Legislature(2011 - 2012)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/12/2012 12:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB151 | |
| SB180 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 151 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 180 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SB 151-FETAL ALCOHOL SPEC. DISORDER AS MITIGATOR
12:32:39 PM
CHAIR FRENCH announced the consideration of SB 151, "An Act
relating to mitigation at sentencing in a criminal case for a
defendant found by the court to have been affected by a fetal
alcohol spectrum disorder." He asked for a motion to adopt the
proposed committee substitute (CS).
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI moved to adopt the proposed CS for SB 151,
labeled 27-LS1132\O, as the working document.
CHAIR FRENCH announced that without objection, version O was
before the committee.
SENATOR COGHILL joined the committee.
12:32:59 PM
SENATOR KEVIN MEYER, sponsor of SB 151, explained that the bill
would specifically include Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders
(FASD) in the state's existing definition of "mental disease or
defect" and as a mitigating factor in sentencing. He cautioned
that the intent was not to appear soft on crime, but to allow
for more appropriate sentencing for people who suffer from this
disability. This dovetails with Chief Justice Carpeneti's recent
speech to the Legislature that emphasized flexibility in
sentencing.
SENATOR MEYER said flexibility is particularly important when a
judge considers sentencing for a person with a spectrum
disorder. Alaska has the highest rate of FASD in the nation, and
according to the experts at the Alaska FASD Partnership, people
with FASD are disproportionately represented within the criminal
justice system. He spoke of his motivation to do more to prevent
this very preventable disability.
12:36:43 PM
CHAIR FRENCH asked if the mitigater in paragraph (18), page 3,
lines 12-16, had been used in FASD cases, and if it was used why
wasn't it working.
SENATOR MEYER said part of the reason for bringing the bill
forward was that paragraph (18) has produced inconsistent
results from judges. Some say FASD is included while others say
it is not implicitly defined.
12:37:41 PM
CHRISTINE MARASIGAN, staff to Senator Kevin Meyer, confirmed
that interpretation of that section was inconsistent, and
suggested that Judge Jeffry could address the question more
thoroughly. She also pointed out that the sponsor deferred to
the Department of Law (DOL) and other FASD advocates and removed
from version O the section that included "impaired brain
function" in the definition of "mental disease or defect." That
also accounts for the expanded definition at the end of the
bill.
CHAIR FRENCH asked who would make the diagnosis that a defendant
is affected by FASD.
SENATOR MEYER directed attention to page 3, line 30. It says a
determination is made by a neuropsychological examination.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if a medical doctor would make the diagnosis.
SENATOR MEYER said yes.
CHAIR FRENCH opened public testimony.
12:40:41 PM
JUDGE MICHAEL JEFFERY, representing himself, Barrow, AK, relayed
his personal experience to illustrate that the mitigater in
existing law was not adequate for use in FASD cases. In 1990, he
accepted a non-statutory mitigating factor for a FASD condition,
and a three-judge panel sent it back saying he could not use it
because the Legislature spoke and the mental disease or defect
did not fit that condition. He was therefore required to impose
the presumptive term. He emphasized the importance of this
legislation.
Addressing the question of who does the diagnosis, he said it is
appropriate that a medical doctor makes the diagnosis, but
requiring that specialty designation would be a big limitation.
Many people who have a professional FASD diagnosis would not fit
within that definition. He continued to say that this was all
about smart justice. If it can be shown by clear and convincing
evidence that the defendant has the condition and it
significantly affected his or her conduct, a judge could use
discretion and potentially adjust the presumptive term downward.
JUDGE JEFFERY said he was pleased that version O provides more
flexibility by eliminating the prohibition on the mitigater
being applicable to anyone with an assaultive offense.
12:45:02 PM
CHAIR FRENCH asked how prevalent FASD was among defendants who
appear in his court.
JUDGE JEFFERY said it was unusual for a defendant to have a
medical diagnosis, and it was very difficult to identify FASD
without one. A defendant who has a FASD diagnosis most probably
received it earlier when he or she was in the child welfare
system or the juvenile justice system. He relayed his belief
that a significant percentage of the people that appear before
him are affected to some degree and he accommodates that by
slowing things down and asking more questions.
12:48:16 PM
SENATOR COGHILL asked about the balance between this mitigater,
public safety, and responsibility for one's actions.
JUDGE JEFFERY explained that there is not an automatic reduction
of sentence and the criminal justice system will continue to
hold people responsible for their actions. A person who presents
a danger to the public won't be rehabilitated in the community,
and a person who is released under treatment and commits another
offense will be returned to jail.
12:50:58 PM
VICKY TINKER, Team Coordinator, Kenai Peninsula FASD Diagnostic
Program, Kenai, AK, introduced herself.
CHAIR FRENCH asked Ms. Tinker her perspective of what it would
take to put FASD evidence in front of a court.
MS. TINKER explained that in Alaska a physician makes the final
diagnosis after getting input from a psychologist, a speech
therapist, and sometimes an occupational therapist, all of which
are part of a diagnostic team. She agreed that the current
language "as determined by a neuropsychological examination"
could be problematic. Not all the teams have a psychologist with
that particular specialty and a neuropsychologist does not make
the final diagnosis.
CHAIR FRENCH summarized her points.
MS. TINKER added that the medical provider on the team can be a
mid-level practitioner such as a nurse practitioner or physician
assistant, but it would be unusual for either to make the
official diagnosis alone.
12:53:20 PM
CHAIR FRENCH said he would not feel comfortable having anyone
but a medical doctor make the final diagnosis.
MS. TINKER said in cases when a physician [assistant] or nurse
practitioner makes the final medical diagnosis, they are also
using information from the other providers on the team. It is
not an independent diagnosis.
CHAIR FRENCH said the committee would work with the sponsor on
that language.
12:54:14 PM
SENATOR COGHILL asked the number of diagnostic teams statewide.
MS. TINKER estimated there were eight or nine.
SENATOR COGHILL asked if the court could access these teams
easily or if they were ad hoc.
MS. TINKER replied the court can easily draw upon them, and a
team in one area can fill needs in another area that does not
have one.
12:55:04 PM
SENATOR PASKVAN asked what type of examination she would
recommend if it would be too narrow to require a
neuropsychological examination.
MS. TINKER suggested it would be safe to say, "as determined by
a physician or a diagnostic team."
CHAIR FRENCH asked if it would be too narrow to say, "as
determined by a physician."
MS. TINKER said yes, and provided an example. The medical
provider on the diagnostic team associated with Assets, Inc. in
Anchorage is probably more knowledgeable about FASD than most
physicians, and that person is an advanced nurse practitioner.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if there was a definition in law for
"diagnostic team."
MS. TINKER said no. She said she believes that by law, a medical
provider makes the diagnosis, but the gold standard for
diagnosis is the University of Washington model. That is what
Alaska uses.
SENATOR PASKVAN asked if there was information in the packet
about the University of Washington model, because it probably
addresses the physician's participation in the team process.
CHAIR FRENCH noted that someone in the audience indicated they
could talk about that.
SENATOR COGHILL said he would like more information on the range
of the disorder because he suspects the ability to respond
accountably will be a factor for the court to consider.
MS. TINKER said on one end of the spectrum a person may be able
to function in society and not break rules, whereas someone on
the other end may have so little control over their behavior and
decision-making that they need to be institutionalized. However,
even someone who is lightly impaired may have difficulty
controlling their impulses and connecting consequences to their
actions.
SENATOR COGHILL said he was looking at ways for the judge to be
as informed as possible.
1:00:50 PM
KATE BURKHART, Executive Director, Alaska Mental Health Board
and Advisory Board on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse, testified in
support of SB 151. She stated that the FASD population in Alaska
is disproportionately represented in the corrections and
criminal justice systems, and SB 151 provides an opportunity to
embrace Chief Justice Carpeneti's call for smart justice. It
looks first to alternative sentences and punishments that both
protect the public and rehabilitate the perpetrator. She
reiterated Judge Jeffery's comments that dangerous persons will
not be rehabilitated in the community. Rather, SB 151 affords
judges the discretion to balance public safety and community
rehabilitation.
MS. BURKHART echoed the concerns about the neuropsychological
examination limitation and suggested saying, "a physician or
University of Washington credentialed FASD diagnostic team."
That would probably address the concerns about the level of
experience and expertise of the person making the diagnosis and
would reflect the actualities of what Alaska's diagnostic teams
do. She directed attention to paragraph (18) on page 3 and
suggested revising the language to say that the mitigater could
be applied in crimes against a person except for repeat
felonies. That balances the opportunity to be smart and flexible
to potentially break the cycle of recidivism for someone
diagnosed with FASD.
1:06:33 PM
RICK IANNOLINO, representing himself, said he was the
coordinator of the Juneau FASD Diagnostic Clinic. He described
the physical aspects that are considered in diagnosing FASD and
said it should not be a problem that a non-physician medical
person does these exams because that has been the practice for
many years. Addressing the concern about the neuropsychological
examination, he said a neuropsychologist is not a required
member of the team under the University of Washington diagnostic
team certification. He discussed the wide range of tests
performed by each of the team members. The psychologist looks at
the brain functions, the speech and language pathologist looks
at receptive communication, the occupational therapist looks at
everyday activities and the physical therapist looks at the
large muscle functions.
Responding to a series of questions from the Chair, he explained
that the FASD provider agreement requires each team to have a
physician, a psychologist, an occupational therapist or a
physical therapist or a speech and language pathologist, and a
parent navigator. As coordinator, he does not assist in
rendering the diagnosis, but he ensures the professionals are
appropriate for the client. The Juneau team sees about 24
clients in a year.
1:13:07 PM
SENATOR COGHILL asked if a person with FASD could experience
cognitive growth.
MR. IANNOLINO replied someone with FASD may be able to
accommodate other ways of learning, but the brain damage is
permanent.
SENATOR PASKVAN asked if the credentialing is affected if one of
the volunteer members withdraws.
MR. IANNOLINO responded that the Juneau team is the exception;
most teams do not rely on volunteers.
SENATOR PASKVAN asked how many credentialed team members would
be qualified to present this as a mitigater at a criminal
proceeding.
MR. IANNOLINO said most people come to the clinic because they
are having severe problems at school, with their families, or
with the law.
1:16:52 PM
CHAIR FRENCH asked if many of the people who arrive at the
clinic have pending criminal cases.
MR. IANNOLINO said yes.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if they are seeking a diagnosis for court
purposes or if a variety of issues has driven them to the
clinic.
MR. IANNOLINO said they are trying to live and inadvertently
make poor decisions.
1:18:11 PM
MARGARET VROLYK, Parent Navigator, Juneau FASD Diagnostic
Clinic, testified in support of SB 151. She spoke of her
experience as a parent of a son with FASD and voiced concern
with the exception in paragraph (18) on page 3. It is very easy
for someone with FASD to become a felon by association, she
said.
1:20:53 PM
CHAIR FRENCH held SB 151 in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB151 Fiscal Note.pdf |
HJUD 4/6/2012 1:00:00 PM SHSS 3/5/2012 1:30:00 PM SJUD 3/12/2012 12:30:00 PM |
SB 151 |
| SB151 Fiscal Note2.pdf |
HJUD 4/6/2012 1:00:00 PM SHSS 3/5/2012 1:30:00 PM SJUD 3/12/2012 12:30:00 PM |
SB 151 |
| SB 151 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HJUD 4/6/2012 1:00:00 PM SHSS 3/5/2012 1:30:00 PM SJUD 3/12/2012 12:30:00 PM |
SB 151 |
| SB151 Fiscal Note 3.pdf |
HJUD 4/6/2012 1:00:00 PM SHSS 3/5/2012 1:30:00 PM SJUD 3/12/2012 12:30:00 PM |
SB 151 |
| SB151 Fiscal Note 4.pdf |
HJUD 4/6/2012 1:00:00 PM SHSS 3/5/2012 1:30:00 PM SJUD 3/12/2012 12:30:00 PM |
SB 151 |
| SB151-Fiscal Note 5.pdf |
HJUD 4/6/2012 1:00:00 PM SHSS 3/5/2012 1:30:00 PM SJUD 3/12/2012 12:30:00 PM |
SB 151 |
| SB 151-Letter of Support-Trust.pdf |
SHSS 3/5/2012 1:30:00 PM SJUD 3/12/2012 12:30:00 PM |
SB 151 |
| SB 151-Letter of Support-AMHB-ABADA.pdf |
SHSS 3/5/2012 1:30:00 PM SJUD 3/12/2012 12:30:00 PM |
SB 151 |
| SB 151 Letter of Support FASD Partnership.pdf |
HJUD 4/6/2012 1:00:00 PM SHSS 3/5/2012 1:30:00 PM SJUD 3/12/2012 12:30:00 PM |
SB 151 |
| SB 151 Letter of Support Disability Law Center.pdf |
SHSS 3/5/2012 1:30:00 PM SJUD 3/12/2012 12:30:00 PM |
SB 151 |
| SB 180 Sponsor Statement.docx |
SJUD 3/12/2012 12:30:00 PM |
SB 180 |
| SB 180 version B.pdf |
SJUD 3/12/2012 12:30:00 PM |
SB 180 |
| SB 180 Sectional Analysis Version B.PDF |
SJUD 3/12/2012 12:30:00 PM |
SB 180 |
| SB 180 Support.pdf |
SJUD 3/12/2012 12:30:00 PM |
SB 180 |
| SB 180 INE study.pdf |
SJUD 3/12/2012 12:30:00 PM |
SB 180 |
| SB 180 - Ambler delay.PDF |
SJUD 3/12/2012 12:30:00 PM |
SB 180 |
| SB 180 - Ambler projects on hold.docx |
SJUD 3/12/2012 12:30:00 PM |
SB 180 |
| SB 180 - vD.PDF |
SJUD 3/12/2012 12:30:00 PM |
SB 180 |
| SB 180 version D - explanation of changes.docx |
SJUD 3/12/2012 12:30:00 PM |
SB 180 |
| CSSB 151 Bill Text Draft vO.pdf |
SJUD 3/12/2012 12:30:00 PM |
SB 151 |