Legislature(1997 - 1998)
10/24/1997 09:08 AM 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
October 24, 1997
9:08 a.m.
Anchorage, Alaska
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Joe Green, Chairman
Representative Con Bunde, Vice Chairman
Representative Brian Porter
Representative Jeannette James (via teleconference)
Representative Ethan Berkowitz
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Norman Rokeberg
Representative Eric Croft
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
* HOUSE BILL NO. 252
"An Act relating to criminal records; relating to notice about and
registration of sex offenders and child kidnappers; and amending
Rules 11(c) and 32(c), Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure."
- HEARD AND HELD
* HOUSE BILL NO. 273
"An Act relating to notification of the public concerning sex
offenders."
- HEARD AND HELD
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 252
SHORT TITLE: REGISTRATION OF SEX & CHILD OFFENDERS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) RYAN
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
04/16/97 1122 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
04/16/97 1122 (H) JUDICIARY, FINANCE
05/05/97 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 120
05/05/97 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
05/08/97 (H) JUD AT 8:30 AM CAPITOL 120
05/08/97 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
10/24/97 (H) JUD AT 9:00 AM ANCHORAGE LIO
BILL: HB 273
SHORT TITLE: NOTIFY COMMUNITY ABOUT SEX OFFENDERS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MASEK
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
05/08/97 1656 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
05/08/97 1656 (H) JUDICIARY
10/24/97 (H) JUD AT 9:00 AM ANCHORAGE LIO
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE JOE RYAN
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 420
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3875
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 252.
DAVID PREE, Legislative Assistant
to Representative Joe Ryan
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 420
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3875
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed proposed changes to HB 252.
ANNE D. CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General
Legal Services Section - Juneau
Criminal Division
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
Telephone: (907) 465-3428
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 252.
TED BACHMAN, Captain
Division of Alaska State Troopers
Department of Public Safety
5700 East Tudor Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99507
Telephone: (907) 269-5641
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided department's position and answered
questions regarding HB 252; testified briefly
on HB 273.
BRUCE RICHARDS, Program Coordinator
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Corrections
240 Main Street, Suite 700
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3307
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided department's position and answered
questions regarding HB 252.
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 252 and HB 273.
DENALI DANIELS
Standing Together Against Rape
1074 West Fireweed Lane, Suite 230
Telephone: (907) 276-7279
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Telephone: (907) 276-7279
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 252.
JANICE LIENHART
Victims for Justice
619 East 5th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
(No telephone number provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 252.
KIMBERLEE VANDERHOOF
717 9th Avenue
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
Telephone: (907) 452-2293
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 252.
SUZANNE MANNIKKO
HC 33, Box 2859-A
Wasilla, Alaska 99654
Telephone: (907) 373-9028
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 252.
"BILLIE"
(No last name, address or telephone number provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 252 as mother of sex offender
and grandmother of victim.
REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY MASEK
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 432
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-2679
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 273.
EDDIE GRASSER, Legislative Assistant
to Representative Masek
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 432
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-2679
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of sponsor of HB 273.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 97-83, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIRMAN JOE GREEN called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 9:08 a.m. at the Anchorage Legislative
Information Office (LIO). Members present at the call to order
were Representatives Green, Bunde, and Porter; Representative James
was present via teleconference. Representative Berkowitz arrived
shortly after the call to order.
CHAIRMAN GREEN noted that both bills being heard that day, HB 252
and HB 273, relate to sex offender registration. He also noted
that Anne Carpeneti from the Department of Law was on
teleconference, as was the Fairbanks LIO.
HB 252 - REGISTRATION OF SEX & CHILD OFFENDERS
[Contains testimony relevant to HB 273.]
CHAIRMAN GREEN announced the committee would first hear House Bill
No. 252, "An Act relating to criminal records; relating to notice
about and registration of sex offenders and child kidnappers; and
amending Rules 11(c) and 32(c), Alaska Rules of Criminal
Procedure."
Number 016
REPRESENTATIVE JOE RYAN, sponsor, came forward accompanied by his
legislative assistant, David Pree. Representative Ryan read from
the sponsor statement. He explained that HB 252 is being offered
to intensify the sex offender and child kidnapper registration
statutes and the registration process, in order to better protect
our citizens from criminals. The intent is to comply with recent
changes to the law, "including the Wetterling Act and the Violent
Offender Registration Act," and remain eligible for the $200,000 in
funds granted to states that comply with these Acts.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN said HB 252 allows that failure to register as
a sex offender and child kidnapper, or to register properly,
results in a class C felony instead of a misdemeanor. By raising
it from a misdemeanor to a class C felony, it induces a person to
register and to do so properly. "If not, the parole/probation can
be revoked, and the person can be reincarcerated," Representative
Ryan added, saying it allows the state to have a much bigger
"stick" to make these people obey the law.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN indicated that under HB 252, persons
responsible for hiring and employing people have to have access to
current and past criminal histories. By reducing reporting times,
HB 252 allows reduction of the time an offender is unregistered and
unsupervised. It reduces the time that a sex offender or child
kidnapper has to report a change of address, and it provides for
annual or quarterly verifications of addresses of sex offenders or
child kidnappers. The length of time a sex offender or child
kidnapper must register in order to meet the requirements of 42
U.S.C. 14071 is also adjusted.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN said the bill requires the Department of Public
Safety to notify the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) if a sex
offender or child kidnapper does not register or cannot be found;
if such a person moves to another state, the FBI and the other
state are notified. Furthermore, the Alaska Court System is
required to provide a list of persons convicted of sex offenses to
the Department of Public Safety and to require the Department of
Public Safety to make reasonable efforts to verify the addresses of
sex offenders and child kidnappers registering under AS 12.63.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN advised members of his intention to add to the
bill; David Pree would provide details. Representative Ryan
explained, "The reason we haven't put it in here is we were waiting
for some court cases from different jurisdictions to be resolved by
the United States Supreme Court. And they were resolved in the
favor of our intention, and now we can go forward." He indicated
that lack of legislative legal staff had also slowed the process;
however, there would be a proposed committee substitute prior to
the start of session.
Number 056
REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER asked whether raising the failure to
register from a misdemeanor to a felony is one of the federal
requirements that Representative Ryan had mentioned.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN replied, "No. The reason that I brought that
about is a constituent brought it to my attention, who follows
these issues in the neighborhood, part of the community patrol,
that there were 185 convicted sex offenders within a mile of my
house. And then we started checking addresses and finding business
places, malls, all kinds of places where a person couldn't have a
residence, that were listed as their addresses."
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN said he'd decided that obviously the law
currently isn't effective to make these people comply with the law
and register. His thought was that perhaps if they increase the
penalty and these people know they will face a stiff incarceration,
this may be the "stick" the state needs to get these people to obey
the law and to allow the communities to know at least where they
live, so that people in the neighborhoods will be aware of this and
take more proactive action looking out for their children.
Number 070
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE advised members that of late, he'd been
receiving correspondence from people encouraging legislation that
would require anybody that works with children to have a background
check. He asked whether it would fall under the bill title to
expand it to require background checks for previous sex offender
convictions before allowing anyone to work with young people.
Representative Berkowitz arrived.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN replied, "Partially. We require an employer to
run a check. I've seen the same information that you [have], and
I've talked to the person. And that's a fairly broad-brush
approach as a policy matter. And I haven't taken the initiative to
do that without the opportunity to consult with my colleagues in
the legislature as to how they feel the ramifications of the
invasion of privacy ... may be on individuals who have no record
and would object to having a criminal investigation. And so, ...
as you know, it's a hot potato. And I wanted to have time
personally to reflect on this, discuss it with other people in the
legislature, before I consider taking initiative on it. I don't
know that we could paint everybody under the color of this bill,
with that particular action."
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN indicated this bill is aimed at people who have
received a conviction, basically pedophiles or those who have
demonstrated by their behavior that they have these particular
problems or this behavior pattern. In talking to professionals in
law enforcement, and to psychologists or others who deal with these
people, he'd been told that it is just not what these people do, it
is what they are. They can't seem to help themselves. There is a
pattern of recidivism, with increasing severity, "until we wind up
with a dead child." Representative Ryan stated his intention of
precluding that from happening, so that we don't have to suffer
these tragedies.
Number 104
REPRESENTATIVE ETHAN BERKOWITZ apologized for being late. He
mentioned the crime of custodial interference, which essentially
occurs when a noncustodial parent abducts the child. He asked
whether there was any overlap between the intent of HB 252 and that
crime.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN asked whether that is considered kidnapping
under the law.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ replied that it is under the kidnapping
statute.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN responded, "No, it's not my intent." He
clarified that his intent is to get to people who kidnap children
for the purposes of sexual assault or the many varied things that
pedophile activity entails, not necessarily being broad enough to
bring in custodial interference. He said he believes that is
outside the purview of this bill, and he noted in those cases, the
children aren't being abused, attacked, killed or threatened.
CHAIRMAN GREEN agreed that it is beyond the purview of this bill.
Number 128
DAVID PREE, Legislative Assistant to Representative Joe Ryan,
advised members that the proposed change is to include what is
commonly known as the "predator statute." He said it was a
Washington law used in the Midwest and subsequently appealed to the
U.S. Supreme Court, which had issued a decision. Because of lack
of legal services that month, he didn't have a copy of that
decision or a firm proposal to make that day. They anticipate,
however, that those statutes will be included in this bill.
MR. PREE continued: "The `predator law' would basically allow the
state to keep people under control of some sort - we don't know
whether we're proposing a formal incarceration like prison or not -
but allow them to be kept under close control by the state until
such time as they are deemed `not a predator' or `not a threat,' is
the basis of the predator rules. Additionally, we've considered,
and are intending to propose by the first of session, that this
bill include a change in the statute moving the place ... in the
process where an individual is considered eligible to register as
a sex offender. And we're ... proposing to move that to the time
of sentencing, so that their registration as a sex offender would
be taken care of immediately at sentencing, allowing us to ...
ensure that registration."
MR. PREE said it would eliminate the problem now where people are
released from incarceration and subsequently fail to register. It
would also allow the state to put the community on notice that
these individuals are sex offenders, despite the fact that they're
in jail. And if they are discharged and don't register properly,
there would be a mechanism to track them, built into the system, by
virtue of the fact that they're already registered.
Number 165
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN referred to the predator aspect. He said the
Supreme Court has ruled that if a person proves to be incorrigible,
they can be incarcerated for the rest of their natural life, if
that is necessary to keep them from this behavior. He explained,
"You just keep them locked up until such time as they no longer
incorrigible. And if they remain incorrigible, they remain
incarcerated, a pretty heavy thing to think about, but it's also a
pretty heavy thing to allow people like this to be released into
the general population and to have dead children. ... I had to
weigh this very carefully before I thought about including this
provision, but the balance seems to come out that the welfare of
children is much more important than the individual liberty of a
person who has a problem ... which they can't overcome."
Number 178
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether the term "unconditional discharge"
means they have a clean bill of health, and that it has been
determined that they've served their time or that they no longer
are a threat to society. Noting that it occurs in two or three
places in the bill, he cited one instance on page 3, line 10, where
it says, "the date the sex offender or child kidnapper was
unconditionally discharged".
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN suggested that perhaps someone more familiar
with sentencing and discharge conditions could respond.
Number 190
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER responded, "I believe `unconditionally
discharge' means that the time has run on the sentence and that
there is no further hook, if you will, probation or parole, and
control of the individual."
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN mentioned a reference to 15 years in the bill.
He stated, "That says that if you keep your act together and you
have no more problems, that after a period of time, then yes, you
are ...."
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said a conditional release would be as to
conditions of the parole.
Number 196
CHAIRMAN GREEN requested clarification. He proposed a scenario
where "Jones" is convicted and is now out on parole and
registering. He moves to a state that doesn't require registration
and lives there for seven or eight years, then returns. Chairman
Green referred to page 4, line 30, which discusses tolling. He
asked, "Does that apply to Jones, that the seven-year period is
tolled and he still, then, needs to register for the balance of the
15 years? Or does his moving to a state that doesn't have the
registration eliminate that seven years?" He specified he was
using version 0-LS0818\B of the bill.
Number 219
MR. PREE stated, "To be honest with you, I don't think that we
intended to have a situation where a sex offender was leaving here
and going to a state that didn't require registration. ... I don't
think that much longer we are going to have a situation exist where
a state doesn't (indisc.) a registry. But very definitely, the
scenario that you described would fit in that description, and his
registration period would be tolled at the time that he is not in
compliance somewhere. And he would have to continue to register."
Number 221
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked, "In the contingency that there's
some sort of national compliance required, would satisfaction of
the national compliance satisfy (indisc.)?"
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN said yes. He indicated that "Megan's Law,"
passed by the U.S. Congress, was referred to here. He stated,
"They have provisions in there for the FBI notification when people
move and the requirements, and these are part of ... an opportunity
on the part of the federal government to establish a national data
base of these folks and to keep track of them. And you have an
obligation when a person leaves your jurisdiction, if you have
knowledge of it, to notify the FBI that that person has changed
from your jurisdiction; and there is a certain period of time when
they arrive at the new jurisdiction they're required to register.
Vice versa, other states will notify our Department of Public
Safety when someone's coming. If they don't meet those
registration requirements, they fall under the statute. They come
here from Alabama and they don't register as a convicted sex
offender, then when they show up, they have broken this law."
CHAIRMAN GREEN said, "Okay, even if Alabama doesn't have a required
registration, if they're in this state and have been ... convicted
- it doesn't have to be convicted here - they are required to
register."
Number 240
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said conversely, if an offender convicted in
Alaska went to Alabama, and if Alabama had no registration
requirement, they wouldn't be in violation of this chapter. "So,
they would not need the tolling," he suggested.
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether Ms. Carpeneti could help them on this.
Number 258
ANNE D. CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services
Section - Juneau, Criminal Division, Department of Law, spoke via
teleconference from Juneau. She indicated she had been unable to
hear Representative Porter.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said the section they were talking about was
on page 4, line 30, regarding tolling. He stated, "The question
was: If ... an offender who was required to register in Alaska
went to a state that had no registration and stayed in that state
for five years and then returned to Alaska, would that five years
be tolled or not? And my guess was it would not be tolled because
that five years in whatever state it was that had no requirement
for registration was not a violation of this chapter as the tolling
section requires."
MS. CARPENETI replied, "That's my understanding also. But as Mr.
Pree said, I think we're moving toward a time when we're going to
be registering through the FBI. And if a state doesn't have a
registration plan, you're going to be required to register with the
FBI. And, at least in the Governor's bill, that is included in the
period of registration, if you comply with FBI regulations for
registration."
Number 263
CHAIRMAN GREEN suggested that would be good to include with the
amendments. Referring to Representative Bunde's question and
employment, he proposed a hypothetical scenario where Jones, who is
properly registered, shows up to coach, on a voluntary basis, for
a youth group with 25 coaches and some girls' teams. Chairman
Green asked whether that information would be available to that
youth group.
Number 273
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN responded, "Mr. Chairman, since the
introduction of this bill, we have voluntarily received a lot of
cooperation from the Department of Public Safety. And they have
put out an Internet site with the names of these folks. They, I
understand now, they will pass out the names without charge,
copying fee charge, which has severely impacted their budget, as
you can imagine, personnel costs and so forth. And they're ...
making very good efforts; I'm very proud of the agency. And I'm
sure there's some folks here will tell you more than what I've told
you about this. So, it's very easy to find out if anyone who is
coming to volunteer has a conviction. The department is
cooperating quite well."
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN noted that a volunteer is not an employee. He
pointed out that whether the legislature wants to have these
particular screenings for everyone dealing with kids is a policy
question that they must decide as a body. He stated, "And right
now, I personally see both sides of that sword; it cuts both ways,
privacy versus the thing, and I want to give that some
consideration before I take any personal action on it. Here I'm
dealing with folks, you know, have already demonstrated that their
conduct is such that ... they can't be trusted."
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN stated his belief that it would be good conduct
for an agency dealing with children to do what they can to screen
those who deal with children. If someone who volunteered
subsequently got a child sexual offense, people would ask, "Why
didn't you check these people, especially when the information is
readily available?"
Number 302
CHAIRMAN GREEN said the reason he'd asked is that both the coaches
and the participants are volunteers, and a "reverence" can be
established between a child and a coach that transcends the
average, run-of-the-mill relationship. He suggested the need to be
extremely careful in such situations.
Number 309
TED BACHMAN, Captain, Division of Alaska State Troopers, Department
of Public Safety (DPS), came forward to testify on behalf of the
department, which administers the sex offender registration
programs. A trooper for 19 years, he is presently assigned to the
director's office in Anchorage.
CAPTAIN BACHMAN advised members that the Governor is very
supportive of anything to strengthen public protection efforts
through the sex offender registration process. He commented, "In
fact, he has introduced HB 186 and SB 132 to address many of the
issues that are found in this bill as well."
Number 320
CAPTAIN BACHMAN said one area of this bill that causes them the
greatest concern is elevating the crime of failing to register as
a sex offender from a class A misdemeanor to a class C felony. He
stated, "First of all, I would like to give the misdemeanor law
that we presently have a chance to work; and I'll talk in a minute
about what we're doing now to make that happen. But we don't feel
that making this a felony will make a tremendous difference in the
compliance. We feel that enforcement is the actual key to that
compliance issue. When you consider all the added requirements
that are brought about by a felony charge, we feel that it would
cause a lot more of our precious resources to be devoted to fewer
enforcement actions. And we would rather see those additional
resources devoted to the actual enforcement ..., rather than
increasing the cost of each individual enforcement."
CAPTAIN BACHMAN continued, "One way of possibly putting this into
perspective as far as the level of offense is concerned might be to
view this change in this context. If we proceed with this change,
a person would be charged with a class C felony for failing to
register as a sex offender. But if a person were to beat their
`significant other,' they would only be charged with a class A
misdemeanor. And, you know, we certainly want to address ... both
issues, but it does kind of help to put it kind of in a better
perspective when you think of it in those terms. ... And I should
say also that as a class A misdemeanor, the sex offender who fails
to register could be jailed for up to a year, just on this charge
alone. So, once again, we'd like to give the present law a chance
to work with the increased enforcement effort ... that we have
underway right now."
Number 346
CAPTAIN BACHMAN discussed what the department has done since
introduction of this bill, saying, "We no longer record or maintain
a record of people who had accessed the sex offender lists or
individual offender record sheets; it's completely anonymous. We
don't keep any record of who comes in and asks for it. ... In fact,
if a person walks into one of our offices and asks for a copy, we
simply just hand them a copy without any kind of identification
whatsoever. We don't ask them what they're going to do with it.
We simply give it to them."
CAPTAIN BACHMAN continued, "We publish the sex offender registry on
the Internet. It's available 24 hours a day, seven days a week,
communitywide, statewide; it's even available worldwide, if
somebody wanted to access it from anyplace in the world. It's
updated every business day. So, it is the most current information
available anywhere. It's even more current than, say, you would
get if you walked into our office in Fairbanks; they would have the
most recent list that we'd sent to Fairbanks, but getting it off
the Internet would be current within 24 hours ... on any given
business day. And it is true that the Internet is not available in
every community in this state and not available to everyone. But,
as you're certainly aware, that is changing rather rapidly. And
additionally, Internet access is completely anonymous; there's no
record of who accesses that information."
CAPTAIN BACHMAN continued, "The sex offender registry lists and
individual offender information sheets are now available to anyone
at no cost. We used to charge for those lists; we used to charge
for the costs of producing this list. We no longer do that. You
can go to any state trooper post in the state and get a copy of the
list or order up a copy of an individual offender's particular
information sheet. And we give that to anybody at no charge,
again, in an effort to make this as widely accessible as possible."
CAPTAIN BACHMAN stated, "In an effort to increase the level of
enforcement, we've dedicated a clerk to do nothing but conduct
computer research into the information that may assist a police
officer anywhere in the state in locating and charging sex
offenders who fail to register. The clerk researches last known
addresses, vehicles registered, permanent fund dividend
applications, ... property tax records, Department of Corrections
computer information, anything that's out there that she can
research with a computer and put together in a packet to help us to
narrow down where this person might be and then hand this packet
off to a police officer, who now doesn't have to do ... any of the
footwork, any of the research. It's all done for them. And they
can simply go to the last known address or look for these vehicles
that they know were registered to (indisc.) individual. So, we
hope to use less expensive resources to more accurately focus our
more expensive resources, the people who actually have to go out
and (indisc.) contact with these people."
CAPTAIN BACHMAN continued, "We have dedicated one trooper position
here in Anchorage to do two things. The one thing that he does is
he coordinates the enforcement effort statewide, to the extent that
he can. When we produce a packet on someone in Fairbanks or
Juneau, this trooper would then contact somebody personally in one
of those communities and say, `I have this packet coming your way;
could you please go see if you can round this guy up?' The other
thing that he does is he does actual enforcement here in the
Anchorage area. And as you well know, there are quite a few sex
offenders just in this area. Since he's been doing this, he's
already charged six people with failing to register, which is about
as many as were charged statewide all of last year. And this is
just about at a month or so. So, that is, hopefully, going to have
an impact in that we put that out to the press every time we make
one of these charges. And as we make more of them, then ... it
becomes more known that we're coming after these people.
Hopefully, others will come and voluntarily comply; at least,
that's ... our thought at this point."
CAPTAIN BACHMAN concluded, "Lastly, you're going to hear from the
Department of Corrections this morning, and they're going to talk
to you about some very important steps in this process that they're
doing to help us with the people who are in custody and who are out
there under probationary supervision." He thanked the committee
and offered to answer questions.
Number 421
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked what had transpired with the six people that
they had come up with who had failed to register.
CAPTAIN BACHMAN replied, "Well, Mr. Chairman, we do the computer
research, and we send this trooper out to actually find these
people. Once he locates them, it is our position that we are going
to charge them. That may ultimately be resolved later with the
Department of Law, depending on their plans. But we would actually
go and knock on their door or go to their last known place of
business and tell them that they need to come downtown and
register. And we also cite them for failing to register. ... And
then the normal process, ... it's a fixed procedure for a
misdemeanor, failing to register."
Number 435
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked whether most of the people being
picked up aren't unconditionally released.
CAPTAIN BACHMAN replied, "That is correct. We're actually very
early into this process. So, that 15-year period, you know, really
hasn't come into play at this point. ... We have maybe a few people
early in at ... the beginning of this law who have a significant
chunk of that ... unconditional discharge period already past. But
it really has not come into play yet; it's too early at this
point."
Number 447
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said, "That being subject to a condition
for even a misdemeanor would be a violation of a conditional
release, and they would probably buy themselves additional time on
the underlying offense."
CAPTAIN BACHMAN responded, "Yes, they certainly could. And I would
expect that if the prosecution went forward and they were
ultimately convicted, they certainly could, yes."
Number 455
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE referred to earlier discussion of the option
of passing a law that would require a criminal background check for
anyone, including volunteers. He asked for Captain Bachman's
reaction to that.
CAPTAIN BACHMAN replied, "The checks would be, in fact, for
criminal convictions. But the investigations or checks would,
themselves, would not be actual criminal investigations. And the
reason I'm saying that is that any agency with access to criminal
history records could conduct those checks. It wouldn't
necessarily have to be the Department of Public Safety or a
municipal law enforcement agency. An agency, for instance, who
might oversee child care licensing and that sort of thing, like
[the Department of] Health and Social Services, could in fact
themselves conduct those checks. I think it would be a very simple
process that would not require a tremendous amount of resource.
And, ... as you know, the law currently provides for the ability to
do that but doesn't require that it be done. So, I think with a
minor amount of resources, ... anybody with access ... could
certainly conduct those checks."
Number 483
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked whether those kinds of searches are
narrowly tailored to sex offenses or whether they include any
criminal history.
CAPTAIN BACHMAN replied, "Let me say that I think that generally
they would be tailored just to sex offenses. I think it could
depend on what kind of a check you were conducting, and for what
purpose. I certainly think that other criminal convictions could
certainly come into play. And I think in the context that we're
speaking here, it would generally be sex offenses that we would be
looking at."
Number 496
CHAIRMAN GREEN noted that they'd dedicated a trooper. He asked,
"But as far as a burdensome thing, do you see anything else in the
bill itself that would tend to increase your workload beyond the
normal activity?"
CAPTAIN BACHMAN replied, "Mr. Chairman, there are some things that
certainly will increase our workload, but they're also going to be
mandated nationwide. This is going to bring some additional people
into the registration process, for instance, the child kidnapper
people. It also brings in, my recollection is, people who engage
in ... some of the prostitution crimes. It's also going to
require, and I don't recall that it's in this particular bill or
not, but there's going to be some increased contact or
communication with the registry, more often than they're required
to now, that is going to increase our workload. And it is going to
have some fiscal impact. But, as I say, that is something that
we're all going to have to live with, and we're certainly happy to
do that."
Number 520
REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES commented via teleconference that
comparing a sex offender who doesn't register to someone who beats
up a spouse or significant other isn't a good comparison. "I think
the sex offenders are more dangerous," she added.
Number 550
BRUCE RICHARDS, Program Coordinator, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Corrections (DOC), came forward to testify. He
stated, "I guess I'll start with something Captain Bachman
mentioned. The Department of Corrections recently, at the
beginning of October, started to register sex offenders prior to
them leaving the institutions. ... The system prior to this was
that you had seven days ... after leaving a correctional facility
to register with the Department of Public Safety. And it's been
stepped up now where ... you register before you get out. It seems
to make more sense, you know, to get a better idea of who these
people are. ... I even think that if you go a step further, when
you get a conviction, which was brought up previously, it makes
even more sense. So, ... that is something ... that's going on and
I think will help this process, will help the public safety. ... It
will help protect the public."
MR. RICHARDS next referred to the class C felony and to the fiscal
note from the Department of Corrections, which he'd prepared the
previous year when this bill was scheduled for a hearing. He
explained that the fiscal note was based on the prior year's
admissions and actual incarcerations of people who had been charged
for failure to register. He stated, "And as you know now, with the
stepped-up enforcement by the Department of Public Safety, these
numbers will probably change significantly with the class C felony.
You're talking about a two-year presumptive sentence, because these
people are already felons, prior to failing to register. So, we're
going to have them awhile. And it costs money. And ... there's
different numbers out there about how many people are actually out
there that aren't registered; it ranges anywhere from 1,000 to
1,200. If you were to have a stepped-up enforcement effort and we
were to collect all of them, 61 million bucks, roughly, just for
the incarceration costs."
MR. RICHARDS said that doesn't include operation of those new
facilities. That is just taking the per-day cost of incarceration
and multiplying it out. It is a significant impact, and the
current fiscal note is obviously not going to cover this,
especially with stepped-up enforcement. He emphasized that this
will have a major impact on the Department of Corrections, which he
hopes they'll consider in deliberations.
Number 597
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES expressed intense concern about people
registering and doing so in the proper location. She mentioned the
$61 million cost versus the value of a life. While she understood
not having space in the correctional system, she said keeping
people on the street isn't the way to deal with it. She suggested
they should be making a decision on "what is going to make them
register, not penalize them for not registering."
[Representative Berkowitz spoke briefly but it is not on the tape.]
TAPE 97-83, SIDE B
Number 001
MR. RICHARDS mentioned a further issue that involves another
presumptive sentence, which is perjury, such as when a person puts
down the wrong address. He believes that is a class B felony, with
a four-year presumptive sentence. He doesn't know the inaccuracy
rate or the rate of people providing false information, and there
is no way for him to gauge that or provide numbers for that.
Number 010
CHAIRMAN GREEN said, "Okay, so failure is a two and deliberate
misrepresentation or lying is a four, as far as you know."
MR. RICHARDS said yes. He indicated that a section of the bill
covers perjury, and he suggested Ms. Carpeneti may address that.
He added, "That's perjury versus unsworn falsification, I think is
the issue."
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ suggested a person could get "whacked" for
both at the same time, as a person who committed perjury would not
be in compliance.
MR. RICHARDS replied that he doesn't know; he isn't a lawyer.
Number 017
CHAIRMAN GREEN commented that a person with a four-year presumptive
sentence as a felon could be shipped out-of-state.
Number 020
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN explained that they'd put in perjury as a
method of ensuring they didn't get false registrations. The basic
point isn't necessarily to incarcerate people but to make it known
to them that the state isn't going to fool around with them any
longer. They'd obey the law or else the penalties would be severe.
As Representative James had mentioned, while $61 million is a lot
of money, Representative Ryan's nine-year-old son is worth much,
much more than that to him.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN suggested if we don't provide public safety as
a system of government, there is probably not much use in being a
government. He indicated it is incumbent upon the legislature to
protect the citizens of the state to the best of their ability, to
put forth the laws necessary. He said he can't imagine that all of
these people will be incarcerated at the same time, that they'll
all disobey the law. He said this law is to be proactive, to keep
them from disobeying the law. He didn't know how realistic the
1,200 figure is. Although he hopes they won't have to
reincarcerate any of them because they will obey the law, he feels
there is a need to have a strong "stick" to show the others that
this kind of behavior won't be tolerated.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said he couldn't help but applaud
Representative Ryan for pointing out the need to fund public safety
adequately. He indicated the Alaska State Troopers are already
unfunded by 30 or 31 posts now. He encouraged adequate funding,
saying that is the surest route we have to generating public
safety.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN commented that he believes the department
already has the ability to charge someone with perjury if that
person registers with a false address.
Number 070
BARBARA BRINK, Director, Public Defender Agency, Department of
Administration, came forward to testify. She expressed
appreciation for Representative Ryan's efforts in this regard and
said it is a problem being struggled with nationwide. She said she
finds herself in the pleasant position of actually concurring with
members of the Department of Public Safety and the Department of
Corrections on some of her own agency's concerns.
MS. BRINK said the first issue was whether or not it would be a
good idea to change this crime from a misdemeanor to a felony. She
believes this should be considered seriously, with the benefits of
harsher penalties weighed against the likelihood that it will
increase registration.
MS. BRINK stated, "I know our goal for everyone is to increase
registration, provide more notice to the members of the public and
to law enforcement. In considering increasing the penalty, you
must consider the increased costs. I, like the representative from
the Department of Corrections, have heard different numbers about
those people who are in ... noncompliance, ranging from 1,200 to
2,500 people who have not registered. Taking that low number, if
all of those people were to be prosecuted for a class C felony
offense - and I would suspect, as in many felonies, (indisc.)
approximately 90 percent of them would be found to be indigent and
appointed to the Public Defender Agency - in order to comply with
minimal attorney standards, that would take ten additional lawyers
to handle that many new felonies. The national law enforcement
association standards require that no lawyer handle more than 150
felonies per year. That's what I'm using to base my figures on."
Number 080
MS. BRINK continued, "So, I think if that's not necessary to comply
with the federal standards, and that's not necessary to continue
receiving our federal funding, that might be an area that we should
take a harder look at in deciding how we should handle this. Now,
I would urge this committee to keep that as a misdemeanor. Another
reason I would urge that is you have to really understand the large
gene pool that you're dealing with, with potential offenders. This
bill makes it a lot harder to register. It requires you to do it
more often, quarterly rather than annually. It requires you to do
it a lot quicker, three days in some instances, seven days in other
instances. There is a lot more information you have to give about
your address or your motor vehicles."
MS. BRINK continued, "And so, there are more places for people to
slip up, to not get it together, to fail to make it down to the
troopers every three months. And so, you are going to have not the
numbers that we're dealing with now, people who have not complied
with the statute, but you're going to have even more numbers
because it's a lot more difficult to comply with that statute.
What you're doing, then, is you're grouping together those people
who are willful violators, those people who are blowing it off and
ignoring it, with those people who just aren't capable of complying
with dotting every `i' and crossing every `t.' So, you would be
increasing the gene pool."
MS. BRINK discussed unconditional discharge. She said,
"Representative Porter is correct. Unconditional discharge means
you don't have any more probation, you don't have any parole,
there's really nothing to supervise (indisc.). So, you have to
understand how long people fall under this statute. If a person is
convicted of a single sex offense, they're going to do eight years
in prison, presumptive term. When they get out of prison, I can
tell you the prevailing rate today is they're going to do ten years
on probation. So, by the time they are unconditionally discharged,
they've already done 18 years supervised, ten of those on parole or
probation with the registration requirement. So, by the time the
15 years would roll around, where they would be eligible to come
off this list, they've been on the list for 25 years."
MS. BRINK continued, "I'm not urging you to change the length of
it. I just want you to understand that that's going to continue to
be a larger and larger pool of people that need to follow these
requirements very strictly." She said it could lead to a larger
and larger pool of potential violators, both intentional and
inadvertent.
Number 092
MS. BRINK said she wanted to talk about an area that they hadn't
addressed yet, although it probably comes up more seriously in the
next bill relating to community notification. The current bill
provides for newspaper notification, and she wanted to provide
information about the impact of newspaper community notification.
MS. BRINK advised members that Washington was the first state in
the country to pass the sex offender registration bill; they are
therefore way ahead of Alaska in terms of assessing its impact.
Since Washington's notification law was passed in 1990, police
reported 33 harassment cases of those people, following 942
community notifications.
MS. BRINK stated, "That means that when they put that out to the
general public, about 3-1/2 percent of all those people suffer as
victims of crime later than that, because of people's feeling that
`these people aren't acceptable in my community,' that they
shouldn't be allowed to live. It invokes a lot of strong emotions
in people. In Everett, people picketed outside of a sex offender's
apartment until he had to move. Other people had their homes set
on fire, rocks, things of that nature."
MS. BRINK continued, "I'm not saying that, you know, we should
place their interests and their rights to privacy above everyone
else's. All I'm saying is we should consider very seriously the
impact of how far we take this information and how far we spread
it. And it seems to me that a system that the troopers have
devised is very effective, because it takes those people who are
interested and have a vested interest in getting that information,
but it makes it as easy as it can be for them to get that
information. So, the information isn't distributed randomly to
those people who don't have an interest or a legitimate interest
and just want to use it to create difficulties or problems."
MS. BRINK continued, "Additionally, we all know that that kind of
public notification and stigmatizing could hinder someone's ability
to rehabilitate themselves. I'd be interested in hearing those
figures on recidivism myself. After being in this business for 15
years, I think it's really dangerous to try to predict what people
are going to do in the future. I mean, psychologists and
psychiatrists and people -- we're all assuming these people are
going to do something bad in the future. That's a really tricky
area, and it's really difficult to predict someone's actions in the
future, based on their actions in the past."
MS. BRINK said that brought her to her final point. She said she'd
be interested in seeing Representative Ryan's sexual predator law.
She stated, "I know that's the new wave of the future, that people
are considering that. And, of course, I don't have any specific
comments to address to that, but the idea that -- psychiatrists and
community corrections professionals and the criminal justice system
for years have been trying to predict future behavior. And it's a
really dangerous thing in locking people up because we think we
know what they're going to be doing in the future."
Number 120
CHAIRMAN GREEN stated, "You expressed a strong concern that what
we're doing now is adequate, and yet your opening remark was that
there's somewhere between 1,200 and 2,500 unregistered sex
offenders."
MS. BRINK said those figures were provided from the Department of
Corrections.
CHAIRMAN GREEN responded that 1,200 or 2,500 is a significant
number either way. He asked, "And if we don't do something more
than we're doing now, can we anticipate that that's going to stay
at a very high number? I mean, there hasn't been anything to
reduce it yet." He asked how many are out there that we don't know
about, that haven't been caught. He further asked whether we are
subjecting our youth to a jungle if we don't do something
significant.
Number 130
MS. BRINK replied, "I understand your question, Mr. Chairman. And
I think what I've taken note of is the changes that have been made.
I think the DOC policy of registering people before they ever get
out takes care of a large number of those people, because those
people do serve jail time. I mean, those are people who, due to
presumptive sentencing and our current state of the laws, are going
to jail. So, I would suspect that since we've instituted that
policy, which I understand is recent, we're going to have much
better compliance with anyone new. Additionally, there's a notice
problem."
MS. BRINK continued, "Now, the rules have changed, and any client
that I represent gets their judgment and it has the requirement
right on it. For years before we had a bill like this, nobody knew
that ten years later, 15 years later, 20 years later they were
going to have to register. And so, I think there's a lack of
knowledge for those people who have been out of jail for quite a
while and are already back in their communities and ... hadn't had
any problems, so that the problem is getting those older folks into
the system, because it's new. And I think the changes that have
been instituted will help us catch up and get a much greater
compliance number."
Number 143
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked, "From your position, do you feel that a more
severe penalty or potential, such as being a felony, would have any
influence upon a conviction? In other words, here's ... an accused
sex offender in court, and the judge is looking at the potential of
incarceration by presumptive sentence and then this period of
registration and the consequences of a stubbed toe along the way.
Is there, in your mind, any influence on the judicial system that
says, `Well, I think I'll err on the side of safety here, because
that's a pretty stiff sentence for this poor old guy.'"
MS. BRINK replied, "Mr. Chairman, I think given the nature of the
violations that I have seen, increased penalty wouldn't be a
factor. Most of the violations I have seen have been rural
Alaskans who aren't in touch with world and community events on the
cutting edge, who are busy living subsistence lifestyles in remote
locations, who have not made a conscious decision not to register
but just it isn't the number-one priority in their lives. And
perhaps it should be, but they're not considering jail or penalties
or anything like that. Many of the violators that I've come in
contact with were inspired by the simple citation to run down
immediately and register. And I think that my experience would be
borne out by the experience of the members of Public Safety. Those
people get that ticket; they go register. It's not like they're
making a conscious choice and saying, `I'm going to lie in wait;
I'm going to hide; I'm not going to comply with this.'"
MS. BRINK continued, "And secondly, Representative Berkowitz had
brought out a good point. We recently represented a gentleman
accused of failure to register, ... and he was charged with the
misdemeanor. He had registered upon release from jail. He had
registered the first time he moved. And I think he even registered
the second time he moved. But he failed to register the third time
that he moved. And he was in compliance with everything else. He
was seeing his probation officer. He was not supervised (indisc.).
And he was prosecuted. Even though he had demonstrated a
willingness and an ability to register, for some reason at that
period of his life, it didn't become a priority. He not only was
prosecuted for the misdemeanor; they did (indisc.) felony probation
for the underlying offense that he was serving time for. So, I
think that the message is getting out there and that people are
getting better notice and that, with the assistance of the DOC and
DPS, there will be better compliance."
Number 173
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether the fear of retribution is a factor.
MS. BRINK replied, "I don't think it's so much the fear of
retribution as ignorance and nonprioritization. Even the ticket
was enough to make them go. So, would the fact that it was a C
felony have improved their awareness? I don't think so. It's just
making that a priority, giving them good notice, making sure that -
- I mean, this bill requires them to do that every three months.
That's a fairly onerous request. And so, getting them in the habit
of doing that would be sufficient, I think ...."
CHAIRMAN GREEN commented that it is a pretty heinous crime to
commit against society, and if it causes a little inconvenience, it
doesn't bother him at all.
Number 184
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said it had been recently brought to his
attention that the Division of Family and Youth Services (DFYS) has
different standards for how they define child abuse, depending on
whether an Alaska Native is involved. He asked whether Ms. Brink
knew whether different standards apply relating to sexual abuse.
MS. BRINK replied, "I think the benefit of the criminal milieu, as
opposed to the child protective milieu, is that things are very
well defined. There is no doubt about what constitutes sexual
abuse of a minor."
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE stated his belief that while sexual offense is
a broad category and some people undoubtedly can change, pedophiles
will not change, as that is their sexual nature.
MS. BRINK replied, "I agree with you that predilection, research
has shown, is something that is ingrained. But I think the
interesting things the literature and the experts talk about is
whether or not the behavior or the conduct can be changed. And I
know that the Western Washington sex offender program and the
Hiland Mountain program, they are concerned with changing behavior.
They realize that you may not be able to change the way someone
thinks. But you certainly can empower them with the ability to
control their conduct, and that's the basis of their work." She
said the question is whether they've successfully completed a
program that gives them the ability to say, "And that's never going
to happen again; I'm never going to do that again."
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE inquired about the success rate.
MS. BRINK replied that there is conflicting literature.
Number 217
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Ms. Brink to explain the Kansas case
where the Supreme Court came down on the sexual predator; he said
he hadn't read it.
MS. BRINK said it had been a while since she read it. As she
understood it, there is a very high burden of proof upon the states
to prove that someone "absolutely, positively cannot be trusted out
in public." It would be similar in analogy to standards for
committing people to the Alaska Psychiatric Institute (API), that
they are a danger to themselves or others such that it is not safe
to let them go. Ms. Brink said, "And so, I believe that if a state
were to impose a system like that, they would necessarily have to
include an adjudication process whereby that person had due
process, the state would have to meet that level of proof, and they
would be entitled to defend themselves, because in essence what
you're doing is you're locking people up based on what you think
they're going to do in the future."
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked whether Ms. Brink remembered the
factual situation.
MS. BRINK said no and offered to get that information for the next
hearing.
Number 232
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN said he applauds the efforts of the various
agencies to become proactive since the introduction of this bill.
He noted that few crimes in our society make a person more of a
pariah. He stated, "I personally feel that, as a policy-making
body for the state, that whatever it takes to ensure the safety of
our children is what we have to do. And I'm willing to go, as you
can see from the legislation, the extra mile. I don't want to
interfere with anybody's ability to be rehabilitated. I hope that
rehabilitation is possible, if not, the change of behavior, so that
they may not be able to be rehabilitated but they stop doing what
they do. And that's the purpose behind it. The severity of this
is such that there's a big `stick' out there. You know that your
probation is revoked. Under the felony conviction, you're going to
the slammer. And, hopefully, ... that will make these people
comply with the law."
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN noted that people do move a lot. The bill
addresses not only registration of their own vehicles, but they
must also reveal other vehicles they have access to and may use.
Noting that people caution their children not to talk to strangers,
take candy from strangers, and so forth, Representative Ryan said
people have told him of some of the insidious ways in which the
offenders act. They have an instinctive ability to relate to a
child on the child's level. They will say things, for instance,
such as, "I've lost my dog; will you help me come look for it?"
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN said it is difficult for adults who don't
engage in this behavior to surmise that these people have this
ability to get this level of communication with children. Since
obtaining some knowledge, he has of course counseled his son to be
very careful. Representative Ryan said he doesn't know what the
solution is but hopes this will be a potential solution. "But if
we have to err on any side, I'd rather be more severe than too
lenient," he concluded.
Number 268
CHAIRMAN GREEN stated his understanding that this is a continuing
cycle, as abused children or sexually molested children then become
abusers or molesters themselves. He suggested that in deliberating
the cost of trying to stop it, they should consider the future as
well; if they could stop it now, perhaps there would be fewer
instances in the next generation.
Number 277
DENALI DANIELS, Standing Together Against Rape (STAR), came forward
to testify. She noted there had been some concern expressed
regarding the profile of these predators; she said it is difficult
to define. Referring to the possibility of unconditional
sentencing, she said she knew it was in an "infancy" stage; she
acknowledged that there is no way to comment on something that is
not yet in writing.
MS. DANIELS explained that STAR does education in the schools and
youth groups in the Anchorage area, and it is the only agency in
the state that deals strictly with sexual assault. It is "abundant
in resources in this area." She said that if this legislature gets
to the point to where they are discussing "what things in a
predator could come out later" regarding sentencing and how long
they are in jail, that probably needs to be talked about a lot,
with "many, many people, including agencies like STAR, involved."
She noted that in just determining how to define it, there are so
many different levels of a sexual predator. While she realizes the
intent of this bill relates to children, the language covers other
victims of sexual assault, and there are many different victims.
She concluded by saying the main thing she wanted to point out is
the "different sides of sexual predators and how we're going to
define them and who is going to be involved in that process."
Number 316
CHAIRMAN GREEN suggested that Ms. Daniels submit any concepts. He
then called on Ms. Carpeneti.
Number 320
ANNE D. CARPENETI from the Department of Law spoke again on HB 252.
She said it is obviously time to give increased scrutiny to sex
offender registration. House Bill 252 is similar to the Governor's
bill in many ways, and it goes a long way towards satisfying the
federal requirements of the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against
Children and Sexually Violent Offenders Registration Act.
MS. CARPENETI expressed concern about two areas of the bill. The
first, mentioned earlier, is raising to a class C felony the
offense of failing to register, which also includes under the bill
failure to file a quarterly address verification notice; that can
be as minor as failing to put in the mailbox a return receipt
verifying that one's address is the same as it was 90 days before.
MS. CARPENETI explained, "We believe that a class A misdemeanor,
which is the maximum one year in jail and a significant fine,
strikes a reasonable balance between the need to have serious
consequences for the failure to register, or to file your quarterly
address verification notice, and the possibility of building up
charges on a person .... You should remember that ... a C felony
would be a guaranteed presumptive term, because this will be the
second conviction for a felony offense; so that's a two-year
presumptive sentence."
MS. CARPENETI referred to page 4 and said the other area of concern
relates to Section 8 of the bill, which provides that filing
incorrect information in the registration statement would be a
perjury offense. Present law provides that filing incorrect
information is unsworn falsification, a class A misdemeanor. Ms.
Carpeneti said this seems to be a reasonable hammer over a person
to file accurate information. Perjury is a class D felony, which
would result in a presumptive term of four years in jail, because
this will be a second felony offense. Ms. Carpeneti specified that
those were their major concerns with this particular version of the
sex offender registration bill.
Number 370
MS. CARPENETI explained that custodial interference is not covered
under the sex offender registration program; it is an affirmative
defense to kidnapping when a relative of a child under 18 takes
custody of the child with the primary intent of taking custody. It
would not fall under kidnapping in the first degree, which is
required to be registered under the Wetterling Act unless it does
fall into this custodial interference category.
CHAIRMAN GREEN indicated it falls under Title 11.
Number 380
JANICE LIENHART, Victims for Justice, came forward to testify,
saying they are supportive of this issue. She suggested that from
the victims' point of view, in terms of preventing crime, predators
should never get out of jail. "And every time they get out, you
feel sad because you realize there's going to be other victims,"
she said. "I mean, we don't work with sexual assault, but we hear
so many terror stories of what it's been like when someone has
violated you. And when you're working with victims, ... one of the
most important thing[s] you have to do is you have to learn to walk
through your pain. You don't avoid it. You have to walk through
it. And I honestly feel that when we're working with criminals, we
need to use that approach, because we make excuses for them, we
provide all these loopholes for them, and our laws are made to
protect them because they don't want to put an innocent person in
jail. And it often works to the adverse, and of course the victim
is the one that suffers the most."
MS. LIENHART said she is well aware of these sexual predators and
has heard tales about them. They admit they are predators, and
they have ways of manipulating people that others can't even begin
to think about. She believes that a necessary approach, applicable
to most of our crime issues, is getting the communities involved.
She suggested having a "really incredible education program" to
make the communities aware of how sex offenders manipulate and how
dangerous they are, beyond the Department of Corrections just
sending a letter; she suggested the department could even have sex
offenders on television telling people what they actually do. She
indicated that with such education in the communities, people would
be prepared to deal with the predators.
MS. LIENHART acknowledged that this probably couldn't be made into
a law because of rights. She stated, "But somehow, those guys have
to be accountable, they have to face the music by facing their
community instead of letting a letter do it, so they never have to
be seen and kind of can disguise themselves." She suggested if
people can identify them and know them, and be aware of how
manipulative they are, the predators won't get away with anything.
"And your kids will be safer because the kids will ... avoid him
when he gets too nice," she concluded.
Number 432
KIMBERLEE VANDERHOOF testified via teleconference from Fairbanks.
Referring to Barbara Brink's testimony and the indication that
about 3.5 percent of those whose names were published in Washington
were harassed, Ms. Vanderhoof noted that harassment is also a
crime. If convicted sex offenders are harassed, chances are they
would be able to identify the people harassing them or provide law
enforcement with enough information to prosecute those people with
harassment. She suggested that providing names in a public forum,
including the Internet specifically, will give "our community and
Fairbanks" a real sense of empowerment for the public to protect
itself.
MS. VANDERHOOF continued, "Right now, we only have three
investigators assigned to sex crimes, and it's a major concern of
mine that we're talking about overburdening a system here in
Fairbanks that really needs more funding. If we're going to make
failure to register a class C felony, what are we going to do about
the Department of Corrections, who's already housing inmates in the
chapel, that is already overcrowded and overburdened? I think that
making it a class C felony is going to throw straw on a camel's
back when the camel is already on its knees."
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES informed listeners that she had to leave.
Number 567
SUZANNE MANNIKKO came forward to testify. Referring to
registration on the Internet, she pointed out that when someone
doesn't want to be found by a process server, for instance, that
person gives vague addresses. She provided examples from a list
that she had marked. A sex offender who lived near her had
provided a vague address, 1.1 mile on her own road, despite the
fact that everyone living on that road has a specific address. She
travels that road daily; at that spot, there is a "conical box and
a vacant lot" on one side of the road and 20 acres of undeveloped
land on the other side. Furthermore, when she'd pulled up this
person's registration by zip code, a second registration listed his
physical address as a post office box. Ms. Mannikko stated, "I
have several of these sex offenders who are doing this. Well, law
enforcement may have privy to more information than I do, but this
is unacceptable."
MS. MANNIKKO said she and her sister are for this bill, but they
feel it is just a small step in a long step that needs to be taken.
She discussed a sexual predator, Charles Jacobs (ph), who'd conned
children by providing candy and toys. In 1981, Mr. Jacobs had a
felony offense involving children; between 1981 and 1992, he was
charged with dangerous drugs, contributing to the delinquency of a
minor and assault; and in 1992, he was charged with sexual assault
and carnal felony abuse involving children.
MS. MANNIKKO said she'd gone to the courthouse to see what the
district attorney (DA) is recommending for a sentence for Mr.
Jacobs. A trial had been planned for July, but the defendant
changed his plea. Ms. Mannikko stated, "So now the DA makes a deal
with this man for a third-time felon, one count, ten year maximum.
Disgusting. Absolutely disgusting. ... Second count, two years."
Noting that this man would be sentenced on November 7, Ms. Mannikko
indicated the offender was looking at maybe ten years; with "good
time and whatever," he'd serve less than that.
MS. MANNIKKO stated, "And this is just one of the most horrible
crimes against our children. This crime destroys children's souls,
and we've got to stop it. The recidivism rate, we know how high it
is. ... We see it in the paper every day. We have to find the
money to put these people away. We need to change our priorities
and find the funds to put these terrible people away."
Number 551
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE indicated that although a big enough sentence
may be a threat to these people, he doesn't believe that is the
case. First, they don't believe they'll be caught. And second,
the threat hasn't bothered them, because they re-offend.
Representative Bunde stated, "We simply must warehouse some of
these people." He said for protection of the public, he knows of
no other solution that doesn't involve an operation.
MS. MANNIKKO commented, "This man has proved that he has a mental
illness. And our state can come up with a law to put these people
away. The Supreme Court has handed that down to us; we can
determine them mentally ill and put them away where they need to
be, because you know what this does to families. It destroys them,
not only the children's lives [but also] the mother that has to
pick up the pieces and put these little lives back together again."
CHAIRMAN GREEN suggested that perhaps the seemingly barbaric
operation isn't so barbaric after all. He advised members that
they would take this issue up again when the legislature reconvenes
in Juneau. One person had some potential amendments, and there
would be a proposed committee substitute.
Number 607
"BILLIE" came forward to testify, specifying that she would provide
only that name because she is the mother of a sex offender and the
grandmother of a victim. She and her husband, who was with her,
are 35-year residents of Alaska; she is a retired state employee.
Billie recounted her family's story, sometimes tearfully. When
their son had come to them and told them that he had touched his
daughter inappropriately, they were very angry but decided not to
let their anger become destructive. "This was a family in trouble
that needed help," she said. "We encouraged our son and his family
and helped them get into counseling, for their mental health's
sake." [Ends mid-speech because of tape change.]
TAPE 97-84, SIDE A
Number 006
BILLIE indicated her son knew that his spouse could not survive in
their home while he was in jail. So they sold it, and he got them
established in a smaller place. They also got into counseling.
And her son did go to jail, to the Palmer Correctional Center.
While he was there, Billie and her husband helped their son's
spouse continue in college. Billie stated, "By her very careful
budgeting, her student loan, her part-time job, our help from our
retirement income, and my shopping sales for food and clothing for
her and the children, she got through that period without having to
go on welfare. We were determined she would not go on welfare."
BILLIE said when her son was released, they persuaded him with some
difficulty to move back home and return to college. The state had
said he would have no contact with his children, although he had
contact with his spouse because of legal affairs and other things
they had to attend to. Previously, he'd dropped out of college
because their youngest child needed four operations, and the
expense had not allowed him to go to college.
BILLIE reported that her son and his spouse now live separately, he
in his parents' home and she in the other home. Between them,
their part-time jobs and their student loans, they'd supported
their children and pursued their degrees. Both completed their
degrees; their children got to see their mom and dad graduate in
the same year, in the same ceremony. Both got good positions, with
the father's position ensuring the children's college education.
Number 028
BILLIE stated, "My granddaughter, her mother saw that she stayed
active. She was in counseling. We gave her love and support. We
did not want this situation to become a lifelong thing; we wanted
to come out of it healthy mentally. This family did. And we
banded together to do that. My granddaughter excelled in the sport
of her choice; she won trophies. My son, his spouse and that
daughter went into counseling together after his release, so that
he would have access to his children. He had a younger child that
didn't know what happened to dad; he just dropped out of the scene.
`Where is my dad? Where is my dad?' The state agreed for him to
have visiting rights with the kids, with his spouse as a third
party, and this was a good situation. A good situation."
BILLIE continued, "Then, in December when this thing happened in
Fairbanks, you know, the incident with the child, (indisc.), his
parole officer ... called him and told him there would be
absolutely no contact with the children whatsoever. And it hit him
like a brick wall. Now, my son did not rape his daughter. He
inappropriately touched her. He knew they needed counseling; he
sacrificed his home to get that counseling. Then when Internet
came on line, I saw that in the paper and I panicked. I called
Sean Parnell, my Senator, and I told him the same situation I'm
telling you. And I said, `Now my son will not be able to hold his
job; he'll have to go back to being a carpenter, and there will go
his children's education.' And Sean said, `No, hold on. Hold
on.'"
Number 073
BILLIE said she doesn't know how much thought was given to the
Internet listings. As she understood it, a "PTA mom" had wanted
access so that when her child or children went to Fairbanks, Kenai
or elsewhere for a sporting event, she could access the person's
home where her child was going to stay. Billie said that
information was already available to the Alaska State Troopers.
She told how her own teenage granddaughter's friends can readily
pull up the Internet and see her dad on there. Billie said her
granddaughter has lost many friends and has dropped out of sports.
The boys treat her differently. Although her mother transferred
her to another school, the Internet is there.
BILLIE advised members that her son hasn't lived in her home for
almost two years. Since the listings on the Internet, she has had
numerous phone calls where no one answered, and truck tires have
run across the corner of her lawn. She'd lived in that home for 15
years without a problem before. And she doesn't believe it is
anybody from her neighborhood, because they are "grandma and
grandpa to all the kids in the neighborhood."
BILLIE said her son lived with them almost three years. He went to
work, came home and spent a lot of time on the computer. If any
neighborhood kids happened to come in, he never came out of his
bedroom, because he was under guidance: no children under 16. Nor
did he go to Thanksgiving or Christmas get-togethers for their
large family, because there were children under 16. "He has abided
by every rule that has been put on him," Billie stated.
BILLIE said she believes there are many teenagers in her
granddaughter's situation, whose dads are on the Internet. If the
teenagers are in a computer lab and some kid decides to pull this
up on the computer, that child is victimized again. Billie said
her granddaughter's brother has been in many fights over the abuse
that other kids have given her granddaughter because of this.
BILLIE stated, "Now, this is looking at it from the standpoint of
an offender and a victim in the same family. And this family has
bound together to come through this. My husband says that in his
75 years, and my 70 years, we've been through a lot and we are
tempered steel and we will get through it. But my granddaughter is
not tempered steel. And she is being continually victimized by the
Internet. Almost all teenagers have computers now, just like every
home has a TV."
BILLIE suggested there should be some level of abuse that
determines whether these people are listed on the Internet or for
other public access. The Alaska State Troopers office maintains a
list; so do probation officers, who are in communication and know
where these people live and work. These people are required to
report when they move and to where. Billie again discussed her
son, a first-time nonviolent offender who has complied with
everything required, who was in voluntary counseling before ever
going to the correctional facility and who has been in state-
approved sexual counseling ever since he got out. She said he has
a short time to go on his probation, and he has abided by every
rule, including not contacting his kids since last December.
Number 130
BILLIE stated, "And it hurts. ... I don't know about all these
other people that molest multiple kids and whatnot. I only know
that in our family, we have had a tragedy. We have bound together
to take care of it. And we're going to take care of it. But my
granddaughter is going to be continually victimized, for 15 years,
if he's on that Internet, she and many, many other children that
are victims of incest."
BILLIE said she knows that legislators struggle with laws, trying
to do the best and protect everybody. She stated, "But surely
there is some way you can work out where these first offenders,
nonviolent situations, are not put on public access for the sake of
these children, victims. The fact that we do not want this to
continue into future generations, like you said they go, that's why
we're having the counseling, why ... our son's still in counseling,
why our granddaughter went in counseling. We do not want this to
further itself."
BILLIE suggested that with public notification, troopers going
door-to-door, and mailing out letters and lists, there may be
abuse. She believes that if letters had been circulated within a
three-block radius while her son lived with her for three years,
they couldn't have produced the success story they had. The
troopers had his information, and anybody who needed it could have
gone there. Billie asked, "How are these people going to
rehabilitate? Where are they going to live? How are they going to
get jobs? How are they going to keep jobs to support their
families? And if they can't support their families, then they
become a deadbeat dad or a deadbeat mom or whatever, and they're in
the second crunch. I don't know the solution, but I wanted you to
know from another person's perspective." She expressed concern
about how this will affect her own son's job.
Number 176
CHAIRMAN GREEN thanked Billie and said it must have taken a
tremendous amount of courage for her to come there and speak. He
said the committee would certainly concur that there perhaps should
be some degree of notification; here was a man who voluntarily came
forward, rather than being caught. He assured Billie that they
would consider her testimony seriously, noting that the bill's
sponsor and the sponsor of HB 273 had both heard her comments. He
then thanked participants. (HB 252 was held over.)
CHAIRMAN GREEN called a brief at-ease, then called the meeting back
to order.
HB 273 - NOTIFY COMMUNITY ABOUT SEX OFFENDERS
[Contains discussion relating to HB 252.]
Number 202
CHAIRMAN GREEN announced the next item of business, House Bill No.
273, "An Act relating to notification of the public concerning sex
offenders."
Number 208
REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY MASEK, sponsor, read from the sponsor
statement:
"The purpose of this legislation is to provide a mechanism for
families to better protect their children from those within our
society who would prey upon them. The fact of the matter is Alaska
is becoming one of the worst places in the nation to raise young
children. The incidence of child abuse and molestation is among
the highest in the nation, and I think as legislators we need to do
something to change that.
"House Bill 273 will require the state to notify people whenever a
convicted sexual predator moves into their neighborhood. This may
cause an increased burden upon those state agencies responsible for
maintaining contact with paroled offenders; however, as an incident
in Anchorage this past April shows, it is important that families
have advanced warning in any situation where their children may be
at risk.
"And I hope you can join me in getting behind House Bill 273 in an
effort to protect Alaska's children. There is a lot of work to be
done, but by working together along with those state agencies
involved, I believe we can provide safe neighborhoods for our
children."
Number 230
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK advised members that HB 273 amends an existing
statute by adding a new section. She referred to page 1, line 13,
which says, "(C) provide notice of the name and address of a sex
offender and the crime for which the sex offender was convicted to
(i) each residence and business within a one-mile radius of the
address where the sex offender resides in a rural area and within
a three-square-block area of the address where the sex offender
resides in an urban area". Representative Masek reported that it
will also notify the superintendent of the school district in which
the sex offender resides, as well as other persons the department
determines appropriate to notify.
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK expressed her desire to work with colleagues
here in the legislature and with state agencies to make this a
better bill. She mentioned a possible committee substitute and
amendments, and she stated her willingness to work towards any
needed changes. She advised members that Eddie Grasser could
answer technical questions.
Number 250
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether Representative Masek was familiar with
HB 252, which the committee had also heard that day.
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK said yes, she'd listened to the testimony.
CHAIRMAN GREEN noted that HB 252 also amends subsection (C) and
adds subsection (D) as well, although it doesn't "go to the
specificity" that this does, such as personal notification of
everyone within a nine-square-block area or within one mile in a
rural area. He also referred to testimony on HB 252 by "Billie."
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK confirmed that she had heard that testimony.
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether Representative Masek feels that this
bill should apply to anyone, including the case cited by Billie,
whose son had come forward voluntarily and then accomplished those
things that society said he had to do. Chairman Green stated his
understanding that Billie's primary concern is notification on the
Internet, which obviously can be found by anyone. He suggested
that Representative Masek obviously wants neighborhoods to be
protected or at least aware.
Number 270
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK explained that she lives in an "urban setting"
in a rural area. Her son and other neighborhood children live
there and go to the school bus; residents hadn't realized a sex
offender lives within walking distance of that bus stop. When the
parents found out, they took more precautions to protect their
children. Representative Masek acknowledged there may be different
classes of offenders. She specified that she is looking at those
that are more dangerous to society and more dangerous to strangers
such as the kids out walking on the streets.
CHAIRMAN GREEN stated his understanding that more than half of the
offenses occur within families, as they'd just heard in discussion
of HB 252, or by someone personally known by the child. He
expressed concern that if they went to this extent to notify this
nine-square-block area, there may still be a risk when the child
gets on the bus, goes downtown to a movie, and so forth. He asked
whether notification in the neighborhood would make any major
difference. For example, the offense could be by "Uncle John," who
lives across town. He clarified that he was trying to determine
whether these offenses are done by people within or outside of the
neighborhood.
Number 305
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK referred to an incident that April in
Anchorage, in Mountain View, which involved children in a
laundromat. She said that had the parents known an offender lived
in that apartment complex, they'd have paid more special attention
to their children.
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked the reason for the nine-square-block size.
For example, were most of the offenses, if they occurred within a
neighborhood, within a three-block area?
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK answered that it was modeled after the
Louisiana law.
Number 326
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER indicated he had a similar question: Is
there a correlation between offenses and the residence of the
offender? He said otherwise, this may be helpful but wouldn't
eliminate such offenses. He mentioned the need to define
"predator" in order to do everything possible to track, identify
and publicize those people, without having others who don't fall
within that definition be unnecessarily harassed for the rest of
their lives. He offered to work with the sponsor to that end.
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK said she believes it is important for the
public to know that there is a predator and that there is a
definition relating to different classifications.
Number 372
EDDIE GRASSER, Legislative Assistant to Representative Masek,
stated his understanding that Representative Masek's bill intends
to notify a neighborhood when someone who has been convicted, and
who is getting out of prison, moves into that neighborhood. They'd
already know that a person is an offender. Mr. Grasser indicated
the sponsor's office had gone through many reports, and there seems
to be a debatable question about the levels.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER advised members that he has some background
in this area. He stated, "It's been my experience, limited as it
has been, that the predator that we're trying to really get at here
is not going to offend within three blocks of his residence. There
will be some that will, no doubt about it. But the most extreme -
and I don't mind using his name, Chico Rodriguez (ph) - that guy is
manipulative, is clever, is going to do all the kinds of things to
subvert any particular thing that we would try to do halfway.
That's the guy, as far as I'm concerned, that ought to have his
picture on every telephone pole in Anchorage. Of course, we can't
do that .... But at the other end of the extreme, ... somebody who
got nailed for indecent exposure because they took a leak at the
wrong time shouldn't be dropped into this net."
MR. GRASSER noted that HB 273 was introduced at the end of session.
Since then, they'd talked to the commissioner's office and the
Department of Public Safety. The sponsor's office had come up with
a whole list of questions that aren't necessarily addressed in the
bill right now; they are working to try to find answers, and they
would try to work with the Department of Public Safety to that end.
MR. GRASSER said some of the questions they'd raised themselves
address concerns raised by Billie in discussion of HB 252 that day.
Those include what level of offender they want to notify the
community about, how long the offender will remain on the
notification list, and what a resident is. For example, does the
owner of an empty lot require notification? Should each household
be notified, or just the president of a homeowners association?
Mr. Grasser said they have a whole page of questions that they need
to answer themselves.
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether they were planning a committee
substitute.
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK said yes.
Number 392
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE indicated his questions could wait until the
sponsor's own questions were answered. He suggested one rural mile
in the Louisiana model may not translate well to one mile in
Alaska. He brought up costs and said he'd be very interested in
seeing the fiscal note. He concurred with the desire to get at the
"really bad guys" without victimizing people who had made a single
mistake.
Number 407
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ also expressed interest in seeing the
fiscal note, suggesting it may be a well-intentioned idea that,
unless funded adequately, would have a consequence to other aspects
of law enforcement. While troopers provided notice, at the same
time they'd be unable to investigate other crimes, which would be
problematic unless this is funded adequately.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said another concern is that it seems to
require that the state assume an affirmative duty to notify people
in an area. He asked, "And if the state fails for some reason -
someone moves in, someone's not home - to provide notice, and there
is some kind of assault that occurs subsequently, would that
subject the state to a suit? And what would the potential
ramifications of that suit be?"
Number 423
MR. GRASSER said that is one of the questions they'd written down.
Number 431
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK advised members that they would come back to
the committee, probably in January, with a proposed committee
substitute and answers to the questions.
Number 442
TED BACHMAN, Captain, Division of Alaska State Troopers, Department
of Public Safety, came forward to testify, saying most of the
practical issues had been raised already. He thanked committee
members for their comments, which he believes are right on point.
He stated, "We certainly don't mean to be at all obstructionist ...
in this process. We certainly support the public safety aspect of
it. But when we try to apply this as a practical matter, it
certainly can be very, very expensive ... and would be a tremendous
drain on our present resources. So we don't have a fiscal note
presently, and we would like to understand better, through response
to some of the questions that we've raised, what will ultimately be
intended by this legislation, so that we can provide you with a
clearer idea of what the costs might be."
Number 464
BARBARA BRINK, Director, Public Defender Agency, Department of
Administration, came forward to testify, noting her agreement with
Representative Porter in the idea of making the "net" smaller. She
said the trend in registration and notification statutes nationwide
is certainly in that direction. She'd recently read a report from
the U.S. Department of Justice on sex offender community
notification; the increasing trend is to establish some sort of
tier or level system to try to identify those most seriously at
risk for re-offending. For example, there is a tier system in the
states of Washington, Connecticut, New Jersey, Oregon and Tennessee
that provides a first tier, low-risk, where information only goes
to law enforcement; the second tier, medium-risk, goes to selected
organizations such as community councils and schools; and the third
tier, the highest risk of re-offending, goes to everybody in the
community.
MS. BRINK referred to testimony about how there could be a wide
variety of types of offenders. She said there are criteria
established in these states for trying to determine that risk. The
low-level offenders would be those who had "a nonviolent incident,
a single incident, in the family setting." Level two encompasses
a situation outside of the family setting, multiple offenses, or a
violent offense. And level three, the most serious, involves a
history of predatory sexual crimes, a history of violent offenses,
or even an expressed desire to continue in that behavior.
MS. BRINK concluded, "So there have been efforts by other states to
really deal with that target population where community
notification is effective. And I urge this committee to, if we are
going to construct (indisc.) like this, to really limit it to those
people in the population where this is going to help."
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether anyone else wished to comment, then
concluded the hearing. (HB 273 was held over.)
ADJOURNMENT
Number 505
CHAIRMAN GREEN adjourned the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|