Legislation strengthens domestic abuse penalties
Two Interior lawmakers vote against measure
Published Sunday, April 20, 2008
Repeat domestic violence offenders become felons under a bill awaiting the governor’s signature.
The bill upgrades misdemeanor assaults to class C felonies for batterers with two previous assault convictions within 10 years of the new offense.
Class C felonies are punishable by up to five years in prison, followed by a period of supervised probation, compared with the one-year maximum punishment for misdemeanor assault. Convicted felons lose their gun rights under federal law.
The measure, House Bill 307, has its critics but is being hailed as a positive step toward combating a serious problem in Alaska.
“Hopefully, repeat offenders will get the message that this is not tolerable,” said Lisa Hay, executive director of LEAP Inc., a state-sanctioned alternatives to violence program in Fairbanks.
What the bill does
While the bill targets serial domestic violence offenders, it applies to anyone with repeated assaultive behavior. A physical assault must have taken place. Threats do not count.
The time clock for the previous assaults starts after the bill becomes law, so every offender starts with a clean slate.
“That allows us to get some education out there, so that people in this state will know what the penalties are so that they will be able to seek help,” said Chris Ashenbrenner, executive director of the Alaska Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault, a state agency.
The Alaska Department of Corrections is expecting the bill to result in about 450 new inmates during the next five years, according to spokesman Richard Schmitz.
The new law would help close a loophole that has frustrated victims’ advocates for years. Domestic violence offenders are typically ordered by a judge to take an anger management class, but many flout the judge’s order. Monitoring by a felony probation officer could change that.
“There are people out there who have many, many misdemeanor domestic violence charges and who never have to face any real consequences,” Hay said.
Other states’ laws
States are strengthening domestic violence laws in recent years, according to Denise Gamache, director of the Battered Women’s Justice Project in Minneapolis.
States have passed a variety of measures, including upgrading the charges involving offenses committed against pregnant women and offenses committed in front of a child.
“In most states, there definitely have been different kinds of legislation introduced to heighten the penalties on repeat offenders,” Gamache said. “It’s all part of our efforts over many years now to try to really figure out what it is that is going to change this behavior.”
Vermont, Delaware, Nevada and Illinois are among the states with laws similar to House Bill 307, said Peggy Brown, director of the Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault.
Brown said her colleagues in those states have not been happy with the effectiveness of the laws. Prosecutors too often are downgrading the charges in plea deals and in some cases expunging the convictions after offenders complete court-ordered treatment.
Politics behind the bill
Rep. Lindsey Holmes, D-Anchorage, introduced the bill, which has similar provisions as a bill by Gov. Sarah Palin. A handful of Interior lawmakers are among the bill’s 35 co-sponsors, both Democrats and Republicans.
“It was very, very bipartisan,” Holmes said. “Domestic violence is such a huge issue in the state. It’s not a Republican or a Democratic issue.”
Alaska ranks No. 2 behind Nevada for its number of women murdered by men.
The bill passed the House on March 26 with one no vote. Rep. Mike Kelly, R-Fairbanks, said he did not like the measure because it doled out special treatment for special crimes.
“I don’t like getting into your head about it if you are hitting somebody,” Kelly said.
The Senate unanimously passed the bill on April 11, but inserted some changes, making the felony upgrade apply to all assaults and adding a rider that toughened animal cruelty laws.
“That changed a little bit of the dynamics,” said Rep. John Coghill, R-North Pole. Coghill initially voted in support of the bill, but later voted against it after lawmakers attached the animal cruelty rider to the domestic abuse bill. Coghill said he thought it was improper to marry a domestic violence bill to an animal cruelty bill.
“Those are two very different issues, and they should have traveled differently,” he said.
Criticism of the bill
Bill Satterberg, a private attorney whose clientele includes domestic violence perpetrators, also does not like the bill’s final version, taking issue with the Senate’s adjustment of expanding the felony upgrade to all misdemeanor assaults.
“I recognize that we have got to do something to put an end to domestic violence for sure,” Satterberg said. “I think something of its version eventually should be signed, but I think this has gone a little bit too far.”
Brown is cautiously optimistic. Her concern lies with how the law would play out in rural Alaska, where victims are sometimes mistaken as perpetrators.
“We support the bill, but we’re looking very closely to see if there are unintended consequences,” Brown said.
How it will play out
State agencies are adopting a wait-and-see attitude as far as how they will deal with the new law.
Early cost estimates were reportedly in the tens of millions until lawmakers decided not to make the bill retroactive.
Misdemeanor assaults are a large portion of the cases handled by the Alaska Public Defender Agency, according to Quinlan Steiner, the director. He described the bill as high impact.
“It will certainly impact how we advise our clients,” Steiner said. “If you plead to or are convicted of misdemeanor assault, that could impact you in the future. I think that people will take that into account when making decisions about their cases.”
Fairbanks District Attorney Mike Gray said he is hopeful that the law, if enacted, serves as a deterrent.
“We’re just kind of going to have to wait and see how it works out.”
Comments
You article makes it seem as though people who are convivted as felons under this new law will no longer be able to have firearms. In reality as soon as they are convicted/plead guilty/plead no contest to a domestic violence charge, they can no longer own or posses a firearm.
This will most likely not work. I sure hope we could/would find another way to solve the domestic violence problem instead of creating a society seriously split by Felons vs. Non-Felons. We already have 2+ million U.S. citizens in our prison system, not to mention the millions with records.
The data of 450 new inmates in the next 5 years! That is more than 100% of our Fairbanks Jail capacity. This is crazy, there has got to be a better way.
But, I agree, Domestic Violence needs to stop too. But, creating a whole new class of felons, in all probability, is most likely not going to work. Seriously.
I hope, and hope again something does.
In an earlier article someone brought up the subject of domestic violence situations,and how the male rather than the female is usually the one that goes to jail.I don`t condone DV,but it seems like some other punishment should be used other than "take away your guns"unless firearms were used in the situation.
It would be a horrible thing to take away an outdoorsman`s right to hunt/protect themselves(or spouse)because the police believed a vengful wife instead of a (truly)honest husband in a heated argument.(there is a big possibility this could and probably will happen). Most laws have a "catch" to them even though they SEEM righteous.
This is not the right answer to the problem. Knowing how the current laws are enforced, this is going down the wrong path. If a cop gets called to an argument, the easiest thing for them to do is pick one person and take them in. They don't care what the consequences are for the people involved and their attitude is to let the courts figure it out. Now we have upped the ante which could have some unintended consequences. As a country we already have the highest percent of incarceration, mainly due to our failing drug policies.
What aggrevates me is that some one can damage someones property over $500 and it is a felony, but people can beat their significant other and it is only a misdemeanor. Why would an inanimate object be more important than a breathing person? A lot of laws need to be revised and not nesseccarily from a midemeanor to a felony, but the opposite.
I believe that people convicted of domestic violence should receive a harsher sentence but not for the reason that making it a felony would make it a deterrent. If that theory were true our jails would be empty. If you go to any jail in Alaska, count the inmates in yellow prison garb against the blue ones (felons are dressed in yellow and blue is misdemeanor). The yellow's outnumber the blue 100 to 2. Therefore crimes that are felonies are not a deterrant. The judges need to give a greater jail sentence for repeat offenders instead of the 30 or less days most people get. In order to balance the inmate population, some crimes that are currently felonies need to be knocked back to misdemenors. For example: Theft in the range of $50 to $25,000 is a felony. I believe theft of any kind is a serious crime but stealing a pair of shoes should not have the same weight as stealing a car. Damaging a door or car windshield valued over $500 is a felony, that dollar amount needs to be raised to reflect todays economy, that law was written 35 to 40 years ago when $500 was a lot of money. It is not hard to value an object at $500 or more these days, especially in a village. Another point is furnishing alcohol to a minor is a felony in a local option community but in a town that is not, furnishing is a misdeomeaner and most of the time is not even jailable. How can a law be a felony in one town in the same state and not in another? Isn't it the same act no matter where you are?
As for the anger management classes, there used to be 2 different classes, one for domestic violence and one for people who just get angry or fight people other than family. It has merged into one class and it is only of DV offenders. There are people in this class who have never committed DV and the class is not helping people with just anger issues.
I don't mean to get off on a tanget but the system has lots of flaws and soon everything will be a felony... um, felony jay walking, felony not wearing your seat belt...
My knee-jerk reaction to this law is YES, it’s about time! But then reality sits down and asks some hard questions.
I wonder what effort lawmakers put into evaluating the data from the other states that already have a similar law? Has there been an improvement in the number of domestic violence cases? How has it impacted the many facets of the legal system that are involved? In short, what sort of solid research was done prior to the passage of this bill – I know I would like to see some hard numbers and hear from a cross-section of people that have already been impacted by it.
With the possible exception of Mike Kelly, we all want to see solutions to decreasing the violence in our society and especially the domestic violence that is prevalent in our state. I just hope enough forethought went into the decision-making to ensure this doesn’t create more problems than the ones it was intended to solve.
As a footnote, I have to agree with John Coghill that it was improper to tack on an animal cruelty rider to this bill – I guess we can be thankful it wasn’t the other way around.
This is a simple rearrangement of the deck chairs on the Titanic, designed to make the lawmakers look good by being tough on crime. The undefined part of it is how will it actually change behavior. By making it a felony it simply incarcerates people longer. Warehousing them will not change their behavior. In fact they probably get a lot of instruction in the criminal arts when the solution is to force them to associate with felons.
I'm glad Mike Kelly made a stand against stupidity. We need rational laws, not liberal touchy-feely laws like this one.
Our recurring answer to every problem is to imprison. This country has the highest prison population and the highest percentage of it's population in prison in the world. Are we really the "home of the free" or are we the home of the "do as you are told"? This is about giving the government more power. If lawmakers wanted to help women in abusive relationships then they would make it legal for dads, brothers and friends of abused women to respond to the abusers in kind.
I think what it is important to remember is that this law is for SERIAL abusers!!! These are people who REPEATEDLY beat their spouses. Everyone starts with a clean slate right now. Any past abuse offenses are not counted. But starting now IF a person abuses their spouse then they get 1 strike. 3 times and then you are considered a felon.
What is wrong with that - as a felon they will finally be supervised through the anger management class almost all abusers receive as rehibilitation Even if the class isn't perfect -at least it is a start. No big surprise that a class full of angry people isn't liked by the people in it. Besides when there are more offenders going to the classes their will be more class options.
Another aspect of this law is that the abuse crimes have to be within 10 years of each other. Abuse is unacceptable, and it time this state started treating it as such.
I believe this IS a step in the right direction. The people committing these crimes are already felons - at least they have the title of one now.
In the event anyone looks back here - why an animal cruelty bill might be tacked on to one about Domestic Violence:
A link between animal abuse and domestic/family violence has been established. From the Humane Society web page (but also can be substantiated from other sites if needed):
"A survey of pet-owning families with substantiated child abuse and neglect found that animals were abused in 88 percent of homes where child physical abuse was present (DeViney, Dickert, & Lockwood, 1983). A study of women seeking shelter at a safe house showed that 71 percent of those having pets affirmed that their partner had threatened, hurt or killed their companion animals, and 32 percent of mothers reported that their children had hurt or killed their pets (Ascione, 1998). Still another study showed that violent offenders incarcerated in a maximumsecurity prison were significantly more likely than nonviolent offenders to have committed childhood acts of cruelty toward pets (Merz-Perez, Heide, & Silverman, 2001)."
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.