Legislature(1997 - 1998)
02/23/1998 01:45 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. 245
"An Act relating to minimum sentences for assault in
the fourth degree that is a crime involving domestic
violence; providing that a prisoner may not contact the
victim of the offense when provided access to a
telephone or otherwise immediately after an arrest; and
amending Rule 5(b), Alaska Rules of Criminal
Procedure."
JAYNE ANDREEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COUNCIL OF DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT testified in support of HB 245.
She observed that she was alerted by a police officer to the
problem of abusers calling their victims within hours of
their arrest. She emphasized domestic violence perpetrators
who are exercising an on going cycle of control over their
victims will use whatever means they have to continue their
control.
Ms. Andreen stressed that contact by the defendant to the
victim should be limited before the first judicial hearing.
This allows victims time to decide whether they should seek
a civil protective order and to make plans for the safety of
themselves and their children. The judge can determine
whether or not there can be contact at the first judicial
hearing.
Ms. Andreen spoke in support of increased penalties for
repeat domestic violence offenders. She maintained that
domestic violence offenders are not held as accountable by
the criminal justice system as offenders of other offenses.
She stated that the Council supports 30 days for a second
offense and 60 days for a third offense when it is a fourth
degree assault and a prior history of domestic violence.
Ms. Andreen spoke in support of criminalizing unlawful
contact. It is a criminal offense to violate a civil order
preventing contact. There are no quick consequences for
someone who has been ordered by the court not to have
contact as a condition of pretrial or presentencing release,
probation or parole.
Ms. Andreen pointed out that the these issues fall in line
with recommendations of the Governor's Domestic Violence
Summit held in December 1997. The Summit concluded that
offenders need to be held more accountable for their
actions. She stressed that the importance of giving the
court system and the criminal justice system sanctions and
controls in order to hold offenders accountable. She
asserted that it is important that the violation of
conditions of release be criminalized.
Co-Chair Therriault provided members with proposed committee
substitute, Work Draft 0-LS0450\R, dated 2/21/98 (copy on
file).
Representative Davies MOVED to ADOPT Work Draft 0-LS0450\R,
dated 2/21/98. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Co-Chair Therriault reviewed the committee substitute. "A
person is arrested for a crime involving domestic violence"
was added on page 1, line 10. A proposed Amendment 2 would
broaden this language by adding "or a crime against a person
(copy on file). There was a conforming change in section 3.
There was a court rule change in section 10. On page 1,
line 13 a person is guilty if they "attempt to initiate
communication with the alleged victim of the crime that was
the basis for the person's arrest."
Representative Davies referred to page 2, line 17. He noted
that AS 12.30.025 specifically exempts domestic violence.
ANNE CARPENETI, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, LEGAL SERVICES
SECTION, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW clarified that
AS 12.30.025 should be omitted.
Representative Davies MOVED ADOPT Amendment 1, delete AS
12.30.025 on page 2, line 17. There being NO OBJECTION, it
was so ordered.
Co-Chair Therriault MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2. Amendment 2
would add "or a crime against a person". There being NO
OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Co-Chair Therriault clarified that Amendment 2 includes a
title change to incorporate the reference of crimes against
a person into the title.
Representative Davies provided members with a spreadsheet
detailing the sentencing of domestic violence cases in 1986
(copy on file). He observed that, in 1986, 400 of 1279
domestic violence offenders received no jail time. He
estimated that under HB 245 half of these cases would
receive jail time. He observed that if half of these
offenders received 20 days, the budget would be impacted by
approximately $400 thousand dollars a year. To approximate
the cost of the legislation he assumed that 5 percent of the
offenders that did not receive jail time in 1986 would
receive 20 days; 10 percent of the offenders that received 1
- 5 days in 1986 would receive 15 days; and 15 percent of
the offenders that received 6 - 10 days in 1986 would
receive 10 days. He concluded that there would be an
additional cost of $87.5 thousand dollars a year. He
maintained that the indeterminate fiscal by the Department
of Corrections is under-estimated.
Representative Davies spoke in support of a revised fiscal
note for the Department of Corrections of $80 thousand
dollars.
Ms. Carpeneti observed that the statistics do not identify
the number of previous offenses. She assumed that offenders
that did not receive jail time were convicted on a first
offense without a violation of a protective order. She
concluded that the legislation does not represent a
significant departure from what is currently occurring.
Representative Davies argued that there would be a cost. He
requested that the legislation be held for further
consideration of the fiscal note.
(Tape Change, HFC 98 - 38, Side 2)
Ms. Carpeneti noted that the Department of Corrections based
their fiscal note on estimations by the Department of Law.
Representative Fred Dyson acknowledged Representative
Davies' logic as irrefutable. He observed that those that
are in the field have a different conclusion. He spoke in
support of moving the legislation. He suggested that the
impact is unknown. He pointed out that the legislation may
act as a deterrent.
Representative Ethan Berkowitz pointed out that it is hard
to determine the cost. He observed that a reduction of
domestic violence cases would be accompanied by a decrease
in social costs to the State. He felt that the legislation
would reduce the instances of domestic violence.
Representative Davies stated that he supports the
legislation. He expressed concern that the Department has
sufficient funding to implement the legislation.
Co-Chair Hanley pointed out that the Department of
Corrections does not have a lot of options for sentenced
offenders. He stated that the cost will be addressed
through the budget.
Representative Davies emphasized that there is a tendency
for the system to adjust to reality. He suggested that if
there are no cells that charges will be adjusted down.
In response to a question by Representative Kohring, Co-
Chair Therriault clarified that the restriction on calls, to
the victim, would only be placed on individuals between the
time of arrest and the initial appearance before a judge.
The judge would determine if there should be further
restrictions on the individual's right to contact a victim.
Representative Dyson added that the intent is to prevent
intimidation of the victim by the defendant.
Representative Davies MOVED to ADOPT an amended fiscal note
for the Department of Corrections of $80 thousand dollars.
Co-Chair Therriault OBJECTED. He observed that the sponsor
can work with the Department to refine the fiscal note as
the legislation travels through the system.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion to adopt a revised
fiscal note of $80 thousand dollars for the Department of
Corrections.
IN FAVOR: Davies, Grussendorf, Moses
OPPOSED: Davis, Foster, Kelly, Kohring, Martin, Mulder,
Therriault, Hanley
The MOTION FAILED (3-8).
Representative Davies MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 3. Co-Chair
Therriault OBJECTED.
Representative Berkowitz explained that Amendment 3 would
allow the prosecuting agency to seek an additional crime for
the violation of a no contact order. Co-Chair Therriault
questioned if prosecutors could reinstate the suspension of
sentence. Representative Berkowitz noted that the worst
recidivists would receive the maximum misdemeanor sentence.
They would not have any suspended sentence.
Co-Chair Therriault observed that the amendment would
restrict contact of the witness and the victim.
Ms. Carpeneti clarified that Amendment 3 addresses what
happens to a person after a judge has ordered them not to
have contact with a victim or a witness to a crime. She
observed that there is no good, effective way of enforcing a
court order for restrictive contact.
Co-Chair Hanley referred to page 1, section 1, subsection
(2). Ms. Carpeneti explained that the "order" refers to
release on bail, conditions of probation, or judgement in
sentencing. Subsection 1 observes that the individual has
been ordered not to contact the victim or witness as a
condition of an order. Subsection 2 occurs when they have
contacted the person in violation of the terms of the order.
She acknowledged that a judge could order the person back to
jail if there is a suspended sentence or find them in
contempt of court. A contempt finding would result in a
$100 dollar fine. She emphasized that Amendment 3 would be
a more effective deterrent then current options available to
the court. She observed that offenders violate their
contact orders fairly regularly. She stressed that
Amendment 3 would be an effective deterrent in the most
serious cases where people keep contacting their victim.
In response to a question by Co-Chair Therriault, Ms.
Carpeneti explained that the witness may be a child who
lives in the house where there is a domestic violence
assault. Access can be restricted as a condition of release
under current law.
In response to a question by Representative Mulder, Ms.
Carpeneti noted that some judges believe they already have
the authority to order a defendant not to contact a victim
for any period of time that seems reasonable under the
circumstances. Other judges do not think they have the
authority. The amendment would make it clear that all
judges have the authority to restrict contact.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion to adopt Amendment
3.
IN FAVOR: Davies, Foster, Grussendorf, Martin, Mulder,
Hanley
OPPOSED: Davis, Kelly, Kohring, Therriault
Representative Moses absent from the vote.
The MOTION PASSED (6-4).
Representative Dyson observed that most members have not had
the experience of being beaten until they are terrorized.
He recounted his own experiences. He emphasized the terror
victims feel when their abusers confront them. He stressed
that victims would benefit from extra tools to prevent
contact by their abusers.
Co-Chair Hanley MOVED to report CSHB 245 (FIN) out of
Committee with the accompanying fiscal notes. There being
NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CSHB 245 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with "no
recommendation" and with two fiscal impact notes, one by the
Department of Administration and one by the Department of
Corrections; and with two zero fiscal notes, one by the
Department of Administration and one by the Department of
Public Safety.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|