Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/15/1995 09:07 AM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE BILL NO. 14
"An Act relating to criminal mischief."
Mary Vollendorf, Legislative Aide to Senator Leman presented
testimony on SB 14. (Testimony attached to minutes.)
Margot Knuth, Criminal Division, Department of Law,
testified the problem has been in the increase in joyriding
in Anchorage which has doubled in the last two years. Half
of those offenses have been committed by juveniles. The
question is, what can be done to impose meaningful sanction?
The most important feature of this bill is that it makes
joyriding an offense for which driving privileges can be
revoked. This is expected to have a deterrent effect for
juveniles in particular. It is possible to waive a multi-
offending juvenile to adult court for felony purposes if,
there was a desire to go through the petition for waiver
proceeding. She noted that in 47.10.010, which allows
minors to be prosecuted as an adult in district court, there
is an exception for felonies. The law states that with a
felony waiver provision there would be no basis for
excluding the juveniles.
End Tape #12, Side 2 (575-end)
Begin Tape #14, Side 1 (000-575)
Senator Donley asked for further explanation. Ms. Knuth
responded that the criminal mischief statute which, if the
defendant has caused more than $500 damage, is a felony. In
a juvenile, prosecution would go through Family Youth
Services. Or, file the petition for waiver to adult court
under the separate offense of criminal mischief, which is
taking the vehicle and causing more than $500 worth of
damage. That is separate from joyriding which doesn't
involve any damage to the vehicle. That is one way to get
to adult court with the juvenile, the other is through theft
rather than joyriding.
Senator Donley asked how the court system will allow this
since a specific statute says, "if they steal a car and they
are under 18, it is not a felony." Ms. Knuth responded that
the state does not have a strong desire to be prosecuting
these cases as felons. It is expensive. The case needs to
go to the grand jury and in those cases they are going to be
litigated more vigorously. The state prefers that in dealing
with juveniles, it is made a misdemeanor in district court,
which would be handled in a more routine way. She stated
that for over 99% of the joyriding cases with juveniles, the
state does not want them as felons, but rather in district
court.
Senator Rieger wanted to understand how the bill was drafted
and drew attention to section 1 and 3. Ms. Knuth stated
that those under 18 years of age would not appear in
district court as an adult. She stated that in section 3,
it specifies that 18 or older for this offense before the
mandatory 3 day jail sentence would apply. If under the age
of 18, sentencing could be applied to a period of
incarceration, but would not be in jail with adults. There
is no mandatory sentence for juvenile offenders. She went
on to say that there are two processes available when there
is a juvenile. One, is going through the juvenile process
system, and the other is being waived to adult court. If a
juvenile had been waived to adult court for a joyriding
offense and it was the second offense, they would be treated
as a felon. But, there would be a special arduous petition
for a waiver process where this state has the burden of
proving that the juvenile is not amenable to treatment, etc.
Most of the joyriding offenders under the age of 18 have
been going through the juvenile process. They do not go
into district court, but rather superior court. The
proceedings are closed and does not result in a criminal
conviction on their record. The only way to get a criminal
conviction is if there was a petition for waiver. She
stated that it is unlikely that a juvenile would be waived
to adult court on a single joyriding offense.
Co-chair Frank joined the committee.
Senator Zharoff asked the definition of joyriding. Ms.
Knuth responded that joyriding is referred to as criminal
mischief. Statute 11.46.484(a)(2) states, "the person
drives, tows away, or takes the propelled vehicle of
another". This is distinguished from theft because it is
not required to prove an intent of permanently depriving the
owner of the vehicle.
Senator Donley questioned the fiscal impact on juveniles
since there is no room within the jail facilities at this
time. Ms. Knuth responded that there is no anticipation to
give the juveniles time to serve for the joyriding offense.
Hence, it's a property offense, it is likely to be a first
offense and the sentence would probably be a suspended term
with an order of restitution, and revocation of driving
privileges. She clarified "restitution" by stating that,
12.55.045(e) specifies,"If a defendant is convicted of
criminal mischief in the third degree in violation of AS
11.46.484(a)(2), and the victim of the offense incurs damage
or loss as a result of the offense, the court shall order
the defendant to pay restitution." She added, that it
applies to juveniles as well as adults.
Senator Donley wanted to know if there was a fiscal note
from the Department of Corrections? He said, there is a
statement that says the court system expects 450 cases. If
this bill is to send a message to the juveniles that
joyriding is no longer going to be tolerated, then
incarceration for repeat offenders when not imposed, makes
the bill pointless. He then stressed that if the intent is
not to incarcerate, even though there has been a conviction
of a misdemeanor, what is the impact on the juvenile system?
Ms. Knuth responded that Senator Donley's question
presupposes that the system is not working. She stressed
there are not many repeat offenders or those that abuse the
probation system. In order to get to the point of
incarceration, the offender is a repeater, or has failed to
comply with the conditions of probation. Most joyriding
incidences are a single event. Joyriding is not the
starting offense that leads people down the path of criminal
acts.
Co-chair Halford stated simply that he disagreed with
everything Ms. Knuth just stated. Senator Donley says that
the information that he has received from his constituents
is that these are repeat offenders and they are not being
treated seriously.
Senator Rieger asked for an explanation of restitution with
or without the bill. Ms. Knuth responded that if the matter
is handled as a juvenile proceeding, none of the criminal
code applies. Restitution does not apply, revocation of
driving privileges does not apply, and appearing in front of
a judge does not apply. These offenders will receive an
adult conviction, they will go before the judge with
possible consequences of: pay restitution, suspended jail
sentence, loose their driving privileges, permanent funds
dividends can be attached for the payment of the
restitution. These are not consequences experienced in the
past. There are too many juveniles to go through superior
court petitions. The problem is the exploding population.
District court is uniquely set up to process cases in an
efficient manner.
Co-chair Frank asked if there are statistics regarding
repeat offenders? Donna Schultz, Juvenile Probation Officer
youth had been charged with criminal mischief. Those with
prior offenses totalled 12. Statewide joyriders totalled
2400, 1200 of those are juvenile offenders and 600 are from
the Anchorage. Joyriding is a crime of opportunity. She
stated that joyriding has doubled in two years.
Co-chair Halford inquired how the municipality of Anchorage
is handling joyriders now. Ms. Knuth responded that as a
misdemeanor offense Anchorage has a similar statute to our
criminal mischief for adult joyriding offenses. Anchorage
cases number 600 a year. Co-chair asked how the decision is
made to prosecute under municipal ordinance versus state?
Ms. Knuth said that if the municipality has a statute
regarding the crime and prosecutors to handle the case, they
will take it on. This is not true for all municipalities.
Co-chair Halford directed attention to page 1, section 1,
line 5. What would the effect be on changing the word of
"or" to "and"? Ms. Knuth responded that it would take the
second offender juvenile and made it a felony. She stated
that if this bill does not have an effect on joyriding, then
something else needs to be tried. However, this bill is a
big step forward.
Ms. Knuth reported that the "Use It/Loose It" was a
legislative measure passed last year targeting juveniles
drinking. This has proven to be effective. Juveniles are
going to the same parties in Juneau, and now they are
drinking root beer instead of beer because they do not want
to loose their driving licenses. There have been similar
reports from around the state. The threat of jail has never
been a deterrent, probably because like other criminals they
think they are not going to be caught. With "Use It/Loose
It", we have a much higher catch rate.
Senator Donley stated that he supports the bill. However,
he does not want others to get the wrong message. There is
no fiscal note from the Department of Corrections because
they assume no juveniles will be incarcerated. It becomes a
self-fulfilling prophecy because if they don't add any
facilities to deal with this, the judges have no place to
send the juveniles, so they in turn are not going to
incarcerate them. Restitution is a good step forward, but
the public should not think this is going to mean that
juveniles are going to serve hard time for this because they
are not going to have any place to send them.
Senator Donley made a motion to MOVE CSSB14(JUD) with
individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal notes. No
objection having been raised, CSSB14(JUD) was REPORTED OUT
of committee with the following fiscal notes: Dept. of
Public Safety/Dept. Motor Vehicles, $96.4; Dept. Public
Safety/Troopers, zero; Dept. of Corrections, zero;
Department of Law, $81.7; Court System, $55.0. Co-chairs
Halford and Frank along with Senators Rieger and Sharp
signed with a "do pass". Senators Zharoff and Phillips
signed with "no recommendation".
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|