Legislature(1993 - 1994)
02/22/1993 01:00 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
February 22, 1993
1:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Rep. Brian Porter, Chairman
Rep. Jeannette James, Vice-Chair
Rep. Pete Kott
Rep. Gail Phillips
Rep. Cliff Davidson
Rep. Jim Nordlund
MEMBERS ABSENT
Rep. Joe Green
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
*HB 151: "An Act relating to payment by indigent persons
for legal services and related costs; and
providing for an effective date."
PASSED OUT WITH A DO PASS RECOMMENDATION
*HB 120: "An Act changing the date by which jury lists must
be prepared; requiring the use of the list of the
current year's permanent fund dividend applicants
in preparing the jury list; and changing the date
by which state departments must submit certain
lists to the Alaska Court System."
PASSED OUT WITH A DO PASS RECOMMENDATION
HJR 15: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the
State of Alaska relating to the duration of a
regular session.
PASSED OUT WITH NO RECOMMENDATION
HB 100: "An Act relating to criminal charges brought
against minors."
HEARD AND HELD IN COMMITTEE
(* First public hearing.)
WITNESS REGISTER
CHRIS CHRISTENSEN
Staff Counsel
Alaska Court System
303 K Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Phone: 264-8228
Position Statement: Supported HB 151
MARILYN MAY
Department of Law
1031 West Fourth Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Phone: 269-5199
Position Statement: Explained HB 151
TOM WILLIAMS
Permanent Fund Division
Department of Revenue
P.O. Box 110460
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0460
Phone: 465-2323
Position Statement: Commented on HB 120
REP. PETE KOTT
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 409
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Phone: 465-3777
Position Statement: Prime sponsor of HJR 15
REP. CON BUNDE
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Room 112
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Phone: 465-4843
Position Statement: Prime sponsor of HB 100
JAY PAGE, Chairman
Anchorage Chamber Crime Prevention Committee
P.O. Box 92090
Anchorage, Alaska 99509
Phone: 265-3860
Position Statement: Supported HB 100
JANET LOWN
210 Admiral Way
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Phone: 586-2780
Position Statement: Supported HB 100
KATHY WELTZIN
P.O. Box 210665
Auke Bay, Alaska 99821
Phone: 463-1850
Position Statement: Commented on HB 100
RANDALL HINES
Youth Corrections Specialist
Division of Family and Youth Services
Department of Health and Social Services
P. O. Box 110630
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0630
Position Statement: Commented on HB 100
SHERRIE GOLL
Alaska Women's Lobby
P.O. Box 22156
Juneau, Alaska 99802
Phone: 463-6744
Position Statement: Opposed HB 100
CAREN ROBINSON
P.O. Box 33702
Juneau, Alaska 99803
Phone: 586-1107
Position Statement: Commented on HB 100
DEAN GUANELI
Assistant Attorney General
and Criminal Division Administrator
Department of Law
P.O. Box K
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
Phone: 465-3428
Position Statement: Commented on HB 100
ELMER LINDSTROM
Special Assistant to the Commissioner
Department of Health and Social Services
P. O. Box 110601
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0601
Phone: 465-3030
Position Statement: Commented on HB 100
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 151
SHORT TITLE: PAYMENT BY INDIGENTS FOR LEGAL SERVICES
BILL VERSION:
SPONSOR(S): JUDICIARY
TITLE: "An Act relating to payment by indigent persons for
legal services and related costs; and providing for an
effective date."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/15/93 345 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
02/15/93 345 (H) JUDICIARY, FINANCE
02/22/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 120
SHORT TITLE: JURY LIST PREPARATION
BILL VERSION:
SPONSOR(S): JUDICIARY
TITLE: "An Act changing the date by which jury lists must be
prepared; requiring the use of the list of the current
year's permanent fund dividend applicants in preparing the
jury list; and changing the date by which state departments
must submit certain lists to the Alaska Court System."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/03/93 215 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
02/03/93 215 (H) JUDICIARY
02/22/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HJR 15
SHORT TITLE: 100 DAY SESSION LIMIT
BILL VERSION: SSHJR 15
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) KOTT
TITLE: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the
State of Alaska relating to the duration of a regular
session.
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/14/93 58 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/14/93 58 (H) STATE AFFAIRS,JUDICIARY,FINANCE
01/20/93 113 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE
INTRODUCED-REFERRALS
01/20/93 113 (H) STATE AFFAIRS,JUDICIARY,FINANCE
01/26/93 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
01/26/93 (H) MINUTE(STA)
01/26/93 (H) MINUTE(STA)
01/30/93 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
01/30/93 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/06/93 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/11/93 319 (H) STA RPT 4DP 3NR
02/11/93 319 (H) DP: VEZEY,OLBERG,SANDERS,KOTT
02/11/93 319 (H) NR: ULMER, B.DAVIS, G.DAVIS
02/11/93 319 (H) -2 FISCAL NOTES (GOV, LAA)
2/11/93
02/11/93 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/11/93 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/13/93 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/22/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 100
SHORT TITLE: PROSECUTION OF JUVENILE FELONS
BILL VERSION:
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) BUNDE,Green
TITLE: "An Act relating to criminal charges brought against
minors."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/29/93 178 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/29/93 178 (H) HES, JUDICIARY
02/03/93 224 (H) COSPONSOR(S): GREEN
02/05/93 240 (H) HES WAIVED 5-DAY HEARING
NOTICE,RULE 23
02/08/93 (H) HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106
02/08/93 (H) MINUTE(HES)
02/10/93 289 (H) HES RPT 5DP 1DNP 2NR
02/10/93 289 (H) DP:KOTT,VEZEY,BUNDE,TOOHEY,
OLBERG
02/10/93 289 (H) DNP: NICHOLIA
02/10/93 289 (H) NR: G.DAVIS, BRICE
02/10/93 289 (H) -2 FNS (ADM, ADM) 2/10/93
02/10/93 289 (H) -2 ZERO FNS (DPS, DHSS) 2/10/93
02/10/93 289 (H) REFERRED TO JUDICIARY
02/17/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/17/93 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/17/93 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/22/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 93-18, SIDE A
Number 000
The House Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was called to
order at 1:12 p.m. on February 22, 1993. A quorum was
present.
CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that the meeting was being
teleconferenced. He noted that four bills were on the day's
calendar. He said that he would like to take up HB 100,
Prosecution of Juvenile Felons, at or around 1:30 p.m. He
announced that HB 151, Payment by Indigents for Legal
Services, would be before the committee first.
HB 151 PAYMENT BY INDIGENTS FOR LEGAL SERVICES
Number 034
CHRIS CHRISTENSEN, STAFF COUNSEL, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM, noted
that HB 151 had been introduced by the House Judiciary
Committee, at the request of the Supreme Court. He said
that under the state and U.S. constitutions, a criminal
defendant had the right to an attorney. If the defendant
could not afford an attorney, one had to be provided to him
by the state, he added.
MR. CHRISTENSEN commented that up until 1990, courts could
order indigent defendants to pay for their defense services,
to the extent that the defendant could afford to pay. He
said that for a variety of reasons that law was ineffective.
One main reason that the law was ineffective, he said, was
that it addressed a defendant's current ability to pay for
defense costs and not his or her future ability.
MR. CHRISTENSEN noted that in 1990, the legislature amended
the law to allow civil judgments to be brought against
defendants who had been represented by public defenders
without taking into consideration the defendant's current
ability to pay. If a defendant became solvent at a later
date, he said, the judgment could then be enforced.
However, if the defendant did not become solvent at a later
date, the judgment would not be enforced.
MR. CHRISTENSEN stated that the legislature also amended the
law in 1990 to prohibit civil judgments against defendants
who were not actually convicted and to prohibit execution on
a judgment for three years after a defendant was released
from incarceration. He said HB 151 proposed to change these
two amendments made by the legislature in 1990. He said HB
151 would allow judgments to be entered against defendants
who had been represented by public defenders, whether or not
the defendant was convicted. He stated that the philosophy
behind this change was that because non-indigent defendants
had to pay for their defense costs, whether or not they were
convicted, indigent defendants should be treated the same
way.
MR. CHRISTENSEN said HB 151 would also eliminate the three
year moratorium on repayment that currently followed
incarceration. He noted that the moratorium made it
substantially more difficult for the state to recover
defense costs in a timely manner.
(Rep. James arrived.)
Number 137
REP. PHILLIPS asked Mr. Christensen how many people would be
affected by HB 151.
Number 144
MR. CHRISTENSEN replied that Marilyn May could better
address her question. He said that he did know that in the
six months since the adoption of a court rule on the same
subject, approximately 1,000 judgments totally about
$200,000 had been entered against indigent defendants.
However, he commented that only about $17,000 had been
collected by the Attorney General. He called the members'
attention to a copy of Criminal Rule 39, which set forth the
charges made to indigent defendants for legal services.
Number 165
MARILYN MAY, of the ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, testified via
teleconference from Anchorage. She commented that she was
the attorney for the Collections Unit, and received
judgments entered under Criminal Rule 39. She noted that
the rule had only been in effect since the beginning of the
fiscal year. She said that about 1,200 judgments, worth
approximately $240,000, had been entered. Of those, she
added, 123 had been paid, netting the state $21,000.
MS. MAY stated that her office expected to receive 5,000
judgments per year, worth over $1 million. She commented
that current law hampered the Collection Unit's ability to
collect on judgments.
Number 224
REP. PHILLIPS asked Ms. May to explain how the fee schedule
in Rule 39 was developed. She commented that the fees were
ridiculously low.
Number 231
MS. MAY replied that a committee, including representatives
from the Public Defender's Office, the Office of Public
Advocacy, the Court System and the Attorney General's
Office, had come up with the fee schedule. She said that
the intent of the committee was to determine a fee that an
indigent person would be able to pay that would help defray
the cost of the counsel.
Number 250
REP. PHILLIPS noted that what might be fair to an indigent
defendant certainly was not fair to the state. She said
that she found the fee schedule to be completely out of
line.
Number 257
MS. MAY said that the committee considered the fact that in
some cases very little work was involved.
Number 273
REP. NORDLUND expressed concern that judgments would be
filed against indigent defendants who were found not guilty.
He asked if court-assigned attorneys were mandatory.
(Rep. Davidson arrived.)
Number 290
MR. CHRISTENSEN responded that, in his understanding,
defendants were asked whether or not they wanted an
attorney. He said that if a case actually went to trial,
the court might be able to impose an attorney on a defendant
under certain circumstances.
Number 300
REP. NORDLUND asked if judges assessed a defendant's
capability of defending himself or herself.
Number 302
MR. CHRISTENSEN said that he believed that such an
assessment was made.
REP. NORDLUND noted his concern that an indigent defendant
might be involuntarily assigned an attorney, be found not
guilty, and have to pay for legal costs.
Number 318
CHAIRMAN PORTER commented that the standard for finding a
defendant guilty was very high. He said that the fact that
a person was not convicted did not establish innocence. He
added that he could not think of any situations like the one
that Rep. Nordlund had described.
Number 339
REP. NORDLUND stated that if he were charged with a crime
that he was completely innocent of, and was asked if he
wanted to pay for an attorney, he would probably elect to
not have a court-appointed attorney. He said that innocent
people were sometimes accused of crimes. He added that he
thought that HB 151 would be unfair to some defendants.
Number 355
REP. PHILLIPS made a motion to move HB 151 out of committee,
with individual recommendations.
Number 358
REP. DAVIDSON objected. A roll call vote was taken.
Representatives Porter, Phillips, James, and Kott voted
"yea"; Representatives Davidson and Nordlund voted "nay."
And so, HB 151 moved out of the Judiciary Committee with
individual recommendations and a zero fiscal note.
Number 370
CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that HB 120, Jury List
Preparation, was the next item of business before the
committee.
HB 120 JURY LIST PREPARATION
Number 378
MR. CHRISTENSEN said that HB 120 was very non-controversial.
He said that currently, the Court System was required to
prepare a list each year of persons eligible for jury
service. The list was created from those individuals who
applied for permanent fund dividends. He said that
currently, the list had to be prepared by March 15 of each
year. He noted that the Department of Revenue (DOR)
submitted its list to the Court System by the preceding
January 15. He said that HB 120 would require the Court
System to prepare its list by November 30 of each year, and
DOR to submit its list to the Court System by the preceding
September 30. He noted that HB 120 would increase the
administrative efficiency of the Court System. He stated
that the bill would result in no additional cost to the
state.
Number 404
TOM WILLIAMS, DIRECTOR of DOR's PERMANENT FUND DIVIDEND
DIVISION, said that he had no problem with HB 120.
Number 411
REP. PHILLIPS noted that a similar bill had died the year
before, in the Senate Rules Committee. She asked why this
had occurred.
Number 412
MR. CHRISTENSEN replied that time had simply run out.
REP. PHILLIPS commented that since permanent fund dividend
applications had to be submitted by June 30 of each year,
DOR should have no difficulty submitting its list to the
Court System by September 30.
Number 420
REP. DAVIDSON asked Mr. Christensen why many people were
reluctant to serve on juries.
Number 428
MR. CHRISTENSEN responded that no formal research had been
done on the subject. However, he noted that many people
disliked taking time off of work and not being compensated
by their employers, arranging for day care, and otherwise
incurring expenses as a result of their jury service.
Number 438
REP. JAMES made a motion to pass HB 120 out of committee,
with individual recommendations.
CHAIRMAN PORTER, hearing no objection, ordered HB 120 moved
out of committee, with individual recommendations. He
announced that HJR 15, 100-Day Session Limit, was the next
item of business before the committee.
HJR 15 100 DAY SESSION LIMIT
Number 456
REP. KOTT, sponsor of HJR 15, noted that the idea of a
shorter legislative session was not new. He said that the
resolution would reduce the session from 120 days to 100
days. He noted that from 1975 to 1984, the legislative
sessions averaged 146 days. Then, he said, a constitutional
amendment was passed, requiring a 120-day limit on
legislative sessions. Since then, he noted, the shortest
session had been 119 days. He called his resolution a
moderate approach, and said that there was fairly strong
support for a shorter session.
REP. KOTT commented that several similar measures had been
introduced since 1984. He noted that 26 states currently
had shorter legislative sessions than Alaska did. He said
that shortening legislative sessions would send a clear
message to the public that the legislature meant business
when it came to cutting the budget. He indicated his belief
that the voters would approve HJR 15.
Number 500
REP. DAVIDSON noted that democracy was not an efficient
process. He asked that Rep. Kott provide specific reasons
for shortening the legislative session, besides saving
money. He also asked Rep. Kott what prevented the
legislature from finishing up its business before the 120-
day deadline now in place. He questioned the wisdom of
placing further artificial restraints on lawmakers' ability
to conduct business. He said that a shorter process might
make for hasty legislation. He stated that he was not
convinced that the state's business should be hurried.
Number 536
REP. KOTT commented that during his campaign, voters
repeatedly said that the legislative session was too long.
He reiterated Rep. Davidson's point that democracy was not a
swift process. He noted that prior to 1984, sessions
averaged 146 days, but said that once the constitutional
amendment had passed, legislators had managed to finish
their business in 120 days. He noted that given 120 days,
the legislature would take that long to accomplish its
business.
REP. KOTT mentioned the majority caucus' moderate proposal
to adjourn after approximately 110 days. He cited support
for a shorter session, from the Anchorage Daily News, the
public, and the Governor.
Number 567
REP. JAMES noted that as a freshman legislator, she had seen
some processes which could be speeded up, but also noted her
concern at the speed at which some things did happen. An
example of hurried legislation that she cited was the
constitutional budget reserve fund. She said that if that
amendment had been more carefully analyzed and prepared, the
legislature would not face the problems in its
interpretation that now had to be faced.
REP. JAMES commented that she could not honestly say that
she was familiar with every bill before her. She added her
belief that the legislature needed to closely deliberate
legislation. She said that a 100-day session would not
necessarily change the public's view that legislators took
the public's money and did absolutely nothing with it. She
expressed certainty that the voters would approve a measure
creating a 100-day session, but said she was not convinced
that the legislature should give the public that
opportunity.
Number 598
REP. PHILLIPS stated that her grandfather had been a member
of the territorial legislature. She noted the travel
hardships experienced by legislators in those days, and said
that sessions then lasted no more than 60 days. Her
grandfather had told her that the session did not need to
last longer than 60 days, as the territory had no money to
spend.
REP. PHILLIPS commented that the legislature had always been
comprised of citizen legislators. She said that in the
1970s people saw that lengthy sessions precluded many people
from participating in the legislature, as many people were
unable to be away from their jobs and other responsibilities
for extended periods of time.
REP. PHILLIPS said that the legislature should do all it
could to ensure that it remained a citizen legislature. She
commented that HJR 15 was a step in the right direction.
REP. KOTT noted that computer technology had helped to speed
up the legislature's job.
Number 651
REP. DAVIDSON mentioned that in 45 days, the legislature had
still not managed to fill all of the seats on the Select
Committee on Legislative Ethics. He noted that some things
took longer than others. He questioned the wisdom of
constitutionally mandating the number of days in which the
legislature was required to accomplish its business. He
noted that the public had little idea of how the legislature
functioned.
REP. DAVIDSON commented that while the legislature was away,
the executive branch played. He mentioned the checks and
balances system in government. He noted that nothing now
prevented the legislature from getting the job done early.
He said that the legislative process was a long, slow and
arduous one, and that no more artificial restrictions should
be placed on it. He said that the more the legislature was
confined, the more debate and deliberation and democracy
would suffer.
Number 707
REP. KOTT responded that if, while the legislature was away,
the executive branch played, perhaps the legislature should
meet for 365 days. He noted that the legislature would use
as much time as the constitution allowed.
Number 725
CHAIRMAN PORTER commented that when he first arrived in
Juneau, he felt that a shorter session was appropriate. He
said that his constituents also felt that way. However, he
noted that he was no longer so certain that a shorter
session was a good idea. He said that he would support
passing the bill out of committee, due to statements he had
made prior to arriving in Juneau. He stated that the
legislative process was not designed to be quick.
REP. JAMES made a motion to move HJR 15 out of committee,
with individual recommendations.
Number 750
CHAIRMAN PORTER, hearing objection, held a roll call vote.
Reps. Nordlund, Phillips, Kott, James and Porter voted
"yea." Rep. Davidson voted "nay." And so, HJR 15 moved out
of committee with individual recommendations.
Number 757
REP. DAVIDSON expressed his concern that HJR 15 was the
second constitutional amendment that had been swiftly
approved by the committee. He said that he would like to
hear more about the 26 states that had session limitations
like the one proposed in HJR 15. He said that he had hoped
that the Judiciary Committee would put more effort into
looking at all perspectives on an issue to ensure sufficient
discussion. He mentioned the value of Judge Stewart's
comments on HJR 1. He said that he feared what would have
become of HJR 1 had Judge Stewart not been present to
testify.
REP. DAVIDSON commented that the committee should hear from
citizens who thought that session limitations were a good
idea, to find out what their understanding of the
legislative process was. He noted that there was always a
perspective that was not examined or understood. He
expressed his belief that hasty constitutional amendments
chipped away at the foundations upon which our government
was built. He stated that he felt that the committee had
not sufficiently examined HJR 15, and said that he doubted
that any other committee would seriously examine the
resolution either. He commented that the committee was
acting irresponsibly.
CHAIRMAN PORTER responded that he did not disagree with any
of Rep. Davidson's comments. He noted his surprise that
there were not any individuals who wanted to testify on the
issue. He indicated his belief that the resolution would
receive ample discussion between now and when it was voted
on, on the House floor.
CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that HB 100, Prosecution of
Juvenile Felons, was the next item of business before the
committee.
HB 100 PROSECUTION OF JUVENILE FELONS
TAPE 93-18, SIDE B
Number 000
REP. CON BUNDE, PRIME SPONSOR of HB 100, said that his bill
was an attempt to make the state's juvenile criminal justice
system more productive. He added that many juveniles
considered the juvenile justice system a joke. He commented
that young people were much more sophisticated today than
they were 20 or 30 years ago. He said that although the
rights of young people were clearly addressed in law, there
had not been an equal focus on the responsibilities of those
young people. He noted that he wanted to make young people
very aware of what the boundaries of acceptable behavior
were. He added that society did a great disservice to youth
by sending them "soft" or "fuzzy" messages about what
behavior was and was not acceptable.
Number 050
REP. BUNDE stated his belief that society was accidentally
encouraging young people to become career criminals. He
said that the state needed to intervene early on to
encourage young people to change their behavior. He cited
the high rate of recidivism in the adult justice system, and
commented that intervention had to begin before people
reached the adult justice system. He cited a 50+ percent
recidivism rate among juveniles, and said that indicated
that the system was not working and should be changed. He
said that HB 100 was one such effort, as it would allow
young people to be tried as adults for felonies and other
major crimes.
REP. BUNDE commented that HB 100 was an attempt to encourage
fair and equitable treatment of young adults and to
encourage them to become responsible citizens.
REP. DAVIDSON asked how Rep. Bunde had arrived at the age of
16 for the purposes of his bill. He asked why Rep. Bunde
had not used the age of 10 in his bill.
REP. BUNDE asked if Rep. Davidson were suggesting an
amendment.
REP. DAVIDSON said that he was not suggesting an amendment;
rather, he was trying to learn the basis upon which Rep.
Bunde had used the age of 16 in HB 100.
REP. BUNDE said that he had wanted to use the age of 15 in
his bill. He noted that in his experience, most 10-year-
olds did not have sufficient judgment to make it appropriate
to try them as adults. He stated that experts with whom he
had consulted indicated that children aged 14 or 15 would
have a better grasp of right and wrong.
Number 127
REP. DAVIDSON asked Rep. Bunde at which "magic age" did a
child acquire judgment.
REP. BUNDE responded that many children aged 30 and 40 had
not yet reached that magic age, but that perhaps that was
due to the fact that they had not been encouraged to be
responsible at a young age.
Number 140
REP. DAVIDSON noted that HB 100 was an attempt to deal with
young people after they had committed crimes. He stated his
belief that an effort should be made to intervene before a
young person committed a crime.
Number 148
REP. BUNDE commented that if certain behaviors were
punished, they were not apt to be repeated. Therefore, he
said, if a behavior that someone committed at the age of 15
were punished, that person would probably not repeat that
behavior when she or he was 30.
Number 160
JAY PAGE, CHAIRMAN of the ANCHORAGE CHAMBER CRIME PREVENTION
COMMITTEE, testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He
cited his community service work with juveniles and the
justice system. He thanked Rep. Bunde for introducing HB
100, and said that the Anchorage Chamber Crime Prevention
Committee supported the bill.
MR. PAGE commented that juvenile law was embodied in Title
47 of the Alaska Statutes. He said that the basic premise
of Title 47 was that juveniles did not have sufficient
capacity to understand the outcomes of their actions.
Therefore, juveniles could only commit crime-like activity
and not actual crimes, he said. The only sanction in the
juvenile system was rehabilitation, he added. There was no
sanction for punishment.
MR. PAGE indicated that the nature of juveniles today was
not like the nature of juveniles at the time that Title 47
was written 30 years earlier. Today, he said, there were
some young people without consciences. He said that society
needed to focus on the root causes of some of these
problems. In the meantime, he noted, the state needed to
deal with those young people who were already out there. He
stated HB 100 was a step in that direction.
MR. PAGE said that HB 100 would shift the responsibility for
proving amenability to rehabilitation from the state and to
the juvenile. He cited a court decision two years ago that
held that a juvenile and her or his counsel were not
required to be present, in the waiver proceeding, for the
findings of any psychological evaluations. Mr. Page noted
that, without psychological findings, trying to prove that
the minor was not amenable to treatment was tantamount to
trying to fly.
MR. PAGE commented that it was high time to make some
changes to Title 47. He said that HB 100 was a
demonstration of society's compassion for children and the
hope that they could live decent adult lives. He indicated
his committee's 100 percent support for HB 100.
Number 262
REP. DAVIDSON asked Mr. Page if, in light of his strong
preference for HB 100, he also had a strong preference for
coming up with the public resources to ensure implementation
of the bill's provisions.
Number 272
MR. PAGE noted that instead of talking about inefficiencies
in the system, people talked about perhaps not being so
tough on crime because of its high cost. He said that
waiver proceedings, whether the burden of proof was on the
juvenile or on the state, would cost a similar amount of
money. In that light, he said that he did not expect HB 100
to result in an increased cost.
Number 286
REP. DAVIDSON asked Mr. Page to clarify his reasoning as to
why HB 100 would not result in a significant cost increase
to the state.
Number 290
MR. PAGE said that the waiver of juvenile offenders would
continue to occur, whether or not HB 100 passed. He said
that HB 100 would simply change some of the parameters of
those waiver hearings.
Number 298
REP. DAVIDSON asked Mr. Page if he would, if necessary,
support the need for increased public resources to implement
HB 100.
MR. PAGE indicated that he would support the need for
increased public resources, if necessary.
REP. JAMES left the meeting.
Number 320
JANET LOWN, a POLICE INVESTIGATOR from Juneau, spoke to the
committee about HB 100. She said that she supported HB 100,
but thought that it should be amended to waive to adult
court juveniles charged with first offenses of unclassified
and class A felonies.
REP. NORDLUND noted that there was already a procedure in
statute for waiving juveniles into adult court. He said
that the discussion he had heard thus far assumed that no
such procedure was currently in place.
Number 348
MS. LOWN commented that it was her understanding that in
Juneau it was currently difficult to use that procedure to
waive a child into adult court without showing extreme prior
offenses. She expressed her belief that the waivers should
be automatic.
Number 353
REP. KOTT asked Ms. Lown if she had any statistics that
would support her statement about it being very difficult to
waive children into adult court.
Number 357
MS. LOWN responded that all juvenile court proceedings were
confidential. At age 18, she said, a young person was
considered to have committed no prior crimes. Except in the
case of severe crimes, she noted, juvenile records were
sealed. In the case of sex crimes, she said, an 18-year-old
could go to work in a day care center without her or his
employer being able to check court records.
Number 380
REP. KOTT asked Ms. Lown to indicate what approximate
percentage of waivers were actually granted.
Number 384
MS. LOWN said that in Juneau very few juvenile cases were
waived into adult court.
Number 391
REP. DAVIDSON asked Ms. Lown what was missing from juvenile
offenders' backgrounds that made them not understand what
was right and what was wrong.
Number 397
MS. LOWN replied that juvenile offenders did know the
difference between right and wrong. She commented that she
could not guess at the dysfunctional backgrounds of these
offenders, but said prevention was preferable to
intervention. She added that there was not currently an
effective prevention program in place.
Number 406
REP. DAVIDSON asked if children who had been tried as adults
experienced a change in attitude regarding the crime they
had committed.
Number 410
MS. LOWN said that some children's attitudes toward their
behavior changed when they were held accountable for that
behavior. Without that accountability, she noted, there was
often no change in behavior.
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if a child's knowledge that he or she
would be treated as an adult upon committing a crime would
serve as a deterrent.
Number 422
MS. LOWN replied that she believed that this knowledge would
serve as a deterrent.
Number 426
REP. KOTT asked Ms. Lown if, as a rule, juvenile offenders
came from dysfunctional families.
MS. LOWN said that an argument could be made that everyone
who ever committed a crime had some dysfunction in his or
her background. She asked Rep. Kott what he meant by the
term "dysfunctional family."
REP. JAMES returned.
MS. LOWN expressed her belief that the number of parents in
a household was not terribly significant. She said that
years could be spent arguing about what factors caused
juveniles to commit crimes. However, she noted, now was the
time to create an effective deterrent.
Number 458
KATHY WELTZIN, a MIDDLE SCHOOL DRUG AND ALCOHOL COUNSELOR,
said that prior to today's meeting, she had spoken with many
school and social services officials. She noted that she
and the others were unanimous in their belief that kids
should start out in the criminal justice system as adults.
She said that she viewed HB 100 as a prevention tool. She
commented that kids knew how the system worked, and the
situation now in place was not effectively addressing the
problem of juvenile crime.
MS. WELTZIN noted that children matured at different rates.
She said that she had spoken with school children before the
meeting and their response had been that children capable of
committing crimes should face the consequences.
MS. WELTZIN stated that, in her opinion, waivers should be
neither easy nor automatic. She said that she was afraid of
slamming the door on certain children who did not belong in
the adult justice system. However, she advocated putting
them there in the first place and putting the burden on them
to prove their way out of the adult system. Ms. Weltzin
added that she thought that the DARE (Drug Abuse Resistance
Education) program was a wonderful prevention program.
Number 524
REP. JAMES noted that since the time when she was a child,
societal changes had caused children to have different
attitudes. One change was that society had made children
responsible by giving them rights, she said. She asked Ms.
Weltzin if she had seen any evidence of children feeling
that they had rights but no responsibilities.
Number 536
MS. WELTZIN indicated her agreement with Rep. James. She
noted that when society imposed certain age limitations on
behavior, kids often initiated that behavior some time
before those limitations. For example, she said that when
the drinking age was 18, children would begin to use alcohol
close to that age. However, she said, when the drinking age
was 21, children began to drink closer to the age of 21.
She expressed her opinion that society needed to give
children limits against which to "bump." She mentioned that
all families experienced periods of function and
dysfunction.
Number 553
REP. PHILLIPS mentioned her appreciation for Ms. Weltzin's
consultation with children and those who worked with
children. She asked Ms. Weltzin if any punishment served as
a true deterrent.
Number 562
MS. WELTZIN responded that kids needed to be taught to
respect society.
Number 565
REP. PHILLIPS asked how that could be accomplished, other
than through fear.
Number 566
MS. WELTZIN replied that lowering age limits for certain
behavior was a significant step in the right direction.
Number 574
REP. NORDLUND stated that he agreed with Ms. Weltzin's
contention that children matured at different rates.
However, he noted that HB 100 would require automatic
waivers, taking away a judge's ability to view each child
differently. He commented that it almost sounded as if Ms.
Weltzin were testifying against HB 100 and automatic
waivers.
Number 588
MS. WELTZIN responded that she believed that children should
be initially brought into the adult justice system, but
given an opportunity to prove their way back to the juvenile
justice system.
Number 599
REP. DAVIDSON sought to clarify Ms. Weltzin's comments. He
asked her what criteria ought to be used to determine
whether a child should be transferred back into the juvenile
justice system.
Number 608
MS. WELTZIN commented that the child should undergo a
screening process.
Number 615
REP. DAVIDSON asked Ms. Weltzin if there were family and
environmental characteristics common to juvenile offenders.
MS. WELTZIN stated that it sounded as if Rep. Davidson was
referring to "tough love" -- giving children boundaries as
an expression of love. She said that children wanted and
needed confrontation, boundaries, and guidelines from their
parents. She noted that to some degree, adults had
abdicated that responsibility. She noted that many times a
child's bad behavior was not her or his "fault." However,
she said that holding the children blameless would not
improve the situation.
MS. WELTZIN said that there were identifiable risks for
children, including alienation from family and society.
Number 671
REP. JAMES stated that Ms. Weltzin had supported her theory
that "normal" was "dysfunctional." She commented that life
was tough and people needed to learn how to cope with
difficult situations. She asked if there had been a change
in attitudes toward counseling over the last 20 years.
Number 686
MS. WELTZIN replied that, in her opinion, there had been a
change in the attitude toward counseling. She said that she
would tell a child that she or he could either use bad
situations as an excuse or get on with their lives.
Number 691
REP. KOTT asked Ms. Weltzin if a juvenile convicted in adult
court could later be rehabilitated.
Number 700
MS. WELTZIN replied that there were opportunities for
rehabilitation in that situation, but leverage was
necessary.
Number 707
REP. KOTT asked if a juvenile serving a sentence in an adult
prison could be rehabilitated.
Number 712
MS. WELTZIN said that a juvenile in that situation could be
rehabilitated, in her opinion.
TAPE 93-19, SIDE A
Number 000
REP. DAVIDSON noted the burden on schools to provide
children with values. He mentioned that Captain Kangaroo
had said that our society faced a generation of "moral
illiterates." He asked Ms. Weltzin to comment on those
issues.
Number 046
MS. WELTZIN responded by saying that things were cyclical,
and she found hope in that.
Number 058
RANDALL HINES, YOUTH CORRECTIONS SPECIALIST, DIVISION OF
FAMILY AND YOUTH SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL
SERVICES (DHSS), offered to answer any questions that
committee members might have.
Number 072
REP. NORDLUND noted that HB 100 was presumably an attempt to
incarcerate more children who needed to be treated more
harshly than they were currently treated. Yet the DHSS
fiscal note showed no impact, he said. He asked Mr. Hines
to explain.
Number 084
MR. HINES replied that children tried and convicted in adult
court, under the provisions of HB 100, would be housed by
the Department of Corrections (DOC), therefore not impacting
his department.
Number 094
REP. NORDLUND asked if children were required to be housed
separately from adult offenders.
Number 100
MR. HINES commented that currently, when children were
waived into the adult system, they were moved from DHSS
youth facilities to DOC adult facilities. He said that he
would defer to DOC officials on the question of segregating
children and adults. He said he assumed that children
affected by HB 100 would be housed as adults, given their
waivers into the adult system.
Number 133
REP. PHILLIPS noted that the DOC had submitted a zero fiscal
note and expressed her hope that the department would
explain that later.
Number 142
MR. HINES noted that he was unsure where juveniles under
HB 100's provisions would be housed. He said that he had
assumed that DOC would house them. He stated that he would
have to create a new fiscal note if the juveniles would be
housed by the DHSS. He noted that, in general, the younger
an offender was, the better the juvenile's chances for
rehabilitation. He commented that fifteen-year-olds had
better opportunities for rehabilitation in a juvenile system
than in an adult system. He expressed his concern that the
age of fifteen was on the "low end" and current law allowed
children of that age to be waived into adult court if they
had committed serious offenses. He noted his concern over
automatically waiving children of that age into adult court.
Number 192
REP. PHILLIPS asked if DHSS had analyzed the policy
implications of HB 100.
Number 196
MR. HINES replied that such an analysis was currently being
prepared.
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Mr. Hines to outline the juvenile
justice process as it now existed.
Number 215
MR. HINES remarked that if a child were referred to DHSS on
a charge of murder, the case would be screened to determine
whether or not a chargeable offense had occurred. If it was
determined that the child was going to stay in the juvenile
system, then the child would be adjudicated and institution-
alized for a period of up to two years, or until the child's
19th birthday, whichever occurred first. He noted that the
department could petition the court to incarcerate a child
for longer than two years in certain cases.
Number 245
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Mr. Hines if a child who was not
waived into the adult system, and who had committed murder,
would be released from custody at the age of 20, at the
latest.
MR. HINES said that the Chairman was correct.
Number 255
REP. DAVIDSON asked Mr. Hines how many youth, currently in
the custody of the department, would be affected by HB 100.
Number 262
MR. HINES replied that he did not have any detailed numbers
to provide to Rep. Davidson.
Number 268
REP. DAVIDSON asked about the relative costs of housing
juveniles in the juvenile system and the adult system.
Number 273
MR. HINES said he was unaware of the relative costs of
incarceration under each system. However, he noted that an
overall differentiation was made in terms of the length of
incarceration. A juvenile who had committed a serious crime
and was adjudicated in the juvenile system would only be
incarcerated until his or her twentieth birthday. A
juvenile who had committed a serious crime and was convicted
in the adult system would face a much longer period of
incarceration, thus increasing the cost to the state.
Number 286
SHERRIE GOLL, representing the ALASKA WOMEN'S LOBBY, spoke
in favor of judicial discretion, as was provided for under
current law. She said she was aware of the popularity of
the idea of "automatic waivers." She commented that
judicial discretion had worked in the past and it was
important to continue using the existing system.
Number 300
MS. GOLL mentioned a recent Supreme Court case that had
prompted introduction of HB 100. That case held that a
psychiatric evaluation could not be performed if a child did
not agree to it. Therefore, she said, it was thought that
automatic waivers were necessary to shift the burden of
proof from the court to the juvenile.
MS. GOLL noted that in reading through the court case, she
found that the court indicated that the testimony of experts
was not a necessary condition of waivers. She said the
court held that the state did not need to present any
psychiatric evidence to support its assertion that a child
was not amenable to treatment.
MS. GOLL stated that the court found that the lack of
psychiatric evidence, in some situations, made the state's
burden of proof more difficult to meet. But, the court
held, the state's interest in lightening its burden was not
justification for subverting the established burden of
proof. She said that HB 100 completely subverted the burden
of proof by placing the burden on the juvenile.
MS. GOLL noted that the Supreme Court had consistently
upheld lower court orders waiving juveniles to the adult
system, in cases of murder involving extreme and unprovoked
violence. She said that the committee should look into
actual cases in which waivers were requested by the state
and denied. She noted that in 1989, there were fourteen
petitions for waivers, and all were granted.
MS. GOLL expressed her opinion that judges should decide on
waivers on a case-by-case basis. She cited a Juneau case in
which a young girl murdered her parents who had severely
abused her for years. The girl was not waived into adult
court due to the circumstances of her case. She noted that
usually, in the case of murder, children were waived into
adult court.
MS. GOLL stated that putting juveniles into the adult system
increased the likelihood that they would become hardened
criminals. She said that when juveniles were housed in
adult facilities, their suicide rates increased by four to
six times.
Number 407
REP. DAVIDSON commented that juveniles incarcerated in adult
facilities were going from the "high school" of criminal
knowledge to "graduate school," where they learned more
sophisticated criminal techniques.
REP. PHILLIPS asked Ms. Goll to reiterate her suicide
statistics.
MS. GOLL repeated the statistics and said that they had come
from a U.S. Department of Justice publication.
REP. PHILLIPS asked Ms. Goll if she had looked at the
statistics for twenty and twenty-one-year-olds.
MS. GOLL said that the information Rep. Phillips was asking
for was not included in the publication.
Number 432
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if Ms. Goll's statistics pertained to
juveniles in general, or just those juveniles incarcerated
in adult facilities.
MS. GOLL said that the statistics were for juveniles in
adult facilities. She noted that in listening to testimony
on HB 100 and its companion, SB 54, the issue of housing had
never been adequately addressed. She expressed her hope
that the Judiciary Committee would decide where the
juveniles affected by HB 100 would be housed and obtain the
appropriate fiscal notes.
Number 444
REP. JAMES asked Ms. Goll to address the deterrent effect of
HB 100.
Number 472
MS. GOLL responded by saying that it seemed that some young
people did not think about the consequences of their actions
before committing a crime. She said that she did not
necessarily believe that a change in law would influence
those juveniles who could not tell right from wrong to begin
with.
Number 505
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Ms. Goll whether mitigating
circumstances that might prevent a child being placed in the
adult system would also play a role in the child's defense,
if the child were indeed placed in the adult system.
Number 512
MS. GOLL said that even if that happened, the child would
still be incarcerated in adult facilities.
Number 526
CAREN ROBINSON, a LOBBYIST for the LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS
(LWV), indicated that that organization had no position on
HB 100. However, she said that she wanted to testify on her
own behalf as the mother of a 21-year-old son. She wondered
aloud what was wrong with the system now in place. She said
that she had yet to hear someone say that the current system
was not working. If it was not working, she said, what
specifically needed to be fixed?
MS. ROBINSON expressed her support for continued judicial
discretion. She expressed fear that children who had been
sexually abused, were not treated, and went on to commit sex
crimes, would be automatically waived into the adult system.
She cited the need for prevention programs for these
children.
Number 560
MS. ROBINSON mentioned that in the case of murder, automatic
waivers might be appropriate. She cited the confusing
messages that society gave young people by imposing
different ages of majority on them. She noted her concern
over where juveniles impacted by HB 100 would be housed.
She indicated her understanding that there needed to be
"sight and sound separation" of juveniles and adults
incarcerated in the same facility.
Number 611
CHAIRMAN PORTER commented that what was wrong with the
current system was that many more juveniles were committing
many more serious violent felonies.
MS. ROBINSON suggested reopening the state's Office of
Prevention, re-funding the Foster Care Review Board, and
implementing more prevention and intervention programs.
Number 634
REP. NORDLUND underscored Ms. Robinson's testimony. He said
he understood that there was an increase in the number and
severity of juvenile crimes. However, he believed that the
current waiver system worked.
Number 644
REP. BUNDE said that his main thrust in introducing HB 100
was not to punish, but to deter. He expressed concern about
juveniles who were manipulated into committing crimes by
adults who told them that they would be treated gently. He
said that HB 100 would give juveniles a tool for saying no
to those adults.
REP. BUNDE mentioned that the DOC felt that the number of
individuals impacted by HB 100 would be inconsequential,
which was why they submitted a zero fiscal note. He noted
that HB 100 would probably only result in two, three, or
four additional juveniles being housed in the adult system
each year.
Number 660
REP. BUNDE said that it was the DOC's policy to house
youthful offenders out of the sight and sound of adult
offenders. He said that some people had expressed concern
that HB 100 provided that juveniles would, at the time of
arrest, be housed in adult facilities, but would be housed
in juvenile facilities if they were later transferred back
to the juvenile court system. He said that some people felt
that these juveniles would then "contaminate" other youths
in the juvenile facilities. He said that he feared the
reverse: that juveniles who had committed heinous crimes
were already in the juvenile system "contaminating" the
other, less violent youths.
REP. BUNDE noted that the pendulum was currently swinging
away from criminals' rights and towards victims' rights.
REP. NORDLUND called attention to charts provided by the
sponsor. He said the charts did not indicate which of the
juveniles had been waived to adult court.
Number 719
REP. BUNDE responded that he did not have that information.
However, he noted that in previous years, most juveniles
were not waived into adult court. He said that some people
had speculated that when young people knew that they faced
the potential of adult punishment, their behavior in the
juvenile justice system would change.
Number 740
REP. NORDLUND said there were probably very good reasons why
certain waivers were not granted.
REP. KOTT asked Rep. Bunde to go over his statistics again.
REP. BUNDE cited statistics on requests for waivers and how
many of those requests were granted.
REP. PHILLIPS noted her concern over the DOC's zero fiscal
note.
Number 790
REP. BUNDE commented that not all juveniles waived to adult
court were convicted; therefore, not all waivers resulted in
a housing cost for the DOC, he said.
Number 799
REP. NORDLUND indicated that at $100 per day, the DOC fiscal
note did not compute with HB 100's intent of incarcerating
more juveniles.
Number 817
REP. JAMES expressed her belief that if the legislature
found a good idea, then they needed to find a way to fund
it.
TAPE 93-19, SIDE B
Number 000
REP. BUNDE responded that juveniles would either be housed
by the DOC or DHSS, so the state would pay either way.
Number 009
REP. JAMES noted that if HB 100 served as a deterrent, it
ought to result in a cost savings.
Number 015
REP. KOTT expressed skepticism that HB 100 would serve as a
deterrent. He expressed concern that the legislature was
allowing DOC the freedom to choose whether or not to
segregate juveniles and adults. He noted that crowding in
prisons could erode that policy, resulting in reduced
rehabilitation of youthful offenders.
Number 048
REP. BUNDE said that some sixteen-year-old criminals were
the victims of adult criminals, and other sixteen-year-olds
were victimizing younger kids. He said that someone would
end up being the victim, whether severe juvenile offenders
were housed with other juveniles or with adults. He said
his sympathies lay with 14-year-olds in the system for minor
offenses, instead of with hardened 16-year-old criminals.
Number 084
REP. NORDLUND mentioned that the state received federal
funds which were linked to the state's ability to separate
youthful offenders from adult offenders. He said if HB 100
resulted in housing youths with adults, the state could
stand to lose some federal money.
REP. BUNDE said that it was not his intent that youths and
adults be housed together.
REP. PHILLIPS cited Alaska Statute 47.10.130, which required
that children under the age of 18, who were being held
pending a hearing, could not be housed so that they could
communicate with or view adult prisoners.
Number 128
DEAN GUANELI, of the DEPARTMENT OF LAW'S CRIMINAL DIVISION,
noted that juveniles who had been waived into the adult
system, or those who had been charged with an adult driving
offense, would not be covered by the statute cited by Rep.
Phillips.
MR. GUANELI mentioned a recent case involving a 17-year-old
who had committed murder. He noted that the boy was housed
in a juvenile facility, but he had been disruptive. The boy
agreed to go into adult court as part of a plea negotiation,
but there was no formal waiver procedure, he said. As soon
as the agreement was made, he noted, the boy was sent to an
adult facility.
Number 135
MR. GUANELI said that in his opinion, juveniles waived into
adult court would be housed by the DOC. He said that by
increasing the number of children waived into adult court,
there would be a fiscal impact on the DOC.
MR. GUANELI said that the legislature had drawn a general
line at the age of 18, between treating people as juveniles
and adults. There were some exceptions to that rule,
however, he noted. He said that HB 100 and SB 54 were
similar bills, but took somewhat different approaches to the
juvenile waiver process. He mentioned that the Governor
intended to introduce another similar bill, which will take
a still different approach.
Number 145
MR. GUANELI noted that both procedural and substantive
issues were involved. He said that the administration
preferred to use the simplest procedure possible by
redrawing the line at age 16 for certain offenses. The
substantive question was for which offenses would that new
line apply. He said that the administration preferred to
apply that new line only to murder and attempted murder
offenses.
MR. GUANELI noted that he did not know of a case in which
the state had not been successful in waiving a juvenile
charged with murder into the adult system. He said it was
felt that the age should be lowered to 16 for murder and
attempted murder offenses, so as to eliminate the long,
cumbersome process of petitioning for waivers.
MR. GUANELI commented that HB 100 took a slightly different
approach from that of the Governor's bill, in that a youth
would be charged as an adult for certain offenses and the
defense would challenge that charge by petitioning for a
reverse waiver. He said that the process in SB 54 would be
an automatic waiver applied to murder as well as other
unclassified and class A felony offenses.
MR. GUANELI expressed his opinion that some class A
felonies, including arson and date rape, could be
legitimately dealt with in the juvenile system. He
recommended that the committee go through a list of offenses
one by one to determine which they felt could be adequately
treated in the juvenile system and which could be better
addressed in the adult system.
REP. PHILLIPS asked Mr. Guaneli if the Department of Law
(DOL) supported HB 100.
Number 374
MR. GUANELI responded that the DOL preferred a different
approach, but supported juvenile waiver legislation in
general. He said if HB 100 passed, he would probably not
recommend that the Governor veto it.
REP. PHILLIPS asked if HB 100 would conflict with the
overall scope of Title 47.
Number 385
MR. GUANELI replied that he did not believe that there would
be a conflict, as HB 100 actually amended Title 47.
CHAIRMAN PORTER commented that there were three basic
versions of the juvenile waiver legislation. One was a
committee substitute which reflected the original SB 54. He
noted that the bill said that 16- and 17-year-olds would be
automatically waived into adult court for unclassified and
class A felonies. Rep. Bunde's bill held that 15-, 16- and
17-year-olds charged with unclassified and class A felonies
would be automatically waived into adult court, with the
ability of the defendant to petition her or his way back
into juvenile court, he said. The third bill was due to be
introduced by the Governor and would address automatic
waivers for 16- and 17-year-olds accused of first-degree
murder. That bill would not provide for the automatic
ability of defendants to petition to overcome that
presumption.
Number 431
ELMER LINDSTROM, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE COMMISSIONER of
DHSS, said that additional analysis of the impacts of HB 100
would be available the following morning. He said that his
department wholeheartedly supported waivers for first-degree
murder, first-degree attempted murder, and second-degree
murder. He said that opinions began to diverge quickly when
crimes other than murder offenses were mentioned.
Number 450
MR. LINDSTROM expressed his support for SB 25, which related
to sight and sound separation of juveniles from adult
offenders. He said that due to the State of Alaska's lack
of compliance with federal sight and sound separation
requirements, federal dollars could be lost.
Number 491
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if the sight and sound separation rule
pertained to juveniles who had been adjudicated in the
juvenile system, as opposed to juveniles who had been waived
into the adult system.
MR. LINDSTROM indicated that the Chairman was correct.
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Mr. Lindstrom to provide the
aforementioned analysis to the committee as soon as
possible. He said that HB 100 would be back before the
committee on the following Friday.
Number 521
REP. NORDLUND asked that a DOC representative address the
committee on Friday to explain their fiscal note.
ADJOURNMENT
CHAIRMAN PORTER adjourned the meeting at 3:50 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|