Legislature(1993 - 1994)
03/22/1993 01:00 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 4: PROTECT ELDERLY AND DISABLED ADULTS Number 021 REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MACKIE, PRIME SPONSOR of HB 4, said that the bill would add, as an aggravating factor at the time of sentencing, that a victim was elderly or disabled. He stated that his bill would serve as a deterrent against crimes against elderly and disabled individuals. He indicated that HB 4 would amend the Code of Criminal Procedure, which allowed presumptive sentences to be aggravated, by adding a new paragraph to include victims aged 65 or over, or with a disability which limited major life activities. REPRESENTATIVE MACKIE commented that HB 4 would amend the elderly and disabled adult protection laws to provide a penalty of a class B misdemeanor for conviction of or failure to report a crime under those statutes. He said that the bill would also require the court to report convictions to licensing or regulatory entities. Conviction of a professional, licensed person for a crime against an elderly or disabled person could result in disciplinary action or sanctions. REPRESENTATIVE MACKIE noted that elderly and disabled persons were more vulnerable to and disproportionately damaged by crimes against them. He added that these people took longer to recover from the impacts of financial, emotional, or physical abuse. He mentioned the rapid growth of the senior citizen population in Alaska. He stated that 28 states had adult protection statutes. He said that about 200 reports of elder abuse were made in Alaska every year. He asserted that HB 4 would provide an incentive to report abuse and a deterrent to crimes against the elderly. REPRESENTATIVE MACKIE pointed out that bills identical to both HB 4 and HB 3, Regulation of Home Care Providers, had passed the House the year before. He mentioned the Chairman's interest in deleting section 2 from the bill, because a similar aggravator already existed in present law. He expressed his support for deleting that section. Number 136 CHAIRMAN BRIAN PORTER commented that Margot Knuth, from the Department of Law (DOL), had brought the redundancy of section 2 to the committee's attention. Number 144 MARGOT KNUTH, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DOL, stated that the proposed new aggravator substantially overlapped an existing aggravator. She expressed the DOL's opinion that it would make the most sense to simply leave the aggravator statutes the way they were. She noted that there was a slight difference between a defendant who knew or reasonably should have known that a victim was vulnerable or incapable of resistance due to advanced age, and a defendant who knew or reasonably should have known that a victim was at least 65 years old. MS. KNUTH believed it would be difficult to apply an absolute cut-off point at the age of 65, as defendants would not often know exactly how old a victim was. She said that the existing framework of "advanced age" was used by prosecutors without any apparent problems. Number 180 REPRESENTATIVE MACKIE mentioned that the intent of placing the 65-year-old cut-off in HB 4 was to help the DOL get appropriate sentences in these cases. However, he commented that if the DOL was not having any difficulty in proving that defendants knew or reasonably should have known that a victim was 65 years old or older, then he saw no reason to change the existing aggravator. Number 198 REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN made a MOTION to DELETE section 2 of HB 4 and renumber subsequent sections accordingly. Number 210 REPRESENTATIVE MACKIE commented that the proposed change would probably result in a change to HB 4's title. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said that he would consider the change to the title as a friendly amendment to his motion. Number 230 REPRESENTATIVE CLIFF DAVIDSON asked Ms. Knuth to explain the effect of the amendment. Number 234 MS. KNUTH mentioned that there was currently an aggravating factor for defendants who knew, or reasonably should have known, that a victim was particularly vulnerable or incapable of resistance due to advanced age, disability, ill health, or extreme youth, or who was for any other reason substantially incapable of exercising normal physical or mental powers of resistance. MS. KNUTH commented that the addition proposed in HB 4 would largely overlap the existing aggravator. She said that the DOL believed it would be best to continue using the existing aggravator. She noted that having both aggravators on the books would likely confuse the courts. She mentioned the large degree of success the DOL has had with using the existing aggravator. She expressed concerns about the language contained in the aggravator proposed in HB 4. MS. KNUTH noted that the proposed amendment to HB 4 would delete the new aggravator and leave the state with its existing, similar aggravator. There being no objection to the amendment, IT WAS ADOPTED. Number 283 REPRESENTATIVE GAIL PHILLIPS made a MOTION to MOVE CSHB 4 (JUD) out of committee with individual recommendations. She then REMOVED HER MOTION. CHAIRMAN PORTER called for an "at ease." Number 297 ART SNOWDEN, ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM, mentioned a small concern with HB 4. He said that the bill provided that the court system would notify licensing or regulatory entities if a professional, licensed person was convicted of a crime against an elderly or disabled person. He said that the bill's language was overly broad, and requested an amendment indicating that the court should notify the primary licensing or regulatory entity. Number 318 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS suggested adding the word "appropriate" instead of "primary." MR. SNOWDEN approved of Representative Phillips' proposed language. Number 328 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS made a MOTION to ADD the word "appropriate" to page 2, line 4 and line 10 of HB 4. Number 335 REPRESENTATIVE MACKIE expressed his support for Representative Phillips' motion. There being no objection to the amendment, IT WAS ADOPTED. Number 342 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS made a MOTION to MOVE CSHB 4 (JUD) out of committee, with individual recommendations. There being no objection, IT WAS SO ORDERED. CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that HB 3 was the next item of business before the committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|