Legislature(2005 - 2006)CAPITOL 120
02/23/2005 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB124 | |
| HB132 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 132 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 131 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 124 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 132 - CRIMES AGAINST ELDERLY [Contains mention of support for HB 131.] 2:56:38 PM CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 132, "An Act relating to sentencing for certain crimes committed against the elderly; and providing for an effective date." 2:57:14 PM BEN MULLIGAN, Staff to Representative Bill Stoltze, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor, said on behalf of the sponsor that Alaska's elderly population, which is growing rapidly, is often the target of crime. The physical, emotional, and financial impacts of crime on the elderly can be more devastating than they would be on other people. House Bill 132 will increase the penalty one level for certain crimes listed therein; this is intended to deter the targeting of Alaska's elderly population. 2:58:14 PM MARIE DARLIN, Coordinator, Capital City Task Force, AARP, mentioned that members' packets should contain a letter of support from the AARP; this letter also refers to the fact that crimes perpetrated against the elderly cause much more harm than they would if perpetrated against someone younger. With the increase in Alaska's elderly population, HB 132 provides one more way of ensuring that crimes perpetrated against the elderly are viewed as seriously as they deserve to be. In conclusion, she stated that the AARP supports HB 132 as written. CHAIR McGUIRE asked whether the AARP approached the sponsor with the concept embodied in HB 132. MS. DARLIN indicated that she did not know, but relayed that the AARP is very interested in the fact that seniors are now being targeted more and more in identity theft crimes as well as other crimes. In fact, the AARP has started a nationwide educational campaign to make "baby boomers" and the elderly aware of all the different types of scams and ID theft that are being perpetrated. She reiterated that HB 132 is another way of making people aware of the fact that such crimes will no longer be misdemeanors. She stated that the AARP supports HB 131 as well. REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON asked why the term "elderly" is used in the bill. Is it just the vernacular, meaning that one has reached the age of 65? MS. DARLIN replied, "More or less, yes, and yet we know that not everybody is going to be at the same stage of their life ... at age 65 or even 75, and maybe more so in Alaska than other places; but, nevertheless, we so far support the bill ... [as an] idea that should be helpful." SAM TRIVETTE, AARP; President, Retired Public Employees of Alaska (RPEA), Alaska Public Employees Association/Alaska Federation of Teachers (APEA/AFT), surmised that the sponsor probably used the age of 65 in the bill because that is the age at when the elderly usually start receiving social security benefits and is the age commonly used throughout the country. He relayed that the AARP is doing a lot of work educating folks on the issues surrounding HB 132, and characterized this education as an important component. Mentioning that he worked for many years in the field of corrections, he said his experience has shown that the impact of crime on the elderly, particularly those with fixed incomes, is severe. He opined that raising the crime to a felony level will attract attention, and pointed out that many of the crimes perpetrated against the elderly originate in other states, and that law enforcement agencies in other states are willing to provide more assistance when the crime is a felony. In conclusion, he said he thinks HB 132 makes sense, and stated, too, that the AARP supports it. 3:04:32 PM LINDA GOHL, Executive Director, Alaska Commission on Aging (ACoA), Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS), said that the ACoA supports HB 132. She acknowledged Mr. Trivette and Ms. Darlin's comments, and surmised that should HB 132 pass, there might need to be more education efforts directed at informing people of all ages of the changes encompassed in the bill. With regard to terminology, she relayed that the federal Older Americans Act frequently uses the term "older Americans," and so many state documents use the term "older Alaskans"; additionally, the term "elders" is used in parts of rural Alaska. 3:06:22 PM RANDY RUARO, Assistant Attorney General, Legislation & Regulations Section, Office of the Attorney General, Department of Law (DOL), relayed the DOL's support of HB 132 and offered to answer questions. REPRESENTATIVE GARA said he thinks HB 132 is a good idea though perhaps a couple of the bill's [provisions] are a little bit overbroad. Section 2 of the bill enumerates crimes for which perpetrations against the elderly will result in more serious penalties; referring to page 2, line 24, he offered his understanding that proposed AS 12.55.136(b)(6) would make it a felony to intentionally cause damage to property in an amount of $500 or more - this could consist of using a key to damage the paint job on a car if the paint job costs $500 or more. MR. RUARO pointed out that practically speaking, there are a few steps in between, the first of which is that the person would have to be found guilty of the action, and then it would have to be proven that the act was done with reckless disregard towards property owned by someone age 65 or older. In other words, it is not enough that the property owner is 65 or older; the state still has to prove that the perpetrator recklessly disregarded the fact that the property owner is 65 or older. He noted, however, that the stipulation regarding reckless does not appear in the bill. Instead it can be found in AS 11.81.610(b)(2), which says that when no mental state is specified, then "recklessly" is inferred for a circumstance - the circumstance in this case being that the property is owned by someone 65 or older. [Chair McGuire turned the gavel over to Representative Anderson.] 3:10:13 PM REPRESENTATIVE GARA pointed out, however, that the bill amends the sentencing statute - AS 12.55 - and opined that the element that the perpetrator knew that the victim is 65 or older doesn't have to proven at trial. MR. RUARO relayed that that is not his understanding of the bill; rather, according to his reading of AS 11.81.610(b)(2), it requires that a reckless disregard for the age of the person the act is directed at must be proven in order for the penalty in the bill to apply. REPRESENTATIVE GARA disagreed, adding that he doesn't think the bill has anything to do with the underlying elements of the crime. MR. RUARO said that although that is one possible reading of the bill, it is not the intent to have the bill apply in the sense of strict liability; instead, the intent is to target the penalties proposed in the bill towards those that intentionally or recklessly commit acts against people 65 and older, to enhance the penalties once the perpetrator's reckless disregard for the victim's age is proven. REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON said he can see both arguments. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his belief that HB 132, as currently written, could engender issues related to the U.S. Supreme Court case, Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (U.S., 2004). 3:13:30 PM ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services Section-Juneau, Criminal Division, Department of Law (DOL), opined that Mr. Ruaro has given the committee the best answer the DOL has, and suggested that perhaps [committee members] might be more knowledgeable about the "Blakely issue." REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG surmised that the state would have to show that the perpetrator knew the victim was 65 or older, and this would be another element of the crime. MS. CARPENETI opined that Mr. Ruaro is correct in characterizing it as a circumstance for which recklessness would have to be proven. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG remarked that a perpetrator doesn't "card" his/her victim. MS. CARPENETI said she would do some research and provide the committee with more information on the [issues raised]. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG remarked that one cannot always tell how old a person is just by looking at him/her. MS. CARPENETI concurred, adding that that is why the mental state of knowingly is a difficult one to prove. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG opined that even recklessness would be difficult to prove, particularly given that during the winter, people are bundled up against the cold and so a perpetrator might not be able to discern his/her victim's age at all. REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON returned the gavel to Chair McGuire. 3:15:30 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG recapped the issues raised in the Chair's absence, the Blakely issue and possible mistakes as to age. He offered his understanding that with regard to the crime of statutory rape, there is now a statute specifying that a reasonable mistake as to age is a defense. MS. CARPENETI offered her understanding that the statute stipulates that one does not get to use that defense if the victim is under 13 years of age. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked: "How do they do this with ... the statutes dealing with elder abuse? Is there an age in there?" MS. GOHL offered her understanding that the adult protective services statute just considers adults to be those who are 18 years of age and older, and doesn't make a distinction for older Alaskans. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked, "Don't we have statutes proving elder abuse?" REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON said he agrees with the DOL's representatives on the legal issues, but respects Representative Gara's points. CHAIR McGUIRE, noting that the committee was losing its quorum, indicated that HB 132 would be held over to allow interested parties an opportunity to resolve members' concerns.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|