Legislature(1997 - 1998)
02/16/1998 01:08 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 273 - NOTIFY COMMUNITY ABOUT SEX OFFENDERS Number 2006 CHAIRMAN GREEN announced the final item of business would be HB 273, "An Act relating to notification of the public concerning sex offenders." Number 2034 EDDIE GRASSER, Legislative Assistant to Representative Beverly Masek, Alaska State Legislature, came forward on behalf of the sponsor, advising members that Representative Masek was out of town. He expressed hope that the new proposed committee substitute [Version E] addresses some of the concerns raised at the hearing during the interim. It takes out the requirement to notify individual households or businesses within a neighborhood. Instead, it requires putting a legal notice in a newspaper of local distribution or notifying the head of a local community council, if one is established in that community, area, or borough. Notice would also be provided to the superintendent of schools, as well as to other persons the department determines necessary to notify. Number 2135 MR. GRASSER, indicating they had spoken with Representative Rokeberg about real estate concerns, stated, "I think Representative Masek agreed that if the committee would want to do that, that would not be a problem with her." Mr. Grasser said they had also tried to address concerns about the fiscal note by making neighborhood notification through the newspaper. He acknowledged the tremendous effort that the department would have to go through to notify individual households. MR. GRASSER said there had been questions about the rights of the offender after leaving jail and moving into a neighborhood, including the threat of vigilante activity. He also said the bill is pretty simple; it just adds one section to current statute. He concluded by indicating the sponsor's willingness to discuss any other concerns. Number 2221 CHAIRMAN GREEN referred to page 2 of Version E, which talks about the presidents of the community councils. He pointed out that in District 10 there are common lines where three community councils come together. A person living inside one area may have a close neighbor who lives in another area. Chairman Green asked whether Mr. Grasser had done research regarding liability that would come because the neighborhoods closest to the sex offender weren't notified other than by newspaper. He further asked whether any liability would attach to the president of the community council, for example. Number 2306 MR. GRASSER said that is a good question, which he had discussed with Representative Masek; if the committee desired to take out that section, she would not be totally adverse to that. Her concern is trying to get some protection to children, which is why she would like some extended notification procedures beyond just being able to go down to the local law enforcement agency or trying to find it on the Internet. Mr. Grasser agreed there are liability questions. Number 2370 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ made a motion to adopt as a work draft Version E [0-LS1011\E, Luckhaupt, 2/3/98]. There being no objection, it was so ordered. Number 2399 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he had talked to the sponsor and her staff about the problem with Megan's Law and the real estate community. Referring to other legislation, he indicated he had added a related provision in the real estate licensing law, as part of that chapter. He expressed hope that it would survive there, which would make it unnecessary here. TAPE 98-18, SIDE A Number 0006 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER made a motion to delete lines 3 through 6 of page 2, the community council section regarding notification. MR. GRASSER told members he had spoken to Representative Masek about liability questions that might arise if, for example, the president of a community council received notice but failed to notify several households for some reason. Mr. Grasser stated, "And I told her I don't think we want to get into that. And I told her I think by putting it in the newspaper and notifying the superintendent, we were covering as many bases as we possibly could beyond what's presently occurring. So, no, I don't think she would mind." Number 0128 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER formally restated his motion to delete lines 3 through 6 of page 2, and to renumber accordingly. There being no objection, it was so ordered. Number 0150 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ referred to testimony heard during the interim from "Billie," the grandmother of a victim and the mother of an offender; she had raised the point that sometimes divulging the name of the offender can bring additional trauma to the victim. Representative Berkowitz said he was wondering if there a way to allow the victim to have some say in disclosure of information. Number 0227 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said that to add fuel to the discussion, there are also victims who become enablers. "I can see a situation where a victim would take the name off the list because they participate in their own revictimization, this ongoing cycle of abuse that occurs many times, where victims get caught up in the process and actually protect the victimizer," he explained. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said that is a different issue; this is just an additional listing of something already listed. CHAIRMAN GREEN suggested the issue is whether or not the victim wants the world to know, whether from empathy or because of not wanting to revisit it. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked what part of this bill would accelerate that concern. CHAIRMAN GREEN said the newspaper. Number 0368 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE pointed out that on page 1, section (C) requires notice of the crime for which the offender was convicted. "If I publish a guy's name and the fact that he was convicted of incest, we're also publishing the victim's name de facto," he explained. Number 0409 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said in terms of the victim's being a victim and for that reason not wanting this to become public, he believes that is more relevant in the standard physical abuse domestic violence case than in sexual assault. He suggested it would be very appropriate, for all the reasons stated, to have a proviso in here that the victim has the ability to say yes or no to these publications. He said it is bad enough that it will be on the Internet; when it goes to the school and is in the paper, that is just about everybody who is notified. Number 0469 CHAIRMAN GREEN asked Mr. Grasser what he believes Representative Masek would think about a proviso like that. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES suggested that a proviso requiring permission from the victim before providing notice would complicate the issue a lot more than having a straight list of what people must do who are responsible for providing the notice. What would they do if the victim were no longer in the state or lived in another area? She suggested perhaps it could be clarified to require consulting any victims who lived in the area, for example. She asked how much they should depend on the victim before acting. Number 0586 MR. GRASSER mentioned the testimony of "Billie" discussed by Representative Berkowitz. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said that perpetrator had turned himself in after an incident of abuse, confessed fully, took responsibility and was making steps towards rehabilitation. And it was a case where everyone in the community, as he understood it, could readily ascertain who the victim was. Although Anchorage and perhaps Fairbanks or Juneau have populations sufficient to provide a degree of anonymity, in smaller communities of the state, he said, he would suspect that most people already know anyway. Number 0671 MR. GRASSER pointed out that legal notices are tiny ads in the back of the newspaper. He offered the opinion that because this information is on the Internet and available at the local law enforcement agency, putting it in the legal section of the newspaper wouldn't increase awareness in an increased portion of the public. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked the reason for the bill, then. MR. GRASSER said people can look if they don't have access to the Internet. Number 0721 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER suggested a victim would be present during a trial, and it wouldn't be too difficult to get the consent or waiver then or shortly after conviction, prior to sentencing. He said as he reads it, it is a requirement on the Department of Public Safety (DPS) to make these notifications once, not over the life of the registration or every time an address changes. MR. GRASSER said as he understands from talking to department personnel, that is their understanding also. He told members he needs to talk to Representative Masek to see whether that is what she really intended. He pointed out that the DPS fiscal note contains an estimate in the analysis of what it would cost to provide the newspaper notice monthly, through fiscal year 2004, while he believes the fiscal note itself is based on yearly notification. Number 0958 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE commented that if it is there, someone, somewhere, is going to read it. He advised members that he has a great deal of concern about incest relating to publication of the offender's name and the crime, which he believes advertises who the victims are. He suggested there are some privacy concerns there. He acknowledged that some victims may want this published but should have the option. He suggested it would be very easy, at sentencing, for the judge to announce that unless the victim comes forward with reason for them to consider not complying with this, they will comply. That would allow some discretion on the part of the judge. Representative Bunde concluded that without some protection of incest victims, he has a problem with the bill. Number 0994 CHAIRMAN GREEN expressed his understanding that for sex crimes against children, some 80 percent are either by a relative or someone known well by the victim. Number 1017 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked, "After we've provided notice to the superintendent of the school district, what are they supposed to do? And if they don't do it and something bad happens, is the school district liable?" CHAIRMAN GREEN asked Anne Carpeneti whether she could respond. Number 1056 ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services Section- Juneau, Criminal Division, Department of Law, first pointed out that she works for the Criminal Division. She then stated her understanding that when they report incest, they don't use that term because of the nature of the crime. Rather, they use "sexual abuse." She pointed out that incest can be between adults. Number 1065 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked about liability attaching to the school district and its responsibility to act after receiving information about a sex offender in the district. He suggested that if the district failed to act in a certain way and harm befell someone who was somehow within the district's care, the school district could be liable for that harm. MS. CARPENETI said it is a good question but she would prefer to have someone from the Civil Division answer it. Number 1104 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated his understanding that when the registry is now published on the Internet, the crime is not specified. Number 1138 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE suggested that if it is not listed as "incest" but as "sexual abuse," that lessens his anxiety about it. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked whether it has the Alaska citation for incest. MS. CARPENETI said she believes it does. She said she would have to double-check, but she believes it says "sexual abuse" rather than "incest" for that very reason. Number 1166 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER suggested the statutes would probably say, "sexual abuse in the 'X' degree." REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated his understanding that incest is under a separate statute. Number 1198 MS. CARPENETI specified that she hadn't anticipated testifying on this bill. She then said, "I'm assuming that if the victim is a minor, the defendant is charged with sexual abuse of a minor. It is also against the law to commit incest in the state, and I'm assuming that adults who commit incest would be charged under the regular incest statute." REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said that is AS 11.41.450. Number 1239 MR. GRASSER referred to the issue of liability on the part of superintendents, which he said he had discussed with the DPS. He suggested they also need to hear from the Department of Law. Mr. Grasser told members, "Our conclusion on discussion was that since this information is already available on the Internet, or down at the local law enforcement agency, we felt that if somebody didn't have the information, it wouldn't necessarily create a liability question for the superintendent if he, for some reason, decided not to notify anybody. But that's, again, something that somebody in the Department of Law needs to answer." Number 1273 CHAIRMAN GREEN suggested that if it was in statute that the superintendent must be notified specifically, that might incur a duty that wouldn't normally be there. MS. CARPENETI said she would like to ask the department's civil attorneys that question, adding that it is a good question. Number 1304 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said he would like to hear from others on this, including superintendents of school and the Department of Law. He also asked that the sponsor further address the idea that the judge would provide the victim a period of time at sentencing, that if the judge doesn't hear from the victim a good and sufficient reason that this shouldn't go forth, it would go forth. Number 1341 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asking Ms. Carpeneti whether having the caveat of asking the victim would be in violation of Megan's Law or the Wetterling Act. Number 1353 MS. CARPENETI replied that it is a very interesting issue. She said she'd been thinking about it ever since it was raised, because she also had heard that testimony this summer, which was heartbreaking. On the other hand, there are people who victimize children, and the point of the Wetterling Act is to allow people to know, so that the parents can protect their children and protect themselves from people who tend to do these bad things over and over again. Ms. Carpeneti stated, "I clearly feel for these people, and I would like to think about if there's alternatives. I would be concerned that a person victimized another child, and the only reason that his or her name wasn't published was because the first victim, understandably, didn't want his or her name publicized. I think it's a real tough issue." Number 1405 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked whether they couldn't do that by publishing the name of the sex offender without specifying the crime, which might lead to identification of the victim. MS. CARPENETI said that is a possibility, although if she were looking at the sex offender registration, she would be interested in knowing whether a person was convicted of rape or sexual abuse of a minor in the third degree. She said that would make a difference to her. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG agreed but expressed concern. MS. CARPENETI advised members that the federal government provides that victims' names should not be revealed. She acknowledged, however, that for some offenses that is difficult to do in small communities. Number 1441 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said his question regarding the federal law is whether the victim could request prevention of the publication, to be decided by the judge. MS. CARPENETI pointed out that this bill only addresses additional publication from what is already done and made available. "So, I guess I wouldn't be terribly concerned if this particular provision were limited, but ... whether you limited the ability of a person to go into the Department of Public Safety and look at the registration information, I would like to think about that," she said. Number 1508 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER suggested that nothing in this bill, whether it had a requirement for victim approval or not, would have any effect on the existing law regarding registration and the availability of that registration to public access. He said his own reaction right away was to victims' rights, which is in the constitution now. He said at some point, we have to consider those things. Representative Porter added that it is a close call, saying he couldn't think of a victim of a pedophile who would not want that person's name out there, but then suggesting that might not be the case. CHAIRMAN GREEN pointed out that there were several questions for the sponsor to review. Number 1582 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ noted the clear need for balance between protecting the community as a whole, which registration aims to do generally, and the interests of the victim, which he believes should be addressed. He suggested if they could find a way to navigate between the interests of the victim and the interests of the community, they have a chance of doing something unique here, which people would look to and say that this is the way sexual registration ought to be done. He offered to help the sponsor work towards that. CHAIRMAN GREEN offered to talk to Mr. Grasser following the meeting about members' questions. [HB 273 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|