CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 185(STA)(title am) An Act relating to the central registry of sex offenders and child kidnappers and to the registration requirements for sex offenders and child kidnappers; and providing for an effective date. Representative Hawker MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #1 (Copy on File): Page 3, line 26 Delete "belongs to" Insert "has been registered by" Vice-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED for DISCUSSION. 7:59:42 PM Representative Hawker explained that the Amendment provides for the Department to confirm whether an address belongs to a person on the sex offender/child kidnapper register. SENATOR BILL WIELECHOWSKI, SPONSOR, voiced his support for the Amendment. Vice-Chair Stoltze REMOVED his OBJECTION. There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment #1 was adopted. 8:02:28 PM Representative Hawker MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #2 (Copy on File): Page 3, line 27 through page 4, line 1 Delete all material Vice-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED for DISCUSSION. Representative Hawker explained Amendment #2. The section being deleted from the bill in its entirely is the provision that allows the Department of Public Safety (DPS) to provide the list of the registered email/chat addresses to commercial internet providers and security firms. The original purpose of the section was to warn the public. However, DPS has expressed concerns about publishing the list. Once the list is out, it cannot be controlled. The intent of the Amendment is not to weaken the bill, but to protect the innocent public in situations with similar addresses. 8:07:23 PM Senator Wielechowski said he would not object to the Amendment. Vice-Chair Stoltze wondered what DPS thought. LAUREN RICE, LEGISLATIVE LIAISON, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, stated that the Department was not opposed to the Amendment. Vice-Chair Stoltze WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment #2 was ADOPTED. Representative Gara clarified that it was more accurate to say "the internets" than "the internet." 8:10:00 PM Co-Chair Chenault MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #3 (25- LS0985\KA.1, Luckhaupt, 3/29/08, Copy on File): Page 1, line 1, following "kidnappers": Insert ", to penalties for certain sex offenders," Page 2, following line 4: Insert a new bill section to read: "*Sec. 2. AS 12.55.015 is amended by adding a new subsection to read: (j) In addition to penalties authorized by this section, the court shall order a defendant convicted of a violation of AS 11.41.410 - 11.41.440 where the victim of the offense was under 13 years of age to be subject to electronic monitoring for the remainder of the person's life on the person's release from a correctional facility." Renumber the following bill sections accordingly. Page 4, line 4: Delete "This Act applies" Insert "Sections 1 and 3 - 5 of this Act apply" Page 4, following line 7: Insert a new subsection to read: "(b) Section 2 of this Act applies to persons convicted of offenses committed on or after the effective date of this Act." Reletter the following subsection accordingly. Page 4, line 9: Delete "sec. 3" Insert "sec. 4" Representative Gara OBJECTED. Co-Chair Chenault explained that the Amendment would require offenders to wear electronic monitoring for the remainder of their lives if convicted of certain crimes involving children under the age of 13. He stated his strong feelings about protecting youth from predators. AT EASE 8:12:57 PM RECONVENE 8:13:35 PM There was a discussion clarifying the details of the Amendment regarding the ages of the offender and the victim. Representative Gara questioned whether the State should pay for electronic monitoring. Co-Chair Chenault stated that studies show that there is no reform for the offenders. They tend to re-offend. He thought the cost was not the issue. 8:17:55 PM Representative Gara proposed that the Amendment might be appropriate for rape, which is sexual assault in the first degree. He questioned having lifetime monitoring for other situations covered by the statutes listed. He thought although it was a crime for a 16 year old to touch a 12 year old through their clothing, that deserved a different punishment. Co-Chair Chenault clarified that the Amendment was directed at pedophiles that prey on young children. 8:20:47 PM Representative Nelson asked for an amendment to the Amendment to exclude non-intercourse consensual touching. Representative Gara said there was a dividing line in the statutes between the most serious and least serious offenses. Sexual assault in the first degree involves forced, non-consensual penetration. He thought the Amendment should apply to sexual assault in the first degree with someone under 13 years old. Vice-Chair Stoltze stated concerns with putting the word "consensual" with "12 and under" in the same sentence. 8:23:21 PM Representative Crawford relayed a personal story of a relative who got married at age 13. He pointed out that those possibilities have to be considered. He was uncomfortable with lifetime monitoring. Representative Nelson talked about a relative who was married very young. She was nervous about making a 16-year- old wear a monitor for life in cases where a mature-seeming 12 year old girl was the aggressor. She wanted the judge to be able to exercise discretion. She thought sexual predators of young girls should be monitored. Representative Gara passed out copies of the statute on first degree sexual assault. Representative Kelly asked if there was a clinical definition of the kind of predators the bill should target. Co-Chair Chenault suggested child predators convicted of assault of a certain number of children. 8:28:39 PM Senator Wielechowski felt the crime described was horrific. He acknowledged it was an important policy call. He questioned the fiscal impact and whether the Amendment addressed the problem of offenders who were committing the crime in their home. He thought the subject needed a full discussion in both bodies in another bill. Representative Hawker spoke to relative values regarding spending. Representative Gara referred to the handout on first degree assault. The sentence for the crime is now a minimum of 20 years and probation for life. 8:32:35 PM Representative Gara MOVED amendment #1 to Amendment #3, to have the Amendment apply to violations of AS 11.41.410. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. Representative Hawker was concerned about the cost of monitoring for life. Representative Hawker MOVED a conceptual amendment to change "the person's life" to a period of ten years following their release from a correctional facility. Co-Chair Meyer OBJECTED for DISCUSSION. 8:35:49 PM Senator Wielechowski suggested giving the authority to a judge. Representative Hawker thought "mandatory 10 and up to" would allow for flexibility. Co-Chair Chenault reiterated that the crime is serious enough to warrant monitoring for the remainder of a person's life, but he would not object to amending it to ten years. Representative Hawker suggested a minimum mandatory of 10 years with judge's discretion up to the remainder of a person's life. Representative Gara questioned how that would affect a very young offender. Co-Chair Chenault reiterated his concerns. He told a personal story about child kidnapping. 8:41:17 PM Representative Hawker WITHDREW the second conceptual amendment to Amendment #3. Representative Hawker MOVED conceptual amendment 3 to Amendment #3: Monitoring period should be mandatory ten years following release from correctional facility, and beyond that up to the remainder of person's life at discretion of the courts. Co-Chair Meyer OBJECTED for DISCUSSION. Representative Gara stated his discomfort with the lack of information. Representative Crawford agreed. He wanted more input from the public and more investigation. Co-Chair Chenault suggested adding Sec. 11.41.434, sexual abuse of a minor in the first degree. AT EASE 8:45:16 PM RECONVENE 9:05:22 PM Representative Hawker WITHDREW amendment 3 to Amendment #3. Representative Gara asked for clarification regarding probation and electronic monitoring. ANNE CARPENETI, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, LEGAL SERVICES SECTION-JUNEAU, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, explained that sex offenses have high sentencing ranges, up to 99 years in prison, along with a 25 year maximum period of probation. The court currently has a great deal of discretion for sentencing in these crimes. She said it would be difficult to have electronic monitoring past the period of probation. 9:08:19 PM Representative Gara MOVED conceptual amendment 4 to Amendment #3: 1. Make the new section apply to victims 14 years or younger; and 2. Give the judge the discretion to impose electronic monitoring for up to the full length of probation. Co-Chair Meyer OBJECTED for DISCUSSION. Co-Chair Chenault agreed that the conceptual amendment addressed the problem. Senator Wielechowski supported the conceptual amendment. Co-Chair Meyer REMOVED his OBJECTION. There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment #3 as amended was adopted. Vice-Chair Stoltze MAINTAINED his OBJECTION to Amendment #3. 9:10:43 PM Representative Joule asked if the earlier decision to have section (j) apply only to AS 11.41.410 violations still applied. Ms. Carpeneti said that was a policy decision. The section left in referred to the most serious of the sexual assault prohibitions. She pointed to another unclassified felony in state sex offenses, sexual abuse of a minor in the first degree, but that is different type of crime. Co-Chair Chenault confirmed that AS 11.41.410s addresses his largest concerns. 9:13:56 PM Representative Gara reiterated that he did not want to change the law as it relates to older perpetrators. Vice-Chair Stoltze REMOVED his OBJECTION to Amendment #3. There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment #3 was adopted. Co-Chair Chenault MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #4 (25- LS0985\KA.2, Luckhaupt, 4/5/08, Copy on File). Vice-Chair Stoltze wanted to be co-sponsor of the Amendment. Co-Chair Meyer OBJECTED for DISCUSSION. Co-Chair Chenault explained Amendment #4 as authorizing capital punishment for certain crimes committed against children. He said the Amendment reflected the strength of his feelings about people who prey upon the weak. It also authorizes capital punishment for murder in the first degree and other crimes in the first degree. He told a personal story of a kidnapping in his family. He did not feel child molesters could be fixed and he wanted to see them executed. 9:20:15 PM Senator Wielechowski suggested putting the Amendment in another crime bill. Vice-Chair Stoltze related a story of a person who victimized many children. Representative Gara acknowledged the seriousness of the subject and the strength of the amendment sponsor's convictions. He thought the debate regarding capital punishment had to be lengthy. He told the story of the murder of his father when he was six. He thought there were circumstances where the death penalty applied, but he was concerned with executing an innocent person who is erroneously convicted. He wanted to have the dispute at a different time. 9:25:12 PM Representative Nelson stated her belief that people who commit heinous crimes should be punished accordingly. But people have been accused erroneously, especially poor and minority people without adequate representation. She pointed to 120 people who have been exonerated from death row. The reality of the death penalty poses many other problems and high costs. The money could be redirected to rehabilitation programs. Co-Chair Chenault reiterated his strong belief in the death penalty. He did not want to put innocent people to death. He WITHDREW Amendment #4. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. 9:30:30 PM Co-Chair Meyer referred to the fiscal notes, some of which could change with Amendment #3. SB 185 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for further consideration.