Legislature(2003 - 2004)
02/24/2004 01:54 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE BILL NO. 357
An Act relating to restitution; and providing for an
effective date.
REPRESENTATIVE RALPH SAMUELS stated that HB 357 would
require judges to order restitution from criminals in all
cases where a victim suffered a financial loss. He added
that when financial losses of victims are ignored or given
less priority than the rights of criminals, they are being
victimized again. HB 357 would require judges to order
restitution in every case where a victim has suffered a
financial loss. Under present law, a judge may, but is not
required to do so. The change would ensure that offenders
are ordered to make realistic restitution payments to help
make the victim whole within a reasonable period of time.
Representative Samuels added that the bill would clarify
that a minor who has been ordered to pay restitution be
th
required to do so beyond their 19 birthday.
STEVE BRANCHFLOWER, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), OFFICE
OF VICTIM RIGHTS, ANCHORAGE, offered to answer questions of
the Committee, noting that he supports the bill 100%.
Representative Stoltze inquired if there were any reasons
for not implementing the legislation. Representative
Samuels responded that the Constitution indicates that
intent. The legislation creates a statute to follow that
Constitution. He stated that a victim would want a payment
schedule in order to make that person "whole".
Representative Stoltze reiterated that it would be the
Legislature implementing the provisions of the Constitution.
He pointed out that more people voted for that than voted
against the Permanent Fund Dividend.
DIANE WENDLANDT, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), CHIEF
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, CORRECTIONS SUPPORT, DEPARTMENT
OF LAW, ANCHORAGE, offered to answer any questions of the
Committee.
LINDA WILSON, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), PUBLIC
DEFENDER OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, ANCHORAGE,
testified that even though the State Constitution does give
the right to restitution, it is important that the victim
exercise that right and that "requiring restitution" when
the victim does not request it, could be problematic.
Representative Samuels referenced Page 1, Line 4, explaining
that the victim could decline restitution. There could be
cases in which, a family member would not want restitution
or put a financial mark on that person. Restitution can be
declined and that language is currently in the bill.
Representative Fate asked if there were any Statute of
Limitations on either making a payment program or the payout
in the future. Representative Samuels advised that if the
person were convicted of the crime, then the Statute of
Limitation would apply. The legislation becomes active
during the sentencing phase.
Co-Chair Harris noted his concern with the indeterminate
fiscal notes. Representative Samuels understood that the
Department of Law and the Public Defender Agency voiced
concern that there might be more restitution hearings
resulting from passage of the legislation. He argued it
could go either way, and noted that he did not support that
concept. Representative Samuels thought it would be a
minimal impact to the agencies.
Representative Foster MOVED to report CS HB 357 (JUD) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CS HB 357 (JUD) was reported out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with indeterminate note #1 by the
Department of Administration and indeterminate note #2 by
the Department of Law.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|