Legislature(2005 - 2006)BUTROVICH 205
01/25/2006 08:30 AM Senate JUDICIARY
Audio | Topic |
---|---|
Start | |
SB10 | |
HB101 || HB148 | |
Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ | HB 101 | TELECONFERENCED | |
+ | HB 148 | TELECONFERENCED | |
+ | HJR 9 | TELECONFERENCED | |
+ | TELECONFERENCED | ||
= | SB 10 | ||
SB 10-PARENTAL LIABILITY FOR CHILD'S DAMAGE 8:37:18 AM CHAIR RALPH SEEKINS announced SB 10 to be up for consideration. SENATOR GRETCHEN GUESS, bill sponsor, introduced SB 10 and explained that it was clearly complicated. She offered to give an overview of the sections and then open it up for questions. Increasingly juveniles are vandalizing and community members are seeking ways to control and stop the vandalizing. Historically communities have dealt with the civil part of the issue and the amount that the parent is liable for. There are three different processes a juvenile can go through. There is an informal process with juvenile justice, a criminal process, and a civil process. They all deal with the child and the parent differently when it comes to restitution. SB 10 is an attempt to insert a consistent system into law and to start holding children accountable for their actions. SB 10 proposes to hold a juvenile liable for the first $5,000 worth of damage. The parents would be responsible for the next $15,000, and that comes out of current law. The idea behind the bill is for parents and children to create a payment plan and for the payment plan to go past the age of 18. If the victim were not interested in getting full restitution that would be their choice. 8:41:28 AM SENATOR GUESS continued by saying she tried to create a balance of many issues, such as restitution versus accountability, affordability of the family, and the length of time it would take to make restitution. 8:43:58 AM At the request of other members of the Legislature, Senator Guess offered that a portion of the permanent fund dividend (PFD) could be taken to help pay for restitution and/or the driver's license of the youth could be taken away or the issuance postponed. 8:45:34 AM CHAIR SEEKINS asked Senator Guess whether SB 10 would make the State of Alaska responsible for restitution in the case where the child is a ward of the state. SENATOR GUESS said no. That language is in current law and was Senator Fred Dyson's intent of four years ago. CHAIR SEEKINS felt the state should assume liability if they assumed responsibility. SENATOR GUESS advised she would double check and get back to the committee. "The difficulty is that if the child doesn't have parents or if they have parents that are exempt from liability, that $15,000 can't be recovered any other way because of equal protection." 8:48:46 AM Senator Gene Therriault joined the committee. SENATOR HOLLIS FRENCH said the criminal justice system's power over a minor ends about a year after they turn 18. He asked how the bill would keep the power of the court on the minor after emancipation. SENATOR GUESS offered to find out and get back to the committee. 8:51:03 AM CHAIR SEEKINS said when a court orders restitution; it shows up on that person's credit report. He asked whether the same would occur. SENATOR GUESS said it was the intent of bill that it would once the person turns 18. It would follow the same as any debt, and it would for the parent as well. SENATOR CHARLIE HUGGINS referred to page 8 lines 7 and 8 and noted "The schedule must provide for payments adequate to fulfill the total restitution amount before the minor reaches 18 years if age." He wondered the outcome when this doesn't happen. SENATOR GUESS clarified that was for the informal action. If it couldn't be satisfied by age 18 it would have to go to either a criminal or civil action. 8:54:09 AM SENATOR FRENCH asked the reason for not commanding the court to order full restitution and to allow the court to apportion between the juvenile and the parents as the court sees fit according to the facts of the case. SENATOR GUESS said the extremes are the easy cases. She made the policy call to putting a structure to the restitution instead of having the courts decide things such as negligence of a parent. She said most cases are not black and white. She said there could be inequities when depending on the courts to decide. 8:57:20 AM CHAIR SEEKINS said the bill would strike a balance and should prod parents to control the activities of their children. 8:59:19 AM SENATOR GUESS asserted many people have strong opinions about the bill. CHAIR SEEKINS asked for public testimony on SB 10. 8:59:57 AM MR. TONY NEWMAN, program officer, Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) expressed concern related to the sections devoted to the changes in the apportioning of restitution between parents and juveniles as well as the revocation of driver's licenses. He said placing restitution solely on youth might decrease the likelihood that restitution would get paid. SB 10 could saddle youth with a debt they could never repay. Another concern is that revoking a driver's license would be issuing a penalty that was not associated with the crime. There is no evidence that juveniles would be less likely to commit a crime knowing their driver's license would be revoked. 9:02:12 AM The DJJ has invested heavily in looking at factors that are linked to delinquent behavior and have adopted a new assessment tool that will help target resources and responses to crime for youths with the highest likelihood of re-offense. SB 10 has an exemption for taking away the driver's license for those who need transportation to work. He suggested juveniles need their license to get to appointments with probation officers, and family counseling, among other things. 9:03:34 AM SENATOR FRENCH asked the level of conviction required to pull a driver's license. MR. NEWMAN said in SB 10 it must be pulled for a formal or informal case. CHAIR SEEKINS asked Senator Guess whether it would be a discretionary or mandatory action on the part of the courts. SENATOR GUESS said as written now, it would be mandatory. SENATOR FRENCH asked Mr. Newman to describe the steps required to go through both an informal and formal adjudication. MR. NEWMAN explained when a youth breaks the law, the police forward a report to a juvenile justice intake officer who looks at the facts of the crime and makes a determination whether or not to forward the case to a court or to handle the case informally, which means calling the parent for a discussion. The latter is done generally when the damage is relatively low in value. Many cases the family will pay to avoid an appearance in court. In fiscal year 2005 the DJJ gathered 97 percent of restitutions ordered informally before case closure. When the damage gets into the thousand-dollar range it is most likely to go to the formal level. 9:06:18 AM SENATOR FRENCH asked the court procedures during a formal adjudication. MR. NEWMAN explained the intake officer petitions the court and the court brings the juvenile in and the court orders restitution. The DJJ has an arrangement with the Department of Law (DOL), which has a collections unit that is responsible for seeing that all restitutions ordered through the formal court process are paid. 9:07:27 AM SENATOR FRENCH noted a juvenile would be given an attorney prior to formal court adjudication and would have the opportunity to contest the charges. MR. NEWMAN agreed. He said the process is different than adult court in that youth are not convicted of specific charges. They are either adjudicated delinquent or not, based on many factors over and above the specific crime. SENATOR FRENCH asked the legal trigger for pulling the driver's license. SENATOR GUESS corrected the record saying that is only in the formal adjudicated process in the bill. 9:10:43 AM CHAIR SEEKINS held SB 10 in committee.
Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
---|