Legislature(1995 - 1996)
04/21/1995 01:05 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
TAPE 95-47, SIDE B
Number 000
HB 104 - DISCLOSURE OF JUVENILE RECORDS
ROD MOURANT, Administrative Assistant to Representative Pete Kott,
bill sponsor, introduced CSSSHB 104. Juvenile crime is pervasive
in modern society. House bill 104 would (indisc.) communities and
teachers (indisc.). This legislation allows the arresting entity
to release the identity of an individual juvenile if the offense
they were charged with would have been a felony, had it been
committed by an adult. The information released would also include
the date, and place of the offense, and the description and nature
of the offense. When juveniles know that their identity will be
revealed to their teachers, friends, and neighbors, when they
commit a serious crime, it should act as a deterrent toward their
actions. This is a small effort to help reverse a growing trend.
LIEUTENANT TED BACHMAN, Alaska State Troopers, Department of Public
Safety, just wanted to make himself available for questions. His
only concern with this legislation is the inability in some cases
to come back where a mistake has been made and readdress the issue
if the wrong person was identified. That is the only point of
contention the State Troopers would have with this issue.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked how long it takes before these
cases are turned over to DFYS.
LT. BACHMAN answered that in an arrest situation, it is practically
immediate, by the next day or so.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN pointed out that the information would
only be available for that day or so, as when it gets to DFYS, that
same information becomes unavailable.
LT. BACHMAN understood that to be correct.
MARGOT KNUTH, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division,
Department of Law, confirmed that no information can be disclosed
once DFYS has taken the case, and if there is a dismissal, that is
not to be disclosed anymore than if there were an adjudication.
The only disclosure you could have is if there were a waiver to
adult court, at which point it becomes public. But as long as
whatever happens is a juvenile proceeding, then those federal funds
are at risk if there is publication of the information. That means
we are treating juveniles differently than we are treating adults
where when we arrest adults, what happens to them ultimately, is
public information, and it will not be for juveniles. You will not
find out if the juvenile were or were not convicted, acquitted, if
it was a lesser offense, mistaken identity, or if other charges
were added to it that were more serious. There are provisions for
disclosure on a need to know basis. What we are talking about here
is general disclosure to the public. If there is a victim who is
interested in what is going on in the case, AS 47.10.093 authorizes
the disclosure to victims, probably to some extent.
Number 250
CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that in viewing the bill, he and his
committee Aide agreed that it was a bit inappropriate and somewhat
misleading to leave the bill in Title 9, when all of the other
information about what you can and cannot release on a juvenile is
in Title 47. Someone would look in Title 47 for that information
and not see that there was this exception. Consequently, with the
permission of the sponsor, we drafted this CS that does the same
thing, but places it where all of the other information is on
juveniles, which is Title 47. This way, someone interested in this
subject can go to one place and find all of the answers.
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE made a motion to adopt the CS for SSHB
104, Version O, as the working draft. Hearing no objection, it was
so ordered.
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Ms. Knuth if this was clear that this allows
a permissive release by law enforcement agencies, and not a
mandatory release.
MS. KNUTH agreed that was correct, and the other disclosures that
are authorized by this section are clearly permissive and in the
discretion of the agency, and a much stronger argument can be made
with the placement in "093" than can be made in Title 9, because to
say that you may, in Title 9 is to say it is public information,
and if it is public information, it is to be disclosed; so this is
an improvement.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked why we want to publish these
youth's names in the paper.
CHAIRMAN PORTER said his general philosophy about that is we have
tried for a number of years the approach that in all cases, in all
circumstances, children should be treated totally differently from
adult offenders because they are younger, more salvageable. If you
publicize what they did, there is more likely to be a stigma that
you are what everybody is telling you are, and consequently, you
may become an adult criminal, when you may otherwise not have.
That has not worked. There are increasingly more and more children
who use that protection as a manipulative device as opposed to what
it was designed for. With that in mind, he would like more kids to
realize that they and their parents' names will become public if
they mess up in the first degree. This bill would take away that
protection to hide behind.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE felt that people's behaviors are more
exemplary when they are open to scrutiny. True honesty is what we
do when no one else is looking. According to the notion that it
takes a whole village to raise a child, the village has to know
what that child is doing, both to protect itself and to perhaps be
able to rehabilitate the child. Parents may be inclined to be more
"hands on" if they know their child's behaviors are open to the
public.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN did see some logic in the community
protection side of that, to let people know who is a danger to
society. He was not convinced on the deterrent factor. He
remembered being in grade school and junior high school, and he was
the hero when he was called to the principal's office, because he
had gotten attention. Part of being a trouble maker is being an
acknowledged trouble maker. It is a great thing when a kid gets
his name in the paper for an election to the school board, but it
is sort of the same thing when the kid gets his name in the paper
for robbing the store. Vandals usually brag about it. That is how
they catch them. It is not enough to just break all the windows in
the school. You have to tell everybody it was you who did it,
because you get credit out of it. All of this is to lead up to an
amendment. He felt the number one focus ought to be on crimes
which were committed against people, not property.
Amendment Number 1:
Page 1, line 10, after "offense":
Insert "set out in AS 11.41"
CHAIRMAN PORTER objected for discussion. He did not think this
provision would be used in a 14-year-old's first burglary, but it
could be an appropriate release mechanism for cases where a
community had had a long series of house burglaries, or vandalism
or some other property offense that had really reached a level of
intense concern. A roll call vote was taken. Representative
Finkelstein voted yes. Representatives Bunde, Toohey, Green, and
Porter voted no. Representative Vezey had stepped out. Amendment
number one failed, four to one.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN wondered why we worked on a whole bill
on the disclosure to schools, when we give complete release of the
same information with this bill. Why were we so particular about
what information could be given to the schools, if it has already
been released to the media?
CHAIRMAN PORTER answered that all of the information has not been
released to the media. The only thing this bill allows is the
release by law enforcement of the fact that a certain minor was
arrested for a certain offense at a certain place. What happened
after that, from adjudication to treatment, is of interest to
schools, but are not public information. That is why the other
bill had to be carefully crafted. This bill gets more at the
public's right to know if dangerous juveniles are out there.
Number 600
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE made a motion to move CSSSHB 104(JUD) out of
committee with individual recommendations and zero fiscal notes.
There was an objection and a roll call vote was taken.
Representatives Toohey, Bunde, Green, and Porter voted yes.
Representative Finkelstein voted no. Representative Vezey had
stepped out. CSSSHB 104(JUD) passed out of committee with a four
to one vote.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|