Legislature(2001 - 2002)
05/03/2001 06:56 PM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE BILL NO. 169
"An Act relating to the nonapplicability of the delinquency
laws to certain minors accused of certain crimes against
persons directed at certain victims."
This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
Co-Chair Donley testified this legislation would be an addition to
current statute requiring waiver to adult court for certain
juveniles over the age of 16 charged with committing certain
offenses. He referenced a list of these offenses. [Copy on file.]
Co-Chair Donley informed that this bill adds Class A misdemeanor
and felony crimes of violence against a person motivated by race,
sex, color, creed, physical or mental disabilities, ancestry or
national origin, to the list of juvenile offenses mandated to adult
court.
Co-Chair Donley noted adult court proceedings are open to the
public, whereas in a juvenile case, the public would be unable to
learn the ruling and subsequent punishment. He added another
advantage to the legislation is that it "raises the level of this"
and helps to deter "this kind of despicable activity in the future"
by demonstrating to would-be offenders that there are consequences
for this conduct.
ROBERT BUTTCANE, Legislative and Administrative Liaison, Division
of Juvenile Justice, Department of Health and Social Services,
agreed with the sponsor that there is a need to communicate a
social value that "says hate crimes are not acceptable in this
state." However, he testified that the department does not favor
the expansion to the list of automatic waiver crimes, especially
for offenses that would involve low-level felonies and misdemeanor
offenses.
Mr. Buttcane stated that the juvenile system would impose "more
strenuous significant sanctions" for those low-level offenses then
what is currently imposed in the adult system. He explained that a
young person committing a misdemeanor offense in the adult system
would most likely receive a suspended jail sentence of only a few
days and perhaps a fine and community work service. On the
contrary, he stressed, young people who commit a crime of bias as
described above, and who's case is handled in the juvenile court
system, are required to participate in victim impact activities,
cultural sensitivity and, in the past, have been required to
complete a book report, write an essay or otherwise learn about
issues and challenges facing the targeted minority group. He added
that these offenders are required to complete "a number of hours"
of community work service specifically on behalf of the people
offended.
Mr. Buttcane continued that the juvenile system is better equipped
to deal with young offenders who have committed low-level felony
and misdemeanor offenses, especially, he stressed, when the same
crimes would be addressed with less intensity in the adult system.
Mr. Buttcane shared that the department recommends consideration of
the duel sentencing provision enacted into law in 1998. He
suggested expanding this to add a prosecution phase to the public
with the option to allow the court to enter a delinquency
disposition and to direct the delinquency system to process the
juvenile. At the same time, he elaborated, the court would
pronounce an adult sentence and if the juvenile failed to
successfully complete a delinquency process, the adult court could
impose a criminal sentence and the juvenile would be transferred to
the Department of Corrections.
Co-Chair Kelly clarified that a Class B felony, which is a crime
against a person, is currently contained in the duel sentencing
provision.
Mr. Buttcane affirmed, but noted this provision requires a prior
delinquency adjudication before it could be imposed.
Co-Chair Kelly asked what is the difference between a Class B
felony crime against a person and Class A misdemeanor crime against
a person.
Mr. Buttcane replied a Class A misdemeanor crime against a person
would include an assault in the fourth degree, which could apply to
"a wide range of behaviors, by words or conduct, placing another
person in fear, or causing physical injury not of a serious
nature." He gave examples as "bloodying somebody's nose and
bruising their arm."
Mr. Buttcane defined a Class B felony as possibly a sexual assault
in the second degree. He noted there were few Class B felony
charges.
Co-Chair Kelly expressed concern that a fourth-degree assault
charge "can be pretty meaningless." He asked for an expanded
definition of Class A misdemeanor crimes against a person.
Mr. Buttcane understood the intent of the legislation is to apply
to the offense that is included in the automatic waiver provision.
Co-Chair Kelly asked if theoretically, a 16-year old could be
mandated to adult court because "he scared another 16-year old."
Mr. Buttcane affirmed and noted, "It is conceivable this would meet
the conditions." However, he stressed the difficulty is whether a
prosecutor would take this type of case to court, and if not, the
juvenile system has no jurisdiction over the matter.
Mr. Buttcane continued listing crimes constituting a Class B
felony, as intentionally causing physical injury to a person by
means of a dangerous instrument. He noted the distinction between
second and first-degree assault pertains to the seriousness of the
injury in that first-degree assault would involve "serious,
protracted, impairment, life-threatening type injuries." He defined
sexual assault in the second degree as sexual contact without
consent, sexual contact with a person who is mentally incapable or
incapacitated, or sexual contact with a person who has been
entrusted to the care of the offender by law.
Co-Chair Kelly remarked the legislation is directed at the recent
paintball attack in Anchorage that targeted Native Alaskans. He
asked if these crimes are second-degree assault.
Mr. Buttcane answered that all three perpetrators involved were
charged with three counts of assault in the fourth degree.
Co-Chair Kelly asked if these cases were formally adjusted or
handled through adjudication.
Mr. Buttcane answered that delinquency petitions were filed against
the two juveniles involved and a criminal complaint was filed
against the one adult.
Co-Chair Kelly asked the maximum sentence the juveniles could
receive under the current system.
Mr. Buttcane responded the perpetrators could be institutionalized
at the McLaughlin Youth Center for a period not to exceed two years
th
or until their 19 birthday, or they could be placed on probation
for the same amount of time. He pointed out that these offenders
could receive up to two-year sentences, which is an advantage of
the juvenile system because regardless of the level of crime, the
delinquency disposition could be applied.
Mr. Buttcane shared that he has received an institutional order in
court for a young person who stole a pack of cigarettes, and that
juvenile spent two years at the McLaughlin facility. He qualified
there are many circumstances that lead the court in reaching a
finding, which he noted in this case, demonstrated this youth
required a high level of isolation and security. He noted the
circumstances in other cases could lead to a finding that the
offender would not be institutionalized and instead be supervised
in the community. He restated there is wide latitude in the
juvenile sentencing system that extends beyond the particular
offense to the various circumstances involved. He listed: response
to other treatment efforts, behavior in school, response to
parental supervision, substance abuse, mental capacity and other
factors as contributing to the circumstances in a case.
Mr. Buttcane stressed that a two-year sentence is the maximum that
could be imposed in the paint ball attack cases, and that it is
unlikely the offenders would be sentenced the full two years.
Co-Chair Kelly summarized the witness's statement that the
Administration does not support this bill.
Mr. Buttcane agreed that the Administration does not support any
increase to the list of automatic waivers, especially for low-level
crimes.
Mr. Buttcane commented that in the delinquency system, of those
crimes of hate or bias, some are related to the perceived sexual
orientation of the victim. He stressed that any expansion of
punishment guidelines for bias and hate crimes that does not
include a provision for sexual orientation is incomplete. He
recognized this is not currently included in the sentencing
aggravator, or the Human Rights Commission purview.
Co-Chair Kelly asked if the witness was saying that the
Administration would not support changes to the hate crime statutes
if sexual orientation were not included as a potential targeted
minority group.
Mr. Buttcane responded that he is unprepared to speak on behalf of
the Administration. However, he noted that other hate crime
legislation, HB 200 that was introduced by the governor, includes
hate crimes based on the sexual orientation of the victim.
Co-Chair Kelly asked if the governor's proposed hate crime
legislation contains a provision addressing juvenile offenders.
Mr. Buttcane answered it does and explains the legislation requires
the juvenile convicted of a hate crime to participate in some type
of sensitivity training.
Senator Ward asked if the Administration would support SB 169 if
sexual orientation were added to the list of targeted minorities.
Mr. Buttcane reiterated that the department does not support any
increase in the automatic waiver to adult court especially for
lower-level felony or misdemeanor crimes. He also reiterated that
any hate crime legislation that does not include bias related to
perceived or actual sexual orientation is considered incomplete.
Senator Ward opined that if Governor Knowles does not support this
legislation his actions are inconsistent with a statement made
during a press conference regarding the paint ball incident.
Mr. Buttcane specified that HB 200 provides that juveniles charged
with committing a hate crime are not moved to adult court, but
remain in the juvenile delinquency system. He noted this
legislation imposes minimum mandatory sentence requirements and
community work service hours.
Senator Ward asked if the offense is therefore not treated as a
criminal offense when committed by a juvenile.
Mr. Buttcane corrected that the matter is treated as a criminal act
but processed as a delinquency.
Co-Chair Kelly stated that Governor Knowles has been consistent
with regard to waiver of minors to adult court.
Senator Ward remarked that he has heard in the media over the past
three weeks that the governor considers that "hate crimes took a
special niche in the world." Senator Ward charged, "Now it comes
time to actually do something about it and he says 'oh, no we can't
bother the darlings.' It's kind of interesting."
Co-Chair Kelly commented, "the governor is taking a horrible
incident and he's trying to get broad sweeping change that has
nothing to do with that incident." Co-Chair Kelly remarked that it
is unfortunate that the Administration has made sexual orientation
a part of this matter. He therefore supported Co-Chair Donley's
legislation.
Co-Chair Donley asked if the paint ball incident would be
classified as a felony under current statute. He shared that when
he learned of the attack, he surmised the crime would be classified
as a Class C felony.
Mr. Buttcane responded that the Division of Juvenile Justice has
worked closely with the Department of Law to impose the highest
possible charges in the paint ball incident, which was assault in
the fourth degree. He informed that a paint ball gun does not
qualify as a dangerous instrument or weapon.
Co-Chair Kelly noted the sentence for conviction of assault in the
fourth degree could be up to two years in prison.
Mr. Buttcane affirmed a juvenile offender convicted of assault in
the fourth degree could be sentenced to the McLaughlin Youth
Facility for up to two years. He qualified it is improper for him
to make conjecture as to the outcome of this pending case, but made
a general statement that it is unlikely the offenders of these
types of crimes would be institutionalized. However, he stressed,
juveniles adjudicated in this type of crime would probably be
placed on probation and would see a probation officer on a weekly
basis, which would not occur in the adult criminal justice system.
Co-Chair Donley clarified the most that the perpetrators in the
paint ball incident could be charged with is a Class A misdemeanor
AT EASE 7:40 PM / 7:46 PM
Co-Chair Donley moved to amend and adopt CS SB 169, 22-LS0778\F.
The conceptual amendment deletes, "or a class A misdemeanor crime
against a person," in Section 1 (a)(4) on page 2, lines 18 and 19.
The amended language reads as follows.
(4) that is a felony crime against a person in which
the minor is alleged to have directed the conduct constituting
the crime at a victim because of that person's race, sex,
color, creed, physical or mental disability, ancestry, or
national origin.
New Text Underlined
Without objection the committee substitute was AMENDED and ADOPTED.
CANDACE BROWER, Program Coordinator, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Corrections, testified in opposition to the bill for
the same reasons voiced by Mr. Buttcane. She appreciated the
amendment to remove misdemeanors from the list of hate crimes
waived to adult court, but thought the Class C felonies should be
removed as well. She expressed that when considering whether to
waive a juvenile charged of a crime to adult court; it must be done
with "great care and caution." She warned that committing juveniles
to adult court is a "slippery slope" because the adult system is
not conducive to addressing the needs of juveniles. She trusted the
juvenile justice system to "make these offenders accountable for
what they do and to intervene in their behaviors in a much more
appropriate way then we can."
Co-Chair Donley stated for the record that dual sentencing has not
been effective.
Senator Green repeated earlier comments she made in the Senate
Chambers that she would not support any legislation that contains
this language. She voiced concerns that the way this bill is
constructed it would never include "someone who attacked my
grandchildren nor many of the children of everyone in this room."
She stated she found this bill places "a very strange level of
scrutiny" on determining whether a crime is committed out of bias
or hatred. She didn't know how this could conclusively be
determined "unless someone is stupid enough to make a film of it"
as done by the perpetrators in the paint ball attack on Alaskan
Natives. She asserted that if the "result of a crime is harm,
damage, hurt, pain, suffering, etc., the result is the same."
Co-Chair Donley offered a motion to move from Committee, CS SB 169,
22-LS0778\F, as amended with new indeterminable fiscal note from
the Department of Corrections.
The bill MOVED from Committee without objection.
AT EASE 7:52 PM / 7:53 PM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|