Legislature(1997 - 1998)
04/25/1997 03:40 PM House HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 16 - JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PROCEDURES Number 0035 CHAIRMAN BUNDE said a quorum was not present, but they would begin to hear testimony on HB 16, "An Act relating to delinquent minors, to the taking of action based on the alleged criminal misconduct of certain minors, to the services to be provided to the victims of criminal misconduct of minors, and to agency records involving minors alleged to be delinquent based on their criminal misconduct; and amending Rule 19 and repealing Rules 6, 7, 11(a), 12(a), and 21(f), Alaska Delinquency Rules." Number 0053 REPRESENTATIVE PETE KELLY, Sponsor of HB 16, stated that juvenile crime has become a great problem in this state and people have expressed concern about it. In November of 1995, the Governor convened a conference on youth and justice in order to find some solutions to this growing problem. This conference produced a number of recommendations for pieces of legislation including HB 6, the disclosure bill. He said HB 16 compliments HB 6 and includes a number of recommendations from that youth conference. REPRESENTATIVE KELLY explained that HB 16 authorizes; municipalities to take minors to civil court, provides for a victim/witness assistance program, a dual sentencing procedure, involves communities in the informal adjustment of the juvenile offenders, addresses some of flaws in the community service laws and increases communication between the Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS) and law enforcement. Number 0217 CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked the Administration's position on HB 16. Number 025 REPRESENTATIVE KELLY responded that, in his opinion, the Administration favored this legislation. Number 0243 MARGOT KNUTH, Assistant Attorney General, Central Office, Criminal Division, Department of Law, said she worked on youth and justice issues addressed by the Governor's Conference on Youth and Justice of which Representatives Porter and Kelly were active participants. The conference focused on low level offenders; the need to provide more consistent and predictable consequences for these juveniles and how to monitor those who were at risk of being chronic, serious offenders. She said HB 16 addresses both of those issues and the Administration endorses this bill. Number 0365 MS. KNUTH explained that in terms of low level offenders, as the state is more restricted in its funding and personnel, there needs to be a stronger focus on the serious offender. A large gap is being created in terms of responding to low level offenders. While this is happening, communities are stepping forward in order to address low level offenders, particularly those who are committing misdemeanor offenses. This provides a good opportunity for a partnership between the state and communities to make sure there are consequences. These consequences need not be particularly severe, but they must be predictable and consistent. MS. KNUTH said that HB 16 provides a couple of different approaches; it creates a civil penalty procedure that municipalities can use and it authorizes the DHSS to enter into agreements with communities about how they want to respond to low level offenses. Possible examples include youth court, village court and pre-trial type diversion panels such as are being used in the Mat-Su area. These examples provide an authority presence before which the offender makes an appearance. These systems serve as an alternative to going through the DHSS formal delinquency procedures. These programs give the juvenile a choice. He or she can either go through the traditional juvenile delinquency procedures, possibly resulting in formal juvenile adjudication, or the juvenile can choose to go through this informal process where they will not receive a criminal record and cannot be given any time in detention, but short of that they can be ordered to perform community work service, make restitution, write a letter of apology, seek counseling, work with their family and other things which bridge the distance between that juvenile and society. This process attempts to give the juvenile the opportunity to get back into mainstream society. Number 0555 MS. KNUTH stated that the other end of the spectrum are those juveniles who are at risk of becoming serious, chronic offenders. On a national level, as the number of offenses increases, states have lowered the age at which juveniles are treated as adult offenders and are given adult sentences. Studies are uncovering some problems with this approach such as a higher rate of recidivism by these juveniles. These juveniles are more likely to commit another crime, the new crime is likely to be more serious and their commission of a new offense is likely to occur faster than that of those in the juvenile system. These things can be the result of a couple factors, one of which is that we have targeted a group which is particularly egregious in their behavior and so they are self-selecting to be more serious offenders. Another factor can be that once you put the juveniles through the adult system you are putting them with some real experts at criminal offenses, creating a situation which is less rehabilitative and possibly destructive. These experiences have led to a nationwide search for an alternative. The dual sentencing provision shows the most promise of any alternative. MS. KNUTH explained that if a juvenile commits an offense that would be an automatic waiver offense if they were older or a situation occurred where the child was 16 or 17-years-old and committed a number of offenses, then they would go through the juvenile proceedings but they would also be indicted by a grand jury. When this juvenile is adjudicated, they receive both a juvenile and an adult sentence. This adult sentence hangs over their head if they do not comply with all the requirements of the juvenile sentence. These requirements include making restitution, committing no new offenses, performing whatever treatment orders were entered by the court and whatever is seen to be the restorative, rehabilitative mechanism for that child. The dual sentencing provision gives the child a sense of responsibility for staying out of the adult system. What happens would be under her or his control. This is seen as something that could motivate compliance with a juvenile sentence, something which is not currently being experienced under the current system. Number 0658 MS. KNUTH said there are questions about whether or not all the constitutional safe guards, associated with an adult criminal conviction, are included in the juvenile delinquency proceedings. She assured the committee that Alaska already provides all of those safe guards, with the exception of the right to indictment. This right was added in the state's procedure so that anybody who could be subject to dual sentencing will be indicted as is required for any adult conviction. She said that juveniles have the right to a trial by 12 jurors on all offenses, including misdemeanor offenses. Adults are only afforded the right to a 12 person jury trial in felony cases and have a six person jury in misdemeanor offenses. Number 0817 MS. KNUTH referred to the disclosure of juvenile information and explained that currently parents have the ability to go to a legislator and discuss a Child in Need of Aid (CINA) case or a delinquency case. Currently, the DHSS is not able to provide any information to the legislator about that case. There are two provisions in HB 16; one addressing delinquents and one for CINA cases. These provisions would allow information to be provided by DHSS, instead of that person only receiving one segment of information. Number 0866 CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked if this impacted federal law. Number 0872 MS. KNUTH said no, because it is a select disclosure instead of a broad based public disclosure. A clause is included in HB 16 regarding that this disclosure is done on a need to know basis. Number 0970 MS. KNUTH referred to a posted chart which showed that for the dual sentencing process, one would start with the district attorney and seek the grand jury indictment. If there is a new offense or a failure to comply after juvenile treatment, then a petition would be filed which could result in the imposition of the adult sentence including jail time. The second chart related to juvenile delinquency proceedings where two processes are available. One is called an informal adjustment and the other is the formal delinquency adjudication. The last chart explains that if you have a violation and an arrest, the city of Anchorage would use a hearing officer system resulting in an imposition of a civil penalty. Anchorage has been successful in their use of this system. She referred to a bill which would criminalize curfew violations. This violation is currently being treated through the civil penalty process. Both those who are involved in using the civil penalties and the prosecutors who don't want additional work are pleased with the civil process. Other communities do not have a civil process in place and this bill would make it available. Number 1041 REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN referred to dual sentencing. He asked if a person was under age 13 on the first offense and over 13-years- old on the second offense would that make any difference as opposed to having both offenses occurring after age 13. Number 1080 MS. KNUTH recollected that for the instances when dual sentencing could be used for a 13, 14 or 15-year-old, it would only take them one offense to get them there because of the severity of the crime. The 15 and 16-year-olds would have committed multiple offenses, some of which could have occurred when they were age 14 or younger. Number 1097 REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON asked for a definition of civil penalties. Number 1111 MS. KNUTH answered that it was fines. A person could perform community work service in lieu of the fine. The court cannot initially order community work service because of an appellate ruling which states that it is a criminal sanction, it is involuntary servitude. Number 1133 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked, under our existing state law or under the change made by HB 16, how restitution is enforced and what happens if the juvenile cannot do it. He asked what would happen if the parents are unable to satisfy the requirements of restitution. Number 1161 MS. KNUTH answered that the state requires offenders to sign over their permanent fund dividend (PFD) checks. This action has proven to be a source of restitution which has made a difference to a lot of victims. After that action, the offender is brought back to court and queried about not paying the restitution. There are those who cannot work or are not earning enough money. The court tries very hard to work with the offender to come up with a reasonable, realistic pay schedule. In terms of a parent's liability for a juvenile's fines or court ordered restitution, there is a statute which describes the age and amount. CHAIRMAN BUNDE stated that the parents can be responsible for restitution up to $10,000. Number 1223 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON clarified that if the parents were not immediately able to satisfy the amount, then there was a procedure to seize their present and future PFD checks and garnish wages. He asked if there was a procedure in this state allowing a parent to go through a process to divorce their child. Number 1251 CHAIRMAN BUNDE answered that you could emancipate a child, but that it is a difficult process. Number 1264 REPRESENTATIVE KELLY referred to a bill from last session, HB 387, the juvenile crime rewrite. Provisions were included were restitution could be enforced as a civil matter and after age 19 they could still be held liable. Number 1287 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON referred to an example in Anchorage where they were getting juveniles to clean up graffiti. He assumed that we could not force them to clean it up. However the perpetrator could agree to it at the time of adjudication and then it would be okay. Number 1310 MS. KNUTH explained that if you are in a criminal proceeding, then this type of service can be ordered. The appellate court decision regards instances when you are in a civil proceeding, agreed to by the juvenile, in lieu of a criminal proceeding. "The only time the court cannot order and at this point it's only been community work service that is generic work as opposed to clean up what you did, is in the civil that that it's a civil, I'm going to say prosecution and, and that's what it started out being and that's all you're, you're trying for." Number 1352 REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER mentioned that the emancipation of the child is a difficult process. The child has to be capable of independent emancipation as determined by the court. CHAIRMAN BUNDE stated that it is a separate court proceeding. Number 1372 MS. KNUTH said she grew up in California where there was a process, called incorrigibility, where a parent could sign responsibility for the child over to the state because the parent no longer felt they could control or be responsible for the child. The child might still be placed with the parent, but the parent would be relieved of this type of responsibility. She cited a personal example where she is the guardian for her 17-year-old nephew and said that Alaska does not have a similar proceeding. Number 1403 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER made a motion to adopt the committee substitute, Chenoweth, dated April 24, 1997, as the working document. Hearing no objections CSHB 16(HES) was before the committee. Number 1420 CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked about a fiscal note. REPRESENTATIVE KELLY said language was purposefully pulled out of HB 16 to prevent a fiscal note. Number 1438 MS. KNUTH stated that there is not currently a fiscal note and she did not anticipate a fiscal note on this draft. Number 1464 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked if the victim/offender mediation program would still be available. Number 1500 CHAIRMAN BUNDE stated that this was the first time this bill was heard and is the tradition of the committee it would be held to give members a chance to review the bill.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|