Legislature(1993 - 1994)
02/22/1993 01:00 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
MS. GOLL said that the statistics were for juveniles in adult facilities. She noted that in listening to testimony on HB 100 and its companion, SB 54, the issue of housing had never been adequately addressed. She expressed her hope that the Judiciary Committee would decide where the juveniles affected by HB 100 would be housed and obtain the appropriate fiscal notes. Number 444 REP. JAMES asked Ms. Goll to address the deterrent effect of HB 100. Number 472 MS. GOLL responded by saying that it seemed that some young people did not think about the consequences of their actions before committing a crime. She said that she did not necessarily believe that a change in law would influence those juveniles who could not tell right from wrong to begin with. Number 505 CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Ms. Goll whether mitigating circumstances that might prevent a child being placed in the adult system would also play a role in the child's defense, if the child were indeed placed in the adult system. Number 512 MS. GOLL said that even if that happened, the child would still be incarcerated in adult facilities. Number 526 CAREN ROBINSON, a LOBBYIST for the LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS (LWV), indicated that that organization had no position on HB 100. However, she said that she wanted to testify on her own behalf as the mother of a 21-year-old son. She wondered aloud what was wrong with the system now in place. She said that she had yet to hear someone say that the current system was not working. If it was not working, she said, what specifically needed to be fixed? MS. ROBINSON expressed her support for continued judicial discretion. She expressed fear that children who had been sexually abused, were not treated, and went on to commit sex crimes, would be automatically waived into the adult system. She cited the need for prevention programs for these children. Number 560 MS. ROBINSON mentioned that in the case of murder, automatic waivers might be appropriate. She cited the confusing messages that society gave young people by imposing different ages of majority on them. She noted her concern over where juveniles impacted by HB 100 would be housed. She indicated her understanding that there needed to be "sight and sound separation" of juveniles and adults incarcerated in the same facility. Number 611 CHAIRMAN PORTER commented that what was wrong with the current system was that many more juveniles were committing many more serious violent felonies. MS. ROBINSON suggested reopening the state's Office of Prevention, re-funding the Foster Care Review Board, and implementing more prevention and intervention programs. Number 634 REP. NORDLUND underscored Ms. Robinson's testimony. He said he understood that there was an increase in the number and severity of juvenile crimes. However, he believed that the current waiver system worked. Number 644 REP. BUNDE said that his main thrust in introducing HB 100 was not to punish, but to deter. He expressed concern about juveniles who were manipulated into committing crimes by adults who told them that they would be treated gently. He said that HB 100 would give juveniles a tool for saying no to those adults. REP. BUNDE mentioned that the DOC felt that the number of individuals impacted by HB 100 would be inconsequential, which was why they submitted a zero fiscal note. He noted that HB 100 would probably only result in two, three, or four additional juveniles being housed in the adult system each year. Number 660 REP. BUNDE said that it was the DOC's policy to house youthful offenders out of the sight and sound of adult offenders. He said that some people had expressed concern that HB 100 provided that juveniles would, at the time of arrest, be housed in adult facilities, but would be housed in juvenile facilities if they were later transferred back to the juvenile court system. He said that some people felt that these juveniles would then "contaminate" other youths in the juvenile facilities. He said that he feared the reverse: that juveniles who had committed heinous crimes were already in the juvenile system "contaminating" the other, less violent youths. REP. BUNDE noted that the pendulum was currently swinging away from criminals' rights and towards victims' rights. REP. NORDLUND called attention to charts provided by the sponsor. He said the charts did not indicate which of the juveniles had been waived to adult court. Number 719 REP. BUNDE responded that he did not have that information. However, he noted that in previous years, most juveniles were not waived into adult court. He said that some people had speculated that when young people knew that they faced the potential of adult punishment, their behavior in the juvenile justice system would change. Number 740 REP. NORDLUND said there were probably very good reasons why certain waivers were not granted. REP. KOTT asked Rep. Bunde to go over his statistics again. REP. BUNDE cited statistics on requests for waivers and how many of those requests were granted. REP. PHILLIPS noted her concern over the DOC's zero fiscal note. Number 790 REP. BUNDE commented that not all juveniles waived to adult court were convicted; therefore, not all waivers resulted in a housing cost for the DOC, he said. Number 799 REP. NORDLUND indicated that at $100 per day, the DOC fiscal note did not compute with HB 100's intent of incarcerating more juveniles. Number 817 REP. JAMES expressed her belief that if the legislature found a good idea, then they needed to find a way to fund it. TAPE 93-19, SIDE B Number 000 REP. BUNDE responded that juveniles would either be housed by the DOC or DHSS, so the state would pay either way. Number 009 REP. JAMES noted that if HB 100 served as a deterrent, it ought to result in a cost savings. Number 015 REP. KOTT expressed skepticism that HB 100 would serve as a deterrent. He expressed concern that the legislature was allowing DOC the freedom to choose whether or not to segregate juveniles and adults. He noted that crowding in prisons could erode that policy, resulting in reduced rehabilitation of youthful offenders. Number 048 REP. BUNDE said that some sixteen-year-old criminals were the victims of adult criminals, and other sixteen-year-olds were victimizing younger kids. He said that someone would end up being the victim, whether severe juvenile offenders were housed with other juveniles or with adults. He said his sympathies lay with 14-year-olds in the system for minor offenses, instead of with hardened 16-year-old criminals. Number 084 REP. NORDLUND mentioned that the state received federal funds which were linked to the state's ability to separate youthful offenders from adult offenders. He said if HB 100 resulted in housing youths with adults, the state could stand to lose some federal money. REP. BUNDE said that it was not his intent that youths and adults be housed together. REP. PHILLIPS cited Alaska Statute 47.10.130, which required that children under the age of 18, who were being held pending a hearing, could not be housed so that they could communicate with or view adult prisoners. Number 128 DEAN GUANELI, of the DEPARTMENT OF LAW'S CRIMINAL DIVISION, noted that juveniles who had been waived into the adult system, or those who had been charged with an adult driving offense, would not be covered by the statute cited by Rep. Phillips. MR. GUANELI mentioned a recent case involving a 17-year-old who had committed murder. He noted that the boy was housed in a juvenile facility, but he had been disruptive. The boy agreed to go into adult court as part of a plea negotiation, but there was no formal waiver procedure, he said. As soon as the agreement was made, he noted, the boy was sent to an adult facility. Number 135 MR. GUANELI said that in his opinion, juveniles waived into adult court would be housed by the DOC. He said that by increasing the number of children waived into adult court, there would be a fiscal impact on the DOC. MR. GUANELI said that the legislature had drawn a general line at the age of 18, between treating people as juveniles and adults. There were some exceptions to that rule, however, he noted. He said that HB 100 and SB 54 were similar bills, but took somewhat different approaches to the juvenile waiver process. He mentioned that the Governor intended to introduce another similar bill, which will take a still different approach. Number 145 MR. GUANELI noted that both procedural and substantive issues were involved. He said that the administration preferred to use the simplest procedure possible by redrawing the line at age 16 for certain offenses. The substantive question was for which offenses would that new line apply. He said that the administration preferred to apply that new line only to murder and attempted murder offenses. MR. GUANELI noted that he did not know of a case in which the state had not been successful in waiving a juvenile charged with murder into the adult system. He said it was felt that the age should be lowered to 16 for murder and attempted murder offenses, so as to eliminate the long, cumbersome process of petitioning for waivers. MR. GUANELI commented that HB 100 took a slightly different approach from that of the Governor's bill, in that a youth would be charged as an adult for certain offenses and the defense would challenge that charge by petitioning for a reverse waiver. He said that the process in SB 54 would be an automatic waiver applied to murder as well as other unclassified and class A felony offenses. MR. GUANELI expressed his opinion that some class A felonies, including arson and date rape, could be legitimately dealt with in the juvenile system. He recommended that the committee go through a list of offenses one by one to determine which they felt could be adequately treated in the juvenile system and which could be better addressed in the adult system. REP. PHILLIPS asked Mr. Guaneli if the Department of Law (DOL) supported HB 100. Number 374 MR. GUANELI responded that the DOL preferred a different approach, but supported juvenile waiver legislation in general. He said if HB 100 passed, he would probably not recommend that the Governor veto it. REP. PHILLIPS asked if HB 100 would conflict with the overall scope of Title 47. Number 385 MR. GUANELI replied that he did not believe that there would be a conflict, as HB 100 actually amended Title 47. CHAIRMAN PORTER commented that there were three basic versions of the juvenile waiver legislation. One was a committee substitute which reflected the original SB 54. He noted that the bill said that 16- and 17-year-olds would be automatically waived into adult court for unclassified and class A felonies. Rep. Bunde's bill held that 15-, 16- and 17-year-olds charged with unclassified and class A felonies would be automatically waived into adult court, with the ability of the defendant to petition her or his way back into juvenile court, he said. The third bill was due to be introduced by the Governor and would address automatic waivers for 16- and 17-year-olds accused of first-degree murder. That bill would not provide for the automatic ability of defendants to petition to overcome that presumption.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|