Legislature(1993 - 1994)
03/14/1994 01:15 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 349 - CIVIL COMMITMENT OF SEXUAL PREDATORS Number 037 MR. MICHAEL O'CONNOR presented testimony via teleconference in support of HB 349. He expressed concerns regarding the need for rehabilitation of dangerous individuals showing sexual tendencies towards children seeking sexual gratification. He felt an urgent need to get this civil commitment bill passed. Number 133 REP. SEAN PARNELL, Prime Sponsor of HB 349, explained the bill, stating that the bill in general requires that the Department of Corrections notify the attorney general's office upon releasing a potentially violent predator from prison. The offender would then be committed to the Department of Health and Social Services for a period of time, becoming subject to procedural protections. Rep. Parnell stated that the committee substitute (CS) work draft incorporates the following amendments: On page 2, line 1, the phrase "among this group" was added. Also, line 7 refers to "this group" of violent offenders, in an attempt to focus in on the "group" of sexually violent predators, who are not immune to existing mental illness treatment methods of the 30, 60, 90 day proceeding under current state law. On page 3, line 29, the clause, "following the judicial determination of probable cause," was added. Rep. Parnell said this was a suggestion from the Department of Law. It was assumed that this was going to take place within 45 days after filing the petition, that there would be a finding of probable cause, but it was made clear through that language. On page 4, line 6, the words "the expert or professional" replaced the word "examiner." On page 5, lines 26-28, it was suggested by committee staff that once they are confined, they would be notified by the department of their right to annual reviews and examinations, so they do not have to wait a year and then find out they have these rights. REP. PARNELL said those are all the changes that the committee adopted last time. CHAIRMAN PORTER drew attention to the page labeled "Proposed Amendments" and stated that page 4, lines 15-18, would be Amendment 1; page 8, lines 2 and 3, would be Amendment 2; page 8, lines 17 and 18, would be Amendment 3; page 8, lines 27-29, would be Amendment 4; and all of the lines on pages 4, 6, and 7 would be Amendment 5. Number 225 REP. PARNELL addressed Amendment 1, explaining that the Washington Supreme Court case requires a person who is to be committed, who has not been in prison, to demonstrate a recent overt act, meaning a crime, such as sexual predatory offense, in order for the person to be civilly committed. That overt act requirement has been incorporated into the bill, as well as having turned the focus onto the conduct rather than on the presence of sexual motivation. On page 4, lines 15-18, in the work draft, are the words "sexual motivation." He said there had been some discussion from MARGOT KNUTH, Department of Law, regarding proof of sexual motivation and instead, throughout these amendments, the committee will see a focus on the actual conduct of a person, rather than on the motivation of a person. Number 264 REP. GAIL PHILLIPS moved Amendment 1. CHAIRMAN PORTER objected for the purpose of discussion. Number 277 MS. MARGOT KNUTH, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, Department of Law, stated her belief that it should not require more than an attempted act, and that some specific language is needed to define what types of conduct would satisfy the legal requirements for "attempt." She said it need not be a sexually related act, but any act showing dangerousness. It could be a traditional assaultive type of behavior; something that says, "Not only are we dealing with somebody who is in need of treatment, but it is a matter of dangerousness as well." Number 294 CHAIRMAN PORTER gave the example of the Chico Rodriguez case, wherein with no establishment of an act, those acts that he may or may not have been involved in during his time in prison have not been documented. Number 316 REP. JIM NORDLUND agreed with Chairman Porter that for those persons already in prison, this recent overt act requirement will not apply to them because they have already been convicted of that act; but, on the other hand, it does indeed apply to those persons already out of prison and those not yet in prison. Number 327 MS. KNUTH said as long as you are in prison, the clock goes back and encompasses your conduct all the way back. Once you are released from prison, then the sense is that previous acts committed cannot be included in a future civil commitment determination; a new act would be required. REP. NORDLUND asked why, if you have proven beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the high standard, that somebody has committed an act of dangerousness, would you just prosecute them under the normal criminal procedures and land them back in jail? He also questioned whether you are given a choice of prosecuting them and putting them into the prison system or putting them into API. Number 360 MS. KNUTH answered that that is another option. The act of dangerous could only amount to reckless endangerment or a car speed misdemeanor offense, or maybe assault where your options are very limited in "misdemeanor-land." This would provide greater control, making this a matter that, in some cases, will not make sense. A felony offense would be the preferred requirement, particularly a Class A or unclassified, providing more control in most instances. Number 380 REP. PARNELL thought this was more in line with a civil commitment philosophy in the sense that these people are being treated as well as confined. The fact that they are in prison, or have not been in prison, may not need be critical to the felony. In terms of the differentiation of the potential outcomes of prosecuting the crime or proceeding under this avenue, the crime does not have to be a serious felony in terms of Class A. It could be a crime for which the sentence would be minimal and the otherwise sexual violent predator would be right back in society. He assumed it could be a crime that is completely unrelated to it. It could be a sexual predator who gets into a barroom fight with another guy; a completely unrelated act. The problem is of more concern to the public. Number 413 CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if there was further discussion or any objection on Amendment 1. Noting that Rep. Phillips had moved the amendment, Chairman Porter declared Amendment 1 passed without objection. Number 415 REP. PARNELL addressed Amendment 2, page 8, lines 2 and 3, the immunity section. He said there was concern over wide open immunity from liability for department people for their actions. The original language stated that they would be immune from liability for any good faith conduct. Instead, it was changed to say this section does not preclude liability for civil damages as a result of gross negligence or reckless intentional misconduct. Number 420 REP. PHILLIPS moved Amendment 2. CHAIRMAN PORTER asked for further discussion or any objection. Hearing none, Amendment 2 passed. Number 421 REP. PARNELL addressed Amendment 3, page 8, lines 17 and 18. He said the lines defining "sexually motivated" were deleted. He explained they would prefer to focus on the conduct of the individual rather than the motivation because conduct is easier to prove than sexual motivation. Number 425 MS. KNUTH commented that this change was in response to the Chairman's insight to get away from sexually motivated. She explained that by taking out .824 (3) they readdressed the problem in 4 (B), which is Amendment 4, and the two amendments dovetail together. She stated that the conduct they proposed using was that the person engaged in or intended to engage in sexual penetration, sexual contact, or sexually gratifying conduct. Number 440 CHAIRMAN PORTER asked for further discussion or any objection to Amendment 3. Rep. Kott moved Amendment 3. Hearing no objections, Chairman Porter declared Amendment 3 passed. Number 445 REP. PARNELL noted that Amendment 4, page 8, lines 27-29, had already been discussed, which described the conduct Ms. Knuth described. Number 455 REP. PHILLIPS moved Amendment 4. CHAIRMAN PORTER asked for discussion or objection. Hearing none, he declared Amendment 4 passed. Number 489 REP. PARNELL addressed Amendment 5. He believed the Office of Public Advocacy or the public defender, rather than the court, should be representing these people. He noted one concern is cost, and the other concern is that this type of hearing not look like a criminal trial. At this point, the Office of Public Advocacy will hear these cases, for that reason. It would then, at least in statute, look more like we are trying to commit these persons, rather than trying to give them a second sentence. Number 529 REP. NORDLUND agreed with the suggestion of delegating this procedure to the agency most able to handle the task effectively. Number 533 CHAIRMAN PORTER asked for further discussion and noted that Amendment 5 had been moved. Without objection, Amendment 5 passed. Number 544 REP. PHILLIPS motioned to move CSHB 349, including amendments, individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes. There was an objection for the purpose of discussion. Discussion ensued on whether a person who was incarcerated could continually request to be reevaluated. REP. PARNELL said that language could be found on page 7, line 17 and line 24, and he basically only gets one shot. MS. KNUTH clarified that the person actually gets as many shots as they want, but there is a mechanism whereby the judge doesn't have to pay quite so much attention after the first shot. They get one considered evaluation and after that it is hoped to be pro forma unless the person presents new evidence to suggest that something significant had happened. Number 580 CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that persons committed under such provisions would be allowed to request periodical re- evaluations of their condition in order to determine the appropriateness of a lengthy sentence. Number 595 REP. NORDLUND said he supported the intent behind HB 349, yet expressed concern over the fiscal note in that the state will have to spend $1.2 million for treatment programs for these people after they have served their time under the purview of the Department of Corrections. He would much rather see that kind of money spent for treatment programs immediately after the person has offended and while they are still in the Department of Corrections. He said he supported the bill, but he thought it was applying the treatment services too late in the process and he would rather see the money spent earlier. Number 616 CHAIRMAN PORTER asked for further discussion and any objections. Hearing none, he declared CSHB 349 moved out of committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|