Legislature(2003 - 2004)
05/18/2003 10:45 AM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 85 - REPEAT SERIOUS SEX OFFENSES [Contains adoption of HCR 23 for the purpose of changing the title of SB 85.] Number 0582 CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the next order of business would be CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 85(STA), "An Act relating to sentencing and to the earning of good time deductions for certain sexual offenses." Number 0556 SENATOR HOLLIS FRENCH, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor, said that SB 85 is designed to do two things. One, it will take repeat sex offenders, those individuals who've been convicted of qualifying prior felony sex crimes, and put them into a new sentencing range - a more severe sentencing range. Two, it will take away the "good time" [sentence reduction] of those same individuals, those repeat sex offenders. He remarked that currently, the law does not account for the type of prior felony a person is convicted of. [Tape ends early; no testimony is missing.] TAPE 03-72, SIDE A Number 0015 SENATOR FRENCH went on to say that currently, if one is a two- time felon, and the second felony is a rape conviction, the law makes no distinction. He offered his belief that a two-time rapist is not the same as any other two-time felon; he/she needs to be put in a separate, more stringent category. The sentencing scheme outlined in SB 85 is intended to address that concern. He remarked that for the past 26 years, Alaska has been at the top, nationwide, for reported rapes. Although SB 85 is not the entire answer, it will put hardcore, repeat offenders away for longer periods of time. In response to a question, he said that nationwide, about 10-25 percent of convicted sex offenders will go on to commit and be convicted of another sex offense within about five years of their first conviction. REPRESENTATIVE HOLM surmised that SB 85 is addressing the issue of predators, and opined that there is a difference between a sex offender and a rapist and that the two are not the same. He said he would like to have those terms defined a little bit, and that he wanted to know how many people are rapists and how many people are just perverts. CHAIR McGUIRE said she strongly disagrees with Representative Holm, adding that rapists are predators and are among the worst of people and it is therefore irrelevant whether the person being taken advantage of sexually is a woman or a child or a man. REPRESENTATIVE HOLM said he just wanted to know what the difference is between the different classes of sexual predator. Are they all the same under the law? SENATOR FRENCH explained that there are two broad categories. One is sexual assault - known as rape - and the other is sexual abuse of a minor. The latter often involves the same behavior as the former but it is committed against a child under the age of 16. Those two categories are not exactly the same, he noted, but added that it is so very difficult to differentiate amongst them that, for purposes of SB 85, "we simply say this." REPRESENTATIVE HOLM surmised: "Treat them all the same." Number 0335 SENATOR FRENCH clarified that if someone is a repeat offender, "we're going to treat you the same and we're going to spank you hard." He referred to a newspaper clipping, which he relayed said that a 27-year-old Fairbanks man was convicted on five counts after molesting two teenage girls last year. The man was found guilty of fondling his wife's 15-year-old sister and her 16-year-old friend after giving them alcohol. He was convicted on one count each of first and second degree sexual abuse of a minor and one count of third degree sexual assault, and is now facing sentencing on those charges. SENATOR FRENCH said that if such a situation is a onetime event, the perpetrator will be sentenced like every other first time offender. However, if the perpetrator is convicted again of such crimes, he offered his belief that that perpetrator should be treated more harshly. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS mentioned that "good time" is a management tool for the Department of Corrections (DOC). He asked how many people will be affected by the "good time" provision of SB 85 and what will happen to the DOC when that tool is taken away. SENATOR FRENCH posited that most sex offenders don't need that tool: "In a disciplined, orderly setting, they seem to be rule followers; they seem to conform their behavior to the structure they find themselves in." He acknowledged, however, that there is a cost aspect to eliminating "good time." He opined that SB 85 will save money in the long run just by keeping perpetrators of sexual offenses in jail longer, rather than letting them out sooner and then having to reprocess them into the correctional system when they are convicted again. REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked for a comparison between the current sentencing structure and that proposed by SB 85. He also asked whether "statutory rape" is included in SB 85, and what the age difference is that results in a crime being called statutory rape. SENATOR FRENCH, with regard to age differences between a victim and a perpetrator, said that the victim would be either 13, 14, or 15 years old, with the perpetrator being three years older. So statutory rape would involve a 16-, 17-, or 18-year-old having consensual sex with someone three years younger, and he/she would be guilty of committing sexual abuse of a minor in the third degree, which is a class C felony. He noted that if someone is convicted of statutory rape, by the time he/she gets out of prison, it is unlikely that he/she will still be in the same age category whereby a second conviction for statutory rape is possible. With regard to the differences between the current sentencing structure and that proposed by SB 85, he relayed that a handout detailing those differences is included in members' packets; the handout is titled "Sentencing Guidelines for Repeat Sexual Offenders." REPRESENTATIVE HOLM asked whether the offenses covered under SB 85 include all the offenses in AS 11.41.410 - AS 11.41.470. SENATOR FRENCH said yes. He added that "sexual felony" is defined on page 8 [lines 1-6] of SB 85, and is meant to cover "just about every sexual felony in our code." REPRESENTATIVE GARA, after reviewing the aforementioned handout, remarked that SB 85 seems to add five years. CHAIR McGUIRE, after ascertaining that no one wished to testify on SB 85, closed public testimony. Number 0914 REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS made a motion to adopt Amendment 1, labeled 23-LS0512\U.2, Luckhaupt, 5/18/03, which read: Page 1, line 1, following "Act": Insert "relating to the factors that may be considered in making a crime victim compensation award;" Page 8, following line 6: Insert a new bill section to read: "* Sec. 10. AS 18.67.080(c) is amended to read: (c) In determining whether to make an order under this section, the board shall consider all circumstances determined to be relevant, including provocation, consent, or any other behavior of the victim that directly or indirectly contributed to the victim's injury or death, the prior case or social history, if any, of the victim, the victim's need for financial aid, and any other relevant matters. In applying this subsection, (1) the board may not deny an order based on the factors in this subsection, unless those factors relate significantly to the occurrence that caused the victimization and are of such a nature and quality that a reasonable or prudent person would know that the factors or actions could lead to the crime and the victimization; (2) with regard to circumstances in which the victim consented to, provoked, or incited the criminal act, the board may consider those circumstances only if the board finds that it is more probable than not that those circumstances occurred and were the cause of the crime and the victimization; (3) the board may deny an order based on the victim's involvement with illegal drugs, only if (A) the victim was involved in the manufacture or delivery of a controlled substance at the time of the crime or the crime and victimization was a direct result of the prior manufacture or delivery of a controlled substance; the evidence of this manufacture or delivery must be corroborated by law enforcement or other credible sources; and (B) the evidence shows a direct correlation linking the illegal activity and the crime and victimization; or (4) if a claim is based on a crime involving domestic violence or on a crime of sexual abuse of a minor or sexual assault and the offender is (A) convicted of one of those crimes, notwithstanding (1) - (3) of this subsection, the board may not deny an order based on considerations of provocation, the use of alcohol or drugs by the victim, or the prior social history of the victim; or (B) not convicted of one of those crimes, the board may not deny an order based on the involvement or behavior of the victim." Renumber the following bill sections accordingly. Number 0920 REPRESENTATIVE GARA objected to ask what Amendment 1 does. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS said that Amendment 1 "goes into the criteria that can be used by the [Violent Crimes] Compensation Board, and what it does is it makes sure that they cannot deny for alcohol use, [or] drug use unless drug use was part of the crime itself." CHAIR McGUIRE mentioned that the language in Amendment 1 was suggested by Senator Gretchen Guess. REPRESENTATIVE GARA withdrew his objection. Number 0959 CHAIR McGUIRE asked whether there were further objections to Amendment 1. There being none, Amendment 1 was adopted. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that with the adoption of Amendment 1, a concurrent resolution is now necessary in order to change the title of SB 85. Number 1010 REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS moved to report CSSB 85(STA), as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, HCS CSSB 85(JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee. Number 1024 CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the committee now had before it for consideration the proposed House Concurrent Resolution, version 23-LS1164\A, Luckhaupt, 5/17/03. Number 1039 REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS moved to adopt and report the proposed House Concurrent Resolution, version 23-LS1164\A, Luckhaupt, 5/17/03, out of committee with individual recommendations. There being no objection, the House Concurrent Resolution [which later became HCR 23] was adopted and reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee. [HCS CSSB 85(JUD) was reported from committee.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|