Legislature(2003 - 2004)
04/09/2003 01:30 PM Senate JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 23-RESTITUTION FOR CRIME VICTIMS
CHAIR SEEKINS announced CSHB 23(JUD), version \U, to be up for
consideration.
SENATOR THERRIAULT said with regard to the concern he expressed
at a previous meeting, he understands the rationale between the
two groups and is willing to go forward.
CHAIR SEEKINS said he understands that this would allow non-
profits to be able to collect for volunteer labor. For profit
corporations are able to seek recovery for labor required to
clean up after a crime, but a private individual would still not
be able to collect for time volunteers might spend cleaning up
after a crime.
MS. LINDA SYLVESTER, staff to Representative Bruce Weyhrauch,
said she would answer questions.
SENATOR OGAN asked what they were trying to fix with this
legislation.
MS. SYLVESTER replied that the bill was written in response to
an incident that happened in Juneau with the Alaska State Folk
Festival when the treasurer embezzled funds. The case was
prosecuted and the festival board and six volunteers spent over
200 hours providing evidence for the police department. During
the restitution hearing the court determined that state law
didn't clearly envision that the efforts of a volunteer board
could be included in the restitution.
SENATOR OGAN asked if the non-profit had recourse for damages in
civil court.
MS. SYLVESTER replied that they would have, but restitution is
in a criminal proceeding and is an avenue that is available to a
victim so that they can be made whole in an expedited way
without going to civil court.
CHAIR SEEKINS said it clarifies that these are not actual
damages that have been paid to someone to perform auditing
services to determine the amount of the embezzlement, but rather
actual hours of time spent by volunteers.
SENATOR OGAN said he is a little troubled by the direction the
bill is going. He is concerned whether it is an appropriate role
to award what would typically be a civil damage in a criminal
case.
SENATOR FRENCH said he shares that concern and he also has
issues with how a court would value the services, especially in
the folk festival case where they didn't spend any money.
So the $5,000 they are getting is what you might call
unjust enrichment. I think on balance, we should fall
on the side of the non-profit. And, I think on
balance, courts will be aware of where you can fairly
assign a dollar value and where they can't. They'll
deny a request in criminal court still leaving the
victim free to run straight over to civil court and
file a claim. I don't think anyone should look at this
as a free for all for crime victims to get paid back
because they never will be...
CHAIR SEEKINS agreed with Senator French.
SENATOR THERRIAULT said his concern is that they are carving the
non-profits out for this little extra treatment that is not
available to individual citizens. He then acknowledged that you
have to recognize the good that non-profits provide in society.
They're not going to be able to unfairly enrich
themselves. I think the courts will step in and
prevent that from happening. It doesn't guarantee them
to be made whole, because a lot of times the
individuals that perpetrate the crimes don't have the
means...
MS. SYLVESTER said this is okay because the people in the non-
profits are not getting paid and it's difficult for a group to
come up with a monetary award. Also, most often these situations
are dealing with embezzlement and the way our criminal justice
system is set up, they are not going to investigate and spend
the time and effort reconstructing books that have been
completely destroyed or don't exist. It's a similar situation to
asking a rape victim to go out and hunt down the perpetrator and
pay for the testing and then turn the situation over to the
police.
She said that narrowing this down to just non-profits corrected
an indeterminate fiscal note to a zero fiscal note. That means
that public defenders won't be involved in defending individual
defendants from claims of many individuals.
SENATOR OGAN said he is still concerned that this carved out
special treatment for a group of people.
SENATOR THERRIAULT made a motion to pass CSHB 23(JUD),
version\U, from committee with individual recommendations. There
was no objection and it was so ordered.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|