Legislature(2023 - 2024)GRUENBERG 120
05/12/2023 01:00 PM House 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 | |
| HB4 | |
| SB53 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 4 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 53 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 53-COMPETENCY; INVOLUNTARY CIVIL COMMITMENTS
3:33:31 PM
CHAIR VANCE announced that the final order of business would be
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 53(FIN) am, "An Act relating to
competency to stand trial; relating to involuntary civil
commitments; and relating to victims' rights during certain
civil commitment proceedings."
CHAIR VANCE invited the bill sponsor to explain "where the
Criminal Division meets Civil Division."
3:34:36 PM
SENATOR MATT CLAMAN, Alaska State Legislature, prime sponsor of
CSSB 53(FIN) AM, highlighted Section 6 as the key part of the
legislation. Section 6 would require the prosecutor for certain
individuals who meet the statutory definition of "dangerous" to
file an involuntary commitment [petition] under Title 47, which
would start the civil proceedings.
3:35:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER shared his belief that the additional
two-year commitment in Section 11 would be a significant portion
of the bill. He asked why two years was selected.
3:35:38 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN acknowledged that the additional commitment in
Section 11 was a key part of the bill; however, it wouldn't
impact the power to hold someone, which under current law, was
achieved by repeating six-month involuntary commitments. In
terms of closing "the gap" illustrated by Ms. Harris's case, he
said, Section 6 was the most important part of the legislation.
He noted that the bill was introduced with a five-year
commitment, which was amended from five years to two in the
Senate Finance Committee.
3:36:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER questioned the reason for moving from a
six-month to two-year commitment.
SENATOR CLAMAN explained that there were two reasons for
lengthening the commitment term. Firstly, it would give greater
assurance to victims for healing. Secondly, he believed that
two years would be a reasonable balance between civil liberties
and protecting the public.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER asked how often someone who had been
committed could petition for release, should the bill pass.
3:38:34 PM
STEVEN BOOKMAN, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Human
Services Section, Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of Law
(DOL), directed attention to page 10, line 4, of the bill, which
states that a respondent committed under the new provision may
petition the court for early discharge at any time after the
first six months if the respondent can present evidence
demonstrating that he/she is no longer likely to cause serious
harm to self or others.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER asked how a respondent would be in the
position to provide such evidence if he/she was not of sound
mind due to medication.
3:39:58 PM
KRISTY BECKER, PhD, Director of Clinical Services, Division of
Alaska Psychiatric Institute, Department of Family and Community
Services (DFCS), informed the committee that as a psychologist,
she did not prescribe medication; nonetheless, she theorized
that an individual who stabilized on medication might be able to
announce his/her desire to leave to the clinical team. The
legal representative would then bring forward the patient's
wishes to be reevaluated. Alternatively, she said the clinical
team could reach a determination that the individual no longer
met the criteria for dangerousness and subsequently contact the
patient's counsel. She acknowledged that putting the onus on
the patient could "muddy the waters."
CHAIR VANCE, citing Section 5, subsection (h), asked for the
definition of "mental health professional."
DR. BECKER indicated that the mental health professional would
be the licensed practitioner who was medicating the patient and
served as the signatory on the patient's commitment paperwork.
SENATOR CLAMAN clarified that the provisions in Section 5 were
specific to situations in which a person had been detained for
evaluation. Subsection (h) addressed a scenario wherein the
clinic determined that the individual no longer met the criteria
to hold for evaluation.
3:44:01 PM
CHAIR VANCE asked why the language "psychiatrist or
psychologist," which was used in other sections of the bill,
wasn't used in Section 5.
SENATOR CLAMAN explained that the language in Section 5,
subsection (h), was suggested by DOL in an amendment adopted on
the Senate floor.
3:44:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GROH sought to understand the rational behind the
language in Section 5, which was added on the Senate floor, and
how it might affect a settlement in a particular case.
SENATOR CLAMAN explained that the language was added at the
request of the Civil Division in response to the Alaska Supreme
Court Decision on the Abigail and Jethro case, which were civil
proceedings. The Civil Division believed that the standards
applied by the court in regard to the decision on whether to
hold somebody in a civil commitment environment should be better
clarified.
3:46:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GROH asked whether Section 5 would affect a
settlement entered into by the state in relation to [The
Disability Law Center of Alaska, Inc. v. State of Alaska].
SENATOR CLAMAN said he had spoken to a lawyer from the
Disability Law Center (DLC) of Alaska, indicating that the
proposed legislation would not change the state's obligation to
comply with the terms of the lawsuit.
3:47:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN recalled that Senator Claman had stated
that the length of commitment would play a significant role in
the healing of a victim. He asked Senator Claman to expound on
that statement.
SENATOR CLAMAN replied that by putting [offenders] in an
involuntary commitment environment for a longer period of time,
victims were reassured that [the state] was taking care of
somebody who was a danger to the community.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether the healing of victims was
one of the criteria for deciding whether to keep someone in a
civil commitment setting.
SENATOR CLAMAN answered no.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether the legislature should
consider adding that to the criteria as a factor to consider.
SENATOR CLAMAN directed the question to Mr. Bookman.
3:49:48 PM
MR. BOOKMAN stated that, per the U.S. Supreme Court, civil
commitment needed to be based on two ideas: harm to others, and
danger to self. The perspective of the victim would not fall
under the grounds for commitment; however, it might fall under
other areas, such as length of commitment, he said.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether [the victim's perspective]
should be part of the criteria when making a decision on the
length of commitment.
MR. BOOKMAN said that would be a policy decision.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN inquired about prosecutorial ethics. He
asked Mr. Booker to speak to the ethics of charging someone with
a crime if he/she would not be competent to stand trial.
MR. BOOKE noted that he did not deal with charging decisions and
deferred the question to Mr. Skidmore.
3:52:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER referred to Section 13, subsection (d),
and asked who decides whether evidence demonstrates that the
respondent is not likely to cause harm.
DR. BECKER said the decision on clinical dangerousness, as it
relates to a mental health concern, is determined by the
practitioner through an evaluative process and risk assessment.
She asked Mr. Bookman to "chime in" on the question.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER asked what legal evidence was necessary
for a petition to go to court.
MR. BOOKMAN referred to [page 10], line 6, indicating that the
respondent must provide some reason to suggest that there should
be a hearing.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER asked how the respondent would be able
to present evidence if it was up to the medical team to decide
what evidence exists.
MR. BOOKMAN conveyed that there could be two ways. Firstly, the
respondent could hire an expert to examine the respondent and
testify on his/her behalf. Secondly, API team's decision could
be analyzed.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER shared, for the record, that his line
of questioning was aimed at preventing abuse, not an attempt to
"let loose" mentally ill people.
3:59:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked when the process of establishing
competency to stand trial began and how the bill would have
impacted Ms. Harris's assailant [Mr. Ahkivgak].
SENATOR CLAMAN explained under the proposed legislation, a
petition for involuntary commitment would have been filed for
Mr. Ahkivgak due to his prior criminal and psychiatric history
instead of him being released back into the community.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY sought to understand the process of
establishing competency to stand trial and when that process was
initiated after someone had assaulted another person. He asked
Senator Claman to help him understand how someone could be
charged with a violent crime and then released back to the
public without charges. Additionally, he sought further
clarification on the dates and timeframes in the bill.
CHAIR VANCE noted that there was not enough time left for
Senator Claman to provide a full picture. She invited the bill
sponsor to provide a brief response.
4:04:51 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
4:06:24 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN explained the two processes at play and the
different lengths of commitment. On the criminal side, there
was a six month to one year period of restoration hold, during
which, if the court concluded that the individual cannot be
restored, the case would be dismissed. Alternatively, if the
individual became competent, the criminal case would continue.
In regard to the involuntary commitment proceedings, which
involve dangerous offenders, as addressed by the bill, the
prosecutor would initiate the civil commitment just prior to
dismissal for criminal charges dismissed due to competency. The
Civil Division would then take over the involuntary commitment,
resulting in options of a 30-day commitment after the 72-hour
assessment, which could be extended to 90 days, and again to 180
days. At the conclusion of the 180 days, another petition could
be filed for these dangerous individuals for a commitment of up
to 2 years. He noted that for anyone without a dangerous
criminal history, the maximum commitment would be 180 days.
4:10:53 PM
CHAIR VANCE announced that CSSB 53(FIN) AM would be held over.