Legislature(1997 - 1998)
04/23/1997 01:44 PM Senate JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 6 RELEASE OF INFORMATION ABOUT MINORS
REPRESENTATIVE PETE KELLY, sponsor of HB 6, stated currently there
exists a veil of secrecy around juvenile crime. Current laws allow
juveniles to commit violent criminal acts, safe in the knowledge
that their names will be kept confidential by the authorities.
That public policy does not provide protection to the public.
Several recent cases in Fairbanks illustrate the need for
disclosure. In one case a man was killed during a daytime robbery
by a teen. The newspaper reported that the names of the two
juveniles who were with the murderer would not be released. Since
then, the juveniles were waived into adult court and their names
were released, but that does not often happen. A second example
involved David Knutsen who shot a State Trooper three times. He
was involved in numerous burglaries. HB 6 has been reworked
through the committee process and is a bill that will protect, and
give a second chance, to those juveniles who do not pose a threat
to public safety, but does allow the public to know the names of
juveniles who are committing serious crimes for the second time.
SENATOR PEARCE asked Representative Kelly to explain how the
disclosure provision will work.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY referred to a diagram illustrating a two prong
system. When a juvenile is arrested, he/she would go through a
preliminary investigation and then if he/she admits guilt, an
informal adjustment would occur with the outcome being restitution
and rehabilitation or placement. If DHSS believes the juvenile to
be dangerous, or if the juvenile resists, the juvenile will be sent
to petition also to provide for juveniles who are released against
the wishes of DHSS before they are adjudicated. There can be a
long time period between release and adjudication when they are
free to continue their activities. Also, DHSS feared adjudication
would cause a logjam of petitions because of the chance that the
case would be thrown out of court. As a compromise, a process was
established in which DHSS can petition the court to prohibit name
disclosure based on one of two factors: that the case is an
isolated incident; or that the juvenile does not pose any further
danger to the public. Representative Kelly added that he believes
the fiscal note for the bill is legitimate.
SENATOR PARNELL asked Representative Kelly if he believes HB 6 will
be cost effective. REPRESENTATATIVE KELLY said he does and added
that this issue is extremely high profile and he has received a lot
of support on HB 6.
SENATOR PARNELL asked Representative Kelly if he believes HB 6 will
have any deterrent value. REPRESENTATIVE KELLY said he did not; HB
6 is strictly to enhance public safety.
Number 223
BARBARA BRINK , the current Acting Director of the Alaska Public
Defender Agency, made the following comments. The debate between
the public's need to know and juvenile confidentiality is not a new
one. Courts and Legislatures have struggled with it for years.
Chief Justice Rehnquist addressed this issue in 1978 in Smith v.
Daly Publishing and wrote an opinion in favor of confidentiality as
follows:
It is a hallmark of our juvenile justice system in the United
States that virtually from its inception from at end of the
last century, proceedings have been conducted outside of the
public's full gaze and that youth brought before the juvenile
courts have been shielded from publicity. This insistence on
confidentiality is born of a tender concern for the welfare of
the child, to hide his youthful errors and bury them in the
graveyard of the forgotten past. The prohibition of
publication of a juvenile's name is designed to protect the
young person from the stigma of his misconduct and is rooted
in the principle that the court concern with juvenile affairs
serves as a rehabilitative and protective agency of the state.
Publication of the names of juvenile offenders may seriously
impair the rehabilitative goals of the juvenile justice system
and handicap the youth's prospect for adjustments to society
and acceptance by the public. This exposure brings undue
embarassment to the families of youth offenders and may cause
the juvenile to lose employment opportunities or provide the
hard core delinquent with the kind of attention he seeks
thereby encouraging him to commit further anti-social acts.
The resultant widespread dissemination of a juvenile
offender's name therefore may [indisc.] beneficient and
rehabilitative purposes of the juvenile court system.
MS. BRINK pointed out that no other state provides for public
disclosure of this kind of informal and adjustment information.
These are the kinds of juvenile offenders who have a good chance at
rehabilitation. Juveniles who get adjusted are prepared to accept
responsibility and make restitution. Those juveniles will be
stigmatized and branded. Names will be disclosed prior to
adjudication, so these juveniles will be tried in the court of
public opinion.
PAM KARALUNAS , representing the Arctic Alliance for People, interim
Executive Director for the Resource Center for Parents and
Children, and Big Brothers and Sisters, and as the parent of a
juvenile offender, testified. Although she shares the frustrations
of many people in the community about how juvenile crime is
mishandled, she does not believe HB 6 will correct the situation.
She expressed concern that HB 6 contains no age limit, that
informal adjustments will be published, and that name disclosure
occurs before the juvenile is proven guilty.
Number 300
BETH GAMBRELL expressed concern that children make mistakes, and
should be allowed to, except when firearms are involved. She does
not believe publishing the names of those involved in informal
adjustment is appropriate. Name disclosure should not occur prior
to a court decision, due to the negative effects of placing a label
on a child because the label could become a self-fulfilling
prophecy.
C-JOE DIMATTEO , with the Alaska Council on Prevention of Alcohol
and Drug Abuse and a member of the Governor's Council on Youth and
Justice, echoed the previous witnesses' concerns. He asked the
committee to consider including an age limit and to prevent names
from being submitted until after adjudication. Many public
comments made to the Governor's Council support those changes.
D. BUNTI REED , a parent of a child with a traumatic brain injury
and a secondary diagnosis of a mental illness, noted about 20 other
parents who were attending the Children's Mental Health Convention
attempted to testify today but had to leave. She agreed with Judge
Rehnquist's opinion and is concerned with words contained in HB 6
such as "alleged" and "informal" because it will allow children and
parents to be labelled. Many children in the juvenile system are
identified as having a mental illness in their first infraction
with the law. Although the intent of HB 6 is to protect
communities, she does not agree the bill will do that, and sees it
as a gross violation of parents and chidlren in Alaska.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked Ms. Reed who the people were that left. MS.
REED provided some of the names.
LAURA ROREM , a parent of two children who have suffered from brain
disorders, one with mental illness and the other with fetal alcohol
syndrome, and a member of the Alaska Mental Health Board, made the
following comments. Brain disorders are no-fault diseases that
affect behavior, thinking processes, mood, judgment, reason and
decision to name only a few. They are caused by bio-chemical
and/or abnormalities in the brain. Weakness of will and bad
parenting are not to blame. These problems are not caused by
problems in living, bad environment, abuse or neglect. These
diseases are grossly misunderstood and treatment for them is
sporadic, haphazard, difficult to access, and blame-oriented.
Children and adults with brain disorders are good people but their
brains are diseased. They are often incapable of making the
distinction between right and wrong and are unable to understand
consequences. Often, early intervention is not available and
services are not provided until after a child commits a crime.
Instead, the child and family will be ostracized and publically
humiliated, and HB 6 will bring punishment rather than treatment
and will violate one's right to privacy.
Number 464
SENATOR PEARCE commented that she has a lot of sympathy for the
parents of mentally ill children but noted the crimes listed in HB
6 involve deadly weapons, arson, burglary, child pornography,
promoting prostition, and misconduct involving a controlled
substance. She questioned whether there is a linkage between
mental illness in youth and those types of crimes.
MARY MESSNER , a Public Health Nurse in Barrow, stated she works
with families and children with special needs. Many of those
children have neuro-biological disorders. Forty to seventy percent
of the children in the juvenile justice system nationwide are not
diagnosed with mental health problems early enough. Children with
neuro-biological disorders are most often not diagnosed at all, and
when they are diagnosed the disorders are complex, evolving, and
often co-exist with other disorders. Public disclosure of the
names of juveniles and their families is wrong. If the Senate
wishes to address juvenile crime, she suggested considering a bill
for mandatory mental health evaluation by a child and adolescent
psychiatrist of all juveniles who enter the juvenile justice at any
point and for juveniles entering substance abuse treatment, where
70 percent are shown to have treatable neuro-biological disorders.
Number 450
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked Ms. Messner to address Senator Pearce's
question about the delineation of serious crimes in HB 6 and their
link to mental illness.
D. BUNTI REED addressed Senator Pearce's question as follows. The
cognitive disability of her son causes him to respond toward
aggressive behavior of other students more violently than other
youngsters of his age. Last week she was called into school
because her son attempted to assault another student with a
bookbag. The police were also called and considered her son's
action to be classifiable as assault with a weapon. Her son is
mentally retarded and mentally ill. She felt the embarassment to
his siblings of an arrest in the family is almost criminal itself.
SENATOR PEARCE asked if the other students and parents of those
students in the classroom with Ms. Reed's son are aware of the
disorder and that provocations that may seem normal to them to be
more difficult for her son.
MS. REED responded that the immediate classroom members are aware
but other students are not. Because of his disability, he is
fairly comical and due to adolescent impetuosity, he is teased and
baited frequently.
Number 479
KENNETH DAVIS testified in opposition to HB 6. He is the parent of
four children; two are severely emotionally disabled; one with
fetal alcohol syndrome, psychotic brain disorder, seizure disorder,
learning disabled, attention deficit and hyperactive disorder, and
is an acting sex offender. If HB 6 is passed, the effectiveness of
his son's treatment will cease. As an active sex offender who is
receiving treatment, his son is required to live in specialized
foster care. Publishing the names of the offender, his family, and
the specialized foster family who are acting guardians, will have
a negative effect. He questioned how many foster families would be
willing to accept a high risk child if they must suffer harassment
and ridicule from friends and neighbors after name disclosure.
CECELIA DAVIS stated that as parents, it is their duty and
obligation to the community to protect it against their son which
is why he is in a specialized program. But, she is also the parent
of both a victim and an offender and is stuck in several positions.
Often when the name of the offender is disclosed, the victim's
identity becomes known. The victim can be devastated because of
the ridicule. She informed the committee that her son's mental
disabilities are the result of his natural mother's misuse of
alcohol. As a victim of sexual abuse herself, she feels obligated
as a parent to protect society and educate others so that they can
help. She cautioned that if HB 6 passes, as currently written, it
will be devastating to children with mental disabilities and to
victims.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY clarified that a provision on page 4 prohibits
the names of foster families from being disclosed unless they have
the child on a permanent or long term basis. In addition, some of
the examples given previously would fall under the Children in Need
of Aid provisions, and their names would not be disclosed.
LORI NAMYNIUK , President of the Substance Abuse Directors
Association of Alaska, testified in opposition to HB 6 because of
the breaching of confidentiality at the petition stage and because
the bill contains no age limit. There is no research that
indicates that action of this type will decrease juvenile
deliquency. Rather than adopting a punitive approach, the
Legislature needs to look for solutions. The projected $1.2
million cost of HB 6 could be used for intervention activities.
Number 547
MARGOT KNUTH , Assistant Attorney General and representative of the
Governor's Council on Juvenile Justice, testified. At a conference
of the Council held last year, the most divisive issue discussed
was the issue of disclosure of the names of juvenile offenders.
The Conference ultimately recommended that some disclosure of
juvenile names is necessary to protect the public; of those
juveniles at least 15 years of age who committed a felony offense
against a person, or a second burglary offense. SB 69 was
introduced by the Governor and sets the age limit at 16. The
single largest provider of mental health care in the State of
Alaska is the Department of Corrections. There are more mentally
ill people housed by the Department of Corrections than in all
other mental health facilities. The Governor's Conference
recommendation bill differs from HB 6 is that it only follows the
cases that DHSS has identified as the serious offenders that need
to fall within the court's jurisdiction. A serious concern
expressed at the Conference was that disclosing the name of the
offender often identifies the victim inadvertently, especially in
sexual offenses among family members. Yet, name disclosure to
protect others makes drawing the line a difficult policy issue.
She acknowledged and appreciates Representative Kelly's effort to
work very hard to accommodate the Council's concerns and noted the
HB 6 has been tailored to include only very serious crimes and
contains an escape provision where the court can be petitioned to
prevent name disclosure.
TAPE 97-30, SIDE B
DR. RUSSELL HOFFMAN of Bethel stated that he has been practicing
medicine in Alaska since 1973 and specializes in psychiatry and
forensic psychiatry. He advises the Court System about the reasons
for people's behavior and designs treatment programs for offenders.
He noted he travelled to Juneau at his own expense because he feels
strongly about the complex issue of disclosure. He noted the bill
specifies in five different places that the release of information
about the victim will be prohibited which illustrates that the
release of information can be a hurtful process. He discussed a
recent tragic event in the Bethel school system and how the gossip
and rumors about people periperally involved was extremely harmful
to those people and their families. He noted the ripple effect of
those rumors on other community members. He explained that is an
extreme example of how HB 6 could play out in a small community.
The issue of disclosure is a very important one for those who try
to treat children and turn a negative situation into a positive
one. He stated in the past 4 1/2 hours he has received over 100
signatures from the Bethel community in opposition to HB 6.
JOHN CYR , President of NEA-Alaska, stated that one thing of
paramount importance to NEA's members is the ability to know the
kinds of students they work with on a daily basis. NEA's primary
concern is with the stage at which the offender's name is released.
NEA prefers that the name be released after adjudication when the
juvenile has been convicted. In his experience, he knows of
juveniles who have been accused of very serious crimes erroneously.
Had those juveniles' names been released, serious consequences
would have occurred. One of NEA's primary functions is to keep
students in school and needs to develop alternative programs,
especially to deal with violence. NEA also believes there is a
critical need for juvenile detention centers to provide adequate
help for these offenders.
DIANE WORLEY , Director of the Division of Family and Youth
Services, DHSS, stated that DHSS has worked very closely with
Representative Kelly and understands the direction he is taking
with HB 6, but is concerned with how far the bill goes. HB 6
conflicts with DHSS' goal of working with families and children,
and to protect children and to rehabilitate where possible. DHSS
is concerned about striking the necessary balance to protect
communities from juveniles, who have committed serious crimes or
are repeat offenders, but believes HB 6 is too broad and covers all
ages, and does not take into account mitigating circumstances.
DHSS does support some level of disclosure but does not believe HB
6 establishes the appropriate balance.
Number 465
SENATOR PARNELL asked what specific changes need to be made to HB
6 to get support from the Administration.
MS. WORLEY answered that she is speaking only for DHSS and not for
the Governor's Children's Cabinet.
SENATOR PARNELL asked Ms. Worley to clarify her statement.
MS. WORLEY said DHSS is part of the Children's Cabinet and has
worked closely with it on HB 6 but DHSS' perspective is slightly
different because it works with these juveniles on a daily basis.
She clarified that because of the direct impact HB 6 will have on
DHSS, it has more specific concerns than other departments.
SENATOR PARNELL asked if DHSS' specific concerns are age and mental
health. MS. WORLEY replied yes, and a third issue is informal
adjustment because that is the key to the work DHSS does with
juveniles; with those who admit to a crime and are willing to work
with DHSS and their families on rehabilitation.
SENATOR PARNELL asked Ms. Worley if she thinks disclosure should
only occur when juveniles are on the yellow track. MS. WORLEY said
that is correct.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR summarized Ms. Worley's preference as age 16,
yellow-track, upon conviction.
ANGELA SALERNO , Executive Director of the National Association of
Social Workers, pointed out that confidentiality of juvenile
records was part of a larger reform measure which began early in
the Century and established juvenile courts to accommodate the
disability of youth. HB 6 would be changing that in a fundamental
and critical way and creates a radical and untested measure.
Although we are all concerned about juvenile crime, we should not
act out of desperation. The purpose of HB 6 is to protect
ourselves but is illusory and will make us less safe because we
will be forcing children further down the road toward crime.
Number 398
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked Ms. Salerno when "we" decided that non-
publication of the names of juveniles was an attribute of the
juvenile justice system. MS. SALERNO said she did not have the
date in Alaska, but the practice was established when the first
juvenile court was created in Illinois at the turn of the Century.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR commented on the schizophrenic logic we have taken
toward the responsibilities we allow juveniles to have, and those
that we do not.
MS. SALERNO emphasised that DHSS' charge is to work with those
juveniles who might be rehabilitated. Those children often suffer
the disabiilty of lack of parental control.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said that sometimes parents do everything they can
for a child yet the child chooses to be delinquent. MS. SALERNO
agreed.
MR. CYR commented he believes that adults are absolutely
responsible for their children, but questioned at what point the
system should take over when a child gets in trouble. He expressed
concern that we may be acting prematurely when children can be
saved or have been misidentified.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR noted many legislators are concerned that several
years ago, in attempt to keep names anonymous, foster parents were
not given information about the young people being placed in their
homes and the foster parents suffered major consequences because of
it.
Number 347
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY addressed comments made by previous witnesses.
The informal adjustment process allows DHSS to decide whether the
child can be rehabilitated. He agrees with that provision and
adopted the Children's Cabinet amendment which provides for
disclosure for a second offense. A provision for formal
adjudication was included in the original bill, but DHSS requested
that be changed to petition to prevent a logjam. When he agreed to
petition, DHSS argued the need to change to informal adjudication.
At that point he included an amendment from the Lieutenant
Governor's Office which allows DHSS to petition against disclosure.
At this point in time, DHSS is still pushing for informal
adjudication. He stated DHSS wants the parents or foster parents
of the defendant to be able to petition the court. He believes, as
well as the Court System, that system will not work because every
attorney who represents one of these juveniles will be guilty of
malpractice for not petitioning the Court. DFYS is not currently
able to disclose that a party who was arrested is innocent. HB 6
would allow DFYS and the Court to release the names of those who
are found innocent.
Regarding the two-track system, REPRESENTATIVE KELLY said he has
met everyone's objections except DFYS' because it is opposed to any
disclosure whatsoever. HB 6 contains escape hatches and only
applies to offenders who commit very serious crimes for a second
time.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR announced HB 6 would be heard again on Friday,
April 25, and adjourned the meeting at 4:00 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|