Legislature(2019 - 2020)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/04/2019 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
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 | |
| SB12 | |
| SB34 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 12 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 35 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 34 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SB 12-ASSAULT; SEX OFFENSES; SENTENCING CREDIT
1:33:10 PM
CHAIR HUGHES announced that the first order of business would be
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR SENATE BILL NO. 12, "An Act relating to
crime and criminal procedure; relating to assault and sexual
assault; relating to harassment; relating to credit toward a
sentence of imprisonment for time spent in a treatment program
or under electronic monitoring; and providing for an effective
date."
[Before the committee was the committee substitute (CS) for SSSB
12, work order 31-LS0263\O.1, referred to as Version O.]
1:33:58 PM
CHAIR HUGHES made opening remark and reviewed the process taken
on SB 12, including that public testimony was previously taken
and is now closed.
1:34:19 PM
SENATOR KIEHL made a motion to adopt Amendment 1 to SB 12, work
order 31-LS0263\O.1, Radford, 2/28/19.
AMENDMENT 1
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR KIEHL
TO: CSSSSB 12(JUD), Draft Version "O"
Page 2, line 26, through page 3, line 7:
Delete all material and insert:
"* Sec. 3. AS 12.55.027(d) is amended to read:
(d) A court may grant credit against a sentence
of imprisonment for time spent under electronic
monitoring if
(1) the person has not committed a criminal
offense while under electronic monitoring;
(2) the electronic monitoring is ordered in
connection with an offense that is not a sex offense
as defined in AS 12.63.100; and
(3) the court imposes restrictions on the
person's freedom of movement and behavior while under
the electronic monitoring program, including requiring
the person to be confined to a residence except for a
(A) [(1)] court appearance;
(B) [(2)] meeting with counsel; or
(C) [(3)] period during which the person is
at a location ordered by the court for the purposes of
employment, attending educational or vocational
training, performing community volunteer work, or
attending a rehabilitative activity or medical
appointment."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 8, line 31:
Delete "AS 12.55.027(g)"
Insert "AS 12.55.027(g)(3)"
Page 9, lines 4 - 5:
Delete "repealed and reenacted"
Insert "amended"
Page 9, line 5:
Delete "AS 12.55.027(e), as amended by sec. 4 of
this Act,"
Page 9, line 6:
Delete "sec. 5"
Insert "sec. 4"
Delete "sec. 6"
Insert "sec. 5"
Page 9, line 7:
Delete "sec. 7"
Insert "sec. 6"
Page 9, line 8:
Delete "sec. 8"
Insert "sec. 7"
Delete "sec. 9"
Insert "sec. 8"
Page 9, line 9:
Delete "AS 12.55.027(g) by sec. 10"
Insert "AS 12.55.027(g)(3) by sec. 9"
SENATOR MICCICHE objected for discussion purposes.
1:34:39 PM
At-ease.
1:35:18 PM
CHAIR HUGHES reconvened the meeting.
1:35:34 PM
SENATOR KIEHL explained that Amendment 1 relates to credits for
electronic monitoring called Nygren credits [based on Nygren v.
State (1980)]. This provision would remove the opportunity to
receive credit for time spent on electronic monitoring if the
offender is ultimately convicted of a sex offense. However,
credit for time spent on electronic monitoring would be
available for those who are ultimately convicted of crimes other
than sex offense crimes. He offered his belief that [credit for
electronic monitoring for non-sex offenders] is a much bigger
policy question than SB 12 was intended to address. The
underlying bill is a good bill since it would close loopholes in
the Justin Schneider case and address some sex offense issues.
He explained that under Amendment 1, anyone accused of a sex
offense would not get credit for time spent on electronic
monitoring during the pretrial phase. He surmised that non-sex
offenders who receive credit for time served are more likely to
succeed in society. For example, one scenario previously
discussed in committee pertained to offenders who are off their
medications and need mental health treatment. If these offenders
could obtain electronic monitoring credits, it might be possible
for them to retain their jobs, continue their treatment, and
stay connected to their families, and stay out of prison. He
pointed out that currently Lemon Creek Correctional Facility
(LCCF) does not offer drug treatment programs. If these same
offenders in the scenario described are incarcerated, they will
be subjected to the adverse aspects of criminals who clearly
need to be imprisoned.
He emphasized that under Amendment 1, a sex offender, such as
Justin Schneider, would be incarcerated and would not be
eligible to receive credit for electronic monitoring, but the
amendment would not go beyond that, he said.
1:38:19 PM
CHAIR HUGHES remarked that medications are administered within
the prison system so the idea of someone who is incarcerated
having to be off their medication is not accurate. In speaking
with the Commissioner Designee for the Department of
Corrections, the department intends to expand drug treatment
within the prison system. Further, pre-sentence drug treatment
is counted as good time, she said.
She expressed concern that Amendment 1 would reinstate
electronic monitoring for all crimes except sex crimes. She
pointed out that this includes a disturbing set of crimes,
including crimes involving domestic violence as defined in AS
18.66.990, an offense involving delivering a controlled
substance to a minor in AS 11.71, burglary in the first degree,
and arson in the first degree under AS 11.46.400, and a felony
crime against a person under AS ll.41. She reminded members that
AS 11.41 is the cite that includes strangulation and the
enhanced sentencing structure for offenses involving
strangulation.
CHAIR HUGHES said that to say that the bill goes beyond the
scope of its original intent by not allowing credit for
electronic monitoring is completely inaccurate. Mr. Skidmore put
on the record that defendants are purposefully stretching out
their time on electronic monitoring in order to avoid
incarceration. She emphasized that this section speaks directly
to what allowed many criminals, including Justin Schneider to
avoid jail time. As the committee heard from many testifiers,
the time for free passes has to end. She said the committee will
hear testimony from a man whose wife was killed in a DUI
[Driving while Under the Influence] and that person has been out
on an ankle electronic monitor. This man and his son suffer
daily, but the man who killed his wife has been enjoying the
luxury of being in his own home on an ankle monitor, free to
watch television, and to eat what he wants to eat. She offered
her belief that this pre-sentence credit does not seem right or
fair to the victims. She reiterated that many of these crimes
listed are very serious crimes. She said she will not support
[Amendment 1.]
1:42:00 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE remarked that another thing to consider is that
electronic monitoring can be part of a sentence post-conviction.
This removes the credit for pretrial time, but it does not
eliminate post-conviction credits. Further, [Amendment 1] also
assumes that sex crimes result in convictions, but often sex
crimes are a product of other crimes, such as burglaries and
domestic violence. He said that someone could still obtain
electronic monitoring credit even if the person was convicted of
the other crimes. He maintained his belief that the direction
taken in [Version O] is the right one. Finally, this would
essentially be giving the same rights to someone convicted of a
very serious crime as to someone who is proven innocent. He said
that he cannot support Amendment 1. He said that the courts have
discretion for special cases. This language removes the
incentive for defendants to stretch out their cases, he said. He
pointed out that the Justin Schneider case was delayed six times
at the request of defense counsel, and five times pending
negotiation, which delayed sentencing to just beyond the one-
year timeframe. The reality is that Justin Schneider was given
credit for the year on electronic monitoring and suspended the
remaining one-year sentence, which mean "he walked." He offered
his belief that it is appropriate in this case and in other
cases where sexual assault might not be proven, so for those
reasons he cannot support [Amendment 1].
1:45:01 PM
CHAIR HUGHES said she appreciates that an innocent person pre-
conviction must bear the loss of time whereas the person who is
convicted would obtain a benefit from electronic monitoring
credit.
1:45:52 PM
JOHN SKIDMORE, Director, Criminal Division, Central Office,
Department of Law, Anchorage, stated that the points that the
sponsor and Chair Hughes made are well founded. He said that
[Amendment 1] would allow individuals to obtain additional
credit towards their sentences. He directed attention to current
AS 12.55.027, such that the amount of credit for electronic
monitoring is limited for certain types of crimes, but for other
crimes is unlimited. In the felony DUI case mentioned earlier,
the person will get credit for all of the time spent on
electronic monitoring pretrial no matter the length of the DUI
sentence. The murder aspect would be limited to one year, but
the other aspects would not, he said. He pointed out that the
Justin Schneider case would receive electronic monitoring credit
under Amendment 1 because he did not commit a sex crime since he
committed the crime of strangulation. He directed attention to
other crimes that offenders could receive electronic monitoring
credit for, including misconduct involving weapons or a drive by
shooting. A person could receive unlimited credit while on
electronic monitoring pretrial or for promoting contraband, such
as bringing weapons or drugs into prison facilities. He related
that misconduct involving a corpse, cruelty to animals,
misconduct involving controlled substances, and interference
with constitutional rights are crimes in which offenders could
serve their entire jail on electronic monitoring, he said. He
characterized this as the type of policy call that members face
when considering Amendment 1.
1:49:01 PM
SENATOR KIEHL wondered if the public defender could speak to
Amendment 1.
CHAIR HUGHES responded that the person is not online.
1:49:41 PM
SENATOR KIEHL said that he appreciated the discussion and the
information that with the remainder of the bill that the Justin
Schneider crime would fall within sex crimes and he would not
have been allowed to be on electronic monitoring. He said that
is important since it matches with his intent. Some of the
arguments did not resonate with him, such as watching television
on electronic monitoring, since correctional facilities also
have television. He also pointed out that a person who is in
prison awaiting trial who is ultimately found innocent would
also have lost time that the individual could not get back.
He said that prosecutors testify that changing the law benefits
the defense and defense attorneys testify that it tilts the
table in favor of the prosecution. He emphasized that his
interest lies with individuals who need mental health treatment,
such as 90 meetings in 90 days outpatient drug and alcohol
treatment. He reminded members that individuals who [are
arraigned] have a constitutional right to a trial by a jury of
their peers. He expressed concern that these people are less
likely to get back on the straight and narrow. He directed
attention to the first line of Amendment 1 and said the court
"may" not "shall" grant credit against a sentence, which gives
the courts discretion. He offered his belief that it is a
worthwhile tool that should be kept outside of the realm of sex
crimes. He suggested that in this instance discretion has the
potential to reduce crime and that should be the focus. He
encouraged a "yes" vote on [Amendment 1].
1:52:23 PM
CHAIR HUGHES said she appreciates that the sponsor of Amendment
1 is interested in having offenders "get back on the straight
and narrow" since it helps keep communities safe. In her view,
nothing in the crime package would try to change that goal since
to goal is to have safe communities. She stated that she is
working with the DOC to make changes within the system. She said
that inmates can receive mental health treatment while
incarcerated. She explained her concern about offenders on
electronic monitoring is that they choose what to watch, but
correctional officers have control over the remote control. She
emphasized that offenders on electronic monitoring have
substantially more freedom.
1:53:39 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE offered to clarify his comments. He said if an
individual is accused of a crime and spends a year on electronic
monitoring, and is not guilty, they lose the year they spent on
electronic monitoring. If someone else is accused of a crime and
spends a year on electronic monitoring [and is found guilty],
that person is given credit for serving the same amount of time
as the innocent person. The Constitution of the State of Alaska
requires community condemnation or "paying" the price to society
for that crime. Electronic monitoring spent in a luxury home on
Kachemak Bay in his view is not paying a price to society for
that crime. He emphasized that he believes in rehabilitation and
helping the offender to succeed once the person has done so.
However, [one] problem with Senate Bill 91 is that it seemed to
forget that there is a price to be paid for crimes against
others.
He said that someone in a low-level crime who is not likely to
benefit from incarceration can pay that price in some other way.
The courts can still use electronic monitoring post-conviction
to avoid incarceration. He characterized Amendment 1 as a means
to default to electronic monitoring as a means of paying the
sentence, whereas [SB 12] uses electronic monitoring in special
cases to manage sentencing if it meets very narrow
qualifications. He said that is the only difference.
1:56:04 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE maintained his objection.
1:56:14 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Senator Kiehl voted in favor of
Amendment 1 and Senators Reinbold, Shower, Micciche, and Hughes
voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 1 failed by a 1:4 vote.
1:56:47 PM
CHAIR HUGHES opened public testimony on SB 12.
1:57:12 PM
ERIK REED, representing himself, Wasilla, stated that his wife,
Brandy Jean Reed, died on December 13, 2017 due to drunk driving
crash. He and his son survived. The man responsible for his
wife's death has been out for over a year on electronic
monitoring, first with his family, girlfriend and children and
now with a childhood best friend. He said that the offender is
free to live his life. He said he has tried to maintain an
attitude of forgiveness so he can teach his son how to abstain
from a life of revenge.
He said that it has been hard and traumatic. Time and time again
he must relive it and he is not being compensated. He
characterized the process as a continuous one and said he does
not attend the pre-trial conference proceedings because he does
not want to "pay the man back for the life that he took and the
lives that he destroyed." He said his wife had four children and
a large family and friends in the Mat-Su Valley. He said it is
unjust to say that the offender could do anything that would
help preserve her memory and bring her back. It would be a slap
in the face if the offender receives any credit for time served
on electronic monitoring for pretrial or post-trial because the
family will never get Brandy Jean Reed back ever. He said he
must live the life he has been given to live. He must abide by
the laws and be an upstanding member of society. He hopes the
committee will take into consideration that victims exist. He
related that people talk about reform, reformation of criminals,
finances, money, but no one talks to the victims.
1:59:20 PM
CHAIR HUGHES remarked that she was sorry for his loss.
1:59:29 PM
SYLVIA KENNEDY, Member, 49th Rising, Anchorage, stated that she
has friends that have suffered crimes and this type of crime is
one that can be traced back to biblical times. She said that
people are often not punished for their crimes. She said she did
not think sexual offenders should use electronic monitoring and
all sex offenders need to be registered. She said that the
Justin Schneider case was a travesty and she hoped that SB 12
passes the legislature.
2:01:03 PM
SCOTT CARSON, representing himself, Juneau, said he has worked
in law enforcement for 20 years. He spoke in support of SB 12
since it will close loopholes and strengthen laws in the state.
He said that Alaska leads the nation as one of the most
dangerous states in terms of sex crimes. He related that from
his work experience, sexual assaults are some of the most
damaging for victims and families.
2:02:19 PM
DOROTHY KOEROK, representing herself, Palmer, said that in 2017
she was hired for a mining project. She said she was not welcome
and was dishonored. She continually had to wrestle with
inappropriate comments. She said that she was drugged and
sexually assaulted, and it was reported to her immediate
supervisor. She said once she was off the boat [she dealt with
various agencies], including the Alaska State Troopers, the
United States Coast Guard, the Office of Victims' Rights, and
the Human Rights Commission. During this process she felt she
was shamed, that staff wanted to know what motivated the men to
put her in an altered state of consciousness. She said her
throat was damaged in the process. In response to Chair Hughes,
she responded that she supports SB 12 in reference to
strangulation and use of a dangerous object.
2:06:38 PM
KEELEY OLSON, Executive Director, Standing Together Against
Rape, Anchorage, testified in support of all the changes to the
law except for Senator Kiehl's amendment in response to credit
for electronic monitoring. She appreciated the advocacy by the
bill sponsor and the committee.
2:08:06 PM
ELIZABETH WILLIAMS, representing self, No More Free Passes,
Anchorage, spoke in support of the revision that will require
prosecutors to consult with the victim. She said some former
prosecutors serve on her organization's board and that
prosecutors already consider it to be the best practice to
affirmatively reach out to victims. However, some victims say
this does not always happen. This change is important because
the expectation is in law that the prosecutor "shall" reach out
to the victim. Currently, the victim shall request that the
prosecutor confer with the victim regarding a plea agreement.
This bill would shift the burden to the state to reach out to
the victim. Although it may not seem like a big change,
legislation shapes culture. She listed the number of things a
victim must do throughout the judicial process if the individual
is sexually assaulted. She said that she is very pleased with
this change.
2:10:44 PM
BETH FREAD, representing self, Palmer, expressed her support for
SB 12 especially related to electronic monitoring. She said she
missed the "marriage" portion of the crime bill. She thanked
members for the opportunity to testify.
CHAIR HUGHES referred to another bill that addresses sexual
crimes, which is SB 35, and that bill contains the provision she
mentioned on marriage.
2:11:54 PM
MARJORIE LONG, representing self, Point Lay, said she was
sexually assaulted by a family member. She said that she is
speaking out because she heard that this person has assaulted
another person. At the time of her assault, the village did not
have any village public safety officers (VPSOs). She did not
have any support or way of handling rape. She said she lives in
a community where many women carry a burden like this one. She
said that she supports the bill so that more women will not be
choked during a sexual assault.
2:13:26 PM
CHAIR HUGHES thanked her for her bravery in speaking up.
2:13:35 PM
VICKI JO KENNEDY, representing herself, Kodiak, said she is glad
strangulation was included [as a crime] in the bill because it
is difficult to prove since it often does not leave marks. She
said she was sexually assaulted in 2013. She sought help from
the Kodiak Women's Resource and Crisis Center. She emphasized
the need to "put teeth in this bill" and remove Alaska as the
state with the highest number of sexual offenses in the nation
per capita. She testified in support of SB 12.
2:15:32 PM
CHRIS EICHENLAUB, representing self, Eagle River, testified in
support of SB 12. He thanked members for working to close the
loopholes. He said that perpetrators typically strike more than
once. He said he hopes the bill passes. He suggested that
members might talk about castration down the road.
2:16:33 PM
LISA ELLANNA, Volunteer Advocate, Concerned Citizens, Nome, said
that she works as a volunteer for sexual and domestic violence
victims in the region. She said several years ago some women
started meeting informally to share their experiences and
discovered that many of their situations were not being properly
handled. She spoke in support of SB 12. She referred to a 2014
Alaska Victimization Survey in the Nome area conducted by the
University of Alaska Justice Center, which showed that 51
percent of adult women have experienced intimate partner
violence, sexual violence or both in their lifetime and of
those, 11 percent have experienced that violence in the past
year.
She said the State of Alaska reports that one in three Alaska
Native women have experienced sexual violence at some point in
their lives. One out of two Alaska Native women have experienced
sexual violence other than rape. The U.S. Department of Justice
estimates that nationally only 30 percent of rapes are reported.
She offered her belief that a much smaller percentage of rapes
are reported in Alaska, in part, due to isolated communities and
that law enforcement does not exist in many villages. She said
telling someone that sexual assault has happened is very hard
and she wanted to honor the victims, as survivors, who come
forward to allow them to seek justice. She expressed gratitude
to the committee for putting this bill forward since it will
tighten up loopholes. In addition, she thanked the legislature
for its focus on this human rights issue. Not only does it
affect the Bering Strait Region, but it affects the entire
state, so she is glad the state has taken strides to make Alaska
a safer place. This issue extends nationally and internationally
to give resources to enforce the laws. As the state moves
forward to tighten up loopholes, it is also important to provide
the resources necessary to enforce the laws. The region needs
more public safety, including Alaska State Troopers and Village
Public Safety Officers (VPSO) in rural areas.
CHAIR HUGHES thanked her for sharing her perspective.
2:20:49 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD thanked her for her advocacy and activism in
her community. She acknowledged the high incidence of sexual
assault in her area. She asked for clarification if she was
saying her area has more unreported sexual assault.
MS. ELLANNA answered that way fewer people report sexual
violence occurrences to public safety officers than the national
rate.
2:21:54 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD solicited her comments on how the legislature
can make a difference.
CHAIR HUGHES stated that written testimony can be submitted to
[email protected]
2:22:56 PM
CARMEN LOWRY, Executive Director, Alaska Network on Domestic
Violence & Sexual Assault (ANDVSA), echoed that victims and
survivors are grateful for the leadership and effort to make
these crimes so much more public. One testifier spoke about
culture and how laws can change culture. She said that
surrounding sexual violence is a culture of silence and many
people think this refers to victims not speaking out, but much
of it is because the rest of the people do not speak out. It
could be teachers, parents, or people in religious places who do
not speak out. As policy makers and legislators speak out, as a
survivor she is grateful. She said she hoped that as Alaska is
creating a safer place it may result in more reporting. The
ANDVSA network in very much in support of SB 12. She directed
attention to Section 9, previously discussed, that the
prosecuting attorney "shall make a reasonable effort" to confer
with the victim. The ANDVSA would like to see "a reasonable
effort" defined. She expressed an interest in ensuring that
systems are in place for victims to be involved in reporting
their experiences in a safe way.
SENATOR MICCICHE acknowledged that a legal definition of a
"reasonable" effort was partially explained by Mr. Skidmore.
This bill came about because of Judge Michael Corey. It is not a
judge's role to push prosecutors to have a greater level of
input from the victim. In this particular case it may have
resulted in the victim being willing to step forward. If that
had happened perhaps a more substantial case could have been
made against Justin Schneider and he would be in prison paying
for his crimes. He explained that the crimes were multiple even
if these offenses were not recognized in existing law. He said
prosecutors will reach out, with the goal being to encourage
victims to engage and participate and help put offenders who are
guilty of heinous crimes behind bars for an appropriate amount
of time. He acknowledged in some instances the victims will
accept the plea agreement because they do not want to go through
the courtroom proceedings. The legislature is not going to force
them to go through that process. That will be up to them.
2:26:47 PM
CHAIR HUGHES remarked that prosecutors consider it as a best
practice to keep victims informed, but it has been inconsistent.
She asked Mr. Skidmore to indicate what reasonable effort means.
MR. SKIDMORE answered that reasonable is a term used throughout
the law and in statute. However, it is not specifically defined.
He stated that the DOL would consider reasonable efforts to mean
reaching out to the victim by using contact information in the
case file. He said in some instances, additional steps can be
made, particularly in more egregious cases, to try to make
contact with them from a last known address, or to go to an
employer to attempt to contact the victim. He said the
department would not do that in every case, that it would be an
exception. He said that the department emphasizes getting good
contact information and tries to stay in touch with victims
throughout the process. He envisioned that would be the process
the department would use.
2:28:22 PM
SENATOR KIEHL said that he was very interested in Ms. Lowry's
perspective and recommendation on "reasonable effort." He
expressed concerns since the statute indicates that a prosecutor
"has a duty to confer" with the victim. He said he is hearing
the department indicate it needs good contact information to
meet "reasonable effort."
MS. LOWRY said that a connection with the local program or
advocacy service provider can help to bridge that gap. For
example, the Anchorage area has advocates. She suggested making
sure that the network works with the prosecutor to reach out to
the victim. She said that making sure that victim advocates
understand what that means would be helpful to provide
additional support to victims. She also suggested ensuring that
the victim knows what is entailed if the victim talks to the
prosecutor.
2:30:19 PM
CHAIR HUGHES asked whether the department would develop internal
policies that might include victim advocacy groups who may have
contact information for the victim.
MR. SKIDMORE said that the Department of Law's practice already
includes reaching out to victim advocacy groups and shelters
when it is known that the victim has sought out their assistance
and services. He said that is certainly one of the steps the
department would try to undertake and is part of the typical
contact information the department acquires. In addition, the
department may have a personal cell phone, e-mail address, home
or work phone, or advocacy shelter phone number. This all falls
within the gamut of what would be considered as reasonable
steps. These are all steps the Department of Law currently tries
to undertake. He said this language would just provide an
additional incentive to require the department, by law, to
record the information in the department's files.
2:31:58 PM
JANELLE MANCHESTER, representing herself, Fairbanks, stated her
support for SB 12 as it closes the loopholes related to semen
and strangulation. She said that she appreciates that it
increases sentences for all assaults that involve strangulation,
and it disallows time spent on electronic monitoring counting as
compliance credit. She also supports that prosecutors must make
a reasonable effort to consult with victims.
2:33:02 PM
CHAIR HUGHES, after first determining no one wished to testify,
closed public testimony on SB 12.
2:33:15 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD moved to report the committee substitute (CS)
for SSSB 12, work order 31-LS0263\0, referred to as Version O,
from committee with individual recommendations and attached
fiscal note(s).
SENATOR MICCICHE objected. He said he appreciated the time the
committee spent on this bill since some things were overlooked.
One was the required interaction [with victims] on plea
agreements. Another consideration was the discussion of
increasing penalties for strangulation in the commission of a
sex crime. This bill has identified and remedied the loopholes
in the Justin Schneider case and that is what this bill is
about. The public was appalled at the outcome, as was he. He
recapped the bill, that it redefines a sex crime by adding
unwanted contact with semen. It would require registering as a
sex offender for the offenses that Justin Schneider committed.
It would increase penalties for strangulation in the commission
of a sex crime and no longer allows credit for time spent on
electronic monitoring. Finally, it requires that prosecutors
consult with victims for plea agreements.
2:35:10 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD said this is one step, but an important one.
She said that a judge did not get reelected because of the
fallout from loopholes in the law. She thanked Senator Micciche
for bringing this forward. She appreciated having changes to the
bill presented as individual amendments. She said that she can
support the committee substitute. She hoped to continue to work
on this issue and strengthen criminal laws.
2:36:08 PM
CHAIR HUGHES thanked the sponsor for bringing this forward. She
thanked Judge Corey because he brought Section 9 to the sponsor,
which is an important addition. She also thanked the governor
and the Department of Law for their support and efforts to make
this a solid bill. She said the committee took time to ensure
the issues were addressed. She said she is pleased with the
committee substitute. She said one of the ways this bill can
help make communities safer is that it provides information to
the public that perpetrators will be held accountable for their
crimes. She offered her belief that the reporting statistics
will improve as a result.
2:37:42 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE removed his objection.
There being no further objection, CSSSSB 12(JUD) was reported
from the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SJUD Agenda 3.4.19.pdf |
SJUD 3/4/2019 1:30:00 PM |
|
| CSSSSB12 Version O.pdf |
SJUD 3/4/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 12 |
| CSSSSB12 Explanation of Changes from Version U to O.pdf |
SFIN 3/11/2019 9:00:00 AM SJUD 3/4/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 12 |
| CSSSSB 12 Sectional Summary Version O.pdf |
SJUD 3/4/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 12 |
| Amendment 1 to CSSSSB12 - Kiehl.pdf |
SJUD 3/4/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 12 SB 34 |
| CSSB 34 Version U.PDF |
SJUD 3/4/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 34 |
| SB 34 Transmittal Letter.pdf |
SJUD 3/4/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 34 |
| SB 34 - Probation and Parole Sectional.pdf |
SJUD 3/4/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 34 |
| SB 34 Explanation of Changes.pdf |
SJUD 3/4/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 34 |
| SB 34 Highlights.pdf |
SJUD 3/4/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 34 |