Legislature(1997 - 1998)

05/06/1997 02:24 PM JUD

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
                HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE                             
                            May 6, 1997                                        
                             2:24 p.m.                                         
 MEMBERS PRESENT                                                               
 Representative Joe Green, Chairman                                            
 Representative Con Bunde, Vice Chairman                                       
 Representative Brian Porter                                                   
 Representative Norman Rokeberg                                                
 Representative Jeannette James                                                
 Representative Eric Croft                                                     
 Representative Ethan Berkowitz                                                
 MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                
 All members present                                                           
 COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                            
 SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 189                                     
 "An Act relating to sale of tobacco and tobacco products; and                 
 providing for an effective date."                                             
      - RESCINDED ACTION OF 05/05/97; MOVED CSSSHB 189(JUD) OUT OF             
 HOUSE BILL NO. 245                                                            
 "An Act relating to minimum sentences for assault in the fourth               
 degree that is a crime involving domestic violence; providing that            
 a prisoner may not contact the victim of the offense when provided            
 access to a telephone or otherwise immediately after an arrest; and           
 amending Rule 5(b), Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure."                      
      - MOVED CSHB 245(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                   
 HOUSE BILL NO. 16                                                             
 "An Act relating to delinquent minors, to the taking of action                
 based on the alleged criminal misconduct of certain minors, to the            
 services to be provided to the victims of criminal misconduct of              
 minors, and to agency records involving minors alleged to be                  
 delinquent based on their criminal misconduct; and amending Rule 19           
 and repealing Rules 6, 7, 11(a), 12(a), and 21(f), Alaska                     
 Delinquency Rules."                                                           
      - MOVED CSHB 16(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                    
 CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 3(JUD)                                                 
 "An Act authorizing prosecution and trial in the district court of            
 municipal curfew violations, and providing for punishment of minors           
 upon conviction for violation of a curfew ordinance."                         
      - SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD                                                
 HOUSE BILL NO. 199                                                            
 "An Act relating to the property, transactions, and obligations of            
 spouses; relating to the augmented estate; amending Rule 301,                 
 Alaska Rules of Evidence; and providing for an effective date."               
      - SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD                                                
 HOUSE BILL NO. 232                                                            
 "An Act establishing the independent division of administrative               
 hearings in the Department of Administration in order to provide a            
 source of independent administrative hearing officers to preside in           
 contested cases; relating to administrative hearing officers;                 
 relating to contested case proceedings; and providing for an                  
 effective date."                                                              
      - BILL HEARING CANCELLED                                                 
 (* First public hearing)                                                      
 PREVIOUS ACTION                                                               
 BILL:  HB 189                                                                 
 SHORT TITLE: RESTRICT TOBACCO SALES                                           
 SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) COWDERY, Austerman, Ryan                        
 JRN-DATE      JRN-PG                 ACTION                                   
 03/12/97       640    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 03/12/97       640    (H)   LABOR & COMMERCE, JUDICIARY                       
 04/03/97       922    (H)   SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED-                    
 04/03/97       922    (H)   L&C, JUDICIARY                                    
 04/09/97              (H)   L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17                         
 04/09/97              (H)   MINUTE(L&C)                                       
 04/10/97              (H)   L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17                         
 04/10/97              (H)   MINUTE(L&C)                                       
 04/18/97              (H)   L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17                         
 04/18/97              (H)   MINUTE(L&C)                                       
 04/21/97      1211    (H)   L&C RPT  CS(L&C) NT 4DP 1NR                       
 04/21/97      1211    (H)   DP: COWDERY, RYAN, HUDSON, ROKEBERG               
 04/21/97      1211    (H)   NR: BRICE                                         
 04/21/97      1211    (H)   2 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (DPS, REV)                    
 04/21/97      1225    (H)   COSPONSOR(S): AUSTERMAN                           
 04/28/97              (H)   JUD AT 1:45 PM CAPITOL 120                        
 04/28/97              (H)   MINUTE(JUD)                                       
 04/28/97              (H)   MINUTE(JUD)                                       
 05/05/97              (H)   JUD AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 120                        
 05/05/97              (H)   MINUTE(JUD)                                       
 05/05/97              (H)   MINUTE(JUD)                                       
 05/05/97              (H)   MINUTE(JUD)                                       
 05/05/97              (H)   MINUTE(JUD)                                       
 BILL:  HB 245                                                                 
 SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) DYSON, Berkowitz                                
 JRN-DATE      JRN-PG                 ACTION                                   
 04/10/97      1061    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 04/10/97      1061    (H)   STA, JUDICIARY, FINANCE                           
 04/18/97      1189    (H)   BERKOWITZ CHANGED TO COSPONSOR                    
 04/18/97      1189    (H)   DYSON CHANGED TO PRIME SPONSOR                    
 04/24/97              (H)   STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102                        
 04/24/97              (H)   MINUTE(STA)                                       
 04/25/97              (H)   JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                        
 04/25/97              (H)   MINUTE(JUD)                                       
 04/25/97      1340    (H)   STA RPT  6DP                                      
 04/25/97      1340    (H)   DP: JAMES, ELTON, BERKOWITZ, DYSON,               
 04/25/97      1340    (H)   VEZEY, IVAN                                       
 04/25/97      1340    (H)   2 INDETERMINATE FNS (COR, ADM)                    
 04/25/97      1340    (H)   2 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (LAW, DPS)                    
 04/30/97              (H)   JUD AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 120                        
 04/30/97              (H)   MINUTE(JUD)                                       
 05/02/97              (H)   JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                        
 05/02/97              (H)   MINUTE(JUD)                                       
 05/05/97              (H)   JUD AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 120                        
 05/05/97              (H)   MINUTE(JUD)                                       
 05/06/97              (H)   JUD AT 2:15 PM CAPITOL 120                        
 BILL:  HB 16                                                                  
 SHORT TITLE: JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PROCEDURES                                  
 SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) KELLY                                           
 JRN-DATE      JRN-PG                 ACTION                                   
 01/13/97        31    (H)   PREFILE RELEASED 1/3/97                           
 01/13/97        31    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 01/13/97        31    (H)   HES, JUDICIARY                                    
 02/29/97              (H)   MINUTE(HES)                                       
 04/25/97              (H)   HES AT 3:30 PM CAPITOL 106                        
 04/25/97              (H)   MINUTE(HES)                                       
 04/29/97              (H)   JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                        
 04/29/97              (H)   MINUTE(JUD)                                       
 04/29/97              (H)   MINUTE(JUD)                                       
 04/29/97              (H)   HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106                        
 04/29/97              (H)   MINUTE(HES)                                       
 04/30/97      1395    (H)   HES RPT  CS(HES) NT 5DP                           
 04/30/97      1396    (H)   DP: DYSON, GREEN, BUNDE, PORTER,                  
 04/30/97      1396    (H)   4 FNS (2-ADM, COURT, COR)                         
 04/30/97      1396    (H)   3 ZERO FNS (DHSS, LAW, DPS)                       
 05/01/97              (H)   MINUTE(JUD)                                       
 05/06/97              (H)   JUD AT 2:15 PM CAPITOL 120                        
 WITNESS REGISTER                                                              
 MIKE FORD, Attorney                                                           
 Legislative Legal and Research Services                                       
 Legislative Affairs Agency                                                    
 130 Seward Street, Suite 409                                                  
 Juneau, Alaska  99801-2105                                                    
 Telephone:  (907) 465-2450                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on CSSSHB 189(JUD).                            
 MARCO PIGNALBERI, Legislative Assistant                                       
    to Representative John Cowdery                                             
 Alaska State Legislature                                                      
 Capitol Building, Room 416                                                    
 Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                         
 Telephone:  (907) 465-3879                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on behalf of sponsor regarding                 
                      CSSSHB 189(JUD).                                         
 REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON                                                     
 Alaska State Legislature                                                      
 Capitol Building, Room 428                                                    
 Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                         
 Telephone:  (907) 465-2199                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Prime sponsor of HB 245.                                 
 BARBARA BRINK, Director                                                       
 Public Defender Agency                                                        
 Department of Administration                                                  
 900 West 5th Avenue, Suite 200                                                
 Anchorage, Alaska  99501-2090                                                 
 Telephone:  (907) 264-4400                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Provided department's position and answered              
                      questions regarding HB 245 and HB 16.                    
 JAN MacCLARENCE                                                               
 Abused Women's Aid in Crisis                                                  
 100 West 13th                                                                 
 Anchorage, Alaska  99501                                                      
 Telephone:  (907) 279-9581                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on HB 245.                                     
 JODI OLMSTEAD                                                                 
 P.O. Box 56873                                                                
 North Pole, Alaska  99705                                                     
 Telephone:  (907) 488-0334                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on HB 245 and HB 16.                           
 MARGOT KNUTH, Assistant Attorney General                                      
 Criminal Division                                                             
 Department of Law                                                             
 240 Main Street, Suite 700                                                    
 Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                         
 Telephone:  (907) 465-4652                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Provided Department of Corrections' position             
                      and answered questions regarding HB 245;                 
                      testified regarding HB 16.                               
 JAYNE ANDREEN, Executive Director                                             
 Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault                               
 Department of Public Safety                                                   
 P.O. Box 111200                                                               
 Juneau, Alaska  99811-1200                                                    
 Telephone:  (907) 465-4356                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Provided council's position on HB 245.                   
 LAURIE HUGONIN, Executive Director                                            
 Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault                        
 130 Seward, Room 501                                                          
 Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                         
 Telephone:  (907) 586-3650                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in support of HB 245.                          
 BRUCE CAMPBELL, Legislative Assistant                                         
    to Representative Pete Kelly                                               
 Alaska State Legislature                                                      
 Capitol Building, Room 411                                                    
 Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                         
 Telephone:  (907) 465-6589                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Presented HB 16 on behalf of sponsor.                    
 BRANT McGEE, Public Advocate                                                  
 Office of Public Advocacy                                                     
 Department of Administration                                                  
 900 West 5th Avenue, Suite 525                                                
 Anchorage, Alaska  99501-2090                                                 
 Telephone:  (907) 269-3501                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified regarding HB 16.                               
 ACTION NARRATIVE                                                              
 TAPE 97-78, SIDE A                                                            
 Number 0001                                                                   
 CHAIRMAN JOE GREEN called the House Judiciary Standing Committee              
 meeting to order at 2:24 p.m.  Members present at the call to order           
 were Representatives Green, Bunde, Porter, Rokeberg, Croft and                
 Berkowitz.  Representative James arrived at 2:37 p.m.                         
 SSHB 189 RESTRICT TOBACCO SALES                                               
 [Contains considerable discussion of SSHB 159]                                
 CHAIRMAN GREEN announced the first item of business would be                  
 Sponsor Substitute for House Bill No. 189, "An Act relating to sale           
 of tobacco and tobacco products; and providing for an effective               
 Number 0062                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER made a motion to rescind the                      
 committee's action of May 5, 1997, that had moved CSSSHB 189(JUD)             
 out of committee.                                                             
 CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether there was an objection.  There being             
 none, the bill was again before the committee.  He asked Mike Ford            
 to explain the dilemma arising from the verbal amending done the              
 previous day.                                                                 
 Number 0099                                                                   
 MIKE FORD, Attorney, Legislative Legal and Research Services,                 
 Legislative Affairs Agency, stated, "The committee did pass out two           
 bills, House Bill 159 and House Bill 189.  And there were some                
 duplicative, conflicting and overlapping provisions in the two                
 bills.  So, what we did was attempt to differentiate between the              
 provisions that were conflicting and resolve that, which resulted             
 in a Judiciary CS for House Bill 159, which has passed out of the             
 committee, and a new Judiciary CS, which you have before you now.             
 So, I believe we have a vehicle which ... avoids the conflicts.  It           
 contains those provisions that will capture, I believe, the intent            
 of the sponsor and the committee and, hopefully, be a vehicle that            
 will allow you to proceed on ... both fronts."  He offered to go              
 through the new draft, version 0-LS0711\H, Ford, 5/6/97.                      
 CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether the sponsor has any problem with it.             
 MARCO PIGNALBERI, Legislative Assistant to Representative John                
 Cowdery, stated that Representative Cowdery likes this version.               
 REPRESENTATIVE ERIC CROFT asked to hear what the changes are.  He             
 then made a motion to adopt version 0-LS0711\H, Ford, 5/6/97, as a            
 work draft.  There being no objection, that version was before the            
 MR. FORD explained the changes:                                               
 "Section 1 repeals language that is applicable to the vending                 
 machine limitation on sale and also adds a `knowing' element in               
 place of the `negligent' sale.  So, we've raised the standard there           
 for committing this offense.                                                  
 "Section 2 is the section where we have actually raised the                   
 punishment to class B and class A misdemeanor, depending on whether           
 it's your first offense or whether you have multiple offenses.                
 "Section 3 is a provision that imposes a restriction on sale. ...             
 Except for sales by vending machine, you can't sell tobacco                   
 products unless you meet the paragraph 1 and 2 requirements.                  
 Paragraph 1 is simply an access limitation; you have to restrict              
 your ... public access to the product.  Paragraph 2 is the                    
 wholesale exception; if you're a wholesaler, then you are allowed             
 to sell.                                                                      
 Number 0341                                                                   
 "Section 4 is a section added to be consistent with Section 1.                
 It's raising the standard from `criminally negligent' to `knowing'            
 in order to lose your license ... as a wholesaler.                            
 "Section 5 is a repeal section.  We're repealing two sections that            
 deal with vending machines.  And, again, this is consistent with              
 the changes made in House Bill 159 and is intended to avoid any               
 "Section 6 is a provision we added that is intended to allow the              
 Revisor to reconcile House Bill 159 and 189, assuming that both               
 pass, and perhaps with additional changes, which we are unaware of            
 at this point."                                                               
 Number 0403                                                                   
 CHAIRMAN GREEN asked for confirmation that if HB 159 didn't pass,             
 Section 6 would become moot.                                                  
 MR. FORD responded, "That's correct.  The one thing I would point             
 out to the committee, however, is that if 159 does not pass, we               
 have taken out the vending machine restrictions in 189.  So, if in            
 fact ... at some in this process this becomes the sole vehicle, you           
 would probably want to add those in here so you'd maintain your               
 restrictions on vending machine sales."                                       
 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked, "Can we add them in now, identically,             
 and then no matter what bill comes through, ... it's there?  Can we           
 pull the ... 159 vending machine?"                                            
 MR. FORD replied, "You could do that.  As I said, when we                     
 approached the project, it was as a package, 159 and 189.  And                
 assuming that both those vehicles passed, we're trying to eliminate           
 the conflicts between them, because they did repeal and reenact               
 sections.  Actually, one section was amended; the other bill                  
 repealed and reenacted the same section.  So, in order to avoid the           
 confusion over ... `who's on first,' we drafted it this way."                 
 Number 0510                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT responded, "Well, I guess I'd move that as a             
 conceptual amendment.  Noting the lateness in the session, he said,           
 "And I'd rather make sure that it is there, rather than, when we're           
 trying to strengthen the law, have the unintended consequence of              
 possibly eliminating the vending machine restrictions."                       
 Number 0525                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE said his only question would be whether              
 this would delay this bill getting to the floor.  He said it is a             
 package, and he believes there is an understanding that it will be            
 a package on the floor.                                                       
 CHAIRMAN GREEN responded, "And I suppose if it did happen that                
 somehow it didn't make it here, we could revisit it on the other              
 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT added, "I guess on the floor."                           
 CHAIRMAN GREEN said, "Or the floor ...."                                      
 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said he'd withdraw the motion, although it may           
 still be a good idea, because of the timing.                                  
 Number 0580                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG asked whether there was a further              
 referral to the House Finance Committee.                                      
 CHAIRMAN GREEN said, "This one I think has zero."                             
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked, "And 159?"                                     
 CHAIRMAN GREEN replied, "159 is lagging because it does have a                
 referral ... to Finance.  It has a positive fiscal note.  It may be           
 waived, but ...."                                                             
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG suggested it would be better to do the work           
 in committee, rather than on the House floor.                                 
 Number 0617                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER pointed out that the work they were                     
 anticipating would only be needed if one bill failed.  "I don't see           
 that happening," he added.                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said, "It depends how it's scheduled on the           
 calendar, too."                                                               
 CHAIRMAN GREEN said, "Well, the worst that would happen, if this              
 were scheduled first and the other one fails, then we'd just                  
 reconsider our vote on this and reopen the bill."                             
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked, "We have a designated `amender'                
 CHAIRMAN GREEN stated, "I will follow that up, then, and appoint              
 myself ... to make sure that we don't pass a bill over that doesn't           
 have the vending machine clauses in it."                                      
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated his understanding that the House               
 Rules Committee would be "packaging" it.  He suggested perhaps they           
 could do it there.                                                            
 CHAIRMAN GREEN responded, "That would work, too.  The only thing              
 is, we still won't know whether they both make it."                           
 Number 0688                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE stated for clarification, "There has never               
 been anyone charged under legislation like this.  I don't see                 
 anything that would probably change that."                                    
 MR. FORD responded, "Mr. Chairman, it's my understanding that that            
 is correct.  However, [you] probably should ask that question of              
 the Department of Law."                                                       
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER made a motion to move version 0-LS0711\H,               
 Ford, 5/6/97 out of committee with individual recommendations.                
 There being no objection, CSSSHB 189(JUD) moved from the House                
 Judiciary Standing.                                                           
 HB 245 - DOM. VIOL. ASSAULTS; PRISONER CONTACTS                               
 Number 0773                                                                   
 CHAIRMAN GREEN announced the next item of business would be House             
 Bill No. 245, "An Act relating to minimum sentences for assault in            
 the fourth degree that is a crime involving domestic violence;                
 providing that a prisoner may not contact the victim of the offense           
 when provided access to a telephone or otherwise immediately after            
 an arrest; and amending Rule 5(b), Alaska Rules of Criminal                   
 Number 0787                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON, prime sponsor, explained that HB 245               
 sets some minimum standards for domestic violence sentences and               
 restricts the perpetrator's ability to call the victim.  Much of              
 the work in drafting the bill was done by Representative Berkowitz,           
 who could answer technical questions.  Representative Berkowitz had           
 asked that Representative Dyson, who is also interested in domestic           
 violence issues, be the prime sponsor.                                        
 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON explained that this takes two important steps.           
 It prevents defendants from using their one phone call to contact             
 and harass victims; victims, groups and police departments                    
 throughout the state have recognized it as another step in                    
 protecting victims from ongoing harassment.  It also establishes a            
 graduated minimum sentence for domestic violence offenders.  "And             
 I might add it leaves what we think is a prerequisite flexibility             
 for prosecutors and defense attorneys in dealing with this," he               
 stated, "And these things are progressive.  And those who are                 
 repeat offenders will feel the increasingly repressive nature of              
 the law if this passes."                                                      
 Number 0953                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked, "Section 1:  Has that happened?  I                
 mean, people use their phone call to continue harassment?"                    
 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said yes.  He stated, "In my experience,                 
 dealing some with perpetrators but also quite a bit with victims,             
 people are irrational.  And vengeance and creating discomfort for             
 their victims and terrorizing them and threatening them,                      
 particularly when the thing gets to the point where ... these guys            
 have been arrested, then they know that in most domestic violence             
 things, there are very few witnesses, sometimes just children, that           
 getting to and threatening the victim is, you know, a very good way           
 to try to beat the thing, beat the charge."                                   
 Number 1004                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to Section 1, page 1, line 13,               
 which adds "friend" and deletes "friends".  He asked whether a                
 prisoner has the right to refuse a visit from an alleged friend.              
 REPRESENTATIVE ETHAN BERKOWITZ replied, "Sure."                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked the reason for making it singular.              
 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ pointed out that it is just one phone                
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE commented that with a right to contact                   
 friends, one could have quite a long series of calls one wanted to            
 Number 1074                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT indicated that the desire to increase the                
 seriousness of the crime made sense to him, putting teeth into it             
 "without unduly hamstringing, if you will."  He asked for an                  
 explanation of how it walks that line.                                        
 Number 1106                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ explained, "What often happens with                  
 domestic violence assaults is the prosector and defense attorney              
 will get together.  And people who are experienced more or less               
 know where the sentence will wind up for a particular crime.  But             
 it's useful to have the hammer of mandatory time in the prosector's           
 arsenal, and it can also be useful in the defense attorney's                  
 arsenal to help persuade a client that it might perhaps be futile             
 to persist.  And what ... we've tried to engineer in this bill is             
 a loophole that defense attorneys and prosecutors can use so they             
 can charge, essentially, in the alternative:  either you ... take             
 a domestic violence assault charge, which carries mandatory minimum           
 ... penalties, plus there would be other contempt of court charges            
 potentially going alongside, because ... they all occur consistent            
 with an order ...."                                                           
 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked, "Inconsistent with it?"                           
 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said, "In order to have a domestic                   
 violence assault, there has to be a court order at some point in              
 the process.  But it doesn't necessarily have to be charged that              
 Number 1197                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated, "We've heard mentioned several times            
 the phenomenon of unintended consequences. ... One of the                     
 prosecutors in the municipality called and had a concern about                
 Section 3, as it relates to establishing specific `A' levels for              
 subsequent offenses, which could negate the ability to impose a               
 suspended sentence from the first occurrence.  Quite often,                   
 especially in serious-injury-type domestic violence cases, a very             
 substantial suspended sentence is imposed at the first conviction.            
 And if someone had 120 days or 180 days or something hanging over             
 their head, then faced with this, I think that you would cut that             
 in half, and it would lose the ability to persuade pleas and those            
 kinds of things.  So, I think the suggestion was to try to word               
 this so that that wouldn't occur, and ... after our grand success             
 yesterday, I'm not suggesting that we craft this at the table.  But           
 it was a concern expressed by a prosecutor who handles quite a few            
 of these cases."                                                              
 Number 1265                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT responded, "Well, we had some of that concern            
 in another bill.  But were you suggesting an `at least'?  It does             
 say, `sentence to a minimum term of'.  So, it wouldn't seem to me             
 to require 60 days; it would require at least 60 days.  And ... if            
 the prior suspended, or whatever the fact situation, increased                
 that, ... that it could still happen, minimum term, but it doesn't            
 state any sort of ceiling, just floor."                                       
 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON concurred with Representative Porter that one            
 of the best tools a judge has is a suspended imposition of sentence           
 to mandate anger management or "male awareness" and fairly strict             
 supervision.  He stated, "And I don't think we are precluding that            
 tool here."                                                                   
 Number 1330                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER responded, "I believe the concern was when              
 you set these kinds of things out, somehow they become a standard.            
 And there was concern that that not be the case.  I think that's              
 correct, that this is minimum.  Maybe we could underline `minimum'            
 or something."  (There was laughter.)                                         
 Number 1357                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to page 2, line 20.  He said, "It            
 seems as if no imposition of sentence or a partial sentence would             
 be allowed under this subsection.  So, if the case is where there             
 is ... perhaps 60 days of ... incarceration and 120 days of ....              
 CHAIRMAN GREEN asked, "Community service or whatever?"                        
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG responded, "No, it's still suspended, but             
 it could be imposed if there's a repeat offense. ... I mean, is               
 that a problem here, with that language?"                                     
 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ explained, "There's a section of Title 12            
 which has to do with sentencing, which permits courts to suspend              
 the imposition of sentence.  Basically, you behave, you don't have            
 to go to jail, it gets wiped off your record, to some extent. ...             
 And usually, suspended imposition of sentence only applies for the            
 first offense.  There might be rare instances where a defendant               
 might get a second or even, incredibly rarely, a third bite at the            
 apple. ... This is something the drafter wanted put in.  It's, in             
 all practicality, something that's never going to occur for a                 
 repeat offender, that they're going to get a suspended sentence.              
 So, this is something just to ensure that the suspended sentence              
 doesn't occur.  And the court of appeals has said that it's not a             
 good idea; they want to make sure that people have to pay the price           
 for breaking a law more than once and pay a significant price.  And           
 most judges would, that I've seen, do sentencing (indisc.--                   
 coughing) suspended imposition of sentence, particularly not for a            
 second assault."                                                              
 Number 1455                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG requested clarification about what assault            
 in the fourth degree is, stating his understanding that assault can           
 occur without touching another person, whereas battery occurs when            
 the person is touched.                                                        
 CHAIRMAN GREEN noted that Superior Court Judge Michael Wolverton              
 was in the audience.                                                          
 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said that assault is when a person either            
 causes a physical injury or puts someone in fear of physical                  
 injury.  There is no `battery' in the criminal code.                          
 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ added, "Assault sweeps in both."                     
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG suggested that in Alaska, normally the                
 crime is committed if there is actual physical injury.                        
 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ replied, "You can have a fear as well.               
 But it has to be imminent, imminent physical injury."                         
 Number 1550                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said, "Domestic violence cases are not a `slam           
 dunk' when they go before the judge.  And the difficulty is always            
 in proof.  And oftentimes, there are no witnesses.  And so, unless            
 there's physical evidence and it has been substantiated, the case             
 has to be proved.  And it's not going to be just on the word of the           
 victim.  Police officers who respond will say, `Yeah, there's blood           
 dripping out of the corner of her mouth and a hand print on the               
 side of her face and the furniture was upset ... and so on.  Just             
 the yelling -- and unless there's a witness that not only hears it            
 but sees ... that a reasonable person would have been intimidated             
 and terrified, probably not going to get a conviction.  A repeat              
 offender, lots of these sorts of things, and the court will take              
 that into account."                                                           
 Number 1610                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said there are some techniques, which he             
 believes have come primarily out of San Diego, for prosecuting                
 cases.  It is quite common for victims to recant the accusation of            
 domestic violence.  He stated, "And we're getting more and more               
 success in being able to prosecute just on the say-so of the                  
 victim, even if it's done initially and ... there's not much                  
 physical evidence to go along with (indisc.--coughing) because the            
 techniques for the prosecutor's side are becoming so well-                    
 Number 1635                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER added, "I guess to further allay the                    
 Representative's concern, one of the few exceptions to the laws of            
 arrest as relates to misdemeanors is involved in domestic violence,           
 where a probable-cause arrest can be made by a police officer                 
 seeing the kind of scene that Representative Dyson just described,            
 whereas previously, unless they actually saw the assault occur,               
 they were required to rely on a private person's arrest from the              
 victim, which oftentimes was not forthcoming because of the fear of           
 the whole situation.  But now the officer can make that arrest on             
 probable cause.  And as a matter of fact, a bill just passed that             
 will now allow previous acts to be used as evidence in the trial."            
 Number 1697                                                                   
 BARBARA BRINK, Director, Public Defender Agency, Department of                
 Administration, testified via teleconference from Anchorage.  She             
 thanked Representative Porter especially for mentioning unintended            
 consequences.  She stated, "Normally, a judge always takes into               
 account whether or not a person has a prior conviction for a crime            
 similar to the one ... before them and will ratchet up the penalty,           
 as this bill is intended to do.  The problem with making mandatory            
 minimum sentences:  that you remove the judge's ability to fashion            
 an appropriate punishment, given a whole range of different things            
 the judge is supposed to think about.  The judge thinks about the             
 seriousness of the harm, the rehabilitation potential of the                  
 defendant, and the deterrent value and reaffirmation of societal              
 norms.  When you remove that power from the judge, you get                    
 sentences that you will find aren't appropriate, given those                  
 particular circumstances."                                                    
 MS. BRINK continued, "Essentially, those mandatory minimums create            
 anomalies in the overall sentencing schemes.  Normally in assault             
 cases, we take into account not just the character of the crime but           
 what the person's intention was, whether a weapon was involved or             
 not, whether there was actual touching or injury, and the                     
 seriousness of that injury.  If you take a small class of domestic            
 violence assaults and impose mandatory penalties on just those,               
 they are anomalous in the overall scheme of things.  Those                    
 mandatory minimums create an arbitrary nature to the crime, such              
 that a person is much less likely to admit they're at fault or to             
 complicity in that crime."                                                    
 MS. BRINK continued, "For example, a person who is charged with a             
 domestic violence assault, misdemeanors here, for having                      
 threatening words with someone, will be required to serve more time           
 in jail than a person who may have been charged with a serious                
 felony offense.  Such severe sentences are going to discourage                
 people from admitting their own conduct, because the consequences             
 appear overly-harsh and somewhat arbitrary.  When fewer people                
 admit their guilt, more of these cases are going to proceed to jury           
 trial, and I'm here to tell you that those are a far more costly              
 proposition than how most cases are handled today.                            
 Number 1798                                                                   
 MS. BRINK continued, "Last year, the state prosecuted over 1,200              
 domestic assaults.  The Municipality of Anchorage alone prosecuted            
 an additional 1,500.  The estimates I've gotten from the                      
 prosecutors are that a good 30 to 50 percent of those assaults                
 might involve repeat offenders.  If an even-small percentage of               
 those go to trial, there are going to be enormous financial                   
 repercussions, not only on the public defender but on the                     
 prosecutor and the court resources.  The financial burden is going            
 to be enormous.  We are not able to predict, obviously, how many of           
 these cases are going to go to trial, but as I am trying to be more           
 clear about, in bills that come before you, we will come back and             
 let you know about those unanticipated costs in our supplemental              
 Number 1847                                                                   
 MS. BRINK pointed out one additional unintended consequence.  She             
 said she is worried that many people will be discouraged from                 
 reporting things to the police.  She stated, "Oftentimes, a person            
 in the heat of a situation who's got a little training about                  
 domestic violence, who knows how to protect themselves, will call             
 the police, even if all they want is the other person removed from            
 the scene.  And the police are very good about doing that.  But               
 once the word gets out that this person is then going to be placed            
 in a mandatory jail situation, they are going to go away for 30               
 days or 60 days, I'm worried that victims will be discouraged from            
 calling the police because they know about these hard                         
 MS. BRINK continued, "At the last hearing, Representative Ivan                
 noted lots of cases in his own district where after the dust had              
 settled, the person will go back to the judge and ask for that                
 person to be released because they have no ability to get wood,               
 they have no ability to get water; the basic needs of that entire             
 family are dependent on this person who, yes, may have committed a            
 crime.  But jumping to the next conclusion that mandatory jail time           
 is appropriate can actually cause detriment to the victim as well             
 as the perpetrator."                                                          
 Number 1893                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES said she understood that to be                 
 correct.  The whole idea of domestic violence is frustrating to               
 her.  Until the victims are strong and can stand up, it will never            
 be solved.  Being easy on perpetrators isn't necessarily the way to           
 go.  "And we really do need to help these people to be strong and             
 find out there's other alternatives besides getting that person out           
 of jail," she concluded.                                                      
 Number 1924                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG acknowledged that there is no dollar amount           
 for the fiscal note because of the difficulty in making an                    
 estimate.  He said that doesn't seem to deter the Administration              
 from making estimates in other bills.  He asked why there is a                
 basically neutral fiscal note if there will be a significant                  
 MS. BRINK replied, "What we tried to do is to base our fiscal note            
 on actual numbers.  We often get those numbers from the Department            
 of Public Safety and the Department of Law, where they can tell by            
 the nature of just the charge.  Most often, when we include dollar            
 figures in our fiscal notes, it's because they can give us concrete           
 numbers of that type of case, which will increase.  While ... this            
 type of bill won't increase the number of cases, it will simply               
 increase how those cases are resolved.  And so, when the                      
 uncertainty is ... how many cases will go to trial, we prefer to              
 put --  we prefer to put in a fiscal note that is very certain.               
 And if we can't be that certain, we would prefer to do an (indisc.)           
 fiscal note and just let you know we'll keep track of those                   
 consequences, and we may be back before you next year, letting you            
 know what the consequences of that bill were."                                
 Number 1988                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG responded, "Just based on the fact that it            
 seems that if the Administration kind of likes a bill, they'll                
 accommodate the bill with a neutral or a fiscal note that generates           
 a supplemental appropriation in the following year's budget, and if           
 they perhaps don't like the bill, ... they'll seem to make those              
 estimates without any compunction about doing it at that time. ...            
 So, I think that's a real problem."                                           
 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked, "Barb, do you like this bill?"                    
 Number 2008                                                                   
 MS. BRINK replied, "Through the chair, no, I do not."                         
 Number 2013                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said, "Barbara, recognizing that, let me ask            
 you one question:  Would it be a fair statement to say that at                
 least some of your clients that you have dealt with over the years,           
 that found themself in your office after being charged for the                
 first time with a domestic violence charge, that was subsequently             
 found guilty, might be impressed or deterred if he knew that there            
 was an absolute 30-day minimum sentence facing him if there was a             
 MS. BRINK answered, "I don't think so.  The problem is that                   
 domestic violence often is in a very emotionally charged situation.           
 Most of the clients I've encountered charged with this type of                
 crime aren't exercising good judgment or rational thought like that           
 in the heat of the moment.  On the other hand, I do think that -              
 the point that you brought out earlier - that on a first offender,            
 giving a significant amount of time to them, that they've actually            
 been in front of the judge on and they know that they have `x' days           
 hanging over their head, that's more real to them than some                   
 eventuality if a further crime were to happen.  So, I think it is             
 very effective to give a large amount of suspended time to a first            
 offender.  I find that's a pretty good motivator, and not only to             
 not commit further crimes but to engage in domestic violence                  
 counseling, `male awareness' and those types of programs that                 
 actually seek to modify behavior rather than just scare somebody."            
 Number 2078                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER replied, "Just a comment that I believe                 
 that's what we're doing.  The language in the second- and third-              
 offense minimum sentences, what we're saying is you have the                  
 ability to provide a suspended sentence of great proportion if it's           
 appropriate - and in most cases, it is - but with the additional              
 deterrent, if that is effective, I would think that the additional            
 deterrent of - and by the way, you can't talk yourself out of                 
 anything less than 30 days for the second offense - would be just             
 that much more additional deterrent.  I agree these things don't              
 happen with ... a lot of conscious thought.  But one would think              
 that the balance of treatment and the axe over the head ... for a             
 deterrent would be a combination that would serve the best                    
 Number 2123                                                                   
 JAN MacCLARENCE, Abused Women's Aid in Crisis (AWAIC), testified              
 via teleconference from Anchorage.  She thanked the committee for             
 concern about domestic violence, which has caused untold pain and             
 hardship in all Alaskan communities.  She said she really supports            
 the restriction on calls that a person can make from jail, because            
 they have had a lot of experience at the AWAIC shelter of                     
 perpetrators calling and harassing their victims "from their prison           
 cell, so to speak."  Anything to try to eliminate that is very much           
 MS. MacCLARENCE explained that what they've found is most                     
 successful in addressing the behavior of domestic violence                    
 perpetrators is forcing them to go to jail for a short time, with             
 the balance of the sentence suspended pending completion of the               
 "male awareness" program, of "batterers intervention."  That                  
 program has an 85 percent success rate for those who complete it.             
 She said those men who have had a jail sentence and still have a              
 few days of that remaining, who know they'll have to complete it if           
 they don't complete a batterers intervention program, really make             
 some significant changes in their lives.  She stated, "They're                
 really motivated.  But I wasn't sure whether or not this bill would           
 allow for that alternatives, and I'm concerned about that."                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked whether either sponsor wished to answer              
 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON responded, "Absolutely.  It still allows for             
 the judge to sentence all kinds of remedial action and supervision,           
 and so on and so forth, and suspend sentence, but he cannot suspend           
 these minimums.  And so, the flexibility is still there on the up-            
 side.  It limits the flexibility on the down-side.  And my                    
 experience with people going to the `male awareness'/anger                    
 management, they don't want to be there.  And if they finally don't           
 get the lesson that there's something for them to learn, you know,            
 it's not going to do them much good.  They've got to be an active             
 participant in the program."                                                  
 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON noted that few people enjoy being in jail.  He           
 said, "And spending 30 days there is going to make most people say,           
 `I don't want to do this no more.'  And then, if there is an                  
 addition to that, there's the remedial action with a suspended                
 action, the judge has got a hammer-lock on them.  And these                   
 irreducible minimums on second offense, ... they're designed to get           
 the person's attention."                                                      
 Number 2251                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ added that although there is no                      
 residential batterers program in Alaska, one day there might be.              
 An unfortunate number of these instances are drug-related or                  
 alcohol-related.  "And a lot of the residential drug and alcohol              
 programs, I believe the minimum period is 28 days," he said.  "And            
 you can get jail-time credit for service in a residential program.            
 Part of the reason we came up with the numbers we did is to                   
 accommodate sentences that required residential alcohol treatment.            
 And, hopefully, if we ever develop residential batterers programs,            
 it would be residential batterers programs as well. ... We're not             
 doing this solely to put people in jail.  We're doing this in an              
 effort to give people, batterers in particular, the skills or the             
 restraint or the discipline, or whatever you want to call it, to              
 abstain from committing these acts of violence in the future,                 
 because it's a question of breaking a cycle.  And this is just one            
 way we have of breaking the cycle."                                           
 Number 2300                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON pointed out that this takes into account the             
 type of offense, with several grades.  They were talking about                
 assault in the fourth degree.  He stated, "And it takes into                  
 account whether it was life-threatening, weapons were involved, and           
 so on and so forth.  It's going to be helpful to a victim to know             
 that the person's going to be away for a time.  Gets busted, gets             
 convicted and ... only does seven days, ... that's minimum help to            
 a victim, particularly a victim that wants to relocate ... and get            
 their life together, and so on and so forth.  It's going to be                
 helpful to know that they're going to be away for a specific length           
 of time. ... Barbara mentioned that people will be reluctant to               
 call the cops, they're just looking for intervention because of the           
 mandatory sentence.  I didn't understand the logic trail there.  It           
 takes more than calling a cop.  You have to file charges ... and              
 appear, as I understand it, ... before you're going to                        
 automatically trigger ... the long-term sentence."                            
 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said he rejects the argument that victims                
 should volunteer to get perpetrators out of jail to haul wood.                
 Other options can be provided by neighbors, family and community              
 leaders.  And if a perpetrator must haul wood, he doesn't have to             
 live there.  He stated, "I do not think people are going to freeze            
 to death in Alaska because we left a wood chopper in the slammer              
 for 30 days."                                                                 
 Number 2391                                                                   
 JODI OLMSTEAD testified via teleconference from Anchorage, saying             
 she is from North Pole.  She stated, "First of all, we have to add            
 `shes' in there, too.  We have a lot of women in jail for domestic            
 violence, and it's not necessarily that they should be there.  I              
 think that we have a problem on some of the domestic violence                 
 issues.  I know there's a lot of massive funding out there for it.            
 It's like the buzzword in social agencies.  But it's also something           
 that's not new.  It's happened.  It's run rampant for years and               
 years and years, and people didn't talk about it; like child abuse            
 and everything else, it's been there."                                        
 MS. OLMSTEAD continued, "Many people, many women, many men, I think           
 that have gotten into different crimes, it's the direct result of             
 domestic violence.  And I don't think that the (indisc.) in the               
 court rooms go back and reflect that.  I know a lot of people who             
 have, in Fairbanks, suffered domestic violence, whether it was                
 physical abuse or mental abuse.  And now their lives are destroyed            
 because there's never been anywhere for them to go.  I've called              
 the shelters; there was ... no one to go help them in jail.  I want           
 to know what this money for domestic violence is going for.  I                
 would like to see it go all the way back to the cause and effect              
 that anybody's life that domestic violence is a part of, why they             
 are the way they are.  We need to help them.  And if domestic                 
 violence funding is there, we need to help them with that funding.            
 I feel like a lot of the things you talk about, tools that a judge            
 has, we don't have that in Fairbanks.  The anger management that we           
 have, there's almost a package deal for child abusers or domestic             
 violence that's handed out, many times not even reaching what the             
 challenges are that the person has or ...."  [Ends mid-speech                 
 because of tape change.]                                                      
 TAPE 97-78, SIDE B                                                            
 Number 0001                                                                   
 MS. OLMSTEAD said she had a record for domestic violence because              
 she slapped her daughter "on the butt with a hair gel."  She                  
 stated, "I was pushed to do that by FYS in Fairbanks in order to              
 shake their finger and say, `Now, little girl, you do as your mom             
 says,'and it ended up getting me a domestic violence order because            
 my daughter, her dad and her dad's girlfriend all went to the WICCA           
 [Women in Crisis-Counseling and Assistance] shelter, and they                 
 taught them and showed them and walked them through how to make a             
 domestic violence attack against me with paperwork and everything             
 and did it.  And a court proceeding happened, and I didn't know it            
 until a year later.  Now, I have ... a domestic assault on my                 
 record; so, I probably can't carry a gun because I'm pretty                   
 dangerous.  But my daughter also has one.  And I don't like that,             
 a fourth-degree assault."  She asked Representative James to                  
 address that, indicating it is a "deep, deep, deep issue that has             
 been ignored by a lot of our legislators."                                    
 Number 0056                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked what the consequence was of Ms.                 
 Olmstead's conviction and whether her sentence included jail time.            
 MS. OLMSTEAD replied, "No.  I played a `Harper Valley PTA' on the             
 DFYS and got the social worker fired.  But the domestic violence is           
 on my record."  She said she had a nasty record because she just              
 wanted some accountability.  She advised caution with "moving ahead           
 in these bills."                                                              
 Number 0106                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE referred to previous discussion and said, "I             
 think when we look at the incredible sudden escalation of domestic            
 violence, people who are dead don't need any wood carried for                 
 them."  He said the argument that these people should be allowed              
 out and back in the home to provide a basic service holds no water.           
 Number 0128                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT pointed out that the provision says 30 days if           
 the defendant has been previously convicted of a crime against a              
 Number 0151                                                                   
 MARGOT KNUTH, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division,                  
 Department of Law, advised members she was there to represent the             
 Department of Corrections on this bill if there were questions.               
 Number 0161                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG expressed concern about the fiscal note,              
 acknowledging the referral to the House Finance Committee and the             
 difficulty of doing an estimate.  He said he'd done some rough                
 numbers and explained his methods.  He stated, "Presumably,                   
 Anchorage is no different than the rest of the state.  So, you use            
 the 30 percent figure; that's 840 times 30 days times $100; there's           
 $2.5 million.  Now, obviously, many of these people are already in            
 the system and have been convicted and are serving some time;                 
 there's no question about that.  So, these are just the worst-case            
 numbers here ... and they're overstated grossly, the ones I just              
 added.  But, I mean, this is a concern I have that there's got to             
 be a significant fiscal impact from this legislation.  And I'd just           
 like to have your comments."                                                  
 Number 0219                                                                   
 MS. KNUTH responded, "The explanation is that the fiscal note                 
 reflects an increase in costs associated with the bill.  And as far           
 as we're able to determine, these people are already getting                  
 sentences for these offenses that approximate the mandatory minimum           
 imposed by the bill.  And there is some guesswork involved.  We               
 don't have perfect record-keeping, especially when it comes to                
 domestic violence, because it's listed within the assault IV                  
 category.  We don't have a separate crime that we can track                   
 domestic violence assault.  But as far as we're able to determine,            
 these people are already serving approximately the same sentence;             
 and so, we're not able to put in a fiscal note for all of the time            
 that's already being served by these people."                                 
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he understood that and appreciated the           
 difficulty of coming up with a figure right now.  He commented, "I            
 mean, even by your own note, you know, assuming ... only the 834,             
 you've got a $87,000-a-day cost."                                             
 MS. KNUTH responded, "They're doing that amount of time for the new           
 offense already. ... Suppose that on a second or a third domestic             
 violence, they were getting 10 or 15 days, and this was increasing            
 it to 30, to 60.  Then, for the difference between the 10 and the             
 30, we could submit a note.  But if for the second offense, the               
 judge is already giving them 30 and that's what they're going to              
 get under this bill, there's no impact by the bill that we're able            
 to ascertain. ... We'd love to put a fiscal note in ...."                     
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said it appears they know there is a fiscal           
 impact but can't put a finger on it.  He suggested some estimates             
 may be appropriate, so that people can understand that it is not a            
 no-cost situation.  He clarified that he fully supports "the                  
 concept of very hard enforcement of our domestic violence statute"            
 and that in no way was his questioning meant to undermine that                
 Number 0324                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES referred to Ms. Knuth's comment about not                
 being able to sort out domestic violence from other charges.  She             
 noted that the technology is available.  She asked whether anything           
 is brewing that would provide a better handle on the various kinds            
 of cases.                                                                     
 MS. KNUTH said she did not know.  She suggested Ms. Carpeneti of              
 the Department of Law's Criminal Division, who was present, may               
 Number 0354                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated, "I can answer that question.  The               
 uniform reporting system of the law enforcement agencies has been             
 capturing that information for the last several years.  As soon as            
 the automated system is complete that ties one subject all the way            
 through the system, all of that information in terms of charges and           
 dispositions and sentencing will be available."                               
 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT noted that there is a slightly different                 
 minimum of 20 days for fourth degree assault in violation of an               
 order.  He said, "Now, this ups it some and clarifies it some, but            
 we already had some semblance of 20 days before going to the point            
 of Representative Rokeberg's fiscal note. ... We already had a form           
 of minimum before; this strengthens it and increases it somewhat.             
 But if they were already getting that sentence, it is a true,                 
 legitimate, defensible estimate of zero, if they're getting that              
 basically now."                                                               
 Number 0404                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he appreciated the recognition that                
 there is no definite way to establish this; it may be nothing, and            
 it may be something.  "But I've had fiscal notes in the past that             
 presumed the worst, and ... I think this is a nice, neutral one               
 that is appropriate," he added.                                               
 CHAIRMAN GREEN commented that the Administration must like it.                
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated, "... If there is an existing 20-day           
 requirement, it seems to be very verifiable.  If that's the case,             
 then to add another 10 days on there is going to add some                     
 significant bucks.  And I would point out that the corrections                
 subcommittee has financed a major computerized system for the                 
 Department of Corrections within the last year or so, and I would             
 hope that they get it working right so they can do this stuff                 
 Number 0440                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ pointed out that the existing 20-day                 
 mandatory minimum applies only to offenses where there is a                   
 domestic violence restraining order in place.                                 
 CHAIRMAN GREEN suggested that exacerbates the concern that had been           
 brought up.                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a remark about other legislation and             
 the possible use of soft beds.                                                
 MS. KNUTH advised members that domestic violence is precisely one             
 of the areas where they will not use soft beds.  Those offenders              
 are the most likely to leave the facility and commit another                  
 assault.  "And sex offenders and domestic violence offenders are              
 two of the ... least-reputable candidates for soft beds," she                 
 MS. KNUTH stated, "There was a suggestion that a victim must press            
 charges for the case to continue.  And ... I think some of the                
 members of the committee are aware that the district attorney's               
 office does not allow victims to dismiss the charges, if you will,            
 because that puts tremendous pressure on them.  The perpetrator               
 says, you know, `You've got to get the charges dismissed.'  And so,           
 that's a prosecutorial call.  And very, very rarely is a victim               
 listened to on that, just to take that out of their (indisc.--                
 Number 0528                                                                   
 JAYNE ANDREEN, Executive Director, Council on Domestic Violence and           
 Sexual Assault, Department of Public Safety, came forward to                  
 testify, saying the council strongly supports the two concepts                
 presented that day.  She thanked the sponsors for bringing this               
 forward.  She said the state has been working hard, for a long                
 period of time, to make the criminal and civil justice systems more           
 responsive to issues relating to domestic violence and sexual                 
 assault.  "We're working very hard to increase the safety of                  
 victims while holding offenders accountable," she stated.  "And we            
 see that this bill does go a long way in helping to sustain that."            
 MS. ANDREEN said the first issue came as a bit of a surprise, the             
 one that would prohibit an alleged offender from contacting the               
 victim with his one phone call.  She stated, "I received a phone              
 call from a police officer about three months ago who said, `Hey,             
 we've got a problem here.  In the last few weeks, we've had two               
 domestic violence perpetrators, as soon as we've gotten them to the           
 jailhouse, they have demanded their phone call and tried to call              
 the victim.'"  In those cases, the system set up is that the                  
 officer actually dials the phone.  Ms. Andreen stated, "So, they              
 were able to take care of it at that point, and they said, `Well,             
 okay, let's take a look at this.'"  She said it is a problem, and             
 she mentioned earlier testimony by Ms. MacClarence.  "So, I think             
 it is important that we intervene, that the state intervenes, at              
 the beginning of that, that part of the intimidation process that             
 batterers are perpetuating," she added.                                       
 Number 0610                                                                   
 MS. ANDREEN referred to the second part, increased jail-time                  
 sentences for repeat offenders.  She stated, "And there's a couple            
 of points that I'd like to make in terms of this, that I know not             
 so much from a legal or statistical standpoint as I do from an                
 anecdotal standpoint of working in this field for so many years.              
 Most domestic violence ends up being charged at a fourth degree               
 misdemeanant assault level.  Most of it ends up being a conviction,           
 if there is a conviction, at an even lower level than that.  So,              
 when we in the field are talking about a fourth degree assault                
 conviction, we're talking about something that is like the high end           
 of what actually happens."                                                    
 MS. ANDREEN continued, "We also know that by the time a ... fourth            
 degree assault conviction ... is obtained, that usually the                   
 batterer has an extensive history of controlling behaviors, of                
 violence, of abuse, of this cycle that goes on and on, before they            
 even actually get in touch with the criminal justice system.  We              
 have seen, for a number of years, that domestic violence seems to             
 be treated differently from other crimes.  And for ... some                   
 reasons, it should be.  But what we are concerned about is in the             
 past, there has been a tendency to look at it as a family problem,            
 as something that occurs in the heat of passion, that it's an                 
 emotional outburst and not the criminal action that it actually is.           
 Therefore, the council does strongly support the increased                    
 sentence, imprisonment time for second- and third-time offenders              
 who are convicted of fourth degree assault.  Also, as has been                
 said, we agree and feel that it's important to acknowledge that               
 additional jail time should not, cannot, circumvent the other types           
 of sanctions that are available to the court systems, and (indisc.)           
 that that would continue."                                                    
 Number 0687                                                                   
 CHAIRMAN GREEN said he could understand a reaction one time;                  
 however, the second and third times would certainly indicate lack             
 of control and a pattern.  He asked whether judges ever take that             
 into consideration, and he suggested that statistically, it is                
 probably borne out.                                                           
 MS. ANDREEN replied, "Mr. Chairman, I think that how judges respond           
 to that really varies from judge to judge and from community to               
 community.  I have heard of a number of judges who do look at it              
 and take it very seriously.  I have also heard of, I think, too               
 many stories where there continue to have been in the past SISs,              
 suspended imposition of sentences, even for second- and third-time            
 Number 0730                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES expressed her opinion that with driving while            
 under the influence (DWI) cases and domestic violence charges, by             
 the time there is a charge, that is not the first time the person             
 has offended.  She believes there usually is a prior history.  She            
 asked whether Ms. Andreen knew of any case where there has been a             
 domestic violence charge but no previous history or evidence of it.           
 Number 0755                                                                   
 MS. ANDREEN said she needed to pause and think back.                          
 CHAIRMAN GREEN suggested it must be pretty rare.                              
 MS. ANDREEN responded that it is very rare.                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated her understanding that it is very rare            
 that there would be a situation serious enough to result in a call            
 for help which would be the first occasion that had happened in               
 that family.                                                                  
 MS. ANDREEN replied that she was starting to think of a few                   
 instances where that did happen.  They've found, and research                 
 indicates, that the level of violence, abuse and coercive behavior            
 generally escalates over a period of time.  Many times, the victim            
 ends the relationship.  The perpetrator then gets into a new                  
 relationship, but rather than having the violence and abuse start             
 at the bottom of the continuum and escalate again, it will "jump              
 over."  Ms. Andreen said she was thinking of cases where she'd                
 talked to victims or heard of them saying that this behavior seemed           
 to come out of the clear blue.  In those cases, victim advocate               
 staff have asked whether the victim knows of the perpetrator's                
 prior relationships; that way, they've been able to track that it             
 isn't out of the clear blue.                                                  
 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she understood, but it still confirmed              
 her own belief.                                                               
 Number 0831                                                                   
 LAURIE HUGONIN, Executive Director, Alaska Network on Violence and            
 Sexual Assault, came forward to testify, saying the network is                
 supportive of the bill.  She expressed appreciation for the level             
 of discussion that afternoon, which indicated they are taking the             
 problem very seriously.                                                       
 MS. HUGONIN agreed with the speakers who talked about not using the           
 excuse of "I need this financial support or I need this wood" as a            
 way to not have people serve time.  She explained, "The network               
 strongly believes that we're moving toward a community response to            
 domestic violence.  And it's other people in the community who need           
 to step forward and say, `I'll get that for you,' and take some               
 responsibility to help the victim and the family be able to                   
 navigate toward a peaceful existence without the perpetrator, that            
 perpetrators do need to be held accountable for their actions and             
 pay the consequences to those."                                               
 MS. HUGONIN also commented on the concern that maybe this is a                
 crime in the heat of passion.  Several studies done throughout the            
 years, particularly in the early 1990s, show that batterers choose            
 to practice "targeted hitting."  Studies show that even when drunk,           
 perpetrators chose where to hit on the body, consciously making               
 that effort so that their marks wouldn't be seen the next day or be           
 visible.  "There's also calculated isolation that goes on," she               
 stated, "It's a progressive kind of criminal activity.  And so, ...           
 it is often methodical and thought-out, and not just something that           
 happens on the spur of the moment."                                           
 MS. HUGONIN noted that it is a strong public policy statement to              
 say offenders will be held accountable.  Throughout the years, the            
 legislature has been responsive to the needs of domestic violence             
 and sexual assault victims, "in trying to craft legislation that              
 will ensure the best protection possible."  She concluded, "And we            
 believe this piece of legislation fits in to that category and                
 would urge your support."                                                     
 Number 1007                                                                   
 CHAIRMAN GREEN noted that everyone who had signed up to testify had           
 done so.  He asked whether any of the three superior court judges             
 in the audience would care to comment.  He noted that there were              
 three amendments.  He advised members they needed to adopt version            
 0-LS0450\K, Luckhaupt, 4/28/97, as a work draft.                              
 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said, "So moved."                                        
 CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether there was any objection.  There being            
 none, that version was before the committee.                                  
 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ offered Amendment 1, which read [original            
 punctuation retained]:                                                        
      Page 2, line 4;                                                          
           Following "18.66.180",                                              
           insert "or AS 12.30.025 - 12.30.027"                                
 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said Amendment 1 clarifies that a domestic           
 violence fourth degree assault is not solely in response to the               
 victim's going out and getting a court order.  It can also be for             
 a spontaneous court order, particularly after a condition of bail.            
 "And what this adds is a court-ordered no-contact at bail," he                
 explained.  "So, a defendant gets arrested on, for example, a first           
 assault charge.  `Do not contact the victim' is a condition of                
 bail.  If the defendant contacts the -- or assaults the victim                
 under those circumstances, with this provision, it is designed                
 CHAIRMAN GREEN said, "That would then move it into a second ...."             
 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ responded, "That would make it -- that               
 second -- well, make that particular assault subject to assault in            
 the -- the first assault under that provision, because it's                   
 contemporaneous, prior to sentencing."                                        
 CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether there were questions or any objection.           
 There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.                            
 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ offered Amendment 2, which read [original            
 capitalization and punctuation retained]:                                     
      Page 2, line 1;                                                          
           Following line 1 insert,                                            
           "Sec. 2.  AS 12.25.150 is amended by adding a new                   
           subsection to read:                                                 
           (e)  A person is guilty of a class B misdemeanor if the             
           person is a prisoner who, in exercising a right granted             
           under (b) of this section, communicates or attempts to              
           communicate with the alleged victim of the crime that was           
           the basis of the prisoner's arrest."                                
      renumber following sections accordingly                                  
 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ explained that Amendment 2 is in response            
 to an oversight.  They'd prohibited the telephone call but hadn't             
 stated the consequence.  Therefore, this says the consequence of              
 making that prohibited telephone call is a B misdemeanor, the                 
 lowest level of crime available to which jail time attaches.                  
 CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether there was an objection to Amendment 2.           
 There being none, Amendment 2 was adopted.                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ offered Amendment 3, which read [original            
 punctuation provided]:                                                        
      Page 3, line 25;                                                         
           Preceding "or",                                                     
           delete "10", insert "5"                                             
 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ explained, "It's another mop-up.  I                  
 believe the involved departments felt that ten years is too long a            
 period of time, and they suggested revising it down to five years.            
 If someone's been clean for five years, that would work."                     
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG objected for the purpose of discussion.               
 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ explained, "If you're counting the priors,           
 they don't want to go back ten years; they just want to go back               
 five years."                                                                  
 Number 1173                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG removed his objection.                                
 CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether there was any further objection.                 
 There being none, Amendment 3 was adopted.                                    
 Number 1197                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said he is convinced from his experience that            
 virtually everyone can find the self-control needed to deal with              
 emotions if the stakes are high enough.  He stated, "Two years ago,           
 I buried my uncle at the age of 84.  He had, by the time he was 25,           
 whipped every man within a 35- or 40-mile radius.  When he was 79             
 years old, he was still terrorizing people and terrorized his son-            
 in-law and my cousin, and his ... son-in-law was in a truck, but he           
 took off running.  When my aunt was 18, she graduated from high               
 school, working on a threshing crew, invalid father that was                  
 depending on her for support.  And she thought, `Life doesn't look            
 very good.'  She scanned the horizon, saw my uncle that was heir-             
 apparent to a lot of land and a lot of cattle, went after it.                 
 People said, `Louella (ph), you're going to do this, be careful,              
 because he's got a terrible temper and he'll hurt you.  And she               
 married him.  And people told her, ... `Whatever you do, don't ever           
 talk back to him 'cause he'll hurt you.'"                                     
 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON continued, "They'd been married two weeks.               
 She said something and he decked her.  She sat up and said, `Ralph,           
 if you ever touch me again, you're going to jail and I'll have the            
 farm.'  And they lived together for another 65 years and he never             
 touched her.  He still whipped everybody else in the county that he           
 could.  And we're hoping that we can finally get to the point where           
 people will say, `Wait a minute.  The penalties here, for not                 
 exercising the self-control that I believe everybody has if they              
 want it, will get their attention."                                           
 Number 1294                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES mentioned the need to teach small children to            
 have assertive behavior, saying that is one thing they can do to              
 help most with this problem.  She made a motion to move HB 245 (0-            
 LS0450\K, Luckhaupt, 4/28/97), as amended, from committee with                
 individual recommendations and attached zero fiscal note.                     
 CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether there was any objection.                         
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE commented that he would support the bill only            
 because no one would allow him to use the permanent solution from             
 the recent movie, "Sling Blade."                                              
 CHAIRMAN GREEN, noting that there was no objection, announced that            
 CSHB 245(JUD) was moved from the House Judiciary Standing                     
 HB 16 - JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PROCEDURES                                       
 CHAIRMAN GREEN announced the next item of business would be House             
 Bill No. 16, "An Act relating to delinquent minors, to the taking             
 of action based on the alleged criminal misconduct of certain                 
 minors, to the services to be provided to the victims of criminal             
 misconduct of minors, and to agency records involving minors                  
 alleged to be delinquent based on their criminal misconduct; and              
 amending Rule 19 and repealing Rules 6, 7, 11(a), 12(a), and 21(f),           
 Alaska Delinquency Rules."                                                    
 Number 1384                                                                   
 BRUCE CAMPBELL, Legislative Assistant to Representative Pete Kelly,           
 presented the bill on behalf of the sponsor.  He specified that he            
 was addressing version 0-LS0121\Q, a proposed committee substitute            
 containing a few small changes from CSHB 16(HES).                             
 MR. CAMPBELL said HB 16 has a number of tools resulting largely               
 from recommendations of the Governor's conference on juvenile                 
 crime.  It brings a number of issues to the statutes that authorize           
 municipalities to bring minors before civil court.  He stated, "It            
 brings in additional assistance for a witness, ... additional                 
 assistance for victims.  Its largest single provision is dual                 
 sentencing of serious juvenile offenders.  As we bring in and get             
 communities more involved in the entire juvenile justice process,             
 we clean up and offer the courts some additional community service            
 opportunities.  We increase and improve communication between the             
 Health and Social Services and law enforcement.  We clarify some of           
 the roles between the Department of Health and Social Services and            
 law enforcement agencies, and we increase communication between the           
 Department of Health and Social Services and public officials."               
 MR. CAMPBELL said probably the single most complex part of the bill           
 is the dual sentencing provision.  Dual sentencing allows the                 
 district attorney to go first before a grand jury; if he obtains a            
 grand jury indictment, he goes before a judge and may ask for a               
 two-part sentence:  a juvenile sentence and an adult sentence.  The           
 latter must include some unsuspended jail time.  It then behooves             
 the minor to comply with the juvenile sentence, going through                 
 juvenile treatment programs.  And if the minor fails in that                  
 regard, particularly if he or she reoffends, the adult sentence               
 kicks in and the minor is remanded to adult corrections.  The                 
 advantage is that much of the onus is on the minor.                           
 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked, "Did you say `unsuspended,' or can the            
 adult sentence be completely suspended as an enforcement tool for             
 the juvenile part?  That is, do you have to send them to adult                
 corrections as part of it?"                                                   
 Number 1554                                                                   
 MR. CAMPBELL referred to page 12, lines 10 through 12.  He said in            
 order for this to work, the adult sentence "must include some                 
 period of imprisonment that is not suspended by the court."                   
 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said he understood the "hammer," the threat of           
 this and why it would be a good idea.  However, he wanted to know             
 why it is a good idea to send a minor who they hope will be                   
 rehabilitated to adult corrections.                                           
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said there has to be a portion of the adult             
 sentence that is not instituted and that has jail time.  "He or she           
 is sentenced under the juvenile sentence with this whole adult                
 sentence over his head, which includes some mandatory minimum jail            
 time," he stated.                                                             
 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said, "So, there must be some suspended                  
 portion of the adult, not unsuspended."                                       
 MR. CAMPBELL responded, "Yes, ... I think there's merely confusion            
 on how we're getting to the same conclusion.  The entire adult                
 sentence is ... held in abeyance, and none of that sentence goes              
 into effect unless the minor triggers it with further behavior."              
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE commented that there has to be a portion that            
 is unsuspended; there still has to be some jail time in the adult             
 sentence.  He then made a motion to adopt as a work draft version             
 0-LS0121\Q, Chenoweth, 5/1/97.                                                
 CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether there was an objection.  There being             
 none, that version was before the committee.                                  
 MR. CAMPBELL advised members that he had a chart explaining dual              
 sentencing.  The district attorney goes before the grand jury.  If            
 the grand jury reads out a true bill, it goes to court.  The court            
 orders juvenile treatment, and it orders the adult jail time.  But            
 the adult jail time does not kick in unless the minor has a new               
 offense, for which specific offenses apply, or unless the minor               
 fails to comply with specific terms of that juvenile treatment, "at           
 which time they go back to court with another petition, and the               
 court then can order the ... adult jail time."                                
 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked, "Can or must?"                                    
 MARGOT KNUTH replied, "It's a `can.'"                                         
 Number 1783                                                                   
 BARBARA BRINK, Director, Public Defender Agency, Department of                
 Administration, testified again via teleconference from Anchorage.            
 She pointed out that this bill is complicated.  She stated, "To               
 address the first question that's come up, I agree with I believe             
 it was Representative Croft that was concerned that if a child is             
 referred to the adult system, they then must serve jail time.  That           
 is correct.  As I read page 12, line 12, the sentence pronounced in           
 the adult court, whether or not initially imposed, must include               
 some period of imprisonment that's not suspended by the court.                
 This is illustrative of a lot of the problems I'm concerned about             
 with this bill, is that you are going to be treating 13-, 14- and             
 15-year-olds much more harshly than you are treating adults.  An              
 adult who is referred to adult jail or court on ... some of those             
 types of felonies may not, in fact, have to do jail time.  So, I'm            
 very concerned about page 12, line 12, and think that we should               
 reword that to leave the ultimate discretion to the judge."                   
 MS. BRINK indicated her general concern about this bill is the                
 assumption that treating children as adults is a more effective               
 system.  She stated, "There are (indisc.--coughing) today that                
 exist, that show that treating kids more like adults is effective.            
 Other states have been trying this dual jurisdiction, but nobody              
 has been doing it long enough so that we have any information that            
 it's any more successful.  In fact, many studies have shown that              
 McLaughlin [Youth Center] has a higher success rate than many other           
 states in dealing with (indisc.) juvenile offenders."                         
 MS. BRINK said she had just read a bulletin by the Department of              
 Justice, which concludes that juvenile arrests for violent crimes             
 declined in 1995 for the first time in nearly a decade.  The                  
 bulletin goes on to say, most encouraging, that this decline was              
 greatest among younger juveniles.  This promising turnabout should            
 temper recent forecasts of an epidemic of violent juvenile crime.             
 Ms. Brink stated, "So, my concern has to do with treating 13-, 14,-           
 and 15-year olds like grownups when they don't have the ability or            
 adjustment to function like grownups."                                        
 MS. BRINK said there are other problems with the bill.  It "expands           
 the elimination of juvenile confidentiality."  It also expands the            
 reasons for which a police officer can arrest a juvenile, so that             
 they can be arrested for things for which adults can't be arrested.           
 She stated, "And there are innumerable other issues within the                
 juvenile jurisdiction, including the broad language on how                    
 juveniles can get to adult court.  And I would really like to see             
 some work done on this bill to tighten that up, to make it not so             
 easy to send a kid to `the big house.'  Thank you."                           
 CHAIRMAN GREEN requested that Ms. Brink submit her comments in                
 writing, to which she agreed.                                                 
 Number 1988                                                                   
 JODY OLMSTEAD testified again via teleconference from Anchorage.              
 She said this bill brings to mind a juvenile from Fairbanks who is            
 currently in the system; the juvenile was a foster-care child who             
 was involved in a robbery involving a gun.  The people who had been           
 with him, who had enticed him to do this, had robbed a gun from               
 their own family, and they were adults.  The boy sat in jail at the           
 Fairbanks youth facility for almost three years without being                 
 sentenced or rehabilitation.  He then was sent over to the "FCC."             
 They realized they had "not quite made the confidentiality of                 
 juvenile records right for him to be over there; so, they broke               
 confidentiality and had to ship him back over to FYF."                        
 MS. OLMSTEAD said they then let this juvenile out of jail, never              
 having sentenced him, "never having done anything."  Ms. Olmstead             
 said he'd worked with Hospice for community service and was doing             
 a wonderful job with an elderly person.  In addition, he was                  
 working at Denny's, where they gave him high recommendations.  At             
 that point, "they contacted him, took him to court and gave him               
 three years, after he had done all of these different things and              
 was really happy on the outside."                                             
 MS. OLMSTEAD said they then decided to take him to a facility by              
 Seward, perhaps Willow Wood (ph).  "And on the way there, they                
 dropped him at Spring Creek, which is not a place for juveniles,"             
 she said.  "And there he sits today."  She said she hopes he                  
 doesn't have any problems with prison rape, and she indicated the             
 person discussed in the Fairbanks newspaper is this particular                
 child.  She indicated he's angry, he's in with hard-core criminals,           
 and his life is ruined.  She stated, "Yes, he made a choice, and              
 he's all for doing his time.  But you're putting some kids in some            
 pretty stiff situations, and as the former speaker said, you're               
 doing more to juveniles than you are to the adults.  And we want              
 our kids ... not to be criminals.  But for God's sakes, they can be           
 accountable with community service and different things that can              
 work.  Thanks."                                                               
 CHAIRMAN GREEN said that is a pretty gruesome picture.                        
 Number 2200                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she appreciated having that story brought           
 to their attention.  She suggested considering it as a failed                 
 system, not necessarily the failed law but the operation of the               
 law.  Certainly, a lot of errors were made that need to be                    
 Number 2231                                                                   
 BRANT McGEE, Public Advocate, Office of Public Advocacy (OPA),                
 Department of Administration, testified via teleconference from               
 Anchorage, specifying that he is the director for the OPA.  He                
 stated, "Barb Brink has informed me that their concerns regarding             
 this bill are encapsulated in the fiscal note that should have been           
 submitted to it, which should be available to the committee at this           
 time.  My own fiscal note is attached, as well, and contains a                
 summary of some of the concerns.  To pick up on Ms. Brink's                   
 testimony, I would note that on page 13, in the middle of the page,           
 starting at line 14, it lists ... that conduct by juveniles, who              
 could be as young as 13 years old, I would remind the committee,              
 ... which would automatically trigger the imposition of an adult              
 jail sentence.  That includes failing to pay restitution or failure           
 to engage in or complete their rehab program ... required ... by a            
 facility or a juvenile probation officer.  In other words, you can            
 send a 13-year-old to jail because he doesn't comply with the                 
 demand of a juvenile probation officer, instead of, as it is in               
 adult court, instead of complying with a court order."                        
 Number 2342                                                                   
 MR. McGEE said he was, frankly, stunned that they were discussing             
 a bill under which an adult jail term could be imposed upon a 13-             
 year-old; he believes there is no question that would happen under            
 this bill.  He said part of his problem from the fiscal standpoint            
 is that he has been unable to locate in the bill any encouragement            
 whatsoever for a kid in this situation, who is charged with a                 
 serious offense that would trigger dual sentencing, to plead                  
 guilty, to own up, and to take personal responsibility for a crime            
 for which he could ultimately be sent to an adult institution.  For           
 that reason, Mr. McGee believes there will be a significant cost in           
 the mere processing of these cases.                                           
 TAPE 97-79, SIDE A                                                            
 Number 0006                                                                   
 MR. CAMPBELL said [begins mid-speech], "... option into a juvenile            
 justice system.  Currently, we waive kids right straight to adult             
 ... court, right straight to adult jail.  This gives a system where           
 we are able to give the prosecutor the option of attaining a                  
 juvenile treatment sentence for those more serious crimes. ... As             
 I understand it, they do not actually have to go to the full                  
 waiver-into-adult-court process. ... So, we may be having fewer               
 kids in adult corrections with this bill."                                    
 Number 0051                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER explained that there are two kinds of                   
 waivers.  First is the automatic waiver of juveniles committing               
 very serious crimes; those juveniles are 16 and 17 years old.                 
 "Then there is the ability, enhanced by that same bill, to waive              
 other juveniles into adult court if they present the right facts to           
 the court and that court agrees that they may be so-waived," he               
 stated.  "This provides an alternative to that.  In the cases where           
 the case is serious enough but the minor is not quite old enough or           
 the offense is not quite `categorizable' into the unclassified or             
 class A - against a person - category, that instead of going                  
 through the petition process of seeking a waiver, they can seek               
 this dual function and, in some cases, save money, as opposed to --           
 and, I think, provide one heck of a deterrent (indisc.)."                     
 Number 0146                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE reminded members they weren't talking about              
 some 13-year-old paper boy but a 13-year-old who had been charged             
 with a serious crime.  The first time someone's charged isn't the             
 first time they've committed a crime.  Just because it's the first            
 time they've been caught and they are 13 years old, it doesn't make           
 them sacred to him.  He stated, "Kids aren't stupid.  They see the            
 hammer coming, and juvenile crime is going down because people are            
 getting tougher.  And I see no reason to back off at this time.  We           
 want to encourage the decrease in juvenile crime, not say, `King's            
 X.'  So, with that, I would like to move the bill."                           
 CHAIRMAN GREEN noted that Margot Knuth was signed up to testify.              
 Number 0218                                                                   
 MARGOT KNUTH from the Department of Law came forward to testify               
 again.  She noted that when it comes to 13-, 14- and 15-year-olds,            
 they are only talking about unclassified felonies and class A                 
 felonies.  She commented, "I mean, this is even above the label of            
 `serious crimes.'  These are the very most serious.  And it is                
 discretionary with the prosecutor whether to file for dual                    
 sentencing at the outset or not.  For 15- and 16-year-olds, they              
 could qualify for dual sentencing if they are on repeat felony                
 offenses.  Both of these populations, by their conduct, are saying            
 they are at risk of becoming chronic serious offenders and we want            
 to, if you will, be in their face more than under our traditional             
 MS. KNUTH continued, "If, however, they comply with the conditions            
 that are imposed, they have the opportunity of staying in the                 
 juvenile system, getting their record sealed, and coming back to              
 the fold.  But even if they do fail to comply, ... the adult                  
 sentence can only be imposed if a petition is filed seeking that.             
 And you will always have prosecutorial discretion on whether to               
 file a petition.  There is no automatic imposition of the adult               
 sentence.  So, first, somebody has to believe it's serious enough             
 to warrant filing the petition.  And then next, ... it's within the           
 court's discretion unless ... what brings the kid back is a                   
 subsequent felony offense that's a crime against a person or arson.           
 Only in that very narrow circumstance is it mandatory, once a                 
 petition's filed and a finding's made that the new offense was                
 committed, that the adult sentence would be imposed.  Otherwise,              
 the court has the discretion whether to keep going down the                   
 juvenile track."  Ms. Knuth emphasized that the whole point is to             
 try to put the responsibility on the juveniles' shoulders and to              
 provide a deterrent.  That is one part of the bill.                           
 MS. KNUTH advised members that the other part of the bill is                  
 enabling communities to step forward and respond to low-level                 
 offenders.  "And there are civil penalties provisions, and there              
 are provisions for Health and Social Services to work with                    
 nonprofit corporations and municipalities, and a variety of tools,            
 short of creating a criminal record for the juvenile or putting               
 them in detention," she stated.  "Just about anything else under              
 the sun is available:  community work service, fine, restitution,             
 letters of apology.  And both of those extremes, one, the very                
 small group of people that we need to really be on them and the               
 much larger group of people that we need to help make sure there              
 are some consequences for the low-level offenses -- so, that's what           
 this bill does."                                                              
 Number 0408                                                                   
 CHAIRMAN GREEN said, "It sounds like actually both ends of that are           
 probably pretty effective."                                                   
 Number 0432                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to the fiscal note, which says               
 that based on the entry of just three juveniles per annum, it                 
 "creates about $115,000."                                                     
 MS. KNUTH said that sounds correct.                                           
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked whether Ms. Knuth was involved in               
 development of that fiscal note.                                              
 MS. KNUTH indicated she'd been involved with the Department of                
 Health and Social Services and the district attorneys' offices in             
 figuring out "how many kids we actually expect ... to go through."            
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG commented, "I suspect that this note has              
 some statistics, because you have been tracking this, as I know,              
 for the Governor's office and (indisc.)."                                     
 MS. KNUTH affirmed that.                                                      
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said, "So that, if you're looking at five             
 years from now, we've got almost $600,000 a year because of what              
 would be approximately 18 people entering the corrections system as           
 a result, on the estimate, on three a year.  Is that ....?"                   
 Number 0501                                                                   
 MS. KNUTH replied, "I hope that not all of those 18 are still going           
 to be in the system five years from now.  I hope that the ones that           
 are going in this year are coming out before that five years                  
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked whether that was how she'd arrived at           
 that number.                                                                  
 MS. KNUTH said yes.                                                           
 Number 0525                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated, "I'd just point out that for these           
 people, that amount would be offset by reduction to a contribution            
 to the foundation formula."                                                   
 MS. KNUTH said, "Not to mention Johnson Service Center."                      
 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT referred to page 12, lines 11 through 12, and            
 noted that there was concern about that and that it confused him.             
 Number 0620                                                                   
 MS. KNUTH explained, "What's going on in (2) is simply the                    
 pronouncement of the sentence.  It's not the imposition of a                  
 sentence.  The concern was when you're pronouncing the sentence,              
 that when it does come time to impose it, ... you will not be able            
 to impose anything more than what you pronounced.  So, if at the              
 outset you pronounced an entirely suspended sentence, if you ever             
 got to the circumstance where you wanted to impose the adult                  
 sentence, you wouldn't be able to do anything because you had                 
 suspended it all up-front, ... until you got to a petition-to-                
 revoke-probation point.  And so, this is to create the situation              
 where [an] adult sentence could include jail time when it is                  
 Number 0680                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES made a motion to move HB 16, version 0-                  
 LS0121\Q, from committee with attached fiscal notes and individual            
 CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether there was an objection.  Hearing none,           
 he announced that CSHB 16(JUD) was moved from the House Judiciary             
 Standing Committee.                                                           
 CHAIRMAN GREEN then adjourned the House Judiciary Standing                    
 Committee meeting.                                                            

Document Name Date/Time Subjects