Legislature(2021 - 2022)GRUENBERG 120
04/13/2021 03:00 PM House STATE AFFAIRS
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB5 | |
| HB55 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 5 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 55 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
HB 5-SEXUAL ASSAULT; DEF. OF "CONSENT"
3:09:27 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the first order of business
would be SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 5, "An Act
relating to sexual abuse of a minor; relating to sexual assault;
relating to the code of military justice; relating to consent;
relating to the testing of sexual assault examination kits; and
providing for an effective date."
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS invited questions from the committee.
3:10:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN sought to clarify the definition of
"another person," which was utilized throughout the proposed
legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR, prime sponsor of HB 5, stated that the term
was consistent with statutory language pertaining to crimes
against another person. She added that she had not been asked
to define "another person" in statute.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referred the question to the Department
of Law (DOL).
3:12:18 PM
JOHN SKIDMORE, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the Attorney
General, Department of Law (DOL), stated that "person" is
defined in AS 11.81.900(b)(47) as "a natural person and, when
appropriate, an organization, government, or governmental
instrumentality."
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN repeated his question, inquiring as to
the meaning of "another person" with emphasis on "another."
MR. SKIDMORE explained that "another person" referred to someone
other than the defendant. He added that in this case, the
defendant would have [sexually assaulted] "some other person."
3:13:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN considered a scenario in which two people
met online and described [themselves] in ways that were less
than truthful. He remarked:
Then, after the fact, the facts come out, does that
qualify as another person? 'I thought I was going to
be, you know, having this relationship with one
person, I found out that it was totally a different
kind of person than I thought they were.' Is that
what we mean by another person?
MR. SKIDMORE explained that when considering these crimes, the
law didn't care about the contact online and how someone
represented themselves. He said the point of interest is that
there were two individuals, one person who had engaged in sexual
conduct with another person who had not consented. He added
that any previous representation about who they were was
irrelevant for the purposes of determining whether this statute
was violated.
3:14:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked:
So, if I say I'm a person that doesn't exist and then
engage in this conduct, and the other person that I
say I am - James Doolittle - doesn't exist, is that a
situation now where we're in the other person
category? Or does it need to be another physical,
living, breathing person?
MR. SKIDMORE replied that "[another] person" simply meant that
the defendant engaged in sexual conduct with another person; it
did not specify who that person had to be, because [the law]
didn't care about who that person was, what representations they
made, or whether it was the defendant or the victim that made
misrepresentations about who they were. He said that could go
to the identity of who the person was; however, with sexual
assault, all that mattered was that there were two individuals,
one of whom was not consenting.
3:15:49 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS said he would allow one more follow-up
question. He noted that he was not quite tracking the line of
questions posed by Representative Eastman.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referred to Section 2, paragraph (5),
which read:
(5) the offender engages in sexual contact with a
person who is induced to believe by artifice,
pretense, or concealment that the offender is another
person.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said he was not understanding the answers
to his question. He asked what about that other person would
have had to be concealed to "trigger" this crime.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS sought to confirm that Representative
Eastman had asked if this language were to pass, how would DOL
interpret it or apply it to cases.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN clarified that he was wondering how the
courts would interpret "another person," as the term was not
defined under statute. He added that he was still "very hazy"
over what exactly made this a crime.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS directed the question to Mr. Skidmore.
MR. SKIDMORE pointed out that "another person" was utilized
throughout the statutes in multiple sections. He apologized
[for the confusion] and said he had now a better understanding
of what Representative Eastman was asking. He explained that
when [Section 2, paragraph (5)] referred to "another person," it
was referring to instances in which there were two individuals
who had engaged in sexual conduct and one of them believed that
the person with whom they were engaging in that conduct with was
someone other than who it actually was. He referred to a
hypothetical pair of twins and offered the example of one twin
engaging in sexual conduct with the spouse/significant other of
the other twin; however, the spouse/significant other believed
that they were [having sex] with the twin they were actually in
a relationship with. Another example would be two people
wearing the same outfit at a costume party, one of which [the
victim] arrived with; subsequently, the victim consented to
engage in sexual conduct with the identical costume wearer (not
the person he/she arrived with) in a case of mistaken identity.
He provided a third example of a case that occurred in Alaska in
which a homeless person entered a home and engaged in sexual
conduct with a woman lying in bed; however, the woman mistakenly
believed her spouse was climbing back into bed, which was why
she consented. Upon realizing it was a homeless person, she
jumped up and was very upset. He noted the state was unable to
prosecute because under current Alaska law, "without consent"
required force and in that scenario, there was no force, just a
mistaken identity. He conveyed that [Section 2, paragraph (5)]
was referring to situations like the aforementioned examples.
3:19:36 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether there was any public
reporting or documentation of the case that occurred in Alaska
that was not prosecuted [the third example by Mr. Skidmore].
MR. SKIDMORE said he was unsure whether there was a public
report. He shared his understanding that some advocacy groups
lobbying on behalf of the proposed legislation had referenced
the case. He added that the scenario was one that DOL was
familiar with and had seen in the past.
3:20:50 PM
RENEE MCFARLAND, Deputy Public Defender, Public Defender Agency,
Department of Administration (DOA), in response to the question
from Representative Eastman regarding "another person," said Mr.
Skidmore's explanation corresponded with her understanding of
the sponsor's intent.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR shared another scenario that occurred in
Alaska, in which a woman mistakenly engaged in sexual conduct
with her boyfriend's brother who was pretending to be her
boyfriend. She noted that the provision was generally referred
to as "rape by fraud."
3:22:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN asked whether it would be considered a
crime if someone gave a false name and number when meeting a new
person.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS shared his understanding that a sexual
encounter must occur [for it to be considered a crime].
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN said, "that's what I'm suggesting
happens."
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS rephrased Representative Kaufman's
question, asking whether it would fall under the scope of this
language if someone met someone and gave a false name, and there
proceeded to be a consensual sexual encounter between them.
MR. SKIDMORE answered no. He conveyed that this language was
referring to a circumstance in which an individual was engaged
in sexual conduct with someone other than whom he/she saw that
it was. He stated that the mistaken belief that it was a
different person was the significant point. He clarified that a
"different person" did not mean someone's name, it meant
different characteristics. He remarked:
And that's not based on 'I've just lied about what my
name is,' that's actually based on, 'I wanted to have
sex with person A, and it turns out that it's person
B, unbeknownst to me.'
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN asked whether Mr. Skidmore was confident
that someone couldn't seek a prosecution based on the previous
scenario he [Representative Kaufman] had suggested.
MR. SKIDMORE answered no, that was not the intent of the
sponsor. He added that if this bill were to pass, that was not
the type of case that DOL would file charges on.
3:24:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN provided the following hypothetical:
A woman who loves to watch football ... goes to a
party and meets a man who says, 'I play football for
the Seattle Seahawks,' and the woman thinks 'I always
wanted to have an intimate relationship with somebody
that plays football for the Seattle Seahawks,' and
they have a really good time and ... engage in sexual
relations and ... she then goes and looks at the
roster of the Seattle Seahawks in the morning and
finds that the picture of the person [who] has that
name isn't this person that she just spent the night
with. Can that person now be prosecuted for rape?
MR. SKIDMORE answered no, DOL would not file charges on that
case. He provided the following explanation:
If ... I meet Sam at the bar and Sam's the person that
I'm then going to engage in those sexual relations
with, if I have the false belief that Sam has a
particular profession, [then] no, ... that's not the
type of fraud that's contemplated.
MR. SKIDMORE continued to explain that [rape by fraud] was for
situations where an individual literally thought they were
having sex with "Sam" and it turned out to be someone else
because, for example, "Sam" was wearing a costume or had a twin.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN said it sounded like a discretionary call
on DOL's part. He shared his understanding that pretending to
be a football player for the Seattle Seahawks was artifice or
pretense. He asked why the statutory language [in Section 2,
paragraph (5)] wouldn't cover the hypothetical situation he had
suggested.
MR. SKIDMORE conveyed that based on the legislative intent that
had been communicated thus far, that was not DOL's understanding
of the purpose [of that language]. He explained that if a
prosecutor filed that charge, the defense would say, "that's not
what this law was intended to do, here's the legislative intent
that supports it." He suggested that people would then listen
to these hearings and the debate that occurred here.
3:29:11 PM
MS. MCFARLAND, in response to Representative Claman's question
regarding the hypothetical scenario, agreed with Mr. Skidmore;
however, she said she recognized the risk that the statutory
language presented. She recalled that the Alaska Supreme Court
had communicated that legislative history was more convincing
with clearer statutory language. She suggested clarifying
through this language that the legislature did not intend to
permit prosecutions in which an individual misrepresented
his/her attributes in order to engage in sexual conduct while
not attempting to be an actual different person.
3:30:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN opined that the statutory language [in
Section 2, paragraph (5)] seemed "unusual" because it didn't
specify that the artifice, pretense, or concealment must come
from the offender. He considered the following scenario:
A fraternity ... is communicating one thing to a
victim, the victim believes something, the offender
may or may not have any knowledge of what's going on
there. Yes, you have the victim [who] was induced to
believe this is another person.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN believed that the construction of the
statute was strange because "we're separating ... the offense
from who's doing the deceiving or concealing." He asked why it
was written that way.
MR. SKIDMORE defined two criminal law concepts: "mens rea" was
the offender's mental element and "actus reus" was the act that
they engaged in. He explained that the victim's actions or
perceptions were never discussed because the focus was always on
the defendant. He clarified that the defendant engaged in
sexual contact with a person who was induced to believe by
artifice, pretense, or concealment that the offender was another
person. He elaborated:
The offender would need to be knowingly engaging in
the conduct and would have to be reckless as to the
fact that the victim thinks that they are someone
other than who they actually are.
MR. SKIDMORE added the state would be required to prove [the
mens rea] of the offender, not the victim.
3:33:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said he understood [the meaning of] mens
rea. He opined that the language in question could be executed
by someone other than the offender. He wondered whether that
was an oversight or an intentional decision by the drafters.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS, to clarify the question, remarked:
If ... Sam is going on a blind date with Jack and the
person who set it up ... communicates to Sam that the
real Jack is actually Joe who ... has such and such
artificial identity, as set up by the blind date
mediator.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether that exemplified
Representative Eastman's question.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN answered in the affirmative. He remarked
The other person has been induced to believe that this
is another person; the offender is going along with
it, even though it wasn't necessarily [his/her] idea
... but then, the date ends, there's a sexual
encounter, and now ... it looks to me like we have a
situation of rape.
MR. SKIDMORE explained that the trouble with that hypothetical
was that it reverted to the scenario of "thinking that this was
someone different than who you thought you were going to meet up
with." He believed that this statute would not criminalize the
conduct in that scenario. He provided an alternative example to
better illustrate Representative Eastman's point:
You go to the costume party, and you have two people
dressed as, say, spiderman, and the offender didn't
dress up as spiderman with the intent or the thought
that, 'Hey, there's [going to] be another spiderman
there, and I'm going to be able to engage in sexual
relations with that spiderman's significant other they
brough to the party.' But what ends up happening is
there's an opportunity, the offender is now engaging
in ... sexual relations ... with the victim.
MR. SKIDMORE explained that the offender's mental state at the
time of the offense would have had to be reckless as to whether
the victim thought they were someone else.
3:37:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE directed attention to Section 3, paragraph
(4), and opined that it did not make sense mathematically. She
asked whether the phrase "and at least 10 years younger" was
necessary and why it was written that way.
MR. SKIDMORE said the section in question mirrored language that
was currently used in the sexual abuse of a minor (SAM)
statutes. The concept revolved around an offender of a certain
age and a victim, aged 13, 14, or 15. He explained that there
could never be, for example, a 17-year-old offender engaging in
conduct with an individual who was 15 because that would not be
a 10-year age gap. Alternatively, this particular language
would apply if the offender was at least 25. He noted that in
current statutes the age gap was four years; therefore, the
proposed legislation would add a larger age gap that
criminalized at a higher level.
3:40:01 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether a [sexual] relationship
between a 17-year-old and a 27-year-old would be criminalized
and constitute sexual abuse of a minor.
MR. SKIDMORE replied in the affirmative.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS inquired about the sentencing ranges for
sexual abuse of a minor in the first degree.
MR. SKIDMORE stated that sexual abuse of a minor in the first
degree was an unclassified sex offense; the first offense was
20-30 [years]; the second offense was 30-40; and a third offense
was 40-60. He noted that there was a maximum of 99 [years] and
other factors that played into it.
3:41:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE inquired about the prosecution of a 17-
year-old and a 27-year-old under current law. She asked how
that would be classified.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS understood that under current law it was
not a crime.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked what the crime would be [if a 17-
year-old and 27-year-old] engaged in a sexual relationship that
was not consensual.
MR. SKIDMORE said it would be sexual assault. He relayed that
the age range dealt with "statutory rape," also referred to as
sexual abuse of a minor.
3:44:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR in response to a question from
Representative Vance regarding the processing of sexual assault
examination kits, said the six-month requirement would not be
effective until July 1, 2023, per the crime lab's request for
more time to hire and train enough staff. Further, she
clarified that the rape by fraud provision was not intended for
misrepresentations that occur in online dating.
3:45:52 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS [opened public testimony.]
3:46:39 PM
JOYCE SHORT, Executive Director, The Consent Awareness Network,
and author of "Your Consent: The Key to Conquering Sexual
Assault," spoke from the following prepared remarks:
While I'd like nothing better than to embrace a bill
to prevent sexual assault, I cannot support HB 5 in
its present form and the reason is simply
contradiction.
HB 5 correctly states that consent is a freely given
agreement; therefore, by its very nature, such
agreement cannot be achieved through malice, such as
force, fear, or fraud. I like to call them the three
F words, which should never take place in sexual
conduct.
The conduct of the accused in securing the agreement
is what matters when establishing if consent took
place. Did they employ a malicious means to secure
their victim's agreement? If so, regardless of the
words and actions of their victim, their victim did
not consent. But HB 5 uses the words and actions of
the victim as the criteria to determine whether they
consented. HB 5 clearly states the freedom to choose
- free of undue influence - and the disregard for this
freedom is also stated freely in the very same
provision.
The words and actions of the accused determines
whether they committed murder, larceny, kidnapping,
theft, and a host of other crimes and the words and
actions of the accused determine whether or not they
committed a sexual assault. HB 5 contradicts the
premise that consent must be freely given and instead,
blames the victim for their own rape and defilement.
Agreement from a person who was scared into agreeing
is acquiesce; agreement by a person who was defrauded
into agreement is ascent. Missouri's rape in the
second-degree statute states "ascent is not consent
when induced by force, duress, or deception.
I urge legislators to adopt the definition for consent
proposed in Assembly Bill A6540 in New York. It makes
clear that malicious influence and sexual contact is a
crime. The identical bill is also awaiting an index
number in new Jersey and has been drafted and awaits
introduction in Pennsylvania. I further urge
legislators to strike the rape mentality that blames
victims, not the offender, whose premeditated malice
restricted their victim of their self-worth and
shattered their trust. A person's body is not the
offender's entitlement, it's where they live. And
Alaska's laws should protect the bodily autonomy of
every resident or visitor to your great state.
3:49:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR informed committee members that she tried to
work with Ms. Short for months; however, Ms. Short's suggestions
were not feasible. She said in working with Alaska statutes,
she had reviewed the options and created a definition [of
consent] that works for Alaska. She added that she had asked
Ms. Short "not to confuse the matter, but she chose to call in
today."
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asserted that when public testimony was
held, members of the public could testify without fear of being
rebutted. He indicated that the public could say what they
wanted; committee members would consider the merits of their
comments; and [concerns] would be "hashed out" as a committee.
3:50:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked Ms. Short to repeat the New York
citation and asked whether it was a bill number or a statute
number.
MS. SHORT clarified that the bill number was A6540.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked what year the New York State
Legislature passed the bill.
MS. SHORT explained that the bill had just been introduced in
the legislature [in 2021].
3:51:38 PM
JULIE SMYTH stated her support for HB 5; however, she
recommended widening the definition of "fraud" to include more
victims in Alaska. As a client of the Interior Alaska Center
for Nonviolent Living, she recalled hearing stories from other
women who had to file [sexual assault] charges. Further, she
pointed out that it was up to law enforcement to determine
whether consent was given. She opined that the proposed
legislation would help Alaskan communities. She encouraged the
men who had asked questions about how the bill would implicate
offenders to consider times when the women in their lives may
have talked about their boundaries being crossed. She said this
issue was a major one and asked for [the legislature's] help.
She urged committee members to worry more about the victims, as
99 percent of them never got to see their cases in court.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS questioned whether there was an expanded
definition [of fraud] that would help encompass cases that were
unable to be prosecutable.
MS. SMYTH offered to email her response to the committee.
3:54:56 PM
JESSICA CLER, Alaska State Director, Planned Parenthood Alliance
Advocates, expressed her support for HB 5 and urged the
committee to move the legislation forward. As a trusted
provider for sexual assault survivors, she reported that Planned
Parenthood was deeply committed to advancing policies and
programs that worked to reduce sexual assault; provided support
for sexual assault survivors; and helped survivors seek justice.
She believed that by updating the definition of consent and
addressing the backlog of sexual assault exam kits, the proposed
legislation would have a direct positive impact on survivors
across the state. She reported that Alaska's sexual assault
rates were unacceptably high; further, the rates were likely
underestimated because sexual assault was often tragically
underreported. She stated that survivors of sexual assault
feared coming forward, in part, because Alaska statutes were
insufficient to adequately prosecute attackers. She continued
to explain that when survivors reported an assault, they often
faced doubt and judgement and had to navigate a legal process
that was often humiliating. She conveyed that Alaska's
definition of consent placed an unreasonably high burden of
proof on both survivors and the prosecution to prove that the
assault occurred. Further, the statute required the use of
force, threat, or deception and that the offender was mentally
aware that he/she did not have consent. In reality, she said,
the psychological and physiological responses to sexual assault
often led survivors to freeze, which effectually makes it
impossible for them to fight back. She said Alaska's current
definition of consent not only failed to accurately capture the
realities of sexual assault, but it also placed a burden on
survivors that is so high, it prevented the state from holding
perpetrators accountable. She believed that the new definition
in HB 5 would allow courts to consider a variety of factors when
determining whether consent was present. Additionally, the bill
would require labs to test sexual assault kits within six
months. She urged the committee to move this critical piece of
legislation forward.
3:57:54 PM
TARALE SPIKE, Consent Awareness Network, informed committee
members that she testified against Harvey Weinstein in his 2020
federal trial. She stated that she respectfully opposed HB 5 in
its current form because she believed it would perpetuate a
victim-blaming mentality. She explained that it was the words
and actions of the offender that influenced the decision-making
process of the victim, which constituted a crime. She urged
Alaskans to read the language in the New York state bill A6540.
She opined that implementing a common definition of consent
would make prosecuting such cases equal across the board.
Further, she relayed that A6540 clearly stated that the same
consent that protected a person's property, also protected
his/her body.
3:59:54 PM
LISA ELLANNA expressed her appreciation for the bill sponsor and
stated her support for the bill. She opined that the proposed
legislation would satisfy the need for stronger prosecutorial
tools to hold offenders accountable given the outdated and
inadequate language in Alaska's current sexual assault laws.
She pointed out that [in Alaska], victims of rape could run into
their perpetrators many of whom were living their lives as if
they did nothing wrong. Further, she reported that many victims
experienced rape-related PTSD [post-traumatic stress disorder],
which kept them from working or caused them to lose their jobs
or homes - some even took their own lives. She urged the
committee to move the proposed legislation forward, as it was
long overdue. She said moving HB 5 out of committee would
communicate its importance to women in this state.
4:02:19 PM
CARMEN LOWRY, Executive Director, Alaska Network on Domestic
Violence and Sexual Assault, offered her "enthusiastic and
unqualified" support for HB 5. She believed that the proposed
legislation would be a vehicle for offering more justice to
sexual assault victims of all ages. She cited a 2019 report on
felony sex offenses, relaying that the rate of sexual assault in
Alaska was four times the national average. Additionally, the
report indicated that Alaska Native females had the highest
victimization rate of any aggregate, accounting for 50 percent
of all victims. Nearly 52 percent of all reported victims were
children under the age of 18; the most common age of a female
victim was 15; the average age [of all victims] was 18; and the
most common age of a male victim was 5. She said these were the
victims that deserved justice. She urged the committee to move
the proposed legislation forward.
4:04:43 PM
LOUIS IMBRIANI stated his support for HB 5. He emphasized the
need to change the statutory language pertaining to ages. Age
difference, he said, was an important factor when prosecuting a
sexual crime, as it showed the predation or manipulation of
younger victims. He opined that changing the language would
provide the prosecutors with better tools to ensure that those
who perpetrated against younger people were brought to justice.
4:05:50 PM
SARAH BRYAN explained that she grew up in a state that lacked a
robust definition of consent. She said in order to receive
medical treatment or legal remedies, survivors had to prove that
their experiences fell within a narrow definition. She recalled
that she had already internalized that message by the time she
was raped at age 18. She said she did not report the assault
out of fear. Further, she stated that she had no way to
distinguish what had happened to her from a consensual
encounter. She conveyed that the language in the proposed
legislation addressed this paradigm failure by writing the
absence of consent into Alaska's definition of sexual assault.
She reported that the bill sponsor had worked for years to
tailor the bill language around the needs of Alaska's
communities. She opined that without addressing consent and its
absence, statutes misapprehended sexual assault. She believed
that HB 5 would rectify the currently flawed definition of
sexual assault in Alaska.
4:07:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR thanked Ms. Bryan for testifying and sharing
such a personal disclosure.
4:08:13 PM
ROSE HART expressed her support for HB 5 and urged its passage.
Growing up as a daughter of a Los Angeles, California cop, she
recalled having an acute understanding that, at some point, she
would be assaulted and that little could be done to prevent it
and even less to deliver any form of justice. She reflected on
her college campus job where she learned about consent. She
said she felt empowered knowing that consent was definable,
retractable, and could only be given by a competent person. She
believed that the proposed definition of consent in HB 5 would
also empower and better protect survivors of inner-personal
dating violence and hold perpetrators accountable across the
state. She urged the legislature to help make Alaska safe for
women and survivors by passing this legislation.
4:10:22 PM
CYNTHIA GACHUPIN stated her support for HB 5 as a woman and a
mother of a teenage daughter. She said she was surprised to
learn about Alaska's lacking sexual assault laws, which
suggested that her daughter would be safer in California. She
expressed her hope that the legislature would take the chance to
update the outdated laws [by passing the proposed legislation].
4:12:19 PM
MICHAEL PATTERSON, Party for Socialism and Liberation Anchorage,
expressed his support for HB 5. He reported that Alaska had one
of the highest rates of sexual violence in the country. He said
Alaska's consent law was outdated and inadequate. He opined
that the Thirty-Second Alaska State Legislature had an
obligation to right this wrong. He understood that the proposed
legislation would modernize the consent statute and give
parent's additional tools to keep their children safe. Further,
the bill would require that sexual assault kits were tested
within a reasonable time. He believed it was shameful that many
survivors of sexual assault were denied justice because Alaska
lacked the resources to test the kits. He continued by sharing
his belief that sexual assault law in its current form was an
"act of state violence," as survivors had to heal from the
personal trauma of being assaulted and "pay for the fact that
Alaska doesn't have their back." As an Iraq war veteran, he
shared a personal anecdote about an acquaintance who was
assaulted and received no help form the army. He urged the
committee to move this legislation forward as expeditiously as
possible.
4:14:54 PM
BRIAN HOSKEN, Alaska School Activities Association, stated his
support for HB 5 and its refined definition of consent. He
informed the committee that his primary role at the Alaska
School Activities Association (ASAA) was to facilitate the
Coaching Boys into Men (CBIM) program, which was an evidence-
based comprehensive violence prevention program designed to
inspire coaches to teach their athletes the importance of
respect for themselves, others, and women. The program
incorporated strategies, scenarios, and resources needed to talk
with boys specifically about healthy and respectful
relationships, dating violence, sexual assault, and harassment.
Additionally, CBIM recognized how influential sports was on the
culture and lives of young people and was designed to utilize
and leverage the social capital held by athletes. He opined
that the principles of teamwork and fair play made athletics the
ideal platform to teach healthy relationship skills on. He
continued to explain that he trained coaches to teach a
curriculum designed for a 12-week sports season in which weekly
training lessons are presented from the coach to the athletes.
He noted that week six of the curriculum presented
"understanding consent," later asserting that the current
definition was inadequate. He offered his belief that the
proposed legislation would further define and help this teaching
component and that many of the topics incorporated by CBIM and
HB 5 mutually validated the need for a preventative educational
component and accountability for perpetrators. He opined that
the clarification and affirmative definition of consent in this
legislation would strengthen the scholastic elements of CBIM.
To conclude, he said he looked forward for the opportunity to
employ HB 5 in coordination with a statewide implementation of
CBIM to further education Alaska's youth with the objective of
eradicating violence towards women.
4:17:39 PM
SHANNON DAVENPORT, Alaska Nurses Association, shared her support
for HB 5. She reflected on her work in pediatrics over the last
decade, during which time she cared for victims of sexual
assault. She said a majority of those victims were ages 13-17
whose perpetrators tended to be family members. She stated that
her support for the proposed legislation gave them a voice. She
opined that the proposed legislation would impact how victims
were cared for and change the perception of them. She said
Alaska needed to become a community of understanding and support
rather than a society that blamed and shamed victims for coming
forward.
4:19:41 PM
LAURA RUBELI, Joyful Heart Foundation, stated her support for HB
5 as it would ensure the swift testing of rape kits. She
informed committee that members that the Joyful Heart Foundation
was founded by actress and advocate, Mariska Hargitay, to help
survivors heal. Since 2010, the foundation made eliminating the
untested rape kit backlogs its top priority. She reported that
among the 19 states with codified lab testing timelines for
sexual assault kits, Alaska's testing mandate was the longest at
one year. She noted that average testing turnaround times was
about 100 days and conveyed that a shorter testing timeline
would potentially prevent more crime, including serial rapes.
In addition to creating safer communities, swift testing
timelines would send a message to survivors that they and their
cases mattered, and that justice and healing was a priority in
Alaska. She urged legislators to "vote yes" on HB 5.
4:21:43 PM
BRENNAN HA expressed his support for HB 5. He said he found the
state's issue with sexual assault to be one of the most
unattractive factors about living in Alaska. He reflected on
the "horrific" incidents he witnessed working as a first
responder. He opined that if the statistics were lower, Alaska
would be a better place to live. He urged the enactment of the
proposed legislation to help protect his loved ones and fellow
Alaskans.
4:23:34 PM
KIMBERLY WALLER, said it was shameful that so little had been
done to protect the women of this state, especially since Alaska
wore the "sad crown" of highest rate of rape, domestic violence,
and domestic homicide. She believed much of the problem was
associated with the lack of education. She asserted that if
Alaska's leaders wanted women and families to continue
populating the state and greatly contributing to its economy,
the lack of action and protection for the most vulnerable had to
be atoned for. She offered her belief that HB 5 was a step in
the right direction. Further, she touched on her own experience
with sexual assault and the Fairbanks police that "botched" the
evidence, she said. She indicated that women were closely
watching the progress of the proposed legislation, later
maintaining that no community could flourish if women did not
because they were the backbone. She strongly encouraged the
enactment of this legislation.
4:26:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR thanked Ms. Waller for sharing her personal
disclosure.
4:26:53 PM
SHASA APPLEGATE, spoke from the following prepared remarks:
Dear committee members, my name is Shasa Applegate and
I'm from Anchorage, Alaska, and I'm a senior currently
attending Service Highschool. Not only am I in
Support of HB 5, but I've gotten nearly 700 signatures
from other Alaskan residents who are in support of
this bill as well, most of whom are in my age group.
As a survivor of sexual assault and speaking on behalf
of a friend who has experienced it firsthand as well,
the definition of consent is extremely important.
Many teenagers are not aware that consent can be
revoked and making that clear by passing this bill
will make a life changing difference for me and many
others. I did not report my sexual assault because I
didn't feel like I had a voice but passing this bill
would give people that voice.
Time and time again, election after election, we hear
candidates from this very body, state that they are
interested in protecting public health, ending the
cycles of sexual violence in our communities,
increasing public safety, and supporting law
enforcement. Now is the time to make good on those
promises by putting pen to paper and passing this
bill. You have the power to protect us, so use it.
4:28:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR thanked Sasha for her courage and
congratulated her for gathering 700 signatures.
4:29:06 PM
KATIE BOTZ expressed her wholehearted support for HB 5 and
thanked the bill sponsor for continuing to address sexual abuse
in Alaska. She asked [legislators] to be victim oriented
instead of politically oriented. She asserted that sexual
assault should be Alaska's top priority, as well as redefining
consent. She reflected on her own experience with sexual abuse
and urged the enactment of the proposed legislation.
4:33:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR thanked Ms. Botz for sharing her personal
story.
4:33:23 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS closed public testimony and announced that
HB 5 was held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 5 Letters of Support (All) 4.09.2021.pdf |
HSTA 4/13/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 5 |
| HB 55 Additional Emails of Support 4.7.21.pdf |
HSTA 4/13/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 55 |
| HB 55 Additional Emails of Support 4.12.21.pdf |
HSTA 4/13/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 55 |
| HB 55 Additional Info - DPS R&R study.pdf |
HSTA 4/13/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 55 |
| HB 55 Additional Info - FY21 Cost of a New Trooper.pdf |
HSTA 4/13/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 55 |
| HB 55 Additional Info - Training Cost per APFO 3.30.21.pdf |
HSTA 4/13/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 55 |
| HB 55 Letter of Support - Munoz 4.12.21.pdf |
HSTA 4/13/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 55 |
| HB 55 Letter of Support - Schrage 2.24.21.pdf |
HSTA 4/13/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 55 |
| HB 55 Letter of Support - Stoddard 3.31.21.pdf |
HSTA 4/13/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 55 |
| HB 55 Response to Committee Questions - Miranda 4.1.21.pdf |
HSTA 4/13/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 55 |