Legislature(2011 - 2012)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
02/17/2012 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB195 | |
| SB110 | |
| SJR13 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 110 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 195 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SJR 13 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SB 110-HUMAN TRAFFICKING/SEX OFFENSES
2:13:43 PM
CHAIR FRENCH announced the consideration of SB 110.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI, sponsor of SB 110, stated that this bill
seeks to close a gap. Under current law, it is a class A felony
to compel someone to travel to Alaska for prostitution, adult
entertainment, or forced labor. However, it is not a violation
of the Human Trafficking Act to transport someone within the
state for the same purposes. Because the law only addresses
human trafficking across state lines, it essentially
discriminates against Alaskan residents. The evidence indicates
that huge numbers of young girls, Native girls in particular,
are being recruited from small Alaska villages to the state's
larger urban areas to become prostitutes. He noted a letter in
the packets from the chair of the Alaska Violent Crimes
Compensation Board stating that in the last few years the board
had received 23 claims from Alaska residents for compensation
for trafficking.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI provided some statistics. One in seven
children will be runaways before age 18. One in three teenagers
on the street will be lured into prostitution within 48 hours of
leaving home. Thirty percent of shelter youths and 70 percent of
street youths are victims of commercial sexual exploitation
according to the American Journal of Public Health. The average
age of entry into prostitution for girls in the U.S. is age 12-
14, and it's younger for boys. Research indicates that there are
a disproportionate number of Alaska Native girls and women
engaged in prostitution. SB 110 puts in-state human trafficking
on par with trafficking across state lines.
2:17:24 PM
CHAIR FRENCH asked for a motion to adopt version M committee
substitute (CS).
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI moved to adopt CS for SB 110, labeled 27-
LS0646\M, as the working document.
CHAIR FRENCH objected for discussion purposes.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI explained that the proposed CS seeks to
address some of the concerns the administration had with the
bill last year. As a compromise the CS says that to be
considered human trafficking, a person must be moved over 100
miles within the state. The penalties were also increased from a
class A felony to an unclassified felony. Another new provision
makes it a higher penalty if the victim is under age 18 and four
years younger than the trafficker. Specifying the four-year gap
in age was to avoid capturing people in a dating relationship, a
19 year old and a 17 year old for example.
2:19:46 PM
DOUG GARDNER, Director, Legislative Legal Services, Legislative
Affairs Agency, introduced himself.
CHAIR FRENCH highlighted the new provision addressing the age
difference in Section 2. He said he and the sponsor understood
that as the single most serious crime, it would be human
trafficking in the first degree.
MR. GARDNER offered to make the necessary changes.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if he could see the gist that a predator
relationship would be a more serious offense than the
relationship that might be encompassed by what is now human
trafficking in the first degree where someone is age 19 and
someone else is age 17.
MR. GARDNER replied he understood what the committee wanted to
do.
CHAIR FRENCH confirmed that the committee would wait for the new
CS before taking any action on the bill.
2:22:24 PM
SUZANNE LA PIERRE, private attorney, Anchorage, AK, said she had
worked on the trafficking issue for about two years and she
believed that several points may have gotten lost in the
discussion. She explained that prosecution was only one of three
prongs for approaching the trafficking issue. The others were
prevention and protection, and Alaska laws have gaping holes in
those two categories. For example, neither current law nor this
bill provide a safe harbor for children under age 18 from being
charged or prosecuted for prostitution. She emphasized that
Alaska law needed a more victim oriented approach for situations
of forced labor and commercial sex, including a comprehensive
plan to provide victim services. She further suggested that the
bill should have restitution provisions and provide a private
cause of action for victims of all types of forced labor
trafficking.
She highlighted that there were both supply and demand issues
regarding prevention. She suggested cutting the demand by
expanding the definition of trafficker to include a patron in a
commercial sex exploitation situation and increasing the fines.
Then put the money in a designated trafficked victims' fund.
Also, patrons who have been charged with commercial sex
exploitations should be required to attend an educational
program, and they should be publicly shamed. On the supply side,
she suggested increasing education and work opportunities in the
villages so individuals would not be compelled to relocate to
urban areas.
MS. LA PIERRE encouraged the committee to look at model
legislation and work in partnership with organizations that work
on this issue.
2:27:47 PM
QUINLAN STEINER, Public Defender, Public Defender Agency,
Department of Administration (DOA), stated that his comments on
SB 110 were a matter of record, but he wanted to reiterate some
concerns about unintended consequences. SB 110 not only brings
the human trafficking statute to an in-state issue, it also
broadens the definition by including the word "entice." He
opined that this was a different concept than the terms "compel"
and "induce" that were in current statute. That term is not
well-defined in this area and could broaden enforcement to an
unintended degree as well as subject it to constitutional
challenge, he said.
CHAIR FRENCH referred to page 1, [lines 12-13] that says a
person commits the crime if he or she "compels, entices or
induces" another person. He pointed out that the verbs were all
modified by the second half of the clause that says those things
are done to engage in sexual conduct in the state by force or
threat of force or deception. He asked if that affected his
analysis.
MR. STEINER said the unintended consequence is created when
"enticement" is put alongside "deception." Force or threat of
force are clearly wrongful, whereas deception can cover a wide
range of statements around the activity of labor and sexual
conduct, not all of which is defined in statute.
CHAIR FRENCH pointed out that the current statute makes it a
crime to compel or induce someone by deception.
MR. STEINER said inducing and compelling are the kind of
elements that would involve causing somebody to do something
that they were not seeking to do or would not otherwise do.
Enticing does not have that component. It may be somebody asking
about the terms of doing X activity, so there would be an
exchange of information. That is a demonstratively different set
of circumstances than compelling or inducing. Although the
difference is subtle, it can have a profound impact on how these
cases can be prosecuted.
MR. STEINER highlighted the difficulty between Sections 1 and 2
that was discussed earlier.
CHAIR FRENCH confirmed that would be fixed.
2:33:16 PM
DR. REGINA CHENNAULT, representing herself, Anchorage, AK,
stated support for SB 110. She said she was a trauma surgeon and
the physician member of the Violent Crimes Compensation Board
(VCCB), and had seen young boys and girls and women from around
the state who were enticed, induced and deceived with promises
of a better life into going with an abductor. These victims are
lured in and they end up in the emergency room with significant,
lifetime injuries. Once they leave the ER, they are coerced into
going back out on the street to sell drugs and themselves so
they can give money to the organizer of the ring.
2:35:57 PM
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General representing the
Criminal Division, Department of Law (DOL), said DOL testified
on this bill last year to make the committee aware that these
acts were prohibited under the current promoting prostitution
statutes. Inducing someone who is under age 18 to engage in
prostitution is already an unclassified felony, and that crime
does not have the additional element of trafficking. She
reminded the committee that the prosecution has to prove each
element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked which statute she was referring to.
MS. CARPENETI replied AS 11.66.110 is promoting prostitution in
the first degree, and subsection (a)(2) prohibits promoting
prostitution if the victim is under age 18. AS 11.66.110(d)
states that a person convicted under subsection (a)(2) is guilty
of an unclassified felony.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if there was an enticement section.
MS. CARPENETI answered no; it includes inducing or causing a
person under age 18 to engage in prostitution. Referring to AS
11.41.360(a), she said she reads "to compel, induce or entice
another person" to modify the phrase "coming to the state" and
"by threat, force, or deception" to modify once they are here
engaging in sexual conduct, adult entertainment or labor. She
said that's why there are two Acts; they modify conduct in two
different ways.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if she would agree that the current
human trafficking laws only address trafficking across state
lines.
MS. CARPENETI said yes, and then reminded the committee that
testimony last year from Detective Lacey indicated that child
victims generally were not enticed to go to Anchorage by a
promoter of prostitution. They went to visit family, were
abandoned for some reason and then became victims.
CHAIR FRENCH noted that the bill packets contained a PowerPoint
that Detective Lacey prepared.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if there were laws on the books
regarding adult entertainment or compelling someone for labor in
the state
MS. CARPENETI offered to follow up with the specific citations.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI emphasized that SB 110 was much broader
than the existing laws regarding adult entertainment and
compelling a person to work across state lines. He asked if it
was accurate to say that there is not a law on the books that
deals with those situations in-state.
MS. CARPENETI agreed that was correct.
2:43:04 PM
CHAIR FRENCH announced he would hold SB 110 in committee
awaiting a new CS.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 195.PDF |
SJUD 2/17/2012 1:30:00 PM |
SB 195 |
| SB 195-Sponsor statement.pdf |
SJUD 2/17/2012 1:30:00 PM |
SB 195 |
| SB 195 backup NCSL.PDF |
SJUD 2/17/2012 1:30:00 PM |
SB 195 |
| SB 195 backup -ADN articles.pdf |
SJUD 2/17/2012 1:30:00 PM |
SB 195 |
| SB 195 letter of support.pdf |
SJUD 2/17/2012 1:30:00 PM |
SB 195 |
| SJR 13 Ver.M.pdf |
SJUD 2/17/2012 1:30:00 PM |
SJR 13 |
| SJR13 Sponsor statement.pdf |
SJUD 2/17/2012 1:30:00 PM |
SJR 13 |
| SJR13 ADN Editorial.pdf |
SJUD 2/17/2012 1:30:00 PM |
SJR 13 |
| SJR13 Center for Responsive Politics article.pdf |
SJUD 2/17/2012 1:30:00 PM |
SJR 13 |
| SB110 Version M (1).pdf |
SJUD 2/17/2012 1:30:00 PM |
SB 110 |
| SB110.APOA Letter of Support.pdf |
SJUD 2/17/2012 1:30:00 PM |
SB 110 |
| SB110.Support Ltr.Violent Crimes Compensation Board.pdf |
SJUD 2/17/2012 1:30:00 PM |
SB 110 |