Legislature(1997 - 1998)
01/31/1997 01:01 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 7 - VICTIM/JUVENILE OFFENDER MEDIATION CHAIRMAN JOE GREEN announced the committee would hear House Bill No. 7, "An Act authorizing establishment of community dispute resolution centers to foster the resolution of disputes between juvenile offenders and their victims." He advised members that a sponsor substitute had been drafted for committee consideration. [Proposed substitute was referred to during the meeting as a sponsor substitute; however, it was adopted as a committee substitute, CSHB 7(JUD).] REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER, prime sponsor of HB 7, explained that the bill represented the formalization of a program that had been started and was up and running in its beginning stages in Anchorage, and soon to be in other areas of the state. He stated that the victim offender mediation program was a process in which appropriate criminal activities of juveniles were disposed of by the mediation process rather than a more formal process. Representative Porter advised members that the program had proven very successful in changing the direction of juvenile offenders, and, in many cases, provided restitution that may not have been otherwise obtained by victims. Representative Jeannette James arrived. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER pointed out that the bill established minimum standards for the dispute resolution centers and provided limited immunity to the boards and personnel of those kinds of centers. Representative Porter explained that the sponsor substitute had been drafted to add limited immunity from civil suit to the youth courts and members of the boards of directors, employees, volunteers, and members of youth courts. MARGOT KNUTH, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law, advised members that she was representing the Governor's Children's Cabinet on how the bill related to youth and justice. She expressed that the Governor's Conference on Youth and Justice had been a year-long process that was trying to help the state find solutions to the problem on youth crime. Ms. Knuth pointed out that one of the principal solutions that had been offered was to find alternatives to the state's health and social services delinquency proceedings for minor juvenile offenses. One of the most successful alternatives recommended was the use of mediation in appropriate cases. She noted that not all cases were appropriate for mediation. Domestic violence cases, in particular, had proven to be poor candidates for mediation because of unequal power in the relationship. MS. KNUTH advised members that the mediation process was good for the offender and also a benefit to the victim because it gave the victim a better understanding of what the incident was about, why they were victimized and had significantly reduced the fear of re- victimization by the victim. MS. KNUTH pointed out that there was one matter the Children's Cabinet would like to address in the bill, which was that mediation should be available for health and social services to use as a tool in informal adjudication of cases, and also be available to the court system. Ms. Knuth noted that the bill allowed both the court system and the department to recognize the mediation centers. It was the recommendation of the Children's Cabinet to amend the bill so that only the Department of Health and Social Services could recognize the mediation centers. Ms. Knuth pointed out that the predominate reason for that was that the department was used to performing that function; the court system was not, and did not wish to get into that business. She advised members that the Governor's Children's Cabinet felt that both the department and the court system should be able to recommend, or direct an attempt at mediation; however, only the department should be able to recognize the mediation centers. MS. KNUTH advised members that to accomplish that recommendation, it would be necessary to delete Section 1, with several minor changes in other areas of the bill. Number 600 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER pointed out that he had previously discussed those changes with Ms. Knuth and had no opposition to the proposed amendment. MS. KNUTH provided members a copy of the proposed amendment which would delete Section 1, and renumber the following sections; page 2, line 13, delete [AS 22.34.020 or], and page 4, lines 20 and 21, delete [administrative director of the Alaska Court System under AS 22.35.020 or by the]. REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE moved to adopt amendment number one. There being no objection, amendment number one, HB 7, was adopted unanimously. REPRESENTATIVE ERIC CROFT referenced the bolded language on page 4, which provided the court's power, and on page 8, Section (f), which establishes the authority for a minor to withdraw, and questioned whether Section (f) would only allow a minor to withdraw if they voluntarily entered the program. It was his concern that if the court ordered mediation, that the offender would not have the authority to withdraw. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT offered amendment number two, CSHB 7, page 4, line 25, after the word "restitution", insert, The minor may withdraw, at any time, from the services of the center with no penalty for violating the court order. The withdrawal must be in writing. CHAIRMAN GREEN objected for the purpose of discussion. REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES stated that it appeared to her that the proposed amendment would allow the juvenile to withdraw, without a penalty, after a sentence had been imposed. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated that if there was an agreement after the determination of guilt that both parties wanted to participate in the process, the court would recognize that the parties were going to try and by the crafting of the statute, it recognized that either party could walk away in the middle of the process if they found it fruitless. Representative Porter thought there was motivation to participate in the program and did not see the court providing another chance. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES pointed out that the proposed language, in her view, was basically a duplicate of the existing language on page 8. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated that he did not know if the added language would be necessary, and that his concern could be as simple as removing the word "voluntarily". He added that there appeared to be a possible conflict between the method of ordering mediation and entering the process voluntarily. MS. KNUTH thought there was a benefit in ordering the parties to try the mediation but not penalize them if it did not work. She recommended that page 4 remain intact, and strike the word [voluntarily] in Section (f), because she felt then, that Section (f) would cover both situations. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated that after hearing Ms. Knuth's response to the proposed amended language that he would withdraw that amendment, and moved to strike the word [voluntarily], page 8, line 7, as amendment number two, HB 7. There being no objection, amendment number two, HB 7, was adopted unanimously. CHAIRMAN GREEN requested testimony, via teleconference, from Anchorage. Number 1330 ANGELA SALERNO, Executive Director, National Association of Social Workers, advised members they fully supported the service of victim/offender mediation. She pointed out that it provided a balanced approach to juvenile justice, giving equal weight to ensure community safety, held offenders accountable to their victims and also provided competency development for the offenders to purpose legitimate endeavors after their release. MS. SALERNO advised members that the United States Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention had supported development and improvement of juvenile justice restitution programs in an attempt to reduce recidivism. She noted that by the end of 1995, 24 states had adopted, or were examining juvenile codes or administrative procedures that included a balanced approach to juvenile justice. MS. SALERNO pointed out that community dispute resolution centers offered a low-cost, community based, effective alternative to costly incarceration of juveniles. KATHLEEN ANDERSON, advised members she was testifying on behalf of both the Alaska Dispute Settlement Association as president, and her own personal business, the Arbitration and Mediation Group. The Alaska Dispute Settlement Association unanimously supported the creation of community dispute resolutions centers, as described under HB 7, and commended the sponsor for introducing the proposed legislation. MS. ANDERSON, speaking on behalf of her personal business, The Arbitration and Mediation Group, advised members that the creation of community dispute resolution centers was crucial to the state's efforts to use alternative processes to deter repetitive inappropriate behaviors demonstrated by today's juvenile offenders. Ms. Anderson suggested that the committee consider placing language in the bill that would give a court guidance in its ability to order a juvenile to initiate mediation, and still make clear that participation was voluntary. PATRICK CUNNINGHAM, Associate Professor, University of Alaska, expressed his full support of the proposed legislation. Mr. Cunningham advised members that he was the Chairman of the MacLaughlin Youth Center Community Advisory Board, and a founding Board member of the Community Dispute Resolution Center in Anchorage. He stated that the passage of HB 7 was vital to the state's continued efforts to provide restorative justice to victims of crime. Mr. Cunningham explained that the Anchorage Center was providing a marvelous service mediating restitution contracts between victims and juvenile offenders. The center was also a member of the city's "Make a Difference" juvenile anti-crime effort, which was beginning its second year of operation. MR. CUNNINGHAM pointed out the HB 7 was necessary for the continued growth of the of the mediation centers and the development of similar programs throughout the state. He noted that the programs were low cost and community based, with much of the financial support for the Anchorage program coming from the municipality of Anchorage, the University of Alaska, Anchorage, community businesses, nonprofit organizations and individual citizens. MR. CUNNINGHAM expressed that findings from the nationwide programs, as well as those in Europe, had demonstrated that when a victim is given the opportunity to meet with the offender, that over two-thirds wish to participate. He noted many programs had reported over 95 percent successful completion. Mr. Cunningham continued pointing out that the offenders were confronted directly with the destructive results of their crime; held accountable, required to take action to make amends to the victim and the community, and are closely monitored to assure that restitution is given. Mr. Cunningham also pointed out that victims were empowered by having the opportunity to directly participate in the justice process, rather than the standard criminal justice process which tended to be an offender oriented system. MR. CUNNINGHAM concluded by stating that the proposed legislation would institutionalize community dispute mediation centers and set forth standards to be followed. Number 1775 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE felt the proposed legislation could promote a growth in the business area and asked what the cost of mediation was, as well as the cost to the Department of Health and Social Services, who would be certifying the mediation centers. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated that members from the department would be able to answer that question. NIKISHKA STEWART, Executive Director, Anchorage Community Dispute Resolution Center and current board member of the International Victim Offender Mediation Association, advised members that the proposed legislation would meet a number of community needs. She noted that, primarily, the bill would provide a restorative justice process for victims which places them at the heart; receiving restitution, justice and closure of a traumatic event in their lives. MS. STEWART pointed out that the mediation process allowed for creativity and flexibility that was not permitted in the traditional justice system. Number 1960 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE moved to adopt CSHB 7, as amended. There being no objection, CSHB 7 was adopted as amended. SUSANNE DI PIETRO, Staff Attorney, Alaska Judicial Council, advised members she was in complete agreement with the testimony provided by Mr. Cunningham and Ms. Stewart, and would be available for questions by committee members if need be. LINDA JOHNSON, Legal Advisor, Anchorage Youth Court, advised members that she was speaking in support of community resolution dispute centers being immune from civil suits. MS. JOHNSON explained that the Anchorage Youth Court prosecutes juvenile offenders through a trial of their peers and had been in operation since 1989. In 1996 the court consider approximately 400 cases and expected to see 650 or more in 1997. Ms. Johnson pointed out that there were several youth courts operating around the state; Mat-Su, Kodiak and Juneau. She noted that in Kenai and Fairbanks, youth courts were in the planning stage and there had been frequent requests from the rural communities to establish youth courts in those areas. MS. JOHNSON explained that the board of directors would not allow the Anchorage Youth Court to consider certain cases because of the inability to protect themselves from suit, and requested that they be included under the immunity language of the bill. Number 2150 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER advised members and Ms. Johnson that under Section 4 of the sponsor substitute, youth courts would be considered immune from suit in a civil action. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked what types of cases the Anchorage Youth Court was not accepting because of the lack of immunity. MS. JOHNSON stated that it involved certain cases that might be gang related. BARBARA BRINK, Acting Director, Alaska Public Defender Agency, Department of Administration, advised members they were in full support of the proposed legislation. She noted that justice was best served when victims, offenders and communities all receive equitable treatment in the judicial process. SHARON STURGES, Case Manager, Anchorage Community Dispute Resolution Center, advised members they, also, fully supported HB 7. She pointed out that they had been operating a victim/offender mediation program at both the diversion level and probation level. Ms. Sturges advised members they did not charge for services at the present time, although they were considering implementing some sort of sliding fee scale, which was contemplated in a section of the bill. MS. STURGES advised members that the center negotiated $10,640 in victim restitution the previous year, and of that amount, $10,090 had been paid, which represented a 95 percent payment rate. Ms. Sturges expressed that the process worked for both the victims and the offenders. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked Ms. Sturges who provided operating funds for the center. Ms. Sturges explained that the funds were provided from the Municipality of Anchorage, although approximately $25,000 of the $55,000 was provided through private donations. TAPE 97-8, SIDE B Number 000 ROBERT BUTTCANE, Juvenile Probation Officer and Supervisor of the Anchorage Juvenile Intake Unit, spoke in favor of HB 7, and also supported the sponsor substitute, as amended. He felt the proposed legislation was suitable and sufficient for the juvenile delinquency system to be able to use mediation programs, both for the informal interventions, as well as the formal court orders. MR. BUTTCANE pointed out that the department had submitted a zero fiscal note, noting that they had been able to work together with individual communities and entities to form partnerships to deal with juvenile crime. He noted that the Municipality of Anchorage offered the state of Alaska money that would provide for intake officers, youth courts, victim offender mediation, sentencing coordinators and a whole comprehensive juvenile crime intervention proposal. It was Mr. Buttcane's understanding that the Anchorage program was in the process of obtaining United Way certification in order to receive contributions through that venue. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE moved to report CSHB 7, as amended, out of committee with the accompanying zero fiscal notes and individual recommendations. There being no objection, it was so ordered. CSHB 7 was reported out of committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|