with putting the word
"consensual" with "12 and under" in the same sentence.
8:23:21 PM
Representative Crawford relayed a personal story of a
relative who got married at age 13. He pointed out that
those possibilities have to be considered. He was
uncomfortable with lifetime monitoring.
Representative Nelson talked about a relative who was
married very young. She was nervous about making a 16-year-
old wear a monitor for life in cases where a mature-seeming
12 year old girl was the aggressor. She wanted the judge to
be able to exercise discretion. She thought sexual predators
of young girls should be monitored.
Representative Gara passed out copies of the statute on
first degree sexual assault.
Representative Kelly asked if there was a clinical
definition of the kind of predators the bill should target.
Co-Chair Chenault suggested child predators convicted of
assault of a certain number of children.
8:28:39 PM
Senator Wielechowski felt the crime described was horrific.
He acknowledged it was an important policy call. He
questioned the fiscal impact and whether the Amendment
addressed the problem of offenders who were committing the
crime in their home. He thought the subject needed a full
discussion in both bodies in another bill.
Representative Hawker spoke to relative values regarding
spending.
Representative Gara referred to the handout on first degree
assault. The sentence for the crime is now a minimum of 20
years and probation for life.
8:32:35 PM
Representative Gara MOVED amendment #1 to Amendment #3, to
have the Amendment apply to violations of AS 11.41.410.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Representative Hawker was concerned about the cost of
monitoring for life.
Representative Hawker MOVED a conceptual amendment to change
"the person's life" to a period of ten years following their
release from a correctional facility.
Co-Chair Meyer OBJECTED for DISCUSSION.
8:35:49 PM
Senator Wielechowski suggested giving the authority to a
judge. Representative Hawker thought "mandatory 10 and up
to" would allow for flexibility.
Co-Chair Chenault reiterated that the crime is serious
enough to warrant monitoring for the remainder of a person's
life, but he would not object to amending it to ten years.
Representative Hawker suggested a minimum mandatory of 10
years with judge's discretion up to the remainder of a
person's life. Representative Gara questioned how that would
affect a very young offender. Co-Chair Chenault reiterated
his concerns. He told a personal story about child
kidnapping.
8:41:17 PM
Representative Hawker WITHDREW the second conceptual
amendment to Amendment #3.
Representative Hawker MOVED conceptual amendment 3 to
Amendment #3: Monitoring period should be mandatory ten
years following release from correctional facility, and
beyond that up to the remainder of person's life at
discretion of the courts.
Co-Chair Meyer OBJECTED for DISCUSSION.
Representative Gara stated his discomfort with the lack of
information. Representative Crawford agreed. He wanted more
input from the public and more investigation.
Co-Chair Chenault suggested adding Sec. 11.41.434, sexual
abuse of a minor in the first degree.
AT EASE 8:45:16 PM
RECONVENE 9:05:22 PM
Representative Hawker WITHDREW amendment 3 to Amendment #3.
Representative Gara asked for clarification regarding
probation and electronic monitoring.
ANNE CARPENETI, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, LEGAL SERVICES
SECTION-JUNEAU, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW,
explained that sex offenses have high sentencing ranges, up
to 99 years in prison, along with a 25 year maximum period
of probation. The court currently has a great deal of
discretion for sentencing in these crimes. She said it would
be difficult to have electronic monitoring past the period
of probation.
9:08:19 PM
Representative Gara MOVED conceptual amendment 4 to
Amendment #3:
1. Make the new section apply to victims 14 years or
younger; and
2. Give the judge the discretion to impose electronic
monitoring for up to the full length of probation.
Co-Chair Meyer OBJECTED for DISCUSSION.
Co-Chair Chenault agreed that the conceptual amendment
addressed the problem.
Senator Wielechowski supported the conceptual amendment.
Co-Chair Meyer REMOVED his OBJECTION. There being NO
OBJECTION, Amendment #3 as amended was adopted.
Vice-Chair Stoltze MAINTAINED his OBJECTION to Amendment #3.
9:10:43 PM
Representative Joule asked if the earlier decision to have
section (j) apply only to AS 11.41.410 violations still
applied.
Ms. Carpeneti said that was a policy decision. The section
left in referred to the most serious of the sexual assault
prohibitions. She pointed to another unclassified felony in
state sex offenses, sexual abuse of a minor in the first
degree, but that is different type of crime.
Co-Chair Chenault confirmed that AS 11.41.410s addresses his
largest concerns.
9:13:56 PM
Representative Gara reiterated that he did not want to
change the law as it relates to older perpetrators.
Vice-Chair Stoltze REMOVED his OBJECTION to Amendment #3.
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment #3 was adopted.
Co-Chair Chenault MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #4 (25-
LS0985\KA.2, Luckhaupt, 4/5/08, Copy on File).
Vice-Chair Stoltze wanted to be co-sponsor of the Amendment.
Co-Chair Meyer OBJECTED for DISCUSSION.
Co-Chair Chenault explained Amendment #4 as authorizing
capital punishment for certain crimes committed against
children. He said the Amendment reflected the strength of
his feelings about people who prey upon the weak. It also
authorizes capital punishment for murder in the first degree
and other crimes in the first degree. He told a personal
story of a kidnapping in his family. He did not feel child
molesters could be fixed and he wanted to see them executed.
9:20:15 PM
Senator Wielechowski suggested putting the Amendment in
another crime bill.
Vice-Chair Stoltze related a story of a person who
victimized many children.
Representative Gara acknowledged the seriousness of the
subject and the strength of the amendment sponsor's
convictions. He thought the debate regarding capital
punishment had to be lengthy. He told the story of the
murder of his father when he was six. He thought there were
circumstances where the death penalty applied, but he was
concerned with executing an innocent person who is
erroneously convicted. He wanted to have the dispute at a
different time.
9:25:12 PM
Representative Nelson stated her belief that people who
commit heinous crimes should be punished accordingly. But
people have been accused erroneously, especially poor and
minority people without adequate representation. She pointed
to 120 people who have been exonerated from death row. The
reality of the death penalty poses many other problems and
high costs. The money could be redirected to rehabilitation
programs.
Co-Chair Chenault reiterated his strong belief in the death
penalty. He did not want to put innocent people to death. He
WITHDREW Amendment #4. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so
ordered.
9:30:30 PM
Co-Chair Meyer referred to the fiscal notes, some of which
could change with Amendment #3.
SB 185 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|