Jt Legis Cmte on Youthful Sex Offenders

Speakers Present

Leah Birk, Senate Research Staff

Barbara Marshall, Major Crimes Division, Maricopa County Attorney’s Office

Angela Andrews, Bureau Chief, Southeast Major Crimes Division, Maricopa County Prosecutor’s Office

Jerry Eitneir, Parole Manager, Community Corrections Unit, Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC)

Detective Marla Wasser, Sex Offender Unit, Phoenix Police Department

Detective Cynthia Kralovetz, Sex Offender Unit, Phoenix Police Department

Chris Phillis, Juvenile Division, Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office

OPENING REMARKS:

Chairman Johnson stated that S.B. 1328, youthful sex offenders; study committee, Chapter 165, Laws of 2006, allows this Committee to look at this issue. She advised that over the last few years, she has had constituents, mainly family members, come to her with various concerns relating to youthful sex offenders. Discussions on this subject might help differentiate between an adult and a youthful sex offender because many times they are looked at in the same light. She said this Committee needs to be looking at how to deal with non-violent youthful sex offenders and try to help them re-establish their life.

At the Chairman’s request, Members of the Committee introduced themselves.

PRESENTATIONS:

Leah Birk, Senate Research Staff, reviewed the charge of the Joint Legislative Committee on Youthful Sex Offenders (Attachment 1). The Committee was established by Chapter 165, Laws of 2006, and is comprised of seven voting members and eight advisory non-voting members. The Committee will report its final recommendations on or before December 31, 2006.

Barbara Marshall, Major Crimes Division, Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, gave a presentation on the charging practices for youthful sex offenders. She advised that youthful sex offenders under the age of 18 are referred to as juvenile sex offenders in the justice system. They are dealt with either in the juvenile system or the adult system, depending on their age and the severity of their crime. She provided Members with background information on the law. In 1996, a Constitutional ballot initiative was passed by the voters which took discretion decision away from judges, so they could no longer make transfer decisions. It provided that juveniles, 15 years of age or older, accused of certain offenses, automatically go to the adult system. The prosecutor had no choice and the court had no choice in the matter. In early 1997, legislation was passed allowing for a second category of offenses. That statute reads that if a juvenile is 14 years of age or older and charged with any of the enumerated offenses, it is discretionary with the prosecution whether to file in the juvenile system or the adult system. She noted that the offenses this Committee will be discussing fall into this category.

Ms. Marshall related that the majority of youthful offenders are kept in the juvenile system. In Maricopa County, before the decision is made whether to try someone in the juvenile system or the adult system, the Juvenile Division charging attorney consults with other Juvenile Division charging attorneys. If it is appropriate for the juvenile offender to go to adult court, discussions are held with the Adult Sex Crimes attorneys who will then get approval from the Division Chief to send the matter to the adult system.

Discussion ensued on consensual sex between teenage offenders. She stated that in reviewing every current case in the system, there are none that involve consensual sexual activity between teenagers of similar age.

In response to Chairman Johnson, Ms. Marshall explained that her office will file only if the victim said it was not consensual and there is corroboration for that. If both parties claim the act was consensual, there is no filing.

Angela Andrews, Bureau Chief, Southeast Major Crimes Division, Maricopa County Prosecutor’s Office, explained that in the case involving an 18 year old and a 16 year old, the statutes allow for an affirmative defense if a victim is 15, 16 or 17 years old and the defendant is under the age of 19 or attending high school. The prosecutor’s office would not file in that case.

Chairman Johnson brought up the scenario of a 20 year old man who got involved with a 17 year old girl. The girl gets mad at the man and wants him charged. Ms. Marshall pointed out that before a case is filed, the prosecution needs to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. Corroboration, physical evidence and anything else that strengthens the case is looked at. Unless that burden is met to support the victim’s claim that it was not consensual, the case would not be filed.

Ms. Marshall disclosed that unless a 14 year old commits an extremely egregious offense, that juvenile will not go to the adult system. Those 15 year olds and older who go to the adult system generally fall into the category that they actually penetrated their victim, have multiple victims or have been abusing the victim over a very long period of time. She said it is rare that a juvenile would be sent to the adult system for a one-time occurrence that did not involve a rape.

Even though the statute allows for filing directly into the adult system, with the agreement of the Juvenile Probation Department and the court, the prosecutor’s office has actually requested transfer. Transfer means that the juvenile court judge will still make the decision. Of those offenders remaining in the juvenile system, there is no mandatory sentencing in the juvenile system; it is up to the court to decide the appropriate sanction. The goal of the juvenile system is rehabilitation. The court can decide if the offender goes to residential treatment, is put on probation or whether the youth goes to the Department of Juvenile Corrections. Sex offender registration in the juvenile system is also entirely up to the court. Sex offender registration in the juvenile system is a rare occurrence unless the offender is approaching his 18^th birthday and has not been performing well in juvenile probation.

Discussion ensued on the concern about delay in filing charges on juvenile offenders.

Chairman Johnson raised the case of a 15 year old boy who committed an offense. The incident was not reported, but he got help from his clergy, received therapy and committed no other offenses. When he turned 18, charges were filed in the adult system. Ms. Marshall said she will look into that case; however, her guess is that the incident was not reported to law enforcement until after the defendant had turned 18 years of age.

Senator Garcia said he heard that law enforcement knew about that particular case but did not proceed with the case until after the youth turned 18. He asked whether the three-month period occurs when a prosecutor gets the case or when it is reported to law enforcement. Ms. Marshall said that if the defense knows that law enforcement intentionally delays a case, that would be cause for dismissal unless it was a case of an active investigation occurring or new evidence showing up at a later date. Senator Garcia asked whether there is no statute of limitations for sex offenses. Ms. Marshall said it depends on when the offense was committed and the nature of the offense.

Mr. Hochuli asked what consideration is given to rehabilitation in the juvenile system versus transfer to the adult system for a youth just under 18 years of age. Ms. Marshall said the age of the offender is a determining factor as well as the severity of the offense and whether there were multiple victims. Juvenile history is also looked at. If the youth is within four months of his 18^th birthday, the severity of the offense will dictate whether he stays in the juvenile system or goes to the adult system.

Chairman Johnson queried the amount of time spent on a case. Ms. Marshall replied that it depends on the case and its complexity. She stated that it is an intense process.

Ms. Andrews spoke about the way cases get into the adult system. She related that some juveniles get into the adult system when they turn 18 or older because the juvenile system loses jurisdiction of that person. Those cases have to be looked at on a case-by-case basis. Experienced attorneys in the adult crimes system review cases and if the case meets the filing standard, the case is filed. Referring to Chairman Johnson’s case that ended up being prosecuted after the youth turned 18 years of age, she said that treatment would be reviewed when considering that case. Counseling records are looked at to see whether it was appropriate and whether it addressed the specific needs of the offender. Consideration is also given to the age of the offender, whether the act was consensual, if manipulation was involved, the relationship, age difference between the victim and the defendant and other issues that determine whether there is reasonable likelihood of conviction.

Ms. Hernandez stated that one of the important things to think about is that treatment is not necessarily enough. Risk assessment tools are very important. Without risk assessments to determine future propensity to act out in a sexual manner, participation in treatment does not mean rehabilitation in itself. Ms. Andrews agreed. She said that different tools are looked at to see what type of treatment the person has received and how the person has done in that treatment.

Chairman Johnson questioned whether treatment for a couple of years without re-offense is considered rehabilitation. Ms. Andrews said that is a possibility, depending on the type of treatment. If the treatment does not address the specific issues, that is a concern.

Mr. Grygla noted that even though some youthful sex offenders have committed a crime, it does not necessarily make them predatory, just curious, when there has been no history and no follow-up victims. He questioned the assumption that they need rehabilitation. Ms. Andrews answered that if it is curious-type behavior and does not appear to have any predatory concerns, it is not likely to be a case that will be filed. Cases are looked at on a case-by-case basis.

Ms. Andrews discussed a prosecutor’s training and experience required to deal with the sex offender community. Additionally, individual training is done in the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office on how to read risk assessments and mental health reports.

Chairman Johnson brought up the assessment instruments used by mental health providers and wondered whether they are evidence-based and truly scientific. She questioned whether kids are being assessed by some tools that do not give the needed information. Ms. Andrews answered that risk assessment is only one tool used when evaluating a case. Each tool that is being used has been evaluated throughout the country to determine accuracy and reliability. Ms. Marshall noted that juvenile sex-offender testing is an on-going field. Because of a juvenile’s stages of development, there is nothing concrete right now. She said the focus in the legal area is on culpability and action rather than on abstract concepts.

Mr. Faull raised the issue of on-going treatment and a lack of new offenses. He advised that a study by the Department of Justice showed that 90 percent of sex offenders did not re-offend. He pointed out the study was for the first three years of release while the offenders were still on supervision. He pointed out that one cannot say that someone who has had only three years of treatment will not re-offend. The recidivism rate or the re-offense rate rises significantly after three years when they are not under supervision or in training.

Chairman Johnson queried whether juvenile sex offenders recover at a greater rate than adult sex offenders. Ms. Andrews replied that she is unsure whether there has been a study on that issue. She said there have been numerous studies that show adult sex offenders have almost unanimously reported that their age of onset was as juveniles. Adult sex offenders began as juveniles, not as adults. Most were not caught as juveniles and were not treated as juveniles. Another recent study indicates that juveniles have many more victims than anyone knows about while they are going through the juvenile system.

Mr. Hlavac asked about the filing of juveniles under the age of 14. Ms. Marshall answered that if the juvenile is under 14 years of age, the traditional transfer process is followed if it is decided the juvenile needs to go through the adult system. Mr. Hlavac said he is referring to cases that are going to be filed as juvenile cases, not transfers. Ms. Marshall responded that the review process is that the juvenile charging attorney would staff the case with other juvenile charging attorneys.

Mr. Hlavac noted there are two filing standards: beyond a reasonable doubt and reasonable likelihood of conviction. He asked about the filing standard that is used by the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office. Ms. Marshall related that to be able to have a reasonable likelihood of conviction, it needs to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Chairman Johnson asked whether counsel is present when youthful offenders go through questioning, mental health or risk assessments. Ms. Hernandez said the juvenile is alone. No therapist will allow an attorney in a therapeutic intervention because they feel it inhibits the results. She pointed out the pre-conviction assessment is requested by the defense, not the prosecution.

Jerry Eitneir, Parole Manager, Community Corrections Unit, Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC), spoke on how the Department utilizes the Arizona Sex Offender Assessment Screening Profile for Regulatory Communications.

Chairman Johnson pointed out this Committee relates to youthful sex offenders. She asked whether this applies to juveniles. Mr. Eitneir said the Department only works with adult offenders. If youthful offenders are remanded to adult court, they are included.

Senator Garcia queried whether there is a counterpart in the Juvenile Department of Corrections. Mr. Eitneir answered there is not a counterpart that utilizes this instrument. This tool is used for adult offenders statewide by the Department of Corrections, law enforcement and federal and county probation agencies.

Senator Garcia asked whether there is a similar tool used by the Juvenile Department of Corrections. Mr. Eitneir said he is not familiar with the Juvenile Department’s risk assessment.

Chairman Johnson asked what kind of risk assessment tool is used for youth offenders. Ms. Hernandez said that risk assessment is generally not done pre-adjudication unless it is court-ordered. Some of the post-adjudication tests might include psycho-sexual, polygraph, multi-sexual inventory tests, and rating of arousal to determine range of attraction.

Mr. Eitneir advised that the Arizona Sex Offender Assessment Screening Profile for Regulatory Communications tool is utilized by ADC prior to an inmate’s release to inform law enforcement in the community statewide what level of community notification has been decided. Law enforcement then has the option to do their own risk assessment because they have the responsibility of community notification.

Ms. Phyllis asked whether the risk assessment is used to determine if they are likely to re-offend to determine what level they will be classified as. Mr. Eitneir said this tool was not designed to determine the risk of recidivism. The premise for the tool determines the level of notification which correlates to the amount of notification in the community. Law enforcement makes their own assessment because they are responsible for tracking these individuals in the community.

Mr. Eitneir explained that the Sex Offender Unit within ADC has the task of determining prior to release whether the inmate is subject to registration, community notification or sexually-violent persons laws. Six months prior to release, the Unit receives information about the criminal’s background. Members of the Unit review the information 72 hours prior to release of the individual and arrive at a score that is entered into the Arizona Criminal Justice Information System. That is law enforcement’s notification that the individual is in the community. Law enforcement uses that information to statutorily notify the community.

In response to Chairman Johnson, Mr. Eitneir explained that Level 3 means the highest risk to the community. Chairman Johnson asked whether that means recidivism. Mr. Eitneir replied it is not only used for that purpose. Level 3 to law enforcement means the type of notification to the community. He related that Level 2 became the equivalent of Level 3 last year as far as risk assessment goes. Level 1 is generally in-house notification. Levels 2 and 3 now are full notification.

In following-up on Chairman Johnson’s query about whether the risk assessment tests indicate recidivism, Mr. Eitneir clarified that Level 3 means that an offender, based on his history, has the highest likelihood of committing a future crime.

Chairman Johnson asked whether this is a test developed by Dr. Daryl Fischer. Mr. Eitneir replied in the affirmative. Chairman Johnson asked whether the Committee can be given something to show that this risk assessment tool is scientifically-based. Mr. Eitneir said he will get information on Dr. Fischer’s methodology and validation studies.

Mr. Hlavac expressed interest in knowing what validation studies were done on individuals who entered the ADC population prior to the age of 18 versus being released after age 18.

Senator Garcia asked whether the assessment is a paper review on the person’s history. Mr. Eitneir responded in the affirmative. Senator Garcia queried whether there is a face-to-face interview with the person prior to his release. Mr. Eitneir said there is no interview at ADC; however, there is with law enforcement when it does its own assessment.

Senator Garcia questioned who gets sent to the State hospital. Mr. Eitneir explained that predicate offenses of a sexually-violent person include sexual assault and child molestation. Mr. Faull further clarified there is a court proceeding to determine whether a person is classified as a sexually-violent person. That decision is reviewed annually based on the treatment in the State hospital. Mr. Eitneir pointed out that the person has to have reached their 18^th birthday to go through that process.

Mr. Faull asked the last time Dr. Fischer’s risk assessment instrument was validated. Mr. Eitneir said the latest instrument was put into effect August, 2002, so validation took place just prior to that time.

Detective Marla Wasser, Sex Offender Unit, Phoenix Police Department, testified there are two separate issues relating to youthful sex offenders. If convicted as a juvenile, they are not required to register as a sex offender unless ordered by a judge. If they are ordered, the Department does not do risk assessments on them and there is no notification. They are just required to register until the age of 25. Prior to June 1, 1996, if a juvenile was convicted as an adult, there was registration only. If the juvenile was released from confinement after June 1, 1996, they became community-notifiable. If a youthful offender is convicted as an adult, the Unit does its own risk assessment based on Dr. Fischer’s risk assessment, with a sexual recidivism side and a general recidivism side. If their sexual side score indicates a Level 1 but the general recidivism side shows they could be a Level 2, then notification is required. When the law was changed in 1996, discretionary notification was taken away on Level 2 offenders. Now, notification must be done on all Level 2 and Level 3 offenders. Per statute, if a youthful offender is 18 or 19 years of age, she said she is required to notify the community that the offender risks out to a Level 2 or higher. She reviewed the 19 questions of the risk assessment.

Mr. Hlavac questioned two factors on the scoring: age at the time of the first offense and gender of the victims. Detective Wasser said it is at the time of conviction. Mr. Hlavac asked whether a lower age means a higher risk factor. Detective Wasser answered in the affirmative. She said that if the male offender has offended against a male, that is scored. A female offender offending against a female is not scored. Ms. Hernandez explained that is a risk factor from the therapeutic aspect because male-on-male offenses have more taboos that have to be crossed. She said it is harder to convince someone to sexually act out with the same gender; therefore, it is a greater risk factor.

Mr. Grygla brought up past crimes that are not sexually related. He said those crimes are no longer a part of the juvenile’s record once the juvenile turns 18 years of age. He asked whether non-sexually related crimes follow the juvenile if he is transferred to adult court. Detective Wasser replied in the affirmative. If there is documentation that the juvenile has been convicted of another offense, she said she is required to score that on her risk assessment. Mr. Faull pointed out that a juvenile’s history is now public record. Previously, anything that happened as a juvenile was sealed.

In response to Representative Murphy, Detective Wasser said there are enumerated offenses that are automatic that require registration. If convicted as a juvenile, the judge has the discretion to order registration; however, community notification is not done on juvenile offenders. Community notification is only done on those who have been convicted as an adult.

Ms. Ophein stated there is no difference in the community notification between Levels 2 and 3. Detective Wasser agreed. She said that in the past, notification would not be done on some Level 2 offenders; now notification is mandatory.

Mr. Faull asked Detective Wasser whether the instrument used is the same as Dr. Fischer’s. Detective Wasser disclosed it is the same one that is used statewide.

Mr. Grygla asked Detective Wasser what issues she would like this Committee to address. Detective Wasser suggested making Level 2 discretionary, not mandatory.

Mr. Grygla asked whether Level 3 helps law enforcement to better protect the community. Detective Wasser said her Unit deals strictly with notification and the issues facing people who have committed crimes, such as housing. She said that studies have shown that the more stressors put on people, the more likely they will go into a survival mode and end up reoffending.

Discussion ensued on legislation relating to housing for sex offenders.

Chairman Johnson said she has concerns about the youthful sex offender when he is not allowed to return home or live with relatives.

Detective Wasser feels that it is better for law enforcement and Probation to know where sex offenders live rather than registering homeless.

Chairman Johnson asked Detective Wasser if she has recommendations. Detective Wasser said she does not; however, she would much rather know where they are living than not know.

Detective Cynthia Kralovetz, Sex Offender Unit, Phoenix Police Department, stated that the new legislation and strict guidelines are forcing sex offenders underground. She spoke of one person who was told he could not return home because there were other juveniles in the home, so he absconded. Law enforcement has no idea where he is. He will be charged with another Class 4 felony.

Senator Gray queried whether documentation could be provided to substantiate that it is better for these offenders to live with their families if such legislation was introduced that would allow them to go back with their family. Detective Kralovetz said she does not know if that is necessarily better because she is not a treatment provider. She said law enforcement cannot guarantee the safety of other children in the home. Detective Wasser advised that Probation tries to reunify the family after the offender has gone through treatment.

To that point, Representative Murphy questioned whether there is any provision that allows law enforcement to draw a distinction between an offender who offends against a family member versus someone who does not live in the same household. Detective Wasser answered that Probation and Parole are responsible for deciding where the offender on probation lives. Her Unit cannot tell an offender where he can or cannot live.

Ms. Hernandez advised there are two paramount concerns when a juvenile is placed back in the home: future victims’ safety and appropriate parental supervision. If parents are in denial over the child’s sexual activities and do not see the child as a risk to the other children, they will not supervise appropriately, and that has been a real issue. A parent cannot be ordered to participate in services unless Child Protective Services gets involved.

Representative Murphy asked whether there is a difference in recidivism rates with someone who has offended within the household versus someone who has offended outside of the household. Ms. Hernandez replied that she has not seen any studies that distinguish between the two. She advised that a study she did last year showed that 90 percent of the youthful sex offenders in Maricopa County have offended against a sibling within the household.

Chairman Johnson commented that the housing situation is one of the issues this Committee should consider.

Mr. Faull stated that the focus should be on the victim. In other inter-personal crimes, such as domestic violence crimes, the victim is never told to go back into a living situation with the person who has abused them. He said consideration should be given to the victim who has no place to escape to when the offender is ordered to go back to the household.

Chairman Johnson concurred that is a good point; however, in certain situations, some of the offenders can be rehabilitated in overcoming their problems in a better way.

Ms. Hernandez commented that Probation does an excellent job in seeing that youthful offenders are getting the necessary treatment as well as trying to unify the family; however, the victim still has to be protected.

Ms. Hernandez advised that since housing for youthful offenders is such an issue in the State, increasing foster care placements that are sex-offender specific would be a big solution. It would keep offenders in the community and specific services could be provided. The problem is that the allowance rate for foster care is so low these families do not want to take on the extra responsibility required with these offenders. She said the therapeutic community is more than willing to train and assist families in volunteering their time and advocating for foster care placements for these youth. It would prevent clustering and distribute people equally throughout the community. Currently there are six families in Maricopa County participating in foster care for these youth. There are 369 adjudicated sex offenders in the juvenile court. Of that number, 90 percent have offended against their family so they cannot go home. Foster care placement would serve a good purpose. It would re-integrate them, allow them to get appropriate supervision and permit them to stay in the community.

Representative Chase asked whether other children live in the six foster homes. Ms. Hernandez replied there are some children in the foster homes who are usually older and not within the range of attraction for the kids placed with them. None of these offenders are placed where there is risk involved, and the parents are specially trained to ensure the supervision is always there.

In response to Chairman Johnson, Ms. Ophein said she has the only group home that lets these youth into the community. They have jobs and go to public schools. She advised it sets up these kids for independent living. A lot of the treatment is focused on the child living alone instead of going back to the family. She agreed that foster homes definitely fill a need.

Senator Gray said she thinks foster homes for these offenders sounds very promising. She wondered whether there has to be a change in the law relating to clustering. Detective Wasser replied that a change in law would be necessary only if the offender is on probation or parole.

Mr. Hochuli asked whether the clustering law pertains to juveniles. Detective Wasser said that Probation and Parole are the only ones that can do that. If they are not on probation or parole, more than one sex offender can live together. Mr. Hochuli said he does not think the clustering law applies to juveniles. Detective Wasser said that if a juvenile was committed as a juvenile, he does not have to register unless ordered to do so.

Chris Phillis, Juvenile Division, Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, stated that the majority of teens who are charged with and commit sexual offenses are not pedophiles. They are kids with raging hormones and poor impulse control. Because of those factors, they are not more likely to re-offend as they get older because they are going to outgrow that conduct. The best place to treat these children is in the juvenile system. When the law was changed in 1996 to try children as adults based on their offense, consideration was not given to what they were going through and their brain activity. Studies of the brain have shown that the brain does not finish maturing until they are in their early 20’s. The part of the brain that controls impulse takes the longest to mature. The Juvenile Court was built around creating positive outcomes for kids for the long term. If these juveniles are sent to the adult system, they will be labeled as sexual predators for the rest of their lives. If tried as adults, they will be forced into all sorts of residential centers, prison and therapy groups with other adults and they will learn from those adult offenders. She said she has not heard anyone say the Juvenile Court system is broken and that these juveniles are not receiving the services they need. That is where these children should remain.

Ms. Phillis believes this Committee should also look at the laws and the way they are written. The discretion to transfer a youth to adult court is with the prosecutor now. Transfer was previously a judicial decision after a judge reviewed the child’s background. The judge decided whether there were services left in the Juvenile Court that could rehabilitate the child. She feels this study group should look at the transfer issue and the discretion issue relating to who gets tried as an adult and who gets tried as a juvenile.

Mr. Grygla asked whether there is a way to bridge rehabilitation for treatment beyond age 18 if the juvenile is not transferred to the adult system. He supports transfer to the adult system because of the rehabilitation process. He queried whether the law can be changed to make the services rehabilitative for juveniles after the offender reaches 18 years of age. Ms. Phillis reiterated that current law provides that services for a juvenile end at age 18.

DISCUSSION BY COMMITTEE MEMBERS:

Mr. Faull said he does not believe the juvenile system is broken. The 1996 constitutional amendment was the result of public concerns that the juvenile system was not working.

Senator Garcia noted that the 1996 constitutional amendment only dealt with violent offenders. Ms. Phillis explained that originally there was a limited number of crimes committed that automatically sent the child to the adult system. In 1997, the Legislature amended that and broadened the scope of crimes that could lead to the adult system; some were mandatory and some were left to the discretion to the county attorney.

Senator Garcia asked Ms. Hernandez to share a breakdown of information on offenders in the juvenile and the adult systems. Ms. Hernandez advised there has been an average increase of 25 juveniles per year in the system since 1995. Her unit only takes felony sex offenses that stay in the juvenile system, excluding fondlers. She said that 70 percent of the juveniles are in residential placement now and out-of-home placement. Foster care and therapeutic group homes are greatly needed. A therapeutic group home is a step-down program between residential treatment and when the child goes home. There are only two therapeutic group homes used now. When the Administrative Office of the Courts puts out a Request for Proposal for group homes that are sex offender specific, no one applies.

Mr. Faull said he would provide the Committee with a breakdown to show mandatory transfer and discretionary transfer, and which statutes fall within each of those. He mentioned that the 1996 ballot initiative was very clear and specific.

Chairman Johnson said the laws passed by the Legislature since that initiative could be looked at.

Senator Garcia mentioned that the issue back then was not the issue of sexual predators but of gang crime.

Chairman Johnson brought up the issue of access of youth to Internet pornography that was not available in 1996, and the tendency to act on that. Ms. Ophein agreed that is much more accessible to children now; however, in treatment, the triggers of most of her clients do not link back to sexual acts but to other triggers and events that are not always sexually-based.

Chairman Johnson asked members to review the meeting schedule and advise availability for meetings in October and November (Attachment 2).

Representative Chase stated there are concerns, issues and situations that will be very different for rural areas. Rural areas do not have the resources to provide many services, such as transportation. She asked that rural people be brought in to address rural issues.

Chairman Johnson asked members for ideas they would like to see pursued. Additionally, she asked members to advise staff if there are folks who members would like to hear from. She said she would like to keep the meetings approximately two hours long; one hour for presentations and one hour for public discussion.

Mr. Hlavac said he would like input from schools regarding the impact on them of youthful sex offenders, Child Protective Services and Juvenile Corrections.

Without objection, the meeting adjourned at 12:05 p.m.

___________________________________

Joanne Bell, Committee Secretary

July 6, 2016

(Original minutes, attachments and tape on file in the Chief Clerk’s Office)

---------- DOCUMENT FOOTER ---------

JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE ON

YOUTHFUL SEX OFFENDERS

October 5, 2006

---------- DOCUMENT FOOTER ---------

Members Present

Members Absent

Speakers Present