Legislature(2023 - 2024)GRUENBERG 120
03/10/2023 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Confirmation Hearing(s)|| Select Committee on Legislative Ethics | |
| HB68 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| *+ | HB 68 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
March 10, 2023
1:00 p.m.
DRAFT
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Sarah Vance, Chair
Representative Jamie Allard, Vice Chair
Representative Craig Johnson
Representative David Eastman
Representative Andrew Gray
Representative Cliff Groh
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Ben Carpenter
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Justin Ruffridge
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CONFIRMATION HEARING(S)
Select Committee on Legislative Ethics
Deborah Fancher Anchorage
Gerald "Jerry" McBeath - Fairbanks
- CONFIRMATION(S) ADVANCED
HOUSE BILL NO. 68
"An Act relating to sex trafficking; establishing the crime of
patron of a victim of sex trafficking; relating to the crime of
human trafficking; relating to prostitution; relating to
sentencing for sex trafficking, patron of a victim of sex
trafficking, and human trafficking; establishing the process for
vacating judgments for certain convictions of prostitution and
misconduct involving a controlled substance; relating to the
Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault; relating to
permanent fund dividends for certain individuals whose
convictions are vacated; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 68
SHORT TITLE: CRIME OF SEX/HUMAN TRAFFICKING
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
02/08/23 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/08/23 (H) JUD, FIN
03/10/23 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
DEBORAH FANCHER, Appointee
Select Committee on Legislative Ethics
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the Select
Committee on Legislative Ethics.
JERRY MCBEATH, Appointee
Select Committee on Legislative Ethics
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the Select
Committee on Legislative Ethics.
JOHN SKIDMORE, Assistant Attorney General
Criminal Division
Department of Law
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 68, on behalf of the House
Rules Standing Committee, sponsor by request of the governor.
KACI SCHROEDER, Assistant Attorney General
Criminal Division, Department of Law
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided the sectional analysis for HB 68,
on behalf of the House Rules Standing Committee, sponsor by
request of the governor.
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel
Alaska Court System
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
68.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:00:52 PM
CHAIR SARAH VANCE called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. Representatives C. Johnson,
Eastman, Gray, Groh, Allard, and Vance were present at the call
to order.
^CONFIRMATION HEARING(S)
^Select Committee on Legislative Ethics
CONFIRMATION HEARING(S)
Select Committee on Legislative Ethics
1:01:50 PM
CHAIR VANCE announced that the first order of business would be
confirmation hearings.
1:02:05 PM
DEBORAH FANCHER, Appointee, Select Committee on Legislative
Ethics, shared a summary of her personal and professional
background, highlighting her experience as a teacher for the
Anchorage School District (ASD).
CHAIR VANCE asked why Ms. Fancher wanted to serve on the Select
Committee on Legislative Ethics ("the committee").
MS. FANCHER said she enjoyed serving on the committee, as it
kept her up to date with politics and allowed her to see the
linear connection between law and science. She characterized
herself as "completely unqualified" to serve on the committee,
as she was not an attorney.
1:06:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD complimented Ms. Fancher's resume. She
commended the fact that Ms. Fancher was not an attorney, as she
could offer an outside perspective. She asked whether Ms.
Fancher was planning on retiring from her work in education.
MS. FANCHER clarified that she had already retired from ASD as a
Tier 1 employee. She said she continued to teach one week per
month at a charter school in the Yukon Kuskokwim School District
(YKSD) in addition to teaching science to homeschool students.
1:07:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN shared his understanding that it had been
difficult to fill vacancies on the committee. He asked whether
that issue had been resolved.
MS. FANCHER did not know the answer.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether Ms. Fancher, as a non-
attorney member of the committee, had satisfactory access to the
attorneys on payroll to ask for advice.
MS. FANCHER answered yes.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN inquired about the frequency of meetings.
MS. FANCHER conveyed that the committee's administrator, Jerry
Anderson, was frequently trying to schedule meeting times. She
spoke to the difficulty of trying to coordinate five public
members.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether the committee had found a
balance between meeting in person and meeting via
teleconference.
MS. FANCHER opined that teleconferenced meetings did not provide
the same value as face-to-face meetings.
CHAIR VANCE thanked Ms. Fancher for her honesty, candor, and
sense of humor. She welcomed the next appointee, Jerry McBeath.
1:16:34 PM
JERRY MCBEATH, Appointee, shared a summary of his personal and
professional background, highlighting his experience as a
professor from 1970-2014. He stated that although retired, he
was actively engaged in research, publications, and service
work, including his service on the committee. He noted his
involvement in local government and local politics.
CHAIR VANCE asked Mr. McBeath why he wanted to serve on the
committee.
MR. MCBEATH discussed the challenges he had experienced in his
work on the committee. He said the goal was to inform
legislators and legislative staff on the rules of ethics via
training sessions provided annually. He added that a lot of
informal advice was offered by Jerry Anderson. He conveyed that
"the meat" of the work was offering formal advisory opinions and
investigating complaints. He shared his belief that if the
public's perception of the legislature was self-serving, it
would tarnish the reputation of the institution as a whole. He
believed that the ethics committee could help combat the
public's perception, and in that respect, he wished to
contribute his skills and abilities to the process as he had
great respect for the legislative body.
1:23:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether it was difficult to fill
vacancies on the committee.
MR. MCBEATH did not know the answer. He expressed his hope that
the recruitment process was open and that a number of potential
nominees were "in the pipeline."
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether Mr. McBeath's seat would go
vacant for a period of time if his appointment was not
confirmed.
MR. MCBEATH suspected that the position would be filled. He
reiterated that he was not familiar with the recruitment
process.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN suggested that some people had used the
legal system to accomplish political aims. He asked whether
that was something the committee had discussed or considered.
MR. MCBEATH responded that the committee was familiar with what
some interpretations had termed "weaponizing the law." He
added, "I don't believe this is a factual statement of the legal
profession today."
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN pointed out that the four seated
legislators who had been subject to lawsuits over the past two
years belonged to one particular party.
MR. MCBEATH remarked, "Are you asking me to explain a situation
and from perspective would you like me to explain it?"
1:28:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN characterized the committee as,
effectively, a law enforcement entity. He asked whether Mr.
McBeath was aware that the four seated legislators who had been
subject to lawsuits over the past two years belonged to one
particular party. He asked whether that was a concern.
MR. MCBEATH confirmed that he was aware of the attempt to reach
just conclusions based on the evidence presented by members of
the Select Committee of Legislative Ethics. He added that it
was hard to talk about the members of the committee as "ethics
cops," as they worked in coordination with the Alaska Public
Offices Commission (APOC). He opined that the committee's
actions were justifiable.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether there were areas of the
Legislative Ethics Act that should be amended for clarity or
substance.
MR. MCBEATH referred to the issuance of advisory opinions. He
reiterated the importance of understanding that members of the
committee were not legislators. He confirmed that there was a
provision in the committee's procedures for making
recommendations to legislators. He reiterated that it was not
the committee's job to make global statements.
1:33:06 PM
CHAIR VANCE highlighted his 18-page resume and thanked Mr.
McBeath for his willingness to serve on the committee.
1:33:59 PM
CHAIR VANCE moved to advance the confirmation of Deborah Fancher
and Jerry McBeath to the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics
for consideration in the joint session of the House and Senate.
She reminded members that signing the reports regarding
appointments to boards and commissions in no way reflected
individual members' approval or disapproval of the appointees,
and that the nominations were merely forwarded to the full
legislature for confirmation or rejection. There being no
objection. The confirmations were advanced.
1:34:26 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
1:37:07 PM
CHAIR VANCE thanked the appointees for their desire to serve.
HB 68-CRIME OF SEX/HUMAN TRAFFICKING
1:37:30 PM
CHAIR VANCE announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 68, "An Act relating to sex trafficking;
establishing the crime of patron of a victim of sex trafficking;
relating to the crime of human trafficking; relating to
prostitution; relating to sentencing for sex trafficking, patron
of a victim of sex trafficking, and human trafficking;
establishing the process for vacating judgments for certain
convictions of prostitution and misconduct involving a
controlled substance; relating to the Council on Domestic
Violence and Sexual Assault; relating to permanent fund
dividends for certain individuals whose convictions are vacated;
and providing for an effective date."
1:37:58 PM
JOHN SKIDMORE, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division,
Department of Law (DOL), presented HB 68, on behalf of the House
Rules Standing Committee, sponsor by request of the governor.
He paraphrased the transmittal letter [included in the committee
packet], which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Under the authority of Article III, Section 18, of the
Alaska Constitution, I am transmitting a bill to
clarify and improve Alaska's sex trafficking and human
trafficking laws; establish the crime of patron of a
victim of sex trafficking; and create a process for a
sex trafficking victim convicted of prostitution to
have that conviction vacated.
Alaska's sex trafficking and human trafficking
statutes do not adequately address the serious nature
of these offenses or provide sufficient protections
for underage victims. The current language in these
statutes is archaic and fails to address the realities
faced by individuals forced into the labor or sex
trade, creating situations where victims are unaided
and perpetrators go undetected.
This legislation will restructure the human
trafficking and sex trafficking statutes to address
the realities of how these offenses are committed and
to protect underage victims. The bill increases the
penalties for all forms of trafficking, placing the
most serious classification on those crimes that use
force to traffic an underage person. Sex trafficking
in the first, second, and third degree is now treated
as a sex offense for purpose of sentencing, thereby
enhancing the penalties. Sex trafficking in the first
and second degree would also require sex offender
registration, while sex trafficking in the third and
fourth degree would not require registration.
The legislation also establishes the new crime of
"patron of a victim of sex trafficking." While it is
crucial to target those who traffic individuals, it is
equally important to address those who create a demand
for victims of sex trafficking, specifically underage
victims.
The legislation also targets person who patronize
those engaging in sex work. First, it increases the
penalties for this conduct and establishes mandatory
minimums based on the number of times a person is
convicted. If a person is convicted three times within
five years, the offense will become a felony. Sex
trafficking would not exist without those who pay for
sex. We cannot begin to address this scourge if we
continue to look the other way as people continually
fund the sex trafficking industry.
Finally, the legislation establishes a mechanism by
which a person convicted of prostitution or low-level
drug possession can request that the conviction be
vacated if they were a victim of sex trafficking at
the time of the offense. The threat of being charged
with a crime is often something that traffickers will
use to continue to control their victims. It is
important for society to recognize that these victims
often have no other choice, and they should not be
treated as criminals when they are, in fact, victims
themselves.
Human trafficking and sex trafficking are insidious
crimes that ruin lives. It is time that our statutes
adequately address the devastation this predatory
conduct has on our society and protect those who need
it most.
I urge your prompt and favorable action on this
measure.
1:51:27 PM
KACI SCHROEDER, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division,
DOL, on behalf of the House Rules Standing Committee, sponsor by
request of the governor, presented the sectional analysis for HB
68 [included in the committee packet], which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
Section 1. This section makes a conforming change to
reflect the amendments made in section 4.
Section 2. This section makes confidential
communications between a victim of sex trafficking and
a victim counselor privileged.
Section 3. This section makes a conforming change to
reflect the amendments made in section 4.
Section 4. This section enacts a new offense series:
sex trafficking in the first, second, and third
degrees. In essence, a person is guilty of sex
trafficking in the first degree (unclassified sex
felony) if the person (1) uses force or the threat of
force to coerce someone to engage in a commercial
sexual acts; (2) traffics a person under the age of 20
or who is in the person's legal custody; or (3)
manages, supervises, or controls a prostitution
enterprise or a place of prostitution.
A person is guilty of sex trafficking in the second
degree (class A sex felony) if the person induces or
causes another person to engage in commercial sexual
acts.
Sex trafficking in the first and second degrees would
be sentenced under the enhanced penalties for sexual
felonies and the person would be required to register
as a sex offender.
A person is guilty of sex trafficking in the third
degree if the person provides resources in furtherance
of the commission of sex trafficking. Sex trafficking
in the third degree is a class B felony if the value
of the resources provided in furtherance of
trafficking is $200 or more or a class C felony if the
value of the resources is less than $200. Sex
trafficking in the third degree is sentenced as a
class B or C sex felony and is not a registerable sex
offense.
This section also enacts the new crime of "patron of a
victim of sex trafficking." A person is guilty of
being a patron of a victim of sex trafficking if they
solicit commercial sexual acts with reckless disregard
that the person they are soliciting is a victim of sex
trafficking, or if they solicit sexual acts from a
person under the age of 18. If the person solicited is
under 18 years of age, this offense will be a class B
sex felony. If the person solicited is an adult, this
offense will be a class C sex felony. This crime would
be sentenced under the enhanced penalties for sexual
felonies and the person would be required to register
as a sex offender.
Section 5. This section amends the crime of human
trafficking in the first degree to be an unclassified
felony when the person induces or causes a person to
engage in adult entertainment or labor through the use
of force against the victim or if the victim is under
the age of 20.
Section 6. This section denotes that human trafficking
in the first degree is an unclassified felony.
Section 7. This section amends human trafficking in
the second degree to include situations in which the
person induces or causes another person to engage in
adult entertainment or labor by
(1) exposing or threatening to expose confidential
information or a secret, whether true or false,
tending to subject a person to hatred, contempt, or
ridicule;
(2) destroying, concealing, or threatening to destroy
or conceal an actual or purported passport or
immigration document or another actual or purported
identification document of any person;
(3) threatening to report a person to a government
agency for the purpose of arrest or deportation;
(4) threatening to collect a debt;
(5) instilling in another person a fear that the actor
will withhold from any person lodging, food, clothing,
or medication;
(6) providing or withholding controlled substances
from the person; or
(7) deceiving the victim.
Under this section, human trafficking in the second
degree is a class A felony.
Section 8. This section enacts the new crime of human
trafficking in the third degree. A person is guilty of
human trafficking in the third degree if they provide
resources in furtherance of human trafficking. Human
trafficking in the third degree is a class B felony if
the value of the resources is $200 or more and a class
C felony if the value of the resources is less than
$200.
The section also clarifies that human trafficking does
not include normal caretaker interactions with a minor
(for example, asking a child to shovel the driveway in
exchange for an item of clothing etc.).
The section also clarifies current law that
corroboration of a victim's testimony is not
necessary. A jury has the ability to convict based on
a victim's testimony alone. This language is simply
relocated to AS 11.41 along with the rest of the sex
trafficking statutes. The section also makes clear
that any property used to commit sex or human
trafficking may be forfeited.
Section 9. This section clarifies that the crime of
coercion is only to be used if the sex trafficking or
human trafficking elements are not present.
Section 10. This section is a conforming change which
references the new sex trafficking statutes in the
prostitution statute.
Section 11. This section increases the penalty for
being a "John" from a class B misdemeanor to a class A
misdemeanor. Upon a third conviction within five years
for being a "John", the offense is again elevated to a
class C felony.
Section 12. This section states that if a "John" is
convicted under the class C felony provision in
section 11, any property used in order to commit the
offense may be forfeited.
Sections 13 and 14. These sections make conforming
changes related to the amendments made in section 4 -
9.
Section 15. This section adds the definitions that
apply to the prostitution statutes and the sex
trafficking statutes to the general definition statute
in Title 11 (AS 11.81.900).
Section 16. This section establishes that there is no
statute of limitations for sex trafficking and human
trafficking in the first and second degrees. However,
the statute of limitations for sex trafficking in the
third degree and human trafficking in the third degree
is ten years.
Section 17. This section makes conforming changes
reflecting the amendments to sex trafficking and human
trafficking.
Section 18. This section makes confidential
communications between a victim of sex trafficking and
a victim counselor privileged.
Sections 19 - 21. These sections make conforming
changes to sex trafficking and human trafficking
references that appear in those statutes.
Section 22. This section establishes that human
trafficking, as an unclassified felony, will be
sentenced between 5 and 99 years.
Section 23. This section amends AS 12.55.125(i) (the
sex offense sentencing statutes) incorporating the new
sex trafficking statutes and patron of a victim of sex
trafficking statute. This ensures that these offenses
will be subject to the higher sentences associated
with sex offenses. This section also corrects an error
in the citation of unlawful exploitation of a minor
under AS 11.41.455(c)(1) and indecent viewing of a
picture under AS 11.61.123.
Section 24. This section establishes mandatory minimum
terms of imprisonment for repeat "Johns." Upon the
second conviction with five years, the person will be
subject to a class A misdemeanor with a mandatory
minimum of 72 hours to serve. If the person is
convicted three times within five years, the person is
subject to the class C felony sentencing provisions.
Section 25. This section makes conforming changes to
the definition of "most serious felony" reflecting the
new sex trafficking statutes.
Section 26. This section adds sex trafficking and
patron of a victim of sex trafficking to the
definition of "sexual felony" and corrects the
citation to indecent viewing of a picture under AS
11.61.123.
Section 27. This section makes changes to the
definition of "serious offense" reflecting the new sex
trafficking and human trafficking statutes.
Section 28. This section adds sex trafficking in the
first and second degrees and patron of a victim of sex
trafficking to the list of registerable sex offenses.
This section also corrects the citation to indecent
viewing or production of a picture under AS 11.61.123.
Section 29. This section establishes a process whereby
a person who has been convicted of prostitution can
get that conviction or a conviction for possession of
a controlled substance vacated if they are able to
show that they were a victim of sex trafficking at the
time that they committed the offense. If the
conviction is vacated, the court system may not
publish records relating to the conviction on
CourtView nor may the Department of Public Safety
release that information as part of an employment
background check.
Sections 30 - 32. These sections add the prevention of
sex trafficking to the subjects that the Council on
Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault should consider
and develop educational materials and programs for.
Sections 33 and 34. These sections make conforming
changes to the limitations on privileged
communications and add a victim of sex trafficking to
the definition of "victim."
Section 35. This section adds victims of sex
trafficking to the list of victims whom a crisis
intervention and prevention program is designed to
assist.
Section 36. This section adds victims of sex
trafficking to the list of victims who can receive
assistance from the Violent Crimes Compensation Board.
Section 37. This section allows the public defender to
represent an indigent person during a vacation of
judgment proceeding.
Sections 38 and 39. These sections make conforming
changes referencing the changes made to the sex
trafficking statutes.
Section 40. This section makes a person who has had
their conviction for prostitution vacated eligible for
a permanent fund dividend.
Section 41. This section authorizes administrative
subpoenas for sex trafficking in the first, second,
and third degrees.
Sections 42 - 45. These sections make conforming
changes referencing the changes made to the sex
trafficking statutes.
Section 46. This section is the repealer section.
Section 47. This section is the applicability section.
The majority of this bill will apply to offenses
occurring on or after the effective date.
Section 48. This section makes the vacation of
judgment sections of the bill effective on January 1,
2024.
Section 49. This section makes the remainder of the
bill effective July 1, 2023.
MS. SCHROEDER noted that all changes would be applied
prospectively.
2:06:51 PM
CHAIR VANCE asked Ms. Schroder to provide the definitions of
"adult entertainment" and "commercial sexual act."
MS. SCHROEDER noted that the definitions were found on page 11
[Section 15] of HB 68. The definition of "adult entertainment"
included simulated acts, such as sexual penetration; the lewd
exhibition or touching of a person's genitals, anus, or breast;
or bestiality, she explained. "Commercial sexual act" was
defined as "a sexual act for which anything of value is given or
received by any person; in this paragraph, 'anything of value'
does not include compensation for reasonably apportioned shared
expenses of a residence." She expounded, relating that the
sharing of rent between two sex workers would not count for the
purposes of the definition. Lastly, she noted that "sexual act"
meant sexual penetration or sexual conduct.
CHAIR VANCE inquired about the differences in statute. She
sought to verify that some adult entertainment was legal whereas
commercial sexual acts were not.
MS. SCHROEDER clarified that "commercial sexual act" was a
broader term used in relation to sex trafficking, whereas
"commercial sexual conduct" was used in the existing
prostitution statutes. She explained that both terms were used
in HB 68 to preserve the prostitution statues.
2:09:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD asked Ms. Schroeder to provide an example
of paragraph (69), subparagraphs (A) and (B), in Section 15.
MS. SCHROEDER explained that paragraph (69) offered the
definition of "adult entertainment," which was targeted at strip
clubs. She explained that forcing someone to remove his/her
clothes or dance in any other manner exhibiting the individual's
body would be considered human trafficking, as opposed to sex
trafficking.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD asked what would happen if an adult were
engaging in that behavior in front of a child.
MS. SCHROEDER shared her understanding that Representative
Allard was referring to the separate crime of indecent exposure,
which was unrelated to the bill.
2:11:45 PM
CHAIR VANCE asked whether employment was a qualifier for adult
entertainment.
MS. SCHROEDER answered yes.
CHAIR VANCE asked whether "prostitution" and "sex trafficking"
were defined in the bill.
MS. SCHROEDER cited AS 11.41.345 [Sex trafficking in the second
degree] on page 3 for the core definition of sex trafficking.
Similarly, the definition of prostitution was found in the crime
itself under AS 11.66.100.
2:14:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN inquired about the legal distinction
between prostitution and sex trafficking.
MS. SCHROEDER said the main difference was that sex trafficking
involved a third party, or the individual who is forcing another
person to engage in a commercial sexual act. Conversely,
prostitution was the selling of sex by an individual.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether an employer who fired an
employee would be considered "withholding."
MS. SCHROEDER said it would need to be more direct, as the
intent was not to interfere with employers who engage in normal,
legal conduct.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether perception mattered in
reference to the simulation of illegal, indecent, or lewd
exhibition, act, or practice.
MS. SCHROEDER answered no, it would still be considered
simulated.
2:17:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GROH directed attention to the provision relating
to vacation in HB 68, which included a later effective date. He
asked for the rationale behind that decision.
MS. SCHROEDER shared her understanding that the Alaska Court
System ("the court system") requested the delayed effective
date.
2:18:33 PM
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel, Alaska Court System, confirmed
that the provision in question would affect processes within the
court system; consequently, a delayed effective date was
requested to ensure timely implementation.
REPRESENTATIVE GROH inquired about factual scenarios or defenses
that might arise in the prosecution of AS 11.41.355 [Patron of a
victim of sex trafficking."
MS. SCHROEDER acknowledged that it would be a difficult crime to
routinely prove; nonetheless, she stated that the department
wanted to have the necessary tools for conviction when possible.
She remarked, "someone would have to have a reason to think
that the person they solicited from was a victim of sex
trafficking." She provided examples.
REPRESENTATIVE GROH expressed his desire to have tough laws on
sex trafficking in Alaska; however, he opined that fewer
resources should be put towards fighting voluntary prostitution.
He inquired about DOL's position on "drawing that line."
MS. SCHROEDER deferred to Mr. Skidmore.
2:22:33 PM
MR. SKIDMORE asked Representative Groh to restate the question.
REPRESENTATIVE GROH inquired about DOL's philosophy in regard to
the distribution of resources [for fighting sex trafficking
versus prostitution].
MR. SKIDMORE clarified that the bill would not impact the
selling of commercial sex, other than sex trafficking. Further,
HB 68 would provide additional protections for individuals
reporting sex trafficking to ensure that the reporters would not
be prosecuted as a patron of prostitution. Lastly, he
reiterated that the bill would introduce the concept of vacating
previous convictions for prostitution if the individual was a
victim of sex trafficking. He submitted that the bill would
ensure that resources were devoted to the area of primary
concern, which was sex trafficking, as opposed to individuals
engaging in prostitution on their own accord.
2:25:37 PM
CHAIR VANCE asked why Alaska Statutes weren't consistent with
the federal definition of human trafficking, which included both
labor and sex trafficking.
MR. SKIDMORE provided the rationale, explaining that sex
trafficking was viewed as a more serious violation than human
trafficking and for that reason, the state had chosen to carve
out sentences for sex offenses with greater penalties.
2:28:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE C. JOHNSON asked why the crime of sex trafficking
was separated into the first, second, and third degree.
MR. SKIDMORE stated that sex trafficking in the first degree
captured the most significant conduct, including the use of
force to cause another person to engage in commercial sexual
acts. Sex trafficking in the second degree was associated with
inducing another person to engage in commercial sex acts by
deception or coercion. Sex trafficking in the third degree, he
said, spoke to a person who provided services, resources, or
other assistance in the furtherance of sex trafficking in the
first or second degree, thereby advancing the enterprise.
REPRESENTATIVE C. JOHNSON opined that all the aforementioned
conduct [outlined in the crime of sex trafficking in the first,
second, and third degree] was heinous. He suggested that all
the behavior described by Mr. Skidmore should be classified
under sex trafficking in the first degree.
MR. SKIDMORE responded that in Alaska Statutes, the variation of
conduct was often separated and classified by degree.
Ultimately, he said, it was a policy call.
2:35:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether slavery was illegal in
Alaska.
MR. SKIDMORE shared his understanding that slavery was illegal
under current human trafficking laws.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked why a distinction was being drawn
between human trafficking, which he equated to slavery, and sex
trafficking.
MR. SKIDMORE clarified that the distinction between human
trafficking and sex trafficking was the difference between labor
trafficking and forcing someone to engage in sexual conduct. He
reiterated that while both were bad, Alaska Statutes applied a
harsher penalty to the sexual conduct.
2:37:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN maintained his belief that there should
not be a distinction between the penalties for sex trafficking
and human trafficking. He asked, "Has there been a lot of
thought put into this or did we just borrow the template from
our other statutes and, sort of, apply it to this situation?"
MR. SKIDMORE disputed the notion that the bill was a template;
nonetheless, he acknowledged that it used existing statutory
structures. He referred to Section 6 on page 5 of the bill and
argued that human trafficking was treated more significantly, as
HB 68 sought to increase the penalties for human trafficking in
the first and second degree. He opined that the bill was
appropriately addressing the horrendous conduct that occurred in
human trafficking.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN directed attention to page 6, line 25,
and asked why corroboration would not be required for certain
testimony.
MR. SKIDMORE clarified that the statute in question, AS
11.41.368, was preexisting.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether the provision applied to
other crimes as well.
MR. SKIDMORE said the concept applied elsewhere. He cited case
law that discussed whether a sex worker could be trusted or
believed.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN returned to the definition of "commercial
sex act" on page 11, which he characterized as "strangely
specific and somewhat weird." He asked why it referred to
shared expenses of a residence.
MR. SKIDMORE stated that the intent was to exclude roommates who
were pooling their resources to pay for utilities and rent from
the definition of commercial sex act.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN requested an example.
MR. SKIDMORE declined. He reiterated that under the definition
of prostitution, it was still illegal for a person to engage in
sex acts in exchange for something of value. He added that the
intent was to ensure that only those people who were compelling
others to engage in sexual conduct could be charged with sex
trafficking, as opposed to sex workers who were sharing a
residence.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether the definition of "selling"
included the trading of victims.
MR. SKIDMORE stated that any transaction in which any anything
of value was traded for a sex act would qualify as a commercial
sex act. He sought to clarify the meaning of victim trading.
2:47:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN provided a hypothetical scenario.
MR. SKIDMORE confirmed that the scenario in question would
qualify as a commercial sex act.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether a school bus attendant, as
opposed to a school bus driver, would be barred from work if
convicted of the offenses outlined in HB 68.
MR. SKIDMORE did not know whether school bus attendants were
included.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked how reckless disregard was
distinguished from normal disregard.
MR. SKIDMORE discussed the concepts of mens rea, or the mental
element, and actus reus, or the act itself. He noted that
"reckless" was defined under AS 11.81.900(a)(3) as follows:
(3) a person acts "recklessly" with respect to a
result or to a circumstance described by a provision
of law defining an offense when the person is aware of
and consciously disregards a substantial and
unjustifiable risk that the result will occur or that
the circumstance exists; the risk must be of such a
nature and degree that disregard of it constitutes a
gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a
reasonable person would observe in the situation; a
person who is unaware of a risk of which the person
would have been aware had that person not been
intoxicated acts recklessly with respect to that risk;
CHAIR VANCE announced that HB 68 was held over.
2:54:45 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:54 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Deb Fancher Resume (2022).pdf |
HJUD 3/10/2023 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Jerry McBeath (CV 2022).pdf |
HJUD 3/10/2023 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB 68 - Transmittal Letter.pdf |
HJUD 3/10/2023 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/22/2023 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/12/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 68 |
| HB 68 - v.A.PDF |
HJUD 3/10/2023 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/22/2023 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/12/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 68 |
| HB 68 - Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HJUD 3/10/2023 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/22/2023 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/12/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 68 |
| HB 68 - Highlights.pdf |
HJUD 3/10/2023 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/22/2023 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/12/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 68 |
| HB 68 - Fiscal Notes (1-9).pdf |
HJUD 3/10/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 68 |