02/04/2008 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HJR28 | |
| HB292 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 292 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HJR 28 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
February 4, 2008
1:03 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jay Ramras, Chair
Representative Nancy Dahlstrom, Vice Chair
Representative John Coghill
Representative Ralph Samuels
Representative Lindsey Holmes
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Max Gruenberg
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Mike Doogan
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 28
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of
Alaska relating to the production tax revenue fund, dedicating a
portion of the petroleum production tax to the fund, and
limiting appropriations from the fund.
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 292
"An Act relating to an aggravating factor at sentencing for
crimes directed at a victim because of the victim's
homelessness."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HJR 28
SHORT TITLE: CONST. AM: PRODUCTION TAX REVENUE FUND
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) SAMUELS
01/11/08 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/11/08
01/15/08 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/15/08 (H) JUD, FIN
01/25/08 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
01/25/08 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
01/28/08 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
01/28/08 (H) Heard & Held
01/28/08 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/04/08 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 292
SHORT TITLE: AGGRAVATING FACTOR: HOMELESSNESS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) DOLL, KERTTULA
01/04/08 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/4/08
01/15/08 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/15/08 (H) JUD
02/04/08 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
TAMARA COOK, Director
Legislative Legal and Research Services
Legislative Affairs Agency (LAA)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke as the drafter of HJR 28.
JERRY BURNETT, Director
Administrative Services Division
Department of Revenue (DOR)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments and responded to a
question during discussion of HJR 28.
LAURA ACHEE, Research and Communications Liaison
Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation (APFC)
Department of Revenue (DOR)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HJR 28.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDREA DOLL
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke as a joint prime sponsor of HB 292.
SUSAN HARGIS, Staff
to Representative Andrea Doll
Alaska State Legislature
POSITION STATEMENT: Assisted with the presentation of HB 292 on
behalf of Representative Doll, one of the bill's joint prime
sponsors.
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General
Legal Services Section
Criminal Division
Department of Law (DOL)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 292 and
responded to questions.
GEORGE BRIGGS, Executive Director
Juneau Cooperative Christian Ministry
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HB 292.
DANIEL UNGIER, Affordable Housing Advocate
United Way of Southeast Alaska
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HB 292.
DIANE SLATER
(No address provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HB 292.
CHRIS ASHENBRENNER, Executive Director
Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault (CDVSA)
Department of Public Safety (DPS)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HB 292.
STAN MARSTON
Juneau Homeless Coalition
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HB 292.
SUSAN BOMALASKI
Catholic Social Services (CSS)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HB 292.
KRIS DUNCAN, Coordinator
Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC)
Department of Revenue (DOR)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HB 292.
STEVEN WASSON
Homeward Bound
Rural Alaska Community Action Program, Inc. (RurAL CAP)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HB 292.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR JAY RAMRAS called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:03:46 PM. Representatives Holmes,
Dahlstrom, Coghill, Samuels, Ramras were present at the call to
order. Representative Doogan was also in attendance.
HJR 28 - CONST. AM: PRODUCTION TAX REVENUE FUND
1:04:08 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 28, Proposing an amendment to the
Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to the production
tax revenue fund, dedicating a portion of the petroleum
production tax to the fund, and limiting appropriations from the
fund.
1:04:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HJR 28, Version 25-LS1217\E, Cook, 1/29/08,
as the work draft.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS objected. Speaking as the sponsor of
HJR 28, he explained that some of questions raised at the
resolution's last hearing are addressed via Version E.
Version E of the proposed constitutional amendment requires that
production tax revenue be appropriated directly into [what will
be a newly created] separate account in the Constitutional
Budget Reserve Fund (CBRF) up until January 1, 2015, and allows
for voluntary appropriations into that separate account after
that date. Version E, specifically proposed subsection (g)
located on page 3, now describes which monies shall be placed
into the aforementioned separate account and does so without a
statutory reference. He announced that should Version E be
adopted as the work draft, he would be offering an amendment to
specify that monies placed into that separate account be
considered "payback" of the [current] debt owed to the CBRF.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS mentioned that he still favors
establishing a fund completely separate from the CBRF, as the
original version of HJR 28 proposes, rather than just creating
two separate accounts in the CBRF, as Version E proposes. He
noted that under Version E, all of the language being deleted
from subsection (a) of Article IX, Section 17, of the Alaska
State Constitution, is being inserted into a new subsection (b);
this language describes the existing CBRF, and would refer to
what would become another separate account. In response to a
question, he explained that subsection (g) contains the language
stipulating the timeframe during which appropriations of the
production tax revenue into the aforementioned separate account
shall be mandatory.
CHAIR RAMRAS said he is pleased that the proposed constitutional
amendment no longer contains a statutory reference.
1:10:15 PM
TAMARA COOK, Director, Legislative Legal and Research Services,
Legislative Affairs Agency (LAA), speaking as the drafter of
HJR 28, said that if the committee decided it did want to
establish a separate fund, as the original resolution proposed,
a CS could be drafted that doesn't include a statutory reference
but that does include a limit regarding how long the legislature
would be mandated to appropriate monies into that fund. With
regard to how Version E was drafted, she relayed that in
subsection (a), she kept only the language that would apply to
both of the two separate accounts - language stating that the
money will be invested and that the income from each account
will be retained separately in each of the accounts. Subsection
(b) now contains language creating the separate account that is
currently considered to be the CBRF; this language is
essentially the language that she removed from subsection (a).
Subsections (c), (d), and (e) all deal with the provisions that
can be seen in the existing CBRF except that they now refer to
and apply only to the account established in subsection (b)
rather than to the CBRF as a whole; subsection (e),
incidentally, now contains the existing "sweep" language.
MS. COOK explained that Section 2 of the proposed constitutional
amendment establishes the new account for the production tax
revenue and consists of two new subsections; specifically,
subsection (f) establishes the account and contains the percent
of market value (POMV) payout formula, and subsection (g)
addresses which monies get appropriated into that account and
specifies the timeframe during which appropriations to the
account shall be mandatory. In subsection (g), it is the
language on page 3, lines 13-16, that describes production tax
revenue without referring to a specific statute, and the last
sentence in subsection (g) references Section 7 of Article IX of
the Alaska State Constitution - the prohibition against
dedicated funds - and ensures that the automatic deposits
outlined in this subsection won't be prohibited by another
article in the Alaska State Constitution.
MS. COOK surmised that the problem with Version E is that it
appears to be making drastic changes to the CBRF even though
it's just been converted into an account. In response to a
question, she said she'd not attempted to give the two accounts
separate names, but together they will be known as the CBRF. In
response to another question, she said that any money that's
still owed to the CBRF [if and when HJR 28's proposed
constitutional amendment is approved by the voters] shall be
owed only to the account established via subsection (b); all of
the provisions that currently apply to the CBRF have been
preserved in Version E but, again, will only apply to the
account established via subsection (b).
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS said that one of the reasons he objects
to Version E is that establishing two accounts in the CBRF will
create confusion. He again said his preference would be to
establish a completely separate fund for production tax revenue,
and simply include Version E's timeframe for mandated deposits
and description of which monies shall go into the fund.
1:18:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS, in response to a question, indicated
that he's not yet come up with a name for the account created
via subsection (f) - it's a savings account for the state
different than the CBRF.
CHAIR RAMRAS asked what language would appear on the ballot if
HJR 28 passes the legislature, and how would the proposal be
described to the public.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS, regarding the latter issue, offered, "In
very simply terms you could say 'the windfall profits tax are
going to a savings account and it becomes an annuity'; ... it's
a long-term savings account but you'll never be able to spend
the corpus of [it]."
MS. COOK, regarding the former issue, indicated that all of the
resolution's proposed changes to the Alaska State Constitution
would appear on the ballot as they appear in the resolution.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL surmised that the policy question is
whether the legislature wants to set up the proposed separate
account and then, if so, how to go about doing so. He observed
that it might be better to set up a separate [fund] rather than
doing something within the CBRF.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS indicated agreement, adding that the
public could get distrustful of language that at first glance
appears to alter the CBRF. He again relayed the approach he'd
prefer to take.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said taking out the reference to statute
was an important point for him.
1:25:14 PM
MS. COOK, in response to questions, indicated that she could
draft a CS for HJR 28 that establishes a separate fund, doesn't
include a statutory reference, limits how long the legislature
would be mandated to appropriate monies into that fund, and
wouldn't effect any changes to the existing sweep provision of
the existing CBRF - thus precluding any concerns being raised by
voters about the sweep provision. Such a CS would look a lot
like the original HJR 28 but include the language currently
incorporated into subsections (f) and (g) of Version E. She
noted that the original version of HJR 28 called the proposed
fund the "production tax revenue fund".
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL question whether, under Version E, the
two separate accounts would be earning income at different
rates.
MS. COOK said that although the two accounts would be managed as
separate accounts and so could be managed differently, the
language currently in the CBRF provision of the Alaska State
Constitution requires that the money in the CBRF be invested so
as to yield competitive market rates, and in Version E, she'd
stipulated that that same requirement would apply to both
accounts; she'd also stipulated in the original version of HJR
28 that that same requirement apply to monies in the production
tax revenue fund.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL surmised that putting the language
currently in Version E before the voters could result in more
questions than easily-given answers.
CHAIR RAMRAS expressed a preference for not making conceptual
amendments to Version E - he'd rather have a new CS brought
before the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS agreed, and indicated that the new CS
would include the desired provisions Ms. Cook described earlier.
He then asked: "On the payout methodology, ... do you want a
five-year average looking back on the 4.5 percent rather than
just ... one year?"
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES said she too would prefer to have a
separate fund rather than having two accounts in the CBRF, and
is in favor of the all the aforementioned provisions including a
four- or five-year rolling average.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL, on the issue of a five-year average,
noted that mandatory appropriations to the fund will end on
January 1, 2015.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS pointed out, though, that the fund itself
will exist beyond the year 2015 - that's the whole point of it -
and so 30 years from now a five-year average could still be used
to calculate the payout.
1:32:14 PM
JERRY BURNETT, Director, Administrative Services Division,
Department of Revenue (DOR), remarked that market volatility can
be addressed via some form of "backwards averaging," and
suggested that members consider legislation introduced several
years ago regarding a POMV calculation for the permanent fund.
CHAIR RAMRAS opined that the voting public will find a 5 percent
payout easier to understand than a 4.5 percent payout because 5
percent is a whole number.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS warned that having a payout of 5 percent
increases the risk that the value of the principal will decrease
over time; again, the point of establishing this fund is to have
long term cash flow. He characterized 4.5 percent as a more
conservative number in that regard.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM acknowledged that sometimes the wording
of a ballot measure can create confusion.
CHAIR RAMRAS reiterated his belief that a whole number is
simpler to understand than a fraction of a number.
MR. BURNETT, in response to a question, offered his belief that
the language in subsection (f) regarding the proposed payout
percentage would allow for an asset allocation that would
optimize the return within the constraints of the proposed fund,
and mentioned that the commissioner [with advice from an outside
consulting firm] would determine the appropriate asset
allocation.
1:36:25 PM
LAURA ACHEE, Research and Communications Liaison, Alaska
Permanent Fund Corporation (APFC), Department of Revenue (DOR),
relayed that back when the Board of Trustees of the Alaska
Permanent Fund Corporation proposed a POMV payout, it was at 5
percent averaged over the [previous five years] to smooth out
market volatility. Such a calculation often works out to about
4.5 percent, she noted, adding that studies illustrate that over
time, one gets a little bit more out of a fund long term if the
payout is 4 percent versus if the payout is 5 percent. However,
if a "smoothing provision" is added into the calculation, then
the averaged percentage would be a little bit less than the
stated average because of rising movement in the market over the
averaged years.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS noted that the proposed fund is different
than the permanent fund in that there may not be any more
appropriations made to it after the year 2015, and so in order
for the proposed fund to sustain itself, it will have to rely on
an appropriate payout percentage. In response to a question, he
offered his understanding that the legislature could start
[appropriating] the proposed payout immediately and then do what
it wanted to with it, though he acknowledged that transitional
language might be needed since a five-year average couldn't be
applied for the first four years. In response to comments, he
said he would prefer to see the payout [stay in] the proposed
fund.
1:40:34 PM
MS. COOK, in response to a question, said that as the resolution
is currently drafted, in order for the legislature to receive
the proposed payout, an appropriation would be required, just as
is required of funds from the CBRF. So if the legislature
doesn't act to appropriate the payout from the proposed fund, it
would just stay there. Also, under the resolution as currently
drafted, the amount appropriated from that fund, should the
legislature choose to do so, cannot exceed 4.5 percent.
CHAIR RAMRAS asked whether the legislature could choose not to
appropriate the payout one year and then appropriate two-years'
worth of payout the next year.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS indicated that it could not; rather,
since the payout wasn't appropriated the one year, a larger
amount could be appropriated the next year because the
appropriation calculation would then be based on a larger
principal amount.
MS. COOK concurred.
CHAIR RAMRAS posited that that could act as an inducement for
the legislature to appropriate the payout from the fund every
year so as not to lose access to it.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS indicated, then, that he would prefer for
the payout to go directly into the general fund (GF) every year;
then, if the legislature wishes to, it could appropriate the
payout back into the proposed fund.
MS. COOK observed that it would be easy to draft language that
would require the payout to flow directly into the GF without an
appropriation.
CHAIR RAMRAS expressed favor with that concept.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS concurred.
MS. COOK asked whether the committee would like the automatic
payout to begin later than July 1 of this current fiscal year.
CHAIR RAMRAS suggested having the automatic payout start in five
years, be no greater than 5 percent, and be based on a five-year
average. In response to a comment, he opined that the issue of
what oil production and price will be in the next five years is
not relevant to the discussion of whether to establish the
proposed fund.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS argued that it is relevant if the payout
is needed to balance the budget before the first five years has
elapsed. Five years ago, for example, the price of oil was $20
per barrel and production was at 1 million barrels per day.
CHAIR RAMRAS acknowledged that point.
MR. BURNETT remarked, "Zero in."
1:46:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS said, "Let's ... have the draft at five
and then we can just discuss what the number should be."
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM said it is important to her that the
forthcoming CS contain nothing that could be used to abolish the
legislature's duty to pay back the CBRF.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS indicated that it would not.
[HJR 28 was held over with the motion of whether to adopt
Version E as the work draft left pending.]
The committee took an at-ease from 1:48 p.m. to 2:17 p.m.
HB 292 - AGGRAVATING FACTOR: HOMELESSNESS
2:18:10 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 292, "An Act relating to an aggravating factor at
sentencing for crimes directed at a victim because of the
victim's homelessness."
2:18:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ANDREA DOLL, Alaska State Legislature, speaking
as one of the bill's joint prime sponsors, relayed that HB 292
would add "homelessness" to the list of aggravating factors
outlined in AS 12.55.155(c)(22); as a result, a defendant who
knowingly directs his/her criminal conduct at a victim because
of the victim's homelessness would be subject to an aggravating
factor at sentencing. Although HB 292 won't end all assaults
against the homeless, she acknowledged, it will send a message
that although homeless people are vulnerable, they are important
as human beings and their lives have value. The bill is meant
to address those who look at a homeless person and think that
they will be able to perpetrate a crime against him/her and no
one will care or notice; in essence the legislation says, "Yes,
we do care, and, by the way, we notice, too."
2:20:43 PM
SUSAN HARGIS, Staff to Representative Andrea Doll, Alaska State
Legislature, added on behalf of Representative Doll, one of the
bill's joint prime sponsors, that HB 292 will do two things. It
will help protect [homeless] victims of violence, and will
provide a method of accountability to those who perpetrate such
crimes. Alaska has a significant homeless population. The
Alaska Interagency Council on Homelessness established by
Governor Murkowski found that more than 14,000 individuals
experience homelessness each year in Alaska, that about 3,500
people per night are homeless, that about 1,600 of them
constitute families with children, and that 4,000 Alaska
households are on the waiting list for public housing.
MS. HARGIS relayed that a lot of the homeless population is made
up of youth, women, and veterans; furthermore, veterans account
for 11 percent of the country's population, but account for 25
percent of the country's homeless population. Ms. Hargis said
that as a veteran, she wants to see her fellow veterans and
women taken care of, as well as youths. She noted that the
National Coalition for the Homeless (NCH) conducted a study
which illustrates that the violence HB 292 is meant to address
really are hate crimes because the perpetrators are specifically
targeting the homeless simply because of their homeless status.
CHAIR RAMRAS asked whether the proposed aggravating factor would
apply in situations in which one homeless person commits a crime
against another homeless person.
MS. HARGIS acknowledged that sometimes crimes against the
homeless are perpetrated by other homeless people, but suggested
that the bill is not designed to address those situations
because the majority of violence against the homeless is
perpetrated by those who are not homeless - certain people are
specifically targeting those who are homeless. She added that
about 25 percent of homeless people have had violence
perpetrated against them, as compared to 1 percent of non-
homeless people.
2:25:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM asked how "homeless" is defined.
MS. HARGIS said that there are two definitions available - one
used in the NCH's model legislation, and one used by the Alaska
Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC) - but staff at Legislative
Legal and Research Services had pointed out that a lot of
common-use terms in the criminal code are not defined. However,
she relayed, the sponsor would be amenable to including either
of the aforementioned definitions in the bill, though the NCH's
definition is shorter and simpler.
CHAIR RAMRAS observed that homeless people aren't limited with
regard to the physical characteristics they have.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM questioned how hard it would be to
prosecute someone under the standard of "knowingly", and
remarked that the term "homeless" seems very broad.
MS. HARGIS acknowledged that including one of the aforementioned
definitions might be helpful. Discussions with law enforcement,
she relayed, have indicated that how easy it will be to
prosecute someone for the proposed hate crime depends on a lot
of factors. Sometimes homeless people won't report a crime
because they believe they are not always seen in the best light.
But in some of the incidents that have come to light, the
perpetrators have been boasting about the fact that they've gone
out and beaten up a homeless person, or have boasted that they
are going to go out and beat up a homeless person; again, these
people are purposely targeting the homeless, and it is these
people whom the bill is meant to address. In response to a
question, she said that although there might be other types of
people that are experiencing hate crimes, the sponsor chose to
focus on the issue of violence specifically directed at the
homeless, because statistics illustrate that there has been a
significant increase in such crimes nationwide.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS asked whether under the bill a separate
trial will be required as a result of the decision in the U.S.
Supreme Court case, Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531
(U.S., 2004).
2:30:30 PM
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services
Section, Criminal Division, Department of Law (DOL), said that
the aggravating factor would have to be proven to a jury beyond
a reasonable doubt unless the defendant agreed to the
aggravating factor.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS asked how many times the aggravating
factor [outlined in existing AS 12.55.155(c)(22)] has been used.
He surmised that it would be hard to prove that the crime was
motivated by fact that the victim was homeless.
MS. CARPENETI said that although the proposed aggravating factor
would not be easy to prove, it could be proven just as any other
case requiring a specific mental state is proven - through the
acts and words of the perpetrator. Furthermore, there have been
some egregious cases in which an aggravating factor has been
proven when the perpetrators were specifically victimizing a
particular racial group, for example. So although use of the
aggravating factor is uncommon because it is difficult to prove,
sometimes it is proven, and it is worthy of the effort to do so.
She also pointed out that the bill is not proposing to establish
a separate crime; rather, it is simply proposing an aggravating
factor that could be used when sentencing someone for an
existing felony crime.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS said that an option would be to stiffen
the penalty for certain crimes, and have that penalty apply
regardless of whom the crime is directed at. He questioned why
someone who rapes a homeless woman, for example, should be
punished more severely than someone who rapes a woman who is not
homeless. He also observed that vulnerable people become
victims more often than those who aren't as vulnerable;
therefore, since homeless people are more vulnerable than those
who are not homeless, they are also more likely to become
victims. Regardless that a crime is a crime of opportunity, the
crime is still the same.
2:33:41 PM
MS. HARGIS acknowledge that for the victim of a crime, the
impact of the crime on him/her isn't different depending on
whether he/she is homeless. However, the legislature has
already chosen to say that there are particular groups that are
victimized on an all-too-regular basis. She characterized
HB 292 as addressing a public safety issue, and said it will
both protect those [who are being victimized just because they
are homeless] and establish a boundary for those perpetrating
such crimes; the bill will send a message that such behavior is
unacceptable. She offered her belief that the targeting of
homeless people to perpetrate crimes upon has become a problem,
but acknowledged that establishing such a boundary is a policy
call for the legislature to make.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM characterized the intent of the bill as
worthy, but offered her belief that some could argue that a
crime perpetrated against a person in his/her home violates the
person even more because the home is supposed to be a safe
haven. Committing a crime against a person is wrong regardless
of whether the victim is homeless, she remarked, adding that she
doesn't know how a particular crime could be considered more
wrong just because of a victim's homeless status.
MS. CARPENETI, in response to a question, said that the DOL
supports HB 292 because it believes that there is good social
value in saying that it is unacceptable to target particular
groups of people that may be less able to protect themselves and
others. She again acknowledged that the aggravating factor
outlined in AS 12.55.155(c)(22) is difficult to prove, and
[isn't pursued] very often, usually in just the horrifying
cases.
CHAIR RAMRAS recalled that one such case occurred in Fairbanks.
MS. CARPENETI, in response to a request, explained that Alaska
law has established maximum terms of imprisonment for various
levels of crimes, and within those maximum terms are presumptive
sentencing ranges, and when an aggravating factor is proven
beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury as being present, then the
judge, when imposing the sentence, may exceed those ranges and
impose a longer sentence - up to the maximum sentence - for a
particular offense. In response to a question, she explained
that although the question of whether an aggravating factor at
sentencing should be applied is dealt with in a separate
proceeding, the issue is heard by the same jury that determined
the verdict.
MS. CARPENETI, in response to questions, explained that in order
for the proposed aggravating factor to apply, the prosecution
would have to prove that the perpetrator knowingly directed
his/her conduct at a homeless person simply because that person
was homeless, and that it is not mandatory for the court to
impose a higher sentence for an aggravating factor - the court
may simply consider it when determining the sentence and then
may chose to impose a sentence beyond the presumptive sentencing
range.
2:40:00 PM
GEORGE BRIGGS, Executive Director, Juneau Cooperative Christian
Ministry, after relaying that his organization is currently
doing business as the Glory Hole, characterized HB 292 as one of
the most important legislative Acts affecting the homeless. He
offered his understanding that the aggravating factor proposed
by HB 292 won't apply in situations where homeless people are
committing violence against other homeless people, and that it
is instead meant to apply in situations where people who aren't
homeless are targeting those who are homeless just for fun, just
for sport, and committing violence against them. Homeless
people, regardless of how they come to be homeless, are
vulnerable, in some cases even more vulnerable than children
[who aren't homeless]. He noted that 85 percent of those using
services provided by the Glory Hole are mentally challenged.
CHAIR RAMRAS pointed out, though, that existing AS
12.55.155(c)(22) already provides an aggravating factor for
crimes directed at those with a mental disability, and thus
those people are already covered.
MR. BRIGGS noted, however, that the Glory Hole only provides
services monthly to about 175 of the 850 homeless individuals in
Juneau. He relayed that two Saturdays ago, a group of people
poured gasoline on a homeless Native man and lit him on fire
simply because he was homeless and a Native - he was targeted
because he was homeless and a Native.
CHAIR RAMRAS pointed out that existing AS 12.55.155(c)(22) would
already apply in that situation as well because it provides an
aggravating factor for crimes directed at a person because of
his/her race.
MR. BRIGGS argued that not all homeless people are going to be
covered by existing AS 12.55.155(c)(22), adding that the attacks
that have been occurring are always directed at someone who is
homeless and because he/she is homeless. Between June and
October of last year, six homeless people were beaten up because
they were homeless, and three of those individuals filed police
reports. When homeless people don't file a police report, it
could be for any number of reasons, a couple of which may be
that they fear they will not be treated fairly by law
enforcement or that they see that when their attackers are
arrested, they are simply released from jail after just a few of
days.
2:45:29 PM
MR. BRIGGS, in response to a question, opined that homeless
people are more vulnerable and thus need something that will
show them that they are part of the community. Homeless people
understand that they need community protection when they are
being beaten up for no other reason than that they are homeless,
and so there should be something in Alaska law that says
attacking the homeless simply because they are homeless warrants
a stiffer penalty. He posited that adoption of HB 292 will help
police and encourage them to arrest the perpetrators of such
crimes if they know that such perpetrators could be prosecuted
to the maximum extent of the law. On the issue of how easy it
will be to prove the proposed aggravating factor, he surmised
that since homeless people don't have any thing of value on
their persons, then attacks on homeless people are probably
motivated by the fact that they are homeless.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS asked how much over the presumptive
sentencing range adoption of HB 292 would allow a sentence to
be.
CHAIR RAMRAS offered his belief that it would allow for a
substantial increase in sentencing. Acknowledging that homeless
people face unique challenges, he relayed that one concern is
that HB 292 would have law enforcement be more aggressive in
protecting the rights of the homeless than the rights of those
who are not homeless. On any given day, anyone could find
himself/herself in a vulnerable situation susceptible to having
some type of crime perpetrated against him/her, and law
enforcement should be treating everyone the same with regard to
trying to solve those crimes and arresting the perpetrators.
MR. BRIGGS agreed, but offered his belief that currently law
enforcement authorities aren't treating the homeless the same
way they do those who are not homeless, and without the adoption
of HB 292, which might provide them with the extra impetus to
pursue those who are assaulting the homeless, they never will.
CHAIR RAMRAS posited that whenever police see someone being hurt
they stop that event regardless of whether the victim is
homeless. The perceived lack of pursuit of those specifically
targeting and perpetrating crimes against the homeless could
instead be the result of decisions made at the district-attorney
level.
2:53:05 PM
DANIEL UNGIER, Affordable Housing Advocate, United Way of
Southeast Alaska, after relaying that he chairs the Juneau
Homeless Coalition and offering a bit of information about it,
shared his belief that the distinction between an assault
perpetrated against a homeless person and an assault perpetrated
against someone else is not that the crime is worse, but that it
has become a crime of a different nature that deserves to be
recognized. People who would not normally be committing any
other crime are now going out and assaulting homeless people
specifically because they are homeless and thus easy targets.
He noted that the sponsor statement has indicated that from 1999
to 2006, the numbers of violent crimes against the homeless has
increased 170 percent.
MR. UNGIER went on to say:
There is a series [of] private videos on the Internet,
called "Bum Fights" - and these are mostly targeted at
teenagers - and essentially all they are is, somebody
shouts out "Bum Fights" at the beginning of the video
and people run out and attack a homeless person in the
video. And this has become mainstream enough that
this was referenced in a full-length, major-budget
film ..., so it is hardly something that's on the
fringe of society, and, in fact, in ... [another case]
where a homeless person has been killed, the person
who [was] being charged with that crime admitted that
he was inspired by "Bum Fights."
MR. UNGIER opined that such videos have the specific effect of
degrading a homeless person to the point where he/she can be
targeted just for sport: homeless people aren't really human
beings, it's not a big deal, and it's fun to go after them. In
response to comments and a question, he opined that the bill is
not saying that a person who attacks someone who is not homeless
should be given a lesser penalty; rather, the bill is saying
that when someone attacks a homeless person for sport, a crime
of a different nature is being committed. Furthermore -
according to statistics outlined in the sponsor statement - a
disproportionate number of homeless people are experiencing
violent attacks. Again, adoption of HB 292 will not result in
lesser sentences being applied to those perpetrating violence
against those who are not homeless - the bill is merely
attempting to address a different issue.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL agreed that such crimes are of a
different nature, but opined that judges have already been given
enough flexibility with regard to sentencing ranges. The
aggravating factor outlined in AS 12.55.155(c)(22) seems to make
the question of why someone committed a crime more important
than the question of what crime was actually committed. To
attack someone just because he/she is homeless is egregious, but
so is attacking anyone, and so if a lack of prosecution is the
problem or if the existing sentencing ranges aren't being
applied to those attacking the homelessness, then those issues
should be discussed with the appropriate agencies, rather than
simply resorting to adding another subgroup to the existing
aggravating factor.
3:02:18 PM
DIANE SLATER indicated that the key issue to be addressed is the
"sport" of attacking the homeless. It's not that the homeless
are any better than other victims of violent crime, it's that
there are a significantly increasing number of homeless people
being attacked. A hate crime of the sort HB 292 is meant to
address, she offered, can be likened to the hate crime
perpetrated against Matthew Shepard simply because he was
homosexual. Noting that she is familiar with the cliental at
the Glory Hole and that she has even stayed there, she pointed
out that the homeless are often treated as outcasts, and that
homelessness can occur to anyone, including someone like
herself, because obtaining housing can be quite a feat,
particularly under federal housing guidelines. According to the
Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC), one is homeless if
one is either living in a car, in a tent, or at a shelter.
Homeless people often don't have the tools to get the help they
need, and HB 292, she opined, will give authorities the extra
power to protect this group of people, and will act as a
preventative measure. Homeless people are vulnerable and they
need someone to advocate for them, and that's what HB 292 can
help do, she concluded.
3:06:46 PM
CHRIS ASHENBRENNER, Executive Director, Council on Domestic
Violence and Sexual Assault (CDVSA), Department of Public Safety
(DPS), relayed that members' packets include some statistics
she'd provided. She said she finds it ironic that once people,
particularly women [and children], become homeless due to
domestic violence (DV), they are then assaulted - both
physically and sexually - at a higher rate [simply for being
homeless]. She said she would hope that legislators would want
to add extra protection for those members of society who are the
weakest, the most vulnerable. Women and children who are
homeless are very vulnerable and become easy prey for those
looking for an opportunity to sexually assault someone. In
response to comments, she pointed out that crimes of DV are
usually [prosecuted as] misdemeanors, and that her concern
centers on those who are preying specifically on homeless people
in order to sexually assault them.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES offered her belief that what HB 292 is
proposing is consistent with other steps the legislature has
taken to protect the most vulnerable members of society,
including the establishment of some other aggravating factors.
3:13:21 PM
STAN MARSTON, Juneau Homeless Coalition, said he would echo what
other testifiers have said thus far. The point he wishes to
make is that people are being targeted because they are
homeless. He surmised that if one were to ask a homeless person
who is attacked in the middle of the afternoon out of sight of
the general public, why he/she was attacked, the person would
say he/she was attacked only because he/she was homeless. These
sorts of assaults don't often happen late at night, and although
they are crimes of opportunity, the perpetrators are
specifically targeting the homeless because they are less able
to defend themselves. According to what a victim of such an
assault told him, Mr. Marston indicated, the victim was targeted
solely because he was homeless and the police didn't take that
assault as seriously as the victim felt it should have been.
People can become homeless for a variety of reasons, but they
are now being targeted simply because they are homeless - people
are specifically hunting the homeless.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS surmised that no victim of any crime ever
feels that law enforcement is doing enough.
3:16:27 PM
SUSAN BOMALASKI, Catholic Social Services (CSS), said the CSS
supports Representative Doll in introducing HB 292. The CSS
operates the Brother Francis Shelter, which annually serves over
3,000, and about twice a month shelter staff see victims of
attacks so violent that they warrant emergency room treatment.
Although victims of such crimes are reluctant to report the
crimes, homelessness is seen as the aggravating factor by these
victims. She went on to say:
It is our job as a just society to protect the poor
and vulnerable and give voice to their concerns; ...
homeless individuals have no voice and we have to
speak up for them. Being homeless puts people in a
very vulnerable category. These individuals are
usually struggling against many obstacles in their
recovery from homelessness, including being viewed as
a target for violent crime because they are homeless.
It is no longer acceptable to see this crime as merely
a hardship but in fact it does deserve a harsher
punishment. Passage of ... [HB 292] will make these
violent attacks on the homeless unacceptable. It's an
important statement for a just society to make.
3:18:13 PM
KRIS DUNCAN, Coordinator, Alaska Housing Finance Corporation
(AHFC), Department of Revenue (DOR), relayed that as a homeless
youth awaiting the start of the fishing season, she was living
in a tent and was sexually assaulted at knifepoint. She said
she knows that the reason she was raped was because she was
homeless, because over time she learned that the perpetrator - a
person stationed at a military base - had been bragging about
targeting homeless women, knowing that his victims were homeless
and as such were trying to stay out of the public eye. Homeless
people know that they are viewed as not being worthy of justice
or worthy of having any of the rights that normal citizens have.
Property owners have far more credibility with law enforcement
than do disadvantaged populations such as the homeless. She
said that had she known that people perpetrating crimes
specifically against the homeless might receive a severe
penalty, she maybe would have trusted the system and reported
her sexual assault.
3:20:54 PM
STEVEN WASSON, Homeward Bound, Rural Alaska Community Action
Program, Inc. (RurAL CAP), relayed that when he was homeless, he
was attacked and stabbed numerous times, and although he
reported the incident to the police, they didn't do anything,
and the perpetrators were back out on the streets the next day.
He ventured that a lot of homeless people don't want to speak up
about their assaults because they fear they won't receive any
protection and will simply get targeted again by their
perpetrators.
CHAIR RAMRAS, after ascertaining that no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 292.
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL relayed that when she first took office,
she'd been visited by many people living on the streets, most of
whom were women, who spoke to her about their vulnerability, and
she began to realize how difficult it must be to be constantly
exposed, constantly vulnerable. More and more society is coming
out with greater penalties for crimes perpetrated against the
vulnerable members of society, but there is still a long ways to
go. She spoke briefly about crimes that have been perpetrated
against her in the past, and pointed out that homeless people
can't barricade themselves in their homes for protection against
predators. "Somehow we've got to be able to move forward and
talk for these people, somehow we've got to do something that
says that we will do what we can to protect them in whatever
small fashion we're able to," she added.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM expressed concern that the proposed
aggravating factor could result in unintended consequences for
other citizens.
CHAIR RAMRAS acknowledged that more crimes occur than there are
adequate resources to properly deal with them. He then relayed
that HB 292 would be held over.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:30 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|