Legislature(1993 - 1994)
01/12/1994 01:00 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
January 12, 1994
1:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Rep. Brian Porter, Chairman
Rep. Jeannette James, Vice-Chair, arrived later
Rep. Pete Kott
Rep. Gail Phillips
Rep. Joe Green
Rep. Cliff Davidson, arrived later
Rep. Jim Nordlund
OTHER MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Randy Phillips
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HJR 43: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the
State of Alaska relating to penal administration.
PASSED OUT WITH A DO PASS RECOMMENDATION
SB 45: "An Act relating to persons under 21
years of age; relating to programs for
runaway minors; providing for
designation of shelters for runaway
minors; relating to the detention and
incarceration of minors."
HEARD AND HELD FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER
Chairman, House Judiciary Committee
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 122
Juneau, Alaska 99811
Phone: 465-4930
Position Statement: Prime Sponsor of HJR 43
DANIELLA LOPER
Committee Counsel
House Judiciary Committee
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 120
Juneau, Alaska 99811
Phone: 465-6841
Position Statement: Discussed HJR 43
JANICE LEINHART
Victims for Justice
619 E. 5th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Phone: 278-0977
Position Statement: Supported HJR 43
DEAN GUANELI
Assistant Attorney General
Criminal Division
Department of Law
P.O. Box 100300
Juneau, Alaska 99811
Phone: 465-3428
Position Statement: Administration supported HJR 43
DONNA SCHULTZ
Division of Family and Youth Services
Department of Health & Social Services
P.O. Box 110630
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0630
Phone: 465-2112
Position Statement: Observer
JERRY BURNETT
Legislative Aide
Senator Randy Phillips' Office
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 103
Juneau, Alaska 99811
Phone: 465-4949
Position Statement: Testified for Prime Sponsor of SB 45
ELMER LINDSTROM
Special Assistant to Commissioner Lowe
Department of Health and Social Services
P.O. Box 110601
Juneau, Alaska 99811
Phone: 465-3030
Position Statement: Discussed SB 45
BETTY JO ENGELMAN
Juneau Youth Services
P.O. Box 32839
Juneau, Alaska 99803
Phone: 789-7610
Position Statement: Discussed SB 45
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 103
Juneau, Alaska 99811
Phone: 465-4949
Position Statement: Prime Sponsor of SB 45
SHERRIE GOLL
Alaska Women's Lobby
KIDPAC
P.O. Box 22156
Juneau, Alaska 99802
Phone: 463-6744
Position Statement: Discussed SB 45
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HJR 43
SHORT TITLE: PRINCIPLES OF PENAL ADMINISTRATION
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) PORTER,Phillips,Barnes,Bunde,
Green
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
04/24/93 1496 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
04/24/93 1496 (H) JUDICIARY
04/25/93 (H) RLS AT 1:00 PM SPEAKER'S CHAMBER
01/10/94 2022 (H) COSPONSOR(S): BUNDE
01/12/94 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: SB 45
SHORT TITLE: MISC. LAWS RELATING TO MINORS
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) PHILLIPS,Halford,Kelly,Miller,Leman,
Sharp;REPRESENTATIVE(S) Kott
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/13/93 53 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/13/93 53 (S) HES, FINANCE
03/05/93 (S) HES AT 01:30 PM BUTROVICH
ROOM 205
03/05/93 (S) MINUTE(HES)
03/19/93 (S) HES AT 01:30 PM BUTROVICH
ROOM 205
03/22/93 894 (S) HES RPT CS 1DP 5NR NEW TITLE
03/22/93 894 (S) FISCAL NOTE TO SB & CS (DHSS)
03/22/93 894 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE TO SB & CS
(LAW,LABOR)
04/07/93 (S) FIN AT 09:00 AM SENATE FINANCE
518
04/10/93 (S) FIN AT 10:00 AM SENATE FINANCE
518
04/10/93 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
04/13/93 1331 (S) FIN RPT CS 5DP 2NR
NEW TITLE
04/13/93 1332 (S) FISCAL NOTES (DHSS, COURT)
04/13/93 1332 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DPS)
04/13/93 1332 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FNS (LAW, LABOR)
04/13/93 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
04/16/93 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
04/19/93 1482 (S) RULES CS 3CAL 1DNP NEW TITLE
4/19/93
04/19/93 1482 (S) PREVIOUS FNS APPLY TO CS (DHSS,
COURT)
04/19/93 1482 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FNS APPLY
(DPS,LAW,LABOR)
04/19/93 1546 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
04/19/93 1546 (S) RLS CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
04/19/93 1547 (S) AM NO 1 WITHDRAWN
04/19/93 1547 (S) RETURN TO RLS COMMITTEE UNAN
CONSENT
04/20/93 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
04/21/93 1613 (S) RULES 3CAL 1DNP W/O AM
4/21/93
04/21/93 1620 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
04/21/93 1621 (S) AM NO 2 FAILED Y10 N10
04/21/93 1629 (S) AM NO 3 FAILED Y8 N12
04/21/93 1630 (S) ADVANCE TO THIRD READING FAILED
Y11 N9
04/21/93 1630 (S) THIRD READING 4/22 CALENDAR
04/22/93 1673 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 45(RLS)
04/22/93 1673 (S) PASSED Y12 N8
04/22/93 1674 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE FAILED Y12 N8
04/22/93 1674 (S) ELLIS NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION
04/23/93 1716 (S) RECONSIDERATION NOT TAKEN UP
04/23/93 1717 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H) CSSB
43(FIN)(EFD FLD)
04/24/93 1487 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
04/24/93 1487 (H) JUDICIARY, FINANCE
05/05/93 (H) FIN AT 01:00 PM HOUSE FIN 519
05/06/93 (H) FIN AT 10:01 AM HOUSE FIN 519
05/06/93 1674 (H) CROSS SPONSOR(S): KOTT
05/07/93 (H) FIN AT 06:00 PM HOUSE FIN 519
05/08/93 (H) FIN AT 08:30 AM HOUSE FIN 519
05/09/93 (H) FIN AT 09:00 AM HOUSE FIN 519
05/10/93 (H) FIN AT 08:30 AM HOUSE FIN 519
05/11/93 (H) FIN AT 09:00 AM HOUSE FIN 519
01/12/94 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 94-1, SIDE A
Number 000
The House Judiciary Standing Committee was called to order
at 1:10 p.m. on January 12, 1994. A quorum was present.
CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that two bills were on the day's
calendar: HJR 43 and SB 45. Chairman Porter announced that
HJR 43 would be heard first.
Number 203
The Chairman announced the new meeting time for the House
Judiciary Standing Committee would be from 1:15 p.m. to 3:00
or 3:15 p.m.
HJR 43 - PRINCIPLES OF PENAL ADMINISTRATION
Number 530
REP. BRIAN PORTER, prime sponsor of HJR 43, said he would
explain the general provisions of bill and philosophy and
then have the committee counsel and Department of Law (DOL)
representative discuss it further.
Number 702
REP. PORTER stated in general terms that the bill provides
two major sections. One deals with the administration of
penal justice. He said Alaska's constitution provides first
for the reformation of the offender and then the protection
of the public. He stated he would like to change the order
to protection of the public, add community condemnation of
the offender, and then the principle of reformation.
REP. PORTER said the second section of the bill deals with
victims' rights. The rights of the criminal defendant have
long existed in the U.S. and Alaska constitutions. In
balancing, Rep. Porter said it is appropriate for the rights
of victims to have the same status, at least, as the rights
of criminal defendants. Some of the statutory rights that
already exist for victims would be moved into the
constitutional amendment and a couple more added.
Number 954
DANIELLA LOPER, House Judiciary Committee Counsel, came
forward to further explain the bill and answer questions
from the committee. She reiterated the two elements of the
bill. The first section dealt with excessive punishment on
the penal code. The bill, for the first time, would
establish a hierarchy of what the penal code is trying to
establish. Instead of just balancing the principles of
reformation and protecting the public, the bill would have a
hierarchy in saying that protecting the public is the first
element. The second element was the community condemnation
of the offender; and the third was the principle of
reformation.
MS. LOPER stated that community condemnation of the offender
comes from the Cheney case, decided in 1970, by the Supreme
Court. This is the foundation for the community
condemnation amendment in the constitution.
MS. LOPER described the second section as relating to the
rights of crime victims. She referred to a handout in the
packet entitled Rights and Current Law, which showed that
the rights of crime victims are already established by
Alaska statute and nothing new is added in the bill. In
addition, Ms. Loper stressed that there is not one sentence,
clause, word or punctuation mark of this victims rights bill
which in anyway repeals, amends or alters any constitutional
or statutory right of a person accused or convicted of a
crime. She summarized existing rights that would be
included in the constitutional amendment, including the
right to be reasonably protected from the accused; to confer
with the prosecution; treated with dignity, respect and
fairness; restitution; be informed of and present at all
criminal or juvenile proceedings; to be heard, upon request,
at sentencing and when release from custody is being
considered; and upon request, to be informed of the accused
or offenders escape or release from custody.
Number 1443
REP. NORDLUND said in regard to Section 1 that the current
constitution as it reads doesn't establish an order, it
lists two things; and as he reads it, it doesn't necessarily
state one as being more important that the other one. He
said he didn't mind having "community condemnation" in the
bill, but wonders why the sponsor feels a need to establish
an order when it's not an order already.
Number 1522
MS. LOPER responded that the principle of reformation was
always listed first. The Cheney case proves that all of
this is considered in sentencing, but for the first time the
need for protecting the public is first, and public
condemnation of the offender is second. She said she was
sure it would be up to the discretion of the courts, and as
in the Cheney case, they look at all the issues in mind.
Number 1601
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said that she supported the hierarchy
listing because the general public has the assumption that
protection of the public is not first, and she thinks the
public would want that to be first. The reformation of the
criminal is certainly important and should be considered,
particularly when you're talking about the penalty they are
going to pay, so they should be given every opportunity to
be reformed, if that is a possibility. Rep. James
emphasized that it should be put in the record that public
safety is the very first issue.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated he strongly supports the concept
and wondered if the bill would in any way impact a liberal
judge as unduly influencing the decision maker, and wondered
if it had been looked at.
MS. LOPER said it is up to the judge to develop the
balancing scale, and the intent of the bill is to finally
establish a balancing scale between the victim and offender.
She said if a liberal judge did take a look at this, just
being a judge would balance the scale out and balance the
rights. In addition, the language of the bill says "upon
request," and it has already been going on for some years.
She stated the bill is a balancing scale.
Number 1843
REP. PORTER added that a judge would be more prone to give
weight to the right of the defendant if that right were a
portion of the constitution, as opposed to just a statute,
and that's the reason for moving these to the level of the
constitution. He said if the rights of the victim were
raised up to this level, then it balances.
Number 1940
REP. DAVIDSON asked if the legal system so simplistically
labeled judges as conservative or liberal, and what does
this spectrum mean? He asked where the term "community
condemnation" came from and asked the Chair to expand on the
meaning.
Number 2047
MS. LOPER replied through the Chair that she didn't
understand his question about liberals and conservatives.
Number 2107
REP. DAVIDSON apologized for the mushiness of the question,
and asked if Ms. Loper, within the legal system, recognized
people as labeled liberal or conservative.
Number 2133
MS. LOPER said that removing liberal and conservative labels
out of the arena would be a lot better, and if you try and
label things too early, it would probably be to your own
detriment.
MS. LOPER returned to the question of community condemnation
and said the bill packet contains the case State v. Cheney
and an Alaska Law Review article, that list all the elements
and exactly what they meant by community condemnation of the
offender. She said the court needs to be aware of what the
community condemns.
Number 2340
REP. DAVIDSON asked if there was a different condemnation
standard for communities 99 percent white versus a community
that is 38 percent Native.
Number 2354
MS. LOPER replied absolutely not, because the bill is not
comprised of any minority status at all, that it is the act
itself that's being looked at (for example, murder), rather
than the person that committed it.
Number 2421
REP. PHILLIPS commented that the packet shows 14 other
states have amended their constitutions in a similar way and
asked what if other states are considering changes to their
constitutions also.
Number 2440
MS. LOPER replied yes, and would find out for the committee
the other states considering it.
Number 2507
REP. PHILLIPS voiced a point of concern to the Chairman,
that since it is a constitutional amendment that the
language on the ballot proposition be absolutely clear and
correct, and asked that her comments be put on the record
that should this go through they all make sure the language
is correct.
Number 2544
REP. PORTER edified for the audience that the bill before
the committee is a resolution that would allow the public to
vote on whether or not the constitution should be amended to
include these provisions.
Number 2610
REP. NORDLUND asked to hear what the practical impact would
be in terms of more people being put away for a longer time,
and how is it going to affect the criminal justice system.
He suggested their might be some confusion about the word
community in community condemnation and said that societal
condemnation would be a better word.
Number 2651
REP. PORTER explained that the phrase is one that's used by
the Supreme Court, and since they will be interpreting the
bill, and it's their phrase, it shouldn't be a problem.
Number 2729
REP. KOTT commented that when changing the constitution we
have to be very careful; and victims' rights historically
had been at the bottom of the ladder. He asked Ms. Loper
why that occurs in spite of having the issue in statute and
having the equal protection clause in the constitution.
Number 2828
MS. LOPER used the analogy of freedom of speech being in
statute versus the constitution, and said victims' rights
need to be in the constitution to prevent future
legislatures from changing or removing it again. She said
having a constitutional right to attend a hearing is a
little different than a statutory right, because it carries
greater weight.
Number 2926
REP. KOTT asked why victims at this point have not been
given that right. He also asked if it's a real problem we
need to correct, or is it something we just want to elevate
to a different level to ensure that a problem does not occur
at a future time.
MS. LOPER replied that everyone in this country is given due
process, it seems like, except crime victims. The accused
are given due process and essentially, notice, but crime
victims are not. She further stated that this gives the
victim the same constitutional right to attend the
proceedings as the accused.
Number 3051
REP. DAVIDSON asked why this greater weight idea was not
discussed by the framers of our constitution.
Number 3141
MS. LOPER replied that she could not answer Rep. Davidson's
question, but the important idea was that we have a chance
now.
Number 3200
REP. PORTER also responded that what existed at the time the
U.S. Constitution was framed was who was the victim and who
was the offender, and it was the government that was the
offender and all of us were the victims, which is why the
country was formed. He said that was the perspective from
which the Bill of Rights was adopted, and in almost all
cases the Bill of Rights has been transported to states'
constitutions. Rep. Porter expounded on the theme and
concluded that it has reached a point where we've gone
overboard and it needs to be balanced again.
Number 3304
REP. GREEN concurred with Rep. Porter's assessment of the
problem.
Number 3314
REP. JAMES responded that we all have rights until we run
into someone else's and that's where we have to define it,
so we can say our rights only go so far, and when it
involves someone else's rights we have to determine which
comes first.
Number 3407
REP. KOTT asked if there are any initiatives being proposed
by the national authorities regarding this issues.
Number 3440
MS. LOPER replied that it is being looked at by a man named
Steve Twist, and there is a national organization working at
the state level. If enough states pass legislation it
should create enough momentum to change the U.S.
Constitution.
Number 3605
JANICE LEINHART with Victims for Justice testified in
support of the legislation. She suggested adding language
to the bill that victims "be informed of rights herein."
REP. NORDLUND asked the sponsor if there would be two
separate amendments to the constitution based on this bill.
REP. PORTER responded that it would amend one section and
add another, but would be one vote, one issue, and one
ballot proposition.
Number 4107
REP. NORDLUND followed up by asking what if someone goes to
the polls and wants to vote yes on one section and no on the
other. He commented that they are two completely separate
issues.
Number 4120
REP. PORTER responded that to him they addressed the same
basic proposition, and that community as opposed to criminal
defendant should have equal status.
Number 4142
DEAN GUANELI, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division,
Department of Law, stated that he knew very little about the
single subject requirement and would check on that, but
first the administration supports this resolution. He
explained why, starting with the rights of crime victims.
He said there is a statute on the books that gives crime
victims certain rights. One of the primary differences with
the proposed constitutional amendment is a clause that
provides a right to a timely disposition to the case
following the arrest of the accused. Mr. Guaneli said this
would not require a defendant to go to trial before they
are prepared, but would require a judge to think carefully
about whether to grant that fourth or fifth postponement of
the proceedings. Further, he said, it will tend to level
the playing field among victims and defendants of crimes,
but will not give crime victims all the same rights as
defendants. For example, it will not give victims the right
to a court appointed attorney to represent them in the
proceedings.
MR. GUANELI said he thinks the critical phrase in here is
that they have a right to be treated with dignity, respect
and fairness. He used another example where a victim of an
assault has all of his or her past conduct paraded before
the jury, to be basically labeled a violent, aggressive
person, when at the same time the jury is not allowed to
hear about the defendant's own past violent tendencies.
TAPE 94-1, SIDE 2
Number 017
MR. GUANELI moved on to the other provision and said it
affects the criminal justice system in two distinct ways.
One, it tends to affect the sentencing process and two, it
tends to affect the way the prisons are administered, which
provides some appropriate guidance for the courts.
In response to a question raised earlier by Rep. Nordlund,
MR. GUANELI replied that the state already has a very
detailed sentencing system called presumptive sentencing,
which sets out in a fair amount of detail what kind of
sentences the judges are supposed to impose in run-of-the-
mill cases that fit in with certain criteria. He continued
by saying there are cases that don't fit neatly within the
presumptive sentencing system, and in those instances the
courts look to what the Supreme Court has said, and as
mentioned earlier, comes from the Cheney case. The court
sets out five criteria for judges to set sentences. He
briefly described the criteria: 1) isolation of the
offender; 2) deter others; 3) deter individual from doing
it again; 4) community condemnation; and 5) rehabilitate the
person.
Number 208
MR. GUANELI continued his testimony, saying that the Supreme
Court has never really articulated how these are to be
weighed; it is left to the discretion of the judge. He
cited examples of how the court might weigh various crimes.
He said that when everything else is equal, the need to
protect the public ought to be considered first. He made a
comment regarding the phrase "community condemnation",
saying he could envision cases where it might not be
appropriate to send someone to jail for any other reason
than community condemnation. He cited an example where a
person may have suffered shame, etc., and the judge
sentenced the person because of public outrage by what
happened. By that reason alone, that person ought to spend
some time in jail. The Supreme Court has recognized this as
an appropriate situation in sentencing for over twenty
years, and there is no reason why that can't be in the
constitution. He said he didn't have any strong feelings
about whether the phrase is "community condemnation" or
"societal condemnation."
MR. GUANELI discussed how this legislation affects penal
administration and how the prisons are run. He said it's
probably a good idea that the people of this state tell the
Department of Corrections (DOC) and the executive branch "we
want you to be careful, we want to be protected from the
people who have been imprisoned." He also said that it's a
good idea that the principle of reformation stay in the
constitution. The Supreme Court has said that prisoners at
least have a right to expect that the state will try to
reform them and make some efforts, but it shouldn't be the
overriding consideration, and particularly when we are
telling the DOC to put more and more people out into the
community. The public has a right to expect they are going
to do that carefully.
Number 620
REP. KOTT asked Mr. Guaneli about the clause referring to
the right to fairness during all phases of the criminal
justice process and wondered if that could be construed by a
judge to provide counsel to the victim.
Number 635
MR. GUANELI answered that he supposed a judge could read
into this what a judge wants to read into this, but there's
nothing in the legislation that's similar to constitutional
provisions, such as the right to counsel, that have been
interpreted to require publicly financed attorneys.
Number 801
REP. KOTT moved to adopt the committee substitute (CS) for
HJR 43.
Number 834
REP. PORTER said that without objection, CS for HJR 43 had
been adopted, and asked for discussion on the motion to move
CSHJR 43 out of committee.
Number 842
REP. NORDLUND asked if the committee could get an answer
about combining the two subjects on one ballot measure.
Number 849
REP. PORTER stated he would ask Ms. Loper and Mr. Guaneli to
make that analysis as soon as they could, and if it does
present a problem, he would ask the Speaker to send it back
and the committee can separate it.
Further discussion occurred on the subject of the ballot
language and general discussion took place about the
resolution.
Number 1630
REP. DAVIDSON requested a fiscal note from the DOC before it
goes to the floor.
Number 1356
REP. PORTER requested a roll call vote. The committee voted
unanimously to move the bill out of committee with
individual recommendations.
Number 1702
REP. PORTER announced that SB 45 was the next order of
business.
SB 45 - MISC. LAWS RELATING TO MINORS
Number 1751
JERRY BURNETT, staff to Senator Randy Phillips, prime
sponsor of SB 45, testified that the bill addresses
basically three problems: 1) What do you do with youth who
have run away from home and there is no facility in the area
where they are? Which is where the shelter home concept
comes in. 2) The problem of the balance between parental
and minor rights of the runaway child. And 3) The problem
the state has with housing juveniles in adult correctional
facilities. Mr. Burnett said it was his understanding the
committee had a CS and requested that someone address what
the changes were in the CS.
Number 1915
REP. PORTER discussed the changes and said the pivotal
designation was that currently the minor has the choice of
determining where he/she wants to go. He said under the CS,
providing that there is no abuse, this would be reversed.
Number 2214
REP. JAMES asked what was the gist of the bill.
REP. PORTER called for testimony on SB 45.
Number 2258
ELMER LINDSTROM, Special Assistant to Commissioner Lowe,
Department of Health & Social Services (DHSS), described two
provisions that DHSS had an interest in. He referred to a
position paper in the packet dated April 26, 1993, which
discussed the two points. He said the two general areas
were the runaway issue and detention of juveniles in adult
facilities. He said that language was crucial to DHSS in
that they have about $325,000 in federal funds riding on
passage of those provisions in this bill, because federal
law prohibits the lockup or detention of juveniles in adult
jails or lockups. He said the language in SB 45 brings
state law into compliance with those federal requirements.
He also stated that the Chairman described adequately the
benefit to a parent who is nonabusive, who's child happens
to run away for whatever reason. The concern is if there is
an abusive parents. Would this language in fact potentially
result in some instances of a law enforcement officer using
his discretion in good faith, but in fact returning a child
to an abusive home? He said DHSS would like an opportunity
to review this section.
Number 2752
BETTY JO ENGELMAN, Juneau Youth Services, testified that her
organization was very supportive of the jail removal section
of the bill. They were concerned about the emancipation
section, which could dissolve the family at the child's age
of 16. In addition, she said children under the
emancipation section should be able to demonstrate self-
support, and the Division of Family and Youth Services
(DFYS) not be exempt from serving emancipated minors. She
raised another concern regarding liability and the lesser
standards for licensing safe homes.
Number 3431
The committee and witnesses discussed licensing standards
for safe homes, length of time for care, and liability.
TAPE 94-2, SIDE A
Number 232
Discussion continued about concerns regarding liability.
Number 1117
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS made a short statement for the
record, beginning with discussion about his runaway bill
passed in 1986, which gave the choice to the child to either
go home or go to social services. He said since then
problems have been getting more complex and he would like to
balance the playing field between parents and children. He
hopes SB 45 was a step in the right direction.
Number 1400
Discussion resumed on the question of liability and
standards in current law.
Number 2342
REP. PORTER asked the committee to make a list of questions
to be researched before passing the bill out of committee.
Number 2351
SHERRIE GOLL, representing the Alaska Women's Lobby and
KIDPAC, commended the sponsor for tackling what is a very
serious problem in our state and a very complex to resolve.
She gave the committee an historical perspective of the
problem, testified against emancipation, discussed her
concerns about the liability issue, and concerns about the
section regarding returning the child home. She discussed
emergency shelters and appropriate institutions for
children.
Number 4300
REP. PORTER asked Elmer Lindstrom to give the committee an
analysis of the new bill, and indicated to the committee
that he would like to bring SB 45 up before the committee
again Friday afternoon. He said at that time they would
discuss enhancing the language on the liability section -
the notion of adding the criteria of sustained financial
capabilities in the emancipation section. In addition, the
question needed to be answered whether the emancipated child
should be treated as an adult for criminal prosecution
across the board.
TAPE 94-2, SIDE B
Number 010
REP. PORTER announced that SB 45 would be held in committee
until Friday, January 14, 1994.
ADJOURNMENT
CHAIRMAN PORTER adjourned the meeting at 3:30 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|