Judiciary Committee - Senate
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (28)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1474
Act 484
· 3 mentions in transcript, agenda, chapter
Matched: “…e here with Representative Johnny Joey Carr, um, to present HB 1474. You are welcome to join us at the table. Please introduce…”
|
CONCERNING THE PREVENTION OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING; AND TO REQUIRE THE DISPLAY OF INFORMATION ABOUT THE … | Joey Carr | Notification that HB1474 is now Act 484 |
|
SB300
Act 321
· 3 mentions in transcript
Matched: “…s, and this is my thought because what gave me this idea is Senate Bill 300. That Senator Gilmore ran last week, which has language in…”
|
TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF ORGANIZED RETAIL THEFT. | Gilmore | Notification that SB300 is now Act 321 |
|
SB302
Act 659
· 3 mentions in agenda, transcript, chapter
Matched: “…Matt McKee RE-REFERRED TO COMMITTEE Number Sponsor Subtitle SB302 Gilmore TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF GIFT CARD FRAUD;…”
|
TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF GIFT CARD FRAUD; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. | Gilmore | Notification that SB302 is now Act 659 |
|
SB393
Act 362
· 3 mentions in transcript, chapter, agenda
Matched: “Senate Bill 393, which would be very quick as well. All right, you are reco…”
|
TO AMEND THE SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT OF 1997. | D. Wallace | Notification that SB393 is now Act 362 |
|
HB1479
Act 418
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ECLARE AN EMERGENCY. REGULAR AGENDA Number Sponsor Subtitle HB1479 Warren TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING SCRIVENER'S AFFIDAVITS;…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING SCRIVENER'S AFFIDAVITS; AND TO ALLOW A LICENSED ENGINEER, SURVEYOR, OR … | Warren | Notification that HB1479 is now Act 418 |
|
HB1489
Act 302
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ARKANSAS CODE WHICH RESULTED FROM INITIATED ACT 3 OF 1936. HB1489 Wardlaw TO AMEND THE METHOD OF EXECUTION TO INCLUDE NITROGE…”
|
TO AMEND THE METHOD OF EXECUTION TO INCLUDE NITROGEN GAS. | Wardlaw | Notification that HB1489 is now Act 302 |
|
HB1527
Act 315
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1527 Hudson TO AMEND THE PERMISSIBLE INVESTMENTS A GUARDIAN OF T…”
|
TO AMEND THE PERMISSIBLE INVESTMENTS A GUARDIAN OF THE ESTATE MAY MAKE ON BEHALF OF … | Hudson | Notification that HB1527 is now Act 315 |
|
HB1581
Act 316
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1581 Henley TO ADD TRAFFICKING OF PERSONS TO THE LIST OF OFFENSE…”
|
TO ADD TRAFFICKING OF PERSONS TO THE LIST OF OFFENSES INCLUDED IN THE DEFINITION OF … | Henley | Notification that HB1581 is now Act 316 |
|
HB1609
Act 366
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1609 Lundstrum TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING HUMAN TRAFFICKING; TO…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING HUMAN TRAFFICKING; TO CREATE AN ENHANCED PENALTY FOR RECRUITING TRAFFICKED … | Lundstrum | Notification that HB1609 is now Act 366 |
|
SB314
Act 661
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB314 Irvin TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING SEXUAL SOLICITATION; AND…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING SEXUAL SOLICITATION; AND TO AMEND THE PENALTIES FOR THE OFFENSE … | Irvin | Notification that SB314 is now Act 661 |
|
SB325
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB325 A. Clark TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS JUVENILE CODE OF 1989; TO AM…”
|
TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS JUVENILE CODE OF 1989; TO AMEND THE CHILD MALTREATMENT ACT; TO … | A. Clark | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB326
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB326 A. Clark TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS JUVENILE CODE OF 1989 AND TH…”
|
TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS JUVENILE CODE OF 1989 AND THE CHILD MALTREATMENT ACT; TO MODIFY … | A. Clark | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB340
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB340 A. Clark TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING CERTAIN FEES, EXP…”
|
TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING CERTAIN FEES, EXPENSES, AND COSTS IMPOSED ON A JUVENILE OR … | A. Clark | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB342
Act 749
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB342 A. Clark TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING INJURIES TO CERTAIN AN…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING INJURIES TO CERTAIN ANIMALS BY DOGS TO AUTHORIZE TREBLE DAMAGES. | A. Clark | Notification that SB342 is now Act 749 |
|
HB1552
Act 420
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…Wallace TO AMEND THE SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT OF 1997. HB1552 Gazaway TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CERTAIN INCHOATE OFFENS…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CERTAIN INCHOATE OFFENSES RELATED TO FENTANYL; AND TO ESTABLISH THE … | Gazaway | Notification that HB1552 is now Act 420 |
|
HB1593
Act 358
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…DEFINITION OF SEX OFFENSE FOR RIGHTS OF VICTIMS OF A CRIME. HB1593 Wooldridge CONCERNING THE REPORTS MADE TO THE GOVERNOR AND…”
|
CONCERNING THE REPORTS MADE TO THE GOVERNOR AND THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY BY THE BOARD OF … | Wooldridge | Notification that HB1593 is now Act 358 |
|
SB143
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…SB6 B. King TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF VACCINE HARM. SB143 B. King TO AUTHORIZE THE DIVISION OF ARKANSAS STATE POLICE…”
|
TO AUTHORIZE THE DIVISION OF ARKANSAS STATE POLICE TO COORDINATE WITH LOCAL SHERIFFS AND THE … | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB144
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…TY CORRECTION IN CRIME REDUCTION AND PREVENTION ACTIVITIES. SB144 B. King CONCERNING THE BACKLOG OF INMATES AWAITING TRANSFER…”
|
CONCERNING THE BACKLOG OF INMATES AWAITING TRANSFER TO THE DIVISION OF CORRECTION; TO PROVIDE FOR … | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB145
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…Y JAIL- STATE INMATE CLOSE-TO-HOME SENTENCING PARTNERSHIPS. SB145 B. King TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING THE ALLOCATION OF…”
|
TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING THE ALLOCATION OF FUNDS RESULTING FROM LITIGATION INVOLVING THE USE … | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB277
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ND RECORD A SCRIVENER'S AFFIDAVIT IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. SB277 J. Bryant TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE CRIMINAL RECORD SEALIN…”
|
TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE CRIMINAL RECORD SEALING ACT OF 2013; AND TO PERMIT THE FILING … | J. Bryant | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB321
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…w TO AMEND THE METHOD OF EXECUTION TO INCLUDE NITROGEN GAS. SB321 J. Bryant TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE STATE ADMINISTRAT…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE STATE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE FUND. | J. Bryant | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB355
Act 1000
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…estrictions designating areas as 'Members and Staff Only'. SB355 J. Bryant TO AMEND THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF OBSTRUCTING GOVE…”
|
TO AMEND THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF OBSTRUCTING GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS. | J. Bryant | Notification that SB355 is now Act 1000 |
|
SB356
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…HE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF OBSTRUCTING GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS. SB356 J. Bryant TO ALLOW DISCLOSURE TO A JUDGE OF INFORMATION OBT…”
|
TO ALLOW DISCLOSURE TO A JUDGE OF INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM THE ARKANSAS CRIME INFORMATION CENTER … | J. Bryant | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB364
Act 750
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT OR CRIME VICTIMS REPARATIONS BOARD. SB364 Hester TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES RELATED TO CONTRACTORS. | Hester | Notification that SB364 is now Act 750 |
|
SB375
Act 662
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB375 Stone TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF CAPITAL RAPE; AND TO AMEND A…”
|
TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF CAPITAL RAPE; AND TO AMEND A PORTION OF ARKANSAS CODE … | Stone | Notification that SB375 is now Act 662 |
|
SB404
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “AGENDA (Revised 3/7/2025 @ 8:20 AM) Added SB404 Senate Committee on Judiciary Monday, March 10, 2025 15 Min…”
|
TO REQUIRE NOTIFICATION TO THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE PROBATE OF AN … | J. Boyd | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB5
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…GAINST THE DECEDENT. DEFERRED BILLS Number Sponsor Subtitle SB5 B. King TO ADD THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF PRESCRIPTION DRUG HA…”
|
TO ADD THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF PRESCRIPTION DRUG HARM OR HOMICIDE. | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB6
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF PRESCRIPTION DRUG HARM OR HOMICIDE. SB6 B. King TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF VACCINE HARM. SB1…”
|
TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF VACCINE HARM. | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- SliQ live captions
- Model
- SliQ live ASR
- Processing date
- October 2, 2026
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
0:17
any questions, but I will ask for a uh adoption of the
amendment. We've got a motion to adopt amendment. We've got a second any discussion? All right, all in favor to adopt the amendment to 302, say aye, and impose like
sign. All right, looks like uh yeah, the, the amendment is adopted, and I believe Senator Gilmore, we need to discuss 3 or 2
as amended again, I'm not going to belabor the point. I know we have a
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
0:44
long agenda, so with that you've I heard the presentation, it
hasn't changed outside of adding these corrections. I move, uh, well, I'm happy to take questions, but I'd move due past the
appropriate time. Any questions for Senator Gilmore? So in none, we have a motion. We have a 2nd, uh, all in favor to pass as amended Senate Bill 302. Say aye, and pose like sign. I congrats Senator Gilmore, your bill is passed as amended. All right, members, let's take a look here.
Um, Senator Tucker, would you like to present 1527. Are you prepared for that? OK. Oh. Sorry. I'm sorry, Senator
Tucker, can we wait for one second on that one? OK. All right, let's go. Senator Irving, you're
You you're invited the table, identify yourself, please.
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:58
Uh, thank you, Senator Missy Irvin, District 24. And
you, your guests, please recognize yourself. Alex spent in Attorney General's office. Thank you, and Senator Irving, which bill would you
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
2:12
like to present today? So we have actually 3 bills. The first one is Senate bill, um, I think 3:14.
Speaker 21
2:20
OK, we'll start with 314. You're organized.
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
2:22
Thank you so again, remember you heard testimony on this bill on Senate
Bill 314, um, what this does is it heightens the penalties for those people who are trying to purchase sex from the purchase sex, and Again, this is one of the bills in our 3 bill package to combat human trafficking. Um, this bill is designed to try to um eliminate the need, the, the, the demand for the human traffickers and by increasing
the penalties for those who are soliciting sex. The first offense would still be an unclassified misdemeanor but increased the fine to at least $1000 and no more than 120 days in jail on the second offense would be a class D felo. First is, first, I'm sorry. 1st 1st offenses cost a misdemeanor. Sorry. I'd be happy to answer any questions. All right, I see Senator McKee recognized for a
question. was chairman, so it looks like we're eliminating a limitation.
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
3:32
Do you, can you talk a little bit about what a Class A misdemeanor. Uh would include and why they may be included those limitations. In the beginning, or Is that
something you can explain. Yeah Yes I'm in favor of
Speaker 18
3:52
the bill trying to understand it. Senator, a class A misdemeanor in Arkansas is the most serious misdemeanor level in Arkansas, and it can result in a fine up
to $2500 and up to one year in jail, so that's the ceiling penalties on a Class A misdemeanor. So that is removing
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
4:12
a limitation on the sentence that could be imposed. OK, thank you. All right, Senator Tucker, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I just want to mention
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
4:22
kind of my thought that I had that I mentioned to you last week, Senator Irvi, and just maybe share it for the
benefit of the committee too. I recognize there's a problem.
And so I'm not disputing. I, I have no dispute about that. Uh, there may be a problem with the bill and that we're not doing enough to address what the what the real issue is, and this is my thought because what gave me this idea is Senate Bill 300. That Senator Gilmore ran last week, which has language in it. That bill was about retail theft, and you may not shoplift enough at one time to qualify for a certain penalty
and so there's a 120 day time period where you can accumulate the total value and then be punished accordingly rather than just for a one-off offense, right? And so My concern with the bill is that we're increasing penalties for a one-off offense when people may not be engaged in human traffic in human trafficking, but if someone is doing this for the purpose of Grooming or whatever the word is for human trafficking, it's going to, it's going to happen more than once, right? It's going to happen more than twice
even. And so the thought that I had for that I threw out to Senator Irvin was If it happens a certain number of times over a certain time period, then maybe that's what we're after. It seems like that's the conduct that we're after, right, and there should be a bigger penalty for that sort of conduct. Anyway, go ahead. No,
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
6:01
and I appreciate it and I appreciate our visit that we had last week, um, and I, I appreciate the idea
that you gave to me. However, I really honestly just I thought about it this weekend, and I just don't know if the total value of retail crime and merchandise is equivalent to a nine year old. A 9 year old who's being sold for sex, repeatedly. Uh, because sexual solicitation and sexual solicitation. And so I, I can't imagine 4th offense, I can't imagine subjecting a nine year old,
12-year-old, 13-year-old, 16 year old, you know, to, to that crime over and over and over again to establish a pattern of behavior to get to a, a more increased penalty. I do want the maximum amount of penalty. I mean, trust me, I mean, if you're paying for sex, to have sex with a nine year old child. I mean, I think you should spend a lifetime in prison for that, um, and I, I, so I, I did consider what you had proposed, not just appreciate it, but at
this point, I don't, I don't think that would be necessary
for me or that have any appetite to really change the bill, but I do appreciate your thoughts about
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
7:23
it. So I mean if you sell a 9 year old into human trafficking, that's a classy felony and you're subject to life imprisonment without parole, and and I'm in agreement with that. Um, you know, this is the question I have is in some ways it's whether this goes far enough because the value of Senate Bill 300 was To not to lower the penalty. I
agree with you that they're not the same thing, totally obviously agree. But the value is that if you do this consistent behavior over a period of time, then the penalty gets worse, right? And, and that's what I think the intent of this bill is, but it's not included in the bill. Like if you do if it's 6, just for example, I'm just making up an example, but if you engage in this 6 times over a 6 month period, the penalty should really be, I think you are probably someone who's initiating human trafficking. If you do it 6 times over a 6 month
period, and the penalty should be worse than a class D felony in that instance. And so I, I just, anyway. But that's, so I think we're we're going too broad in the sense that we're raising the penalty for someone who might just might just not might not be a human trafficker and just do it one time and then the penalty doesn't go far enough for the people who actually are engaging in this behavior. So anyway. I'm, I'm gonna have
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
8:40
Ms. Benton with the Attorney General's office respond to that. I mean
these bills were a result of a pretty hefty investigation and a lot of policy work that occurred at the Attorney General's office. If you'll recall, a lot of our human trafficking bills when we initially set up the crime of human trafficking, we basically created a a depository within the Attorney General's office that create that was a policy function to bring to us additional recommendations and so if you don't mind, I'd like Ms. Benton to address that.
Speaker 53
9:18
Senator Tucker, I, I, I totally take your point. I think that the distinguishing the distinguishment
Speaker 18
9:25
that I would make is Senate Bill 300 deals in aggregating a monetary value which can be easily ascertained over a period of time versus when prosecuting a claim and needing to look at some sort of like pattern of behavior, I think, you know, if we looked at, you know, 6 times before it becomes a felony, I think. Then you're asking the
prosecutors to sort of have 6 prosecutions in one and to now need to make them prove beyond a reasonable doubt that on 6 separate occurrences that this has the solicitation has occurred, um, before it could rise to the level there. So I think that I would distinguish it there, um. But, but I think that you make a good point in terms of wanting to look at a course of conduct, and I think that that's the intent of why we wanted to increase instead of an unclassified misdemeanor have
the first as a class A, um, which then leaves a paper trail and then you look at your course of conduct and then you have your second occurrence, which then becomes felonious conduct, so we did we did endeavor to to have some sort of pattern of behavior that is maybe not as easily as has expunged um in terms of creating a record for the perpetrators here. OK. That's a fair, it's a fair point about 6 prosecutions
Speaker 55
10:45
in 1. All right, thank you and arrests that would be really tough, I would think.
Any other questions, members? All right, seeing none. We do have one sign up to speak against on
the bill, and so we would welcome
Speaker 60
11:11
Mr. Jeff Rosensweig. Please identify yourself in the record.
Speaker 62
11:14
Jeff Rosensweig, Arkansas Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. This bill is unnecessary, and it's going to be subject to a lot of abuse. Why is it unnecessary? 5
Arkansas Code 518104, uh, do you, which is in the law, already deals with what Senator Irvin says this bill is for. It's called patronizing a victim of human trafficking and it criminal is not only sexual activity but also the solicitation for with regard to minors, we already have a all bills and laws in existence, sexual solicitation
Speaker 63
11:53
of a minor and within human
trafficking, also grooming a miner for future sexual trafficking and traveling for the purpose of an unlawful sexual unlawful sex acts with a minor. The bill that they're trying to make a felony for a second offense has nothing to do with human trafficking. Anything having to do with
Speaker 62
12:19
human trafficking or that someone reasonably suspects is human trafficking is is already a law already already felonies. What this,
what this does is will felonize the second time someone allegedly even brings up the idea of sex. No sex. need to have occurred and as a result, I can guarantee you it will be subject to all sorts of abuse because there are no sex act is needed. All someone has to do is say he solicited me for sex or she solicited me for sex
or whatever, that's it. And if the second time makes it a felony. It it it casts way too wide a net is subject to all sorts of abuse and everything. that the senator wants to target is already in the law. Thank you for testimony. Members, any questions, Mr. Rodenwe? All
right. Thank you, Mr. Rosen. I appreciate it. All right, no one signed up. No one else has signed
up for or against anybody in the crowd,
want to speak for or against. See none. Um, Senator Irving, you
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
13:42
are free to close for your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I, I would say I care just as deeply about a woman who was brought here from Vietnam or from the Philippines who
Speaker 65
13:52
is a woman who is also a victim of human trafficking and so is this bill necessary? Absolutely it's necessary to say that it's unnecessary is to ignore the horrific industry crime of human
trafficking, and just because somebody accuses you of something doesn't mean that a prosecutor's going to prosecute you and find you guilty. That is a matter of a court. Of law or have we just thrown that out the window? I think there's judges and I think there's prosecuting attorneys and I think there is due process. So just because you have a law and you've increased the penalties does not mean automatically that these people are just going to be thrown into a high state security prison, you still have to process, you still have prosecutorial authority and decision making, and you still have a judge. I
mean, a patronizing victim of human trafficking requires that the perpetrator to know the victim is, is traffic. So it's a different mental state and so, um, and often, you know, so I think it's a very, very important bill, um, and we've got to cut off the demand of sex in order to fight the crime of human trafficking. That is exactly what this bill is designed to do. I
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
14:58
appreciate a good vote from the members of the committee. Thank you, Senator. Appreciate discussion on the bill, and
thank you for your heart to bring this bill. I did see a motion from Senator Gilmore to pass. I see a second from Senator McKee. Any discussion on the on the motion. see none. What is the will of the committee, I'm sorry, the vote of do pass all
in favor say aye. opposed say no. All right, congratulations, Senator Irving,
your bill is passed. Thank you, members, let's go to um Senator Wallace, I see you
there, sir. Um, I believe you're here with Representative Johnny Joey Carr, um, to present HB 1474. You are welcome to join us at the table. Please introduce yourself for the record. HB 1474 Sir Center Dave Wallace, District 19. Thank you, Senator
Speaker 69
16:00
Wallace, and I believe we've got an amendment in front of us. Is that correct? We do amendment does two things. It adds a sponsor,
Senator Dave Wallace
Unverified
16:12
but probably even more important, it adds that the signs will be placed in restrooms as well. All right.
Thank you, Senator Wallace. Members, any questions on the amendment? So in none, I see a motion by Senator Gilmore and a second by Senator Rice all in favor of adoption of the amendment, say aye, pose like signed. Congratulations, you're amendment is adopted. You may present the bill
Senator Dave Wallace
Unverified
16:37
as adopted. Remember this is a bill that works to prevent the human
trafficking and it requires a display of information about human trafficking, specifically litter size poster that will be placed in restrooms and other conspicuous areas of certain facilities. Those facilities would be a hotel or a motel or other establishment that has been cited as a public nuisance for prostitution
or a strip club or other sexually oriented business. Or an airport.
Thank you, Senator also apply to a train station, a bus station. And a privately owned and operated facility that provides food, fuel, shower, and other sanitary facilities and overnight parking that is within 1320 ft of an interstate. So to summarize, we're we're trying to get pollsters up. In businesses. Uh, centers where we see our, our
young folks being trafficked by sexual predators. Thank you, Senator Wallace, and you may have mentioned this, but what's
Senator Dave Wallace
Unverified
18:07
exactly on the posters? It basically says that if you are a victim. Here's a phone number where you can call. It's a national hotline. Wonderful. OK,
members, you've heard the description of the bill. Any questions? Yes, Senator,
OK. All right, see no questions. We have anybody
signed up. See none. Anybody in the room for or against? I like to speak, see none. Senator Walsh, you are closed. All right, we have a
motion to pass as amended, we have a 2nd from Senator McKee as amended, all in favor of the bill as amended, say aye, imposed like sign. Congratulations, Senator Wallace and Representative Carr, your bill's
passed. Thank you, sir, Mr. Chair, I also have a
Senator Dave Wallace
Unverified
18:59
Senate Bill 393, which would be very quick as well. All right, you are recognized. OK, this, this is an amendment to A bill that was passed in 1997. It simply makes a good law better. The, the law now reads. That for certain sexual offends. There's gonna be a lifetime
registration. Uh, in the past it's been for
folks that have an aggravated sexual offense. Anybody that was a level 4 sexual sexually dangerous person. A person had been found guilty of a 2nd. Our subsequent sexual offenses. An individual that was convicted of rape. Or an individual that was guilty of failing to comply with re assertion 3 or more times, and that actually happens a lot. What this bill adds to
that is that the time of the offense.
If the individual, if the predator was more than 24 years old, so 25 and above, and the victim was less than 15. Then they go on the lifetime sexual offenders list and they can never come off. And with that, I stand by for your questions. Um, Senator, just
Speaker 55
20:26
to, I guess a question for me is where did you come up with the
Speaker 69
20:31
ages? Is is that other states with similar it's, it's this is what was
Senator Dave Wallace
Unverified
20:37
recommended to me by some prosecutors, there's a wide range we can
go higher or we can go lower, and that was what they thought was was fair and reasonable. OK. Thank you.
Chair
Unverified
20:49
Members, any questions? Senator Stubberfe records Wallace, uh, thank you for the bill first of all. I've gotten
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
20:59
old, but I still have the ability to distinguish between what's right and what's wrong. Uh, what if the, uh,
Individual who commits a crime gives an illegal immigrant. How is that handled? Well, my understanding
Senator Dave Wallace
Unverified
21:18
now is if if one, if they're in jail or in prison here in Arkansas that we're going to notify ICE. That's not a part of this bill, but that's what I believe will happen. So even
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
21:31
though they, they commit the crime. They will be deported. standing justice here.
Senator Dave Wallace
Unverified
21:42
Senator Stofield, I, I don't know that answer. I, I, I would think that if they committed
a crime, they would be tried. For the crime, and I would hope do the time here before they're deported. But I don't know that answer.
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
21:55
But they wouldn't spend, would they spend jail time here if they were convicted and found
Senator Dave Wallace
Unverified
22:01
guilty. Senator Stofield, I believe so, but that, that's not really part of this bill. I don't know the answer to that. OK. That, that, uh, I would hope that they would be.
Chair
Unverified
22:13
Like Richard. Senator Tucker recognized. Yeah, if someone commits a crime in
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
22:20
the United States if they're not a US citizen, then we can, we can punish them here. Yeah, we we certainly can do that depending on the circumstances, the government might want to make a decision to send the person back to their country. It wouldn't be, they wouldn't be deported because But they would be extradited back to their country and handed over to law enforcement there if that's the decision we made, but it's, it's our option to punish someone in the United States for
a crime committed here in the, yes they can, yeah. Any other questions on this bill? Hm You do right, see none, no one has signed up for or against. Senator, are you closed. Thank you. We've got a motion to pass. We have a second. All those in favor saying I. Like sign
by no. All right, congratulations, your bill is passed. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, members
All right, Senator Tucker, would you like to present your bill? All right, remember, this is going to be House Bill 15271527. Please identify
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
23:32
yourself for the record. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Clark Tucker, State Senator District 14.
This is an easy bill. There's a couple of circumstances where You have to follow
certain laws about where you're allowed to invest funds if you're a
guardian of a ward or even if it's your own child, but there's a settlement of a certain value than the court administers the settlement, and there's a list. Of ways that you can invest the funds for someone who you're the guardian of and this just adds a 529 account to the list. I have a constituent who whose son was in an incident. There's a settlement. My constituent wants to invest the settlement proceeds into a 529 account where it can grow over time for her son's college education
right now she can't do that and it's just sitting in a savings account where it earns interest at a very low rate. That's, that's really, it just is empowering. parents Um, to invest funds that are settlement proceeds into a 529 account. That's that's it. All right, thank you for presenting the
bill. Senator Gilmore, do you recognize your question? I think I have an amendment,
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
24:45
Senator Tucker. I don't. I just wanted the opportunity to say that to you
since you say it to us all the time. Uh, no, so the 684101 that's referenced, I'm assuming that is the 529 statute. OK, thank you. All right,
members, any other questions? All right, see none, uh, we do not have anybody signed up for or against. Correct? OK, Senator, you're pretty close. Thank you, members. No known opposition to
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
25:20
the bill. A vote for this bill is a vote for parental freedom, and with that
I'm closed. Thank you. Here we go. All right, members, we have a motion to pass. We have a second. All those in favor signaled by saying I pose like sign. Congratulations,
Senator, your bill is passed. All right, Senator Johnson, we'll go to yours, which is house Bill. Sure. 1489. Senator Johnson, please recognize yourself for the record.
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
25:52
Thank you, Chairman and members. Senator Blake Johnson, District 21, 1489 allows nitrogen hypoxia as a alternative form of execution.
Senator Johnson, thank you for that. Overwhelming description of the bill. um members, any questions for the senator? Senator Tucker, you recognized? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
26:37
Johnson, to my knowledge, this has only been used once in the United States in the state of Alabama. Is that right? Successfully. What does that mean? He died. OK. Has it been used unsuccessfully somewhere else? Well, there is an issue
Speaker 126
26:53
in that in that process. So the one in
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
26:58
Alabama, so, OK, there's not another instance other than the one in Alabama that we know, OK, um, so there's a, I read an account from a priest who actually lives in North Little Rock who was present for that execution, and the way
he described it is the person who was being executed was was being tortured.
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
27:18
Can you speak to that? I don't think this is a torture bill. I think this is a method, an alternative method of execution, uh, in this, it's not the hydrogen, it's not the
nitrogen that kills individual. It's the buildup of CO2 and in a normal case that buildup would they would pass out and die naturally because of the buildup of CO2. I think in that case, that individual was trained to uh to uh go against. multiple ways of execution. I think he was trained the first time that they tried to do it. He dehydrated himself and made it hard to get the chemical wait
to be done, and this time he held his breath, and whenever you hold your breath, your body naturally goes into convulsions, this way if you just breathe naturally that CO2 level increases and you pass out and you pass away peacefully. How do we know that
Speaker 127
28:16
he was holding his breath? Well, that's the only way that happens. OK. So aside from that, we don't
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
28:25
have an example of where it has been administered, where
Unknown speaker
28:32
It it happened peacefully. Well, not yet. No. All right, thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator. To get this out here. Just wait.
Thank you, members. While we swap chairs, And if
the chair would would allow me to ask a question at this time. Thank you. um, Senator Johnson, thank you for bringing the
bill up. I had some questions. Just to catch me up to speed on our death penalty. Um If you could remind me of some of the offenses or crimes that that cause um Criminals to receive death
penalties. Capital murder. Yes, can you, can you help me put that in the frame of light
Speaker 126
29:44
a little bit. killed somebody intentionally. I mean, that's and the jury and this is, these orders are only, only given for those very serious offenses and have went through
Speaker 142
29:55
the judicial process. This will just allow us Another, another tool for for the corrections to be able to go
through the process that's been ordered by the
courts. Yeah So you, so this is, this is. Focusing on our worst of worst criminals
Speaker 142
30:19
have 25 in in on death row and some of them have been there approximately 30 years and
they remain on death row. For long periods of time, it's my understanding because of the
um the type of of capital punish punishment procedures. Um, and
issues alongside of that, so this would actually bring clarity to that law and another option, is that, is that right? Give
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
30:46
us another option, yes. I think it's just my opinion, but I think it's cruel and unusual
Speaker 126
30:51
to be on that with that sentence for that long. Central ice, you recognize? Thank you, uh, Senator Johnson, the
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
31:10
Going back through the years and listening. And I did read the testimony from the one that watched the Alabama, uh, Nitrogen gas. Execution, but I thought back in that and, and I sure don't. I'm not flipping about this at all. That penalty is very serious, but it's it's reserved for very serious crimes. But isn't this the same kind of
And uh execution testimony we get when we had phenobarbital, when we have the electrical. Execution. I think everything and then I saw one the other day where South Carolina. Did a death by firing squad because that's what the The one being executed or requested. So I, I hear the same anti-death penalty with with
all things. Do you see anything different in
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
32:12
this? Well, it's, it's uh the same thing has happened, you know, with chemical process, those manufacturers don't want their chemistry to be named in that process. The three leading manufacturers of the ni nitrogen gas don't want it to be used in this process. But there's 3, there's 3 methods to distill the nitrogen out of that naturally occurring in our air, it's 78% of what we breathe, so chemically and
mechanically we can, we can do that process ourselves if needed if we can't get those, you know, those gasses through the traditional buying method and this will
Speaker 142
32:49
give us an alternative that we will be able to to to to go through with. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator Johnson, yes sir. Thank you for waiting till I got back. The Uh
Who sets the Who decides that there
Chair
Unverified
33:20
is a death penalty. Uh, in a law, it's a judicial process. It can be the more than likely a jury or a judge. I want to back up further than that. Who decides that it's actually in the law.
Well, we do. We, and we are the legislature. And we represent who? The people we represent the people, so if we have a death
penalty, that people have decided that a death penalty is necessary, correct? And then moving on to your next answer. If actually in a case. That's considered serious enough for a death penalty. If a death penalty is selected, Then it's, you said jury more than likely it's a juror, which is The people and a judge. And an elected judge, I assume, so we respect the judiciary.
And then one of the reasons it takes so long is we have numerous appeals that go through more judges. Yes. Wouldn't it be wrong of us not to be sure that the people's will is enacted once we've got to this point, I
Chair
Unverified
34:35
think if we didn't act, it would be wrong and like I
Speaker 126
34:40
said, it's cruel and unusual for somebody to be placed. On that row for for extended period of time, I think if that
Speaker 142
34:50
issue is given, it should be, should be taken up as soon as
possible. OK, thank you. Thank you. Other questions? See none of Senator. That's not a question. It's just a
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
35:09
statement. I know that Mississippi and Oklahoma are also considering this topic execution, but, uh, I have been to death row and walked through that chamber and Uh
Senator, you're right, some of those, some of those men A lot of those men instead of sitting there for 20 and 30 years in a small cell, rarely ever seeing the sun would rather it be carried out quicker. And, uh, It's a sad situation, but you also have to remember some of these men have done some heinous, heinous things that, uh, you know, when you kill someone and there's a person, you forfeit your own life.
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
35:54
In a premeditated murder, you forfeit your own life. That's really not man's law. That's God's law. So it's all I have
to say. Other questions? Saying none, we have some people signed up to testify against. We will start at the top of the
list, uh, with Kristen Nguyen. And this is not Intended for you, Ms. Wyn, but for everyone, you and everyone else in the room, we have a long agenda. We're going to do our best to get through it, because we're at a point where legislators, if their bills are going to pass, need to get them out and moving, so I would ask that everyone that testifies
today keep your remarks succinct. Say what you need to say, and don't be like me and say it 2 or 3 times, and if we have have any questions for you, we will ask them. Would you have done identify yourself for the record. Thank you, Mr.
Kristen Nguyen
Unverified
37:14
Chairman. My name is Kristen Nguyen, and I'm here with Arkansas Public Policy Panel. You don't have to worry about me coming in with the civil rights issues. I'm actually here to talk about the economic
implications of this bill. Every day at work, I open up my laptop and I promise I'm going to keep this short and I have a sticky note there, and that sticky note says $48,0752. That is the average salary of an Arkansan. $48,000752. My concern with this bill. is that even though we have people sitting on death row. If we pass this, we're going to
give a fast forward button for people to then seek more capital murder convictions. And then we also have to look at the price of a new prison that we have. That will eventually be passed and go into construction. Then I look at the policy that's coming down, and we have a new bill on capital rate. My question is this. Does this state really have the type of money to continue seeking this type of penalty.
Because at my job what I look at is the economic impact. And this is a big ticket item. When you look at life in prison, Even with The entire trial. It comes in around with 20 years in prison. $627,142. A capital murder conviction comes in at 1 billion,500,0981
dollars. Now, I understand that we have a lot of talk about our state surplus. And I think everyone that's in this legislature who's had a part in that should be very proud that we have a surplus. But at the same time, we need to start talking about the cult facts and change that narrative because your constituents hear a surplus, and they think that we're very well. wealthy and we're not. We are a red state and we are a very poor state. For every $1 that we pay into the Federal
Reserve. We take back almost $1.70 in federal subsidies. Those federal subsidies. Help our hospitals. Which we know are failing. They help our public schools. They help our infrastructure. We take way more than we give. And even though we have a surplus, what is this going to do if we put this in fast forward and we continue to seek this. All that I'm asking is for us to maybe look at more ways and I
understand you already have convictions. We have what, around 25 people on death row. You have people and families that are waiting for these people to be executed, and I do understand that. But what happens when this bill passes, and this bill has passed quickly. I looked for a financial statement on it. I didn't see one. It was filed less than a month ago. It's already here. I haven't seen any breakdown. No one has seen any breakdown on it.
And once again, once this happens. What is going to be the economic result of that? Thank you for your time. I promised I would keep it short. And that's all Questions from committee.
So no, thank you. Thank you. That well, Mr. Rosenwa.
Speaker 62
41:08
Jeff Rosenwa, Arkansas Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, whatever one thinks about the death penalty whether we should have it or not have it, this bill has the same flaws that caused the previous iteration of the method of execution act to be struck down in 2012 by the Arkansas Supreme Court. That is vesting way too much discretion in the prison system or
Things that were supposed to be legislative choices in the in 2012, the Hobbs versus Jones. They said you could not, you could not vest in the Department of Correction, what sort of drugs to use in this and had several other delegation problems, separation of powers problems. This has a lot of the same problems. It doesn't.
gives no guidance whatever as to which method to use either nitrogen, hypoxia, or uh or lethal injection. Who makes that choice? What criteria are to be used for making that choice whether this is whether the nitrogen is going to be applied by a mask or whether they're going to build essentially a gas chamber. both of the two, the two
versions have, you know, have their own have their own uh each have their own potential problems it does not, it does not say anything about the purity or of the of the gas that is going to be used it also and if and when it passes, and I'm assuming it'll pass you so you're Not going to avoid that litigation, which is meritorious
litigation under Hobbs versus Jones, and you've got you've got additional, you know, problems of cruel and unusual punishment that are going to be have to sort of have to be sorted out for instance, the American veterinary Medical Association says you should not use nitrogen or hypox. for the euthanasia of mammals.
It's OK for chicken and turkeys, but essentially not mammals and of course the courts are going to have to sort out the cruel and unusual part of that, whether this violates the Eighth Amendment and the more botched executions we will see the more more strength those challenges will have, but, but again this bill fails the Hobbs versus Jones test, and
you'll be back here in 2 years or so trying to fix it. Questions for Mr. Rosensweig. Mr. Rosensweig, do
Speaker 62
44:33
we have approved methods of execution that have been tried and worked. Well, people have been a number of people have been executed with lethal injection. Some of those executions would qualify as botched in some way or another, yes, but my question is they did work.
Speaker 184
44:50
Or if people have been executed, yes, if
that if that's the goal. I can't remember anyone in Arkansas that we attempted to execute. We didn't
Speaker 62
45:00
execute. Can you? In my lifetime. Uh, we, we have not had a failed execution here. Now we've had one a number of years ago. In fact, I was a witness to it, the rector execution. This was early in the lethal injection regime that is now understood as a boxed execution because of the sheer length of time it took for
Speaker 183
45:21
him to die, but that was how long ago?
1992. OK, so we're in this century, 2033 years since that one. Yes, sir, approximately so so we do have methods that work. That have worked Why are we not using those? Well, my understanding is they have a
Speaker 183
45:44
problem getting drugs. There you go. Thank you, Mr. Rosenwa.
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
45:52
Senator Stopville, Mr. Rose? Yes. What would be wrong with using the same type of uh The same method that the criminal used to kill the victim. On the criminal. What
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
46:07
would be wrong with it? Well, if a, if a man strangles his wife or kills, cuts little
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
46:15
kids up. Why couldn't we use that same method of execution on him.
Speaker 201
46:23
Or her? Well, the Eighth Amendment would prohibit it. There's, it cannot, you cannot have
Speaker 62
46:29
a remember this is the government doing something, not a private actor, and, and the government is bound by the Eighth Amendment of the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments and the equivalent languages in the Arkansas Constitution. So what you're saying to me
Speaker 62
46:54
than the victims. No, sir, I'm not saying that. I'm, I'm
Speaker 206
46:59
saying that the government is bound in a way that private
citizens are not. Senator Johnson, you recognize, I'm sorry, Senator Sheffield, were you
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
47:12
done? Well, You know, we're only bound, we're bound by the government. Based on the powers that the government was granted through the Constitution. Other than that, we are not bound to them.
All the other powers went to the states. To choose
Speaker 62
47:33
for themselves, because every state is sovereign. Well, the 8th Amendment has applies throughout the United States and I'm confident that the that the United States Supreme Court would not would not countenance strangulation as a method of execution.
Hi Michelle, Senator Johnson, you recognize, Mr. Rosensweig.
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
48:02
Do you find it? Fairly cruel and unusual for somebody to be sentenced to death. And being in a holding pattern for
Speaker 62
48:22
certainly it certainly is what would qualify as cruel in it might not
qualify as unusual because there are plenty of people who have served more
Speaker 63
48:34
than 30 years in prison, and it has to be the US Supreme Court says that the punishment must be both cruel and unusual. So And an order
Speaker 142
48:49
of execution without that order. Being followed. I consider pretty cool.
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
49:02
And to continue to disallow Methods of execution through the process. That put them In that That's pretty cruel. This uh This just gives us another method to to to do what the
Speaker 63
49:23
court has asked. Yes, sir. I, I understand that, and this
Speaker 62
49:27
is why I was pointing out that this bill in its current form has some of the
same procedural flaws or structural flaws that Hobbs versus Jones has. Now those, those problems were rectified or the Arkansas Supreme Court said they were rectified in the Hobbs versus McGehee case in 20. 15 when when the legislature of 15 when when the legislature essentially took control of the process as opposed to delegating everything to the Department of Correction. And I'm, I'm
suggesting that the Arkansas Supreme Court would likely find that the same problems appear in this. Now they can be fixed if someone wants to wants to, but there would have to be legislative choices. made as far as the who makes the decision, what criteria for the decision how the nitrogen is to be applied, that type of thing is a is the makeup of the Supreme
Speaker 142
50:28
Court now the same as it was during that opinion of Hobbs? No. All right, thank you.
Any other questions from the committee? Say none. Thank you, Mr. Rosensweig. Sarah Moore. Ms. Moore, would you identify yourself with the record and who, if anyone, you represent? Thank you,
Sarah Moore
Unverified
51:04
Chair. My name is Sarah Moore. I'm from Northwest Arkansas. I'm the executive director and co-founder of the
Arkansas Justice Reform Coalition working in mass incarceration in Arkansas, as it has been talked about in previous speakers, and I think I was steering some of the testimony and House Judiciary, and there are concerns serious ethical and humanitarian concerns about the use of nitrogen gas, as was stated, I think some folks read the accounts from Minister Reverend Hood, who had witnessed, you know, as was stated about cruel and unusual punishment, it sounds like the
experience that was undergone where it seemed like ants were crawling across that there was, you know, a prolonged period of time. Even the AG's office and back and forth questioning during the House Judiciary had mentioned that it would take no longer than 10 minutes, and so, you know, my concern is, you know, do we consider that as Arkansas being cruel and unusual punishment to take 10 minutes for someone to ultimately expire during that method. There has been
discussion as well around the language of the bill does not speak specifically to what quality or concentration of nitrogen gas. I've heard some conversations about the possibility, you know, there's farm grades and stuff that you can get, you know, just at a regular agricultural area versus the fact that, you know, there is more of the human medicinal type grade that would come through the three manu act ur ers who have from what I understand, stated they don't want it used for these purposes. I heard in some of the initial
conversations today during the lead up on this bill to say that we might have some non-traditional methods and so I would hope to understand clarification of what those non-traditional methods might be that other Arkansans might potentially face this method. Um, additionally, um, you know, one of the things, you know, I, I reflect on whenever you think about any time if you've experienced, you know, any kind of holding your breath or lack of oxygen, you know, you do experience panic and distress, you know, and so thinking about the fact
that someone going through a lengthy period, you know, that may be only moments for you, but that 10 minutes that was talked about, you know, that's prolonged, you know, agony and basically accounts amounts to torture. One of the other things is that um with this method, you know, this has not been something that's been tested and found to be humane and So really by its very nature it's experimental, um, for all those reasons, you know, I'd ask for consideration, you know, that we not go down this path. The other thing is was talked
about by attorney Jeff Rosensweig is that, you know, and then there was talked about, you know, the economic drivers of what this looks like, you know, going down this method versus life in in prison, is that we know that this will be heavily litigated, you know, we know that this will be in the courts, and so at a time where, you know, we've had a surplus, but we do see it dwindling. I have lots of concerns about, you know, being fiscally irresponsible in these methods, and I hear the conversations here about holding folks accountable, and that's incredibly important. It's also, you know, important to balance
that fiscally as well as humanely and so there are so many concerns that are around this method, so I'd ask that you
not consider this at this time and vote no.
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
54:27
Thank you. Senator Ross Yeah, Ms. Moore. The fact we would all agree that the only way you can get a death penalty is for horrendous crime, and
you're saying you're not for nitrogen. What, what would is
Speaker 223
54:46
the method that you would suggest to carry out an
Sarah Moore
Unverified
54:49
execution. Senator Rice, I'm not a proponent of the death penalty. I have many concerns because we don't always get it right. We've had folks that have been exonerated who've been on death row in this nation, and so I know that as much as you know, we want to get right, we have to understand that every part of the process of the criminal legal system has humans involved, and so there will be a part that will have error, and any time we potentially might put an innocent person to death. I think we really have to
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
55:16
reconsider that. So there's not any any. Uh, that pharmaceutical or gas or electrician or firing squad that you would agree with. You're against
Speaker 227
55:26
the death penalty, correct? Thank you. Ms. Moore,
Was on the 10 minutes is a my understanding that you think that's too long. Yes,
Sarah Moore
Unverified
55:39
sir, I think that that probably would result in cruel and unusual punishment that's constitutional
protection. So hanging or firing squad would
Sarah Moore
Unverified
55:50
be better. I don't think that I have a spectrum of better or worse, I
think I go back to my response to Senator. Excuse me, my question was timing. 10 minutes is too long.
Based on 10 minutes being too long hanging or firing squad would be better. Is that not correct? Well,
Sarah Moore
Unverified
56:07
Senator, I'm not an expert in how long those would take, and I haven't done any study on that, but I would say something being less than 10 minutes would probably be better
than 10 minutes. OK, thank you. The Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Moore. Uh Am I getting this right, Kayleen Nazim or Colleen
Nazine? So If you not from the right identify yourself for the record in any group that you might
Speaker 236
56:48
represent. Kalim Nase I represent the group decarcerate out Little Rock, Arkansas. What group? I'm sorry, right. Thank you. Um, I'm not gonna be too repetitive because it's been a lot said today, and I agree with Sarah's testimony or Rosen Swa and other people who spoke against the bill. I just like to
Kind of say that there has been no studies as far as you know what I'm saying, the general public to discuss rather we want to have nitrogen as an execution method in our state, and I heard a couple you you all speak on what the citizens have voted for, but I don't think that the people of Arkansas has had the debate rather to use nitrogen, pot as
alternative for execution also um I think we got to be careful as far as, you know, limbing into the skins of those who are on death row. I'm formerly incarcerated, so I have talked to many of the individuals on death row and they're just not sitting around in their cells waiting for death. The upbringing, there are there are A petitioning God that the legislative body has a more generaltle heart when it comes
to what we call execution in whatever form we are looking to implement these executions and me personally, I don't think it's a humane way to implement an execution. I heard, I think, uh, Stubornfield down there as if someone Has a person should their execution be by a fixation of hanging them. If we're, if we're going down
this slippery slope, uh, then, uh, All the crimes that are committed within our society should we reciprocate or whatever that individual did, that's a flawed line of logic in my opinion. I think when we're talking about one of the most. severest penalties that the state can hand out that we should get it right and what I mean by getting it right if we're going to implement it, it must be humane. So until we
figure out a way to humanely implement the laws to have them passed within our society, then I think we shouldn't do it, and I don't, I just don't see a humane way of killing an individual, so with that um. I will end my testimony. I won't go into how I think it's a violation of the Eighth Amendment as in cruel and unusual punishment and As we have already seen the
nitrogen companies that we potentially are looking to uh purchase this from is is already saying that there are there there will be unwilling to sell this product to the state, so With that, I am my testimony, but I just feel that the general public should be more informed and give a chance to uh basically debate whether we want to use this process or not.
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:00:29
Questions from the committee. Citrus bubble. What's his name? Yeah, Colleen, sorry, sir. Do you, do you have
Speaker 241
1:00:38
any children? No, I don't. If a wife, yes, I do have a wife. Uh If someone were to
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:00:49
kill your wife. Do you believe they should be executed, and they did it premeditated. No
Speaker 236
1:01:01
You don't think they should die? No, I think every, every human being has a redemptive spirit, and I'm going to testimony to that, um, once upon a time when I was 17 years old, I committed a crime while I was given a life without parole sentence. I killed a person. I'm not the same person today. So in answering your question, I think every human being has a redemptive spirit, and I think as a society we should look for
alternatives to killing people instead of rehabilitating people and try to look at the humanity in them, but
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:01:37
you said you killed a person, but it wasn't capital murder.
Speaker 236
1:01:41
Yes, it was capital murder. I had a life without parole sentence. I did 28 years and 11 months of incarceration, but I'm a changed person today in 2012, the United States Supreme Court said it was our Constitutional to give up juvenile life without parole sentence and that led to
me being free. So in answering your question, Uh, if someone killed my wife. Or any any loved one in my family. I'll be hurt. I'll be distraught. I have all the the emotions of a normal person, but I feel that my belief in a higher power would give me the strength to forgive that person and also look at the redemptive qualities of that individual. Well, you say you believe in a
Speaker 244
1:02:36
higher power, you believe in the Bible. I believe in the Bible. I believe in the Quran. I believe
Speaker 236
1:02:41
that there are there are Well, you say you believe in a higher power, you believe in the Bible. I believe in the Bible. I believe in the Quran. I believe that there is a there is
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:02:50
a power that is greater than myself. And also you also, well, in
Speaker 236
1:02:54
the Bible in the book of Leviticus, it talks about eye for eye 242. Yeah, you, were you taking a person's life you forfeit your own. Well, I'm not a Christian, but uh if we're, if we're talking biblical texts, um,
And we're talking about the Old Testament and the New Testament, um, when we talk about Jesus and what he came to fulfill. He came to fulfill the prophecy. So a lot of the Old Testament was done away with when Jesus hit the scene, but I don't want to get into a biblical debate. I want to just talk about our humanity right now as far as you know, we just, I just feel like we should look more to our humanity and in a way from out biased. as a human beings.
Speaker 246
1:03:43
Do you know what the word capital means in
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:03:55
Latin? No, please, please share. Means beheading. Um And the God to God that broke the Old Testament. This is the same God that wrote
the New Testament. Jesus said, I am the Father of one. So we won't get into that, but yeah, that's why I
Speaker 248
1:04:08
was saying I think I got a preacher in my ear back down.
Um, yeah, so I'm not. Any other questions? Harry Nunn, thank you for being
Speaker 250
1:04:23
here. Thank you for allowing me. OK,
Speaker 142
1:04:33
uh. Senator Johnson, would you like to close for your bill? Members, I appreciate the testimony against and But I, uh, I do want to Fulfill the obligations that the
court process and and we as the legislature have put in place to fulfill these uh the executions and I hope, I hope the The body will approve this method that As a possibility for for getting that done, and I and I I make a motion to uh motion to accept. Motion to
pass. Second from Senator McKee, discussion.
Harry none, all for the motion signal public saying I I uh all against. Motion carried.
Congratulations, Senator Johnson, you have passed your bill. OK, we have several legislators in the room. I'm assuming all to run bills, uh, and some have come and gone, how many of your bills are really short and succinct.
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
1:05:52
OK. Representative Dalby, if you'll come to the table. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members of the committee, this would be House Bill Representative, would you recognize yourself? Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, Carol Darby, District 100, and state Representative District 100, and I have with me Alex Benton from the AG's office. OK, membersis's House Bill 1609, which is representative Lundstrom's bill. She asked if I could run it real quickly today. Members, this
bill is part of a package of bills on human trafficking. that the AG's office has helped, um, the women of the house to prepare and to present uh on each of these bills. This particular bill 1609 is an act to amend the law concerning human trafficking, and in essence in the short version of this bill is this would allow, would allow it's not mandatory, but would allow someone who has tried to traffic a person from
certain situations that they could possibly receive. an additional 5 years to those sentences. So we're looking at if someone traffics someone from a shelter or facility that's a residential treatment facility or if they traffic somebody out of the correctional facility that they may have been in. Are they traffic somebody adoptive foster or provisional foster home, a childcare institution or a detention facility forest camp or training school for any child or juvenile. That's simply what
this bill does. It's allowing for an enhanced sentence, and with that, Ms. Benton and I would be happy to answer any questions. Questions from the committee. Saying
no questions. There's no one to testify for or against Dalby, would you like to close? I am closed for the bill,
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
1:07:48
and I would ask for a motion to do pass. Motion from
Senator Stofield to pass, 2nd from Senator Tucker.
Any discussion, hearing none, all for the motion signified by saying aye, all pose. Congratulations, Senator Dalby, you have passed Senator Dalby, yes, Judge
Clark maybe Any discussion, hearing none, all for the motion signified by saying aye, all pose. Congratulations, Senator Dalby, you have passed Senator Dalby, yes, Judge Clark I appreciate it. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman Representative Linstrom's bill. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
1:08:16
Thank you, members of the committee. Representative, is your bill short? We will, we
will be, we will judge you throughout the future for whether you tell us the truth or not.
OK. All right, Representative, would you identify yourself for the record, and
Speaker 265
1:08:51
Senator. Representative Dolly Henley, District 88 Senator Misty
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:08:56
Irvin, District 24. Yes, Alex. Alex spent
in AG's office. OK, you are present. Mr.
Representative Dolly Henley
Unverified
1:09:09
Chair, senators, house full of 1581 is a good bill. The bill
will enhance the rights of victims of a crime by recognizing two offenses within the legal framework as a sex offense to include trafficking of persons and grooming a minor for future sex trafficking. Currently there are 19 offenses on the list to define sex offenses, rape, sexual indecency with a child incest, sexual assaults. talking and there's 14 more, but trafficking a persons and grooming of a minor for future
sex trafficking are not on that list. The legislative session of 2013 passed the trafficking of Persons Act, the grooming of a minor for future sex trafficking Act passed in 2021, neither of these have been added to the code with respect to rights of victims of crimes. The offense of trafficking of Parsons covers both sexual trafficking as well as labor trafficking. Arkansas law treats them as the same, they are not
different crimes. It is good policy to ensure all victims of human trafficking, both labor and sexual are protected and supported during the prosecution of human trafficking. The bill today is to add tea trafficking of persons and you grooming a minor for future. sex trafficking to the definition of sex offense for rights of victims of a crime. Happy to answer any questions.
Questions from the committee. See none. There's no one here to testify for or against. Representative, would you like to close for your bill? I'm closed for my bill, and I appreciate
Representative Dolly Henley
Unverified
1:10:59
a good vote. Senator Tucker moves to pass. So it from Senator Johnson.
Any discussion, hearing none off for the motion sign up by saying a, all opposed. Representative, we will believe you next time that you tell us you have a short bill.
We believed you this time. We'll congratulations you have passed your bill. OK, Center Penzo, you said you have a very short bill. Mr. Chair. Yes Senator Irvin
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:11:35
just said it was Representative Henley's first bill, so I just want to offer, offer our our congratulations from, whoa, whoa, whoa, we should have known that ahead
Speaker 278
1:11:46
of time. We don't tell you. Sundra Penzo, if you'll identify
yourself for the record and tell us what I believe you said it's
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
1:12:00
the first bill on the agenda. Yeah, Senator Penzo, District 31. I'm running uh Representative Warren's
House Bill 14791479. You are recognized, Senator Penzel to present representative Warren's bill. Thank you. Thank
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
1:12:14
you, Mr. Chair. A scrivener's affidavit is an affidavit signed by the party that drafted the document first signed the document. Currently the statute concerning Scrivener's affidavit
only gives title companies and lawyers' ability to make simple corrections to a recorded document. Uh, with an affidavit. We realized when there is a simple error made by a surveying engineer or a notary, neither the title company nor an attorney can execute a scrivener's affidavit to correct an error they did not author. This would allow surveying engineers and notaries to correct their own errors in a document that is recorded as an example of surveying engineer that makes a simple
topographical error on a plat that is recorded doesn't have to go through the whole process of having to have a corrected plat to fix a simple typo. They can follow the scrivener's affidavit to correct it.
I'd be happy to answer any questions if
Speaker 142
1:13:11
anybody's got one. Senator Johnson. Motion to allow the committee to suspend the rules to a voice amendment. Oh, can you tell us identify what that amendment will be, but
Senator Penzo on as the Senate sponsor. Are
you good with that Central Pennzo majority leader likes to have two sponsors on the bill.
I'm fine with that. OK, motion to suspend the rules. We've got a second. Circu Any discussion I think
that's a discussable debatable motion, uh, there are no offer for the motion
signified by saying aye. Motion carried Uh, now
Speaker 142
1:14:04
the amendment. Amendment just to add Senator Penzo as a Senate sponsor of House Bill 1479. Motion or second from Senator
Tucker, a discussion. Hearing none, all for the motion signified by saying I all post,
motion carried. Congratulations, Senator Johnson, you your amendment to representative Warren's bill. OK, a question for Senator Penzo. your Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think I, I have a
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:14:42
drafting concern about the bill, Senator. I had reached out to Representative Warren, but I don't think I heard back from him. I, I just found out you're going to be the senator, Senate sponsor one, Senator Johnson just made his motions a second ago, or I would have reached out to you. But
I think it's important to know that you know a Scribner's affidavit is where we're changing a deed after the fact, right, and I want the other committee members to appreciate that because it is a serious thing. The way the current code is written, the Code Section 18-12-108. You're right, it has, it has 4. Instances When When people can issue a Scribner's affidavit. on all of the 4 that currently exist. I'll just read them. The
first one you have to be a licensed attorney who prepared the original instrument, so you have to have knowledge about the underlying transaction is the theme. The second instance is you're a licensed attorney who represents a party to the original instrument. The 3rd instance is you're a party to the original instrument instrument. And then the 4th instance is you're an employee of the title company that completed the form of the original instrument and that that same theme is applicable to item number 6 in the bill, a notary public who
witnessed the execution of the original instrument. But it's not present in number 5. All number 5 has is you just have to be a licensed engineer or surveyor. who prepared a survey lat, replat lot split, boundary line adjustment, or other instrument. That affects or is related to title to real property, which can be if you've ever done the way I read that is if you've ever prepared any of those items in any way that affects any real property, and it needs to be
limited to if you prepared one of those items. Specifically for the underlying transaction and that language is not there the way I read it. I, I
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
1:16:50
hear what you're saying, and I, I would assume. That was the intent, um. So, uh,
Chair
Unverified
1:16:57
so I, so if that's the intent, then I've now I've got a policy concern because, as I
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:17:06
said, a scrivener's affidavit is just, it changes a deed, which is a big deal. It changes how what a deed says after the fact. And a crier's affidavit is supposed to only be limited to technical errors. And only the people, the only people who can execute it are ones who have knowledge of what happened and what the error is, and if you weren't, if you don't have knowledge of what the error is, then you shouldn't be executing the scrivener's affidavit, right? So if if the
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
1:17:37
surveyor who prepared the survey, um, was the one that made the mistake, you would be OK with that person doing
the scrivener's affidavit, correct? I would be OK with that, yes. But that's not what it says here in number 5. OK, OK. Um,
Speaker 142
1:17:57
OK I tell you what, we just had a verbal amendment for the uh so just a minute. If it's all right, Jerry. So, I mean, Johnson, you reckon.
Speaker 126
1:18:10
There's errors made in these things. Our core, there is, there is a lawyer that they had a stack of wrong wrongly
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:18:21
prepared deeds that that that a lawyer made. So to say another licensed engineer surveyor can't correct that error that a legal person did, that he's not a lot, he's not a surveyor or licensed engineer.
I can see allowing those things, those corrections to be made. The, the
Speaker 292
1:18:47
difference is the one, well, first of all, the the lawyer can fix that under the law
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:18:53
now, but the, but the point is you, you can't just bring someone who had nothing to do with it in, in my view, and to fix it, it has to be someone who was involved in the original transaction. That's the way the statute is currently set up for all 4 instances, and that's the way the bill is
written for a notary public. But If it's OK to
Speaker 142
1:19:15
have the discussion that's, uh, there's a possibility that those individuals are not still alive and a correction needs
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:19:22
to be made in the original error. Well, if that's the case, then we should open
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:19:32
it up and the other 5 instances too, because I don't disagree. I mean, I do think we should
be consistent either the law should be only with people, only people with knowledge of the underlying
transaction connects you to Scribner's error or anybody can. committee, I told you
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
1:19:55
it was going to be a quick, easy one. My apologies. I did, I just
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:20:05
think, I think there needs to be a process of errors are made that corrections
Speaker 126
1:20:12
be made in a proper manner and whether it be by the persons uh who executed them discriminator's error to begin with or not, I think, you know, those, those licensed engineers and surveyors and in a
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:20:27
platte have that have that capacity to do that correctly. Now more than ever. GPS that's I'll tell you what, committee, um,
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
1:20:36
I'm, I'm OK with it being, uh,
if, if we need to clarify because If it really needs to be whoever made the um and and so if we, if we did a verbal amendment to put me on as the Senate sponsor, I'm uh I'll, I'll, I'll defer this one Senator Tucker, Senator Tucker has clarifying language that would make it right. I'd be happy to uh or if the committee's OK with it. If I, if I were writing it, I
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:21:13
would just say on line 29 there. more and less has
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
1:21:23
been because like I said, I believe that's the intent, and I mean based on what you just read out
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:21:31
of statute, it I would, I would say or is related to title to the real property. That is the subject of the underlying transaction. Senator.
I'm going to ask that you pull the bill down. Uh, we're
Unless people quit showing up, which they may, uh, we'll be here a few minutes. Uh,
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:22:07
you can bring it back today, uh, if you have something. Senator Johnson, I'll
Speaker 142
1:22:11
make a motion to strike our original verbal amendment to allow Senator Penzo to do what he needs to do we don't, it's
amended if he pulls it down, he's pulled it down as amended. We don't have to undo that according to staff, so it'll be Amendment number 2, but, but
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:22:25
if I pull it down, if I pull my amendment out, pull it down, see if you I'll put it down, I'll stick around here and see
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
1:22:32
if I can get some language and I'll. I'll be right back if you'll let me. Thanks. Thank you, Senator. OK, is
there anyone else here to run a bill? Center Stone.
Unknown speaker
1:22:49
You're here at the exact right time. You
Matt Stone
Unverified
1:23:33
Sent Stone, uh, would you identify yourself for the record? My name is Matt Stone, a state senator, District 2 and you are running. I'm sorry, go ahead. What bill are you running? Senate Bill 375. Senate Bill 375. You are recognized to run Senate Bill 375. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members currently in
Senator Matt Stone
Unverified
1:23:55
Arkansas capital murder is only allowed, excuse me, capital punishment is only allowed in
murder cases. This bill seeks to expand, uh, capital punishment out for the rape of a child age 13 years old or younger. You know, I was thinking about. About this and I'm a big fan of Maya Angelou. And Maya Angelou says, once somebody shows you who they are, believe them the first time, and I believe when a child rapist shows society who they are, we ought to believe them the first time. You know, most of the members here are my age or maybe a
little older, and you grew and we grew up in a time in our state, in our country where you could roam your neighborhood. You could go out in the woods and play. You could pretty well do whatever you wanted to do without fear of being molested in any type of way, but today, in today's economy, parents are afraid to let their children. Out of their line of sight almost. I think it is hurting our young people in many ways. Um I also know that it's been since
1964 in our country said someone was executed for rape in our in our country. And just, you know, whenever you stop doing something, there's always a little bit of a lag time before the problem shows up. But from 1976 to 1986, the number of reported cases of child sexual abuse grew from 6000 to 132,000, an increase of 2,100%. By 1991, the number of cases totaled 432,000 and increase of
another 227% in 1995, child protection service agencies identified 126,000 children who were victims of either substantiated or indicated sexual abuse. Nearly 30% of those child victims were between the age of 4 and 7, and there are an estimated 90,000 substantiated cases of child abuse. Uh, in our country since 2003. Members, I think it's time that we step up and protect our
children, and with that being said, I'm
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:26:15
open for questions. Questions from committee. Center stubble field you recognize
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:26:20
thank you. Matt for bringing this up. Did you look at any other states around or any states in the country that Have numbers similar to
Senator Matt Stone
Unverified
1:26:29
this. I'd like to bring 2 people to the table, please, Mr. Chair, if I may. You may.
Speaker 317
1:26:51
Would you please identify yourself for the record. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Dylan Jacobs, Deputy Solicitor General with the
AG's office. Was You, you'll repeat your question, Senator Stopville. Yeah,
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:27:04
are these, are these numbers reflected in other states? Um Uh, Senator, could you be more
Speaker 319
1:27:08
specific as to the numbers you're asking about? Well, the numbers that he quoted about child sexual crimes.
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:27:23
100,000, 200,000 of those reflective of other states having the same issue. Uh, I
Speaker 317
1:27:29
mean, that's a lot of children. Senator, I think those numbers are part of a nationwide
Speaker 322
1:27:36
survey and not specific. Arkansas. That's that's across the country,
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:27:39
Senator. I apologize. I was thinking, my God, if that's just Arkansas, that is, that is the, what are
Speaker 324
1:27:46
they in Arkansas? I'm not sure what they are in
Senator Matt Stone
Unverified
1:27:51
Arkansas Senator, these numbers came from
the scent issued by Supreme Court Justice Alito, and I felt like if anybody had some good accurate numbers that They could be trusted. There were these. These came from Judge Alita. That's yes, sir, and his descent on the court case, and I'm reading them directly from his dissent. OK, that's all I have, Mr. Tucker, do you recognize?
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:28:18
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator Stone or or Mr. Jacobs. So what opinion is that?
I just want what I want to, I'm curious about is what the constitutional background is on this. I know there's provisions in the bill that if any penalties are declared unconstitutional, then there's an alternative penalty listed, and I, you know, I, I studied Kha law in law school, and I know that it's unconstitutional to have capital punishment for the for the rape of an adult victim, but that was a long time ago and I don't I'm just there may have been. decisions in the meantime that I haven't studied and so I'm just trying to get educated on where the where the constitutional law
Speaker 317
1:29:00
is on this at the moment. Senator Tucker, that the case that was being cited as Kennedy versus Louisiana as a 2008 decision and under that precedent, the Supreme Court does not currently allow states to impose capital punishments for anything that's a quote unquote non-homicide crime, so this would require the US Supreme Court to overrule that case, which has been an effort that A number of states are starting to get involved in and the
belief that Kennedy was wrongly decided, so Florida and Tennessee both have in the past, I think a year or so, uh passed bills allowing for capital punishment for similar offenses of the rape of a child, and that's what this bill would. what states did you say? Florida has and Tennessee has as well and a number of other states are currently considering. But those are the only two other states that have passed it in recent years.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:30:01
OK, so the notion is You're trying to make a public push for the Supreme Court to reverse course. I believe that's correct. That is correct.
Speaker 330
1:30:14
OK. On page 4, line 8. There's a reference
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:30:27
there to another code section and I just don't know. I don't, I'm
sorry to say I don't have the entire code memorized, so I just I don't know what
Speaker 317
1:30:45
that section is. If you give me one moment, Senator. Sure. Senator, Section 9-10-121 has to do with the termination of parental rights, and so a person convicted of capital rape under the statute is subject to having parental rights terminated under Section 121. That's what the references to.
OK, thank you. Other questions from committee? Excuse me. I see none. Jeff Rosensweig is recognized to speak against after he identifies himself for the record.
Speaker 176
1:31:37
Jeff Rosen, Arkansas Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Mr. Jacobs has
Speaker 62
1:31:42
told you, and I agree with him that under current US Supreme Court law. This bill is unconstitutional. The US Supreme Court a number of years ago in Coker versus Georgia, uh, that's the law or the case that Senator Tucker was referring to prohibited capital punishment for the rape of an adult, and Kennedy, Louisiana versus
Louisiana a number of years ago, a few years ago, they extended that to the to the rape of a of someone who was not an adult so this bill in its current form, if it passes is unconstitutional, but let's assume it, let's assume the the US Supreme Court changes its mind. It's still got a number of problems. 1st, 1st, Uh, the case that Senator Stone
is referring to of the kid playing out in the woods. That is a tiny minority of the cases in which a child is alleged to have been raped. Most of them come out of nasty divorces. And that's just the nature of it. It has already and it has this area of the law is already subject to huge amounts of abuse and bogus
charges and questionable charges that and retaliatory charges and secondly, we don't, you don't need to have evidence in a rape case. All you have to have is someone say so, at least in a murder case you have a dead body. You don't have that in a rape case. The Arkansas Supreme Court has said just the alleged victims say so is enough, and in, and you don't even need that
person's that person's testimony. You can have someone purporting to quote that that person who is the alleged victim. If it's dressed up as a statement for the purpose of medical treatment or an excited utterance, no physical evidence is necessary. I guarantee you that the number of abuses of that you will see that you will that you see under the current regime where it's
punishable by life imprisonment will escalate tremendously if if capital punishment is an issue because the sheer leverage of it. Another problem you're gonna have uh is that it because of the nature of these cases, it's going to require the public defender commission to retain a huge numbers of additional lawyers who are death penalty certified because you'll have to
have two lawyers, at least 2 lawyers, and investigator, a mitigation specialist on every one of these cases unless the prosecutor comes in at plea and arraignment and says we're not seeking the death penalty. And you can expect Mr. Peres's budget to have to be multiplied by a huge amount. If every one of these cases becomes the death
penalty case or is not waived as the death penalty case right off the bat. I, this, this bill should not pass for the
Speaker 336
1:35:24
reasons I've stated, and I'm happy to answer any questions. Senator Dees, you recognized? Thank
you, Mr. Chair. You, you have a tough job trying to defend these cases. Uh, did you just say that you don't
have to have evidence. That's correct. You don't
Speaker 60
1:35:49
have to have a rape case. You don't have to have any physical evidence. It is sufficient, so anybody who says that they're a rapists, they're automatically a rapist. No, that you
Speaker 62
1:36:01
have it's sufficient evidence if a jury chooses to believe it that someone says something with no physical and that there is no, no physical evidence is necessary. No corroboration is necessary. All you have to have is the if a
if a jury chooses to believe a a person who who is quoted as saying that they were raped. Now, and here's the problem you're gonna have children who are influenced at, you know, out of the nasty divorce to make an allegation, kids who don't know the seriousness of what they're alleging. misinterpretation of things, for instance, application of medic of
medication. I've had several cases where it was, it was an application of prescribed medication that was misunderstood as a sexual offense. And fortunately we, you know, we, we were able to win those cases, but this is, this is the this is the type of problem that that comes up in these, in these cases, so much of the time and
you know, don't get me started on the on the child advocacy centers and the crimes against children division, both of which are
Speaker 60
1:37:29
full of untrained, unaccountable people. It's hard for me to
get started when I hear, hear some of this testimony as well because you downplay the the the instances and you say the rarities as if they're nothing and
they're flippant, and then you talk about concerns about the costs this may have when you don't think about what the victims have gone through in in when you put yourself of what we're
trying to do to reduce these situations, but
a fear of God in some of these, these predators and you talk about the cost it's going to have on the courts. Well, the it doesn't take It doesn't take evidence and cry, well, that concerns me. That's why I understand how
Speaker 62
1:38:10
hard your job must be to defend these folks. Yes, it is hard. It is hard because of the because of the circumstance because the there because you're dealing with children who are not obviously able to express themselves well, but who can
also be easily easily influenced by adults, by malevolent adults. You talk. Justice Scalia in one of his and in one of the US Supreme Court decisions, talked about the problem of in a case called, I believe it was uh I think 11, I believe it was Coy versus Iowa US Supreme Court case, but whichever one it was, he talked about the child being
influenced by the malevolent adult. Yes, there are circumstances where a child is kidnapped. And uh and you know, an assaulted and raped and whatever those things I'm have happened. What I'm saying is that is a very, very small minority of the alleged child rape cases that are in the system. The vast, vast majority of them
are involved a child and almost in many cases, and I think I don't have at least from a from a just a personal guest standpoint and the ones I see at least come out of nasty domestic situations, divorce, that type of thing. Other
Chair
Unverified
1:39:54
questions for Mr. Rosensweig, Senator Johnson, you recognize? In this case, the consideration of child rape.
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:40:05
Is it, is it not penetration
Speaker 63
1:40:09
that is required for these charges to be done the the the penetration that does not need to be the alleged penetration does not need to be corroborated
Speaker 62
1:40:21
and and it does not need to be corroborated and and for instance, and it also has to be for a sexual purpose. And as I say, you have the the Medication application
circumstances at times, and there have been, there have been some cases of that that, but you don't have to have physical evidence of the alleged penetration. Well, I'm gonna go back to
Speaker 142
1:40:59
kind of like what Senator Stubblefield said, What if we limited liability on the victim's families
Speaker 126
1:41:05
to allow them 30 minutes limited liability
with the with the perpetrator rather
Speaker 184
1:41:13
than doing this. Well, as a society, as a society,
Speaker 62
1:41:18
we what you're what you're suggesting is something equivalent to Sharia law, which is what we as a society we don't want to have here these, these are to be there are certain things that are to be run by the government, not by the
Speaker 194
1:41:39
individual, you know, not by individual parties. I appreciate that
Speaker 126
1:41:45
point, but I'm going to tell you something. This is sick. And
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:41:51
if we don't address some of these instances as a society, they're going to continue to escalate. There has to be some way. For the government to allow these this punishment and to be a deterrent for future, for our
Speaker 126
1:42:10
future generations. I appreciate, I appreciate
Speaker 62
1:42:15
could just point out that right now, right now, the Senate sentence ranges are up to life imprisonment, and if it's a person is under a certain age, it's a 25 year minimum, which one has to do the entire
Speaker 201
1:42:29
25 years. one of those ones, not enough. Are the prosecutors here today?
You come to the table, please. No, don't leave. Searchub who has a question for you, Mr. Rosensweig, while they're coming. Yeah, Mr. Rosen
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:42:59
swag, uh, Doesn't it say that? In the Constitution that the government operates by the consent of the governor. The government, yes, but so so we are the government. The
Speaker 322
1:43:16
yes, sir. OK. You're the, you're the government. Everybody's sitting
Speaker 62
1:43:20
in this room is the government. The consent of the government, but I also point out,
Speaker 63
1:43:26
and this in the the the there is the decision of the written by Justice Robert Jackson in the in that talked about the purpose of
Speaker 62
1:43:36
the Bill of Rights. That includes the Eighth Amendment was to withdraw.
Certain certain issues from the political arena, so that that they could be, you know, that they would be there for the protection of everyone, including the most unpopular parties. That's what the Fourth Amendment is, the
Speaker 63
1:43:59
5th Amendment, the 6th Amendment, the 8th Amendment. etc. Are you saying, do you believe that judges are
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:44:09
political? Well, they're they're elected. Are they political?
Speaker 336
1:44:18
Some are, some are not. I think it depends on the particular person. I will point out there's a bill going through the legislature right now that we would require them to run as partisan candidates again we we had gotten away from that.
Speaker 243
1:44:34
way a court, a judge rules on a particular case, whether they're a conservative or
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:44:38
a liberal, you know. I think we cannot see that the people can't see that. I, you know, it depends on the judge.
Speaker 63
1:44:51
It depends on the judge. There I and you know, it depends on the judge. It depends on the depends on the issue. And I don't mean it just in Arkansas. I mean, I think this is a nationwide thing. You can tell in the US Supreme Court in a lot of cases. Well,
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:45:12
quick, uh, Mr. Chairman. Some of these individuals that were against the death penalty.
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:45:22
staunchly against it, and yet they have no trouble. Killing a baby right up to birth. Some even after birth. What is, what is the difference in those two? Can you explain to me how you can be against the death penalty,
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:45:37
but you're for killing an unborn child up to the 9th month and in some states like Minnesota after the child is born. I, you know, I, I
Speaker 336
1:45:47
am, you know, I'm, I'm not here
speaking on on abortion and I understand that I don't think you've got a I don't think that we're dealing with But you're
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:46:02
talking about constitutional rights. You're talking about we're violating the Constitution. Well,
the Constitution talks about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You can't have liberty and the pursuit of happiness without life. And when you take that before the child even sets foot on this planet.
You have already robbed that child of
Speaker 357
1:46:27
his constitutional rights and, and you're right that there is
Speaker 63
1:46:32
a there is a big jurisprudential debate as to what extent to what extent an unborn child is covered by the Constitution. Some judges have said
Speaker 336
1:46:43
yes. Some judges have said no, and, and, and you know, that's that's that's that and
that debate will occur as long um it, it will occur forever. That's, but
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:46:59
I didn't take, I didn't take. oath to uphold some judges' opinion. I took an oath to protect the
Speaker 206
1:47:08
Constitution and what it says. Yes sir, the life, liberty and the pursuit of happ.
Speaker 63
1:47:13
Yes sir, yes sir. What, what I'm, what I'm saying is first right now the US Supreme Court, if this, this, this bill as currently written would fall before the decision of the US
Supreme Court. Now I understand there's the there's the Group of a number of people are trying to get the Supreme Court to overrule that decision, Kennedy versus Louisiana. They may or may not be successful in that regard. I don't know. The question, but then, but even if Kennedy is overruled. I'm just pointing out the problems that you have making this a death penalty
case, and I could, you know, I could go on for hours. talking about it and I'm trying to be as succinct succinct as possible. You're going to have the problem of subject from a policy matter, it's going to be subject to a huge amount of abuse and you're also going to have the problem of having
Speaker 342
1:48:14
enough lawyers to represent everyone. Senator Stubble Hill, would you like to get back in the queue?
OK, uh, stay there, Mr. Rosenwa. Uh, would the prosecutor's place a identify themselves for the record. Thank you,
Speaker 360
1:48:35
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. I'm Laurie Camuris. I'm the deputy prosecutor coordinator. Chris Walton, prosecuting
Speaker 361
1:48:42
attorney from Saline County. OK. The Very briefly.
Well, let me first start with, do you not have to have any evidence to present in a rape
case, not that I would ever doubt the word of Mr.
Senator Greg Leding
Unverified
1:49:03
Rosensweig, but I'd like your viewpoint. I think I don't want to mischaracterize what he was stating, but what I heard was that he, he states that and it is a, a, uh, It is a correct statement of law, I believe, that a, uh, a conviction can be had based on the testimony alone
Speaker 346
1:49:32
without physical evidence. OK. And if that's a child, child doesn't have
Speaker 367
1:49:38
to testify? Well, I think that I don't want to get into defending Mr. Rosensweig, who does a Perfectly fine job of defending what he stated, but there are except the child could testify that is one way, but there are also exceptions to the hearsay rule, uh, that, uh, that could, uh, apply as well. So yes, a
child could testify, but there are times when a child, you know, because of age might not be able to testify. And then there are other ways of, uh, proving a rape. So they're, there, there's just an infinite amount of possibility
Senator Greg Leding
Unverified
1:50:17
ities but largely what he said, I, I do not
have an issue with. How many, if y'all can tell me, uh how many uh
Criminal charges come out of the overwhelming number of uh Sexual abuse
Allegations we get out of divorce cases. And I'm using the word overwhelming because they seem overwhelming to me.
Speaker 370
1:50:39
I, I do not have a specific number or an answer for that. I know that. There are times
Speaker 367
1:50:46
when that does happen out of divorce cases, but I cannot give you a number, sir. Maybe I'm
just exposed to it a whole lot more, but uh I don't see many criminal. Allegations made, I see allegations made for the purpose of getting custody.
And again, not to doubt anybody's word, but I do. So, uh, I always find it interesting, and I'll say it here, I find it interesting that a father has been in the house for the last 5 years, the last 10 years, whatever, and there's been no allegations made and all of a sudden in a divorce. There are Sexual abuser or physical abuser, but and that judges aren't wise to that, although I know that they have to be safe, but at the same time, one side of the family doesn't get to see the child for 6 months and sometimes longer.
The but I think Mr. Rosenweig makes a good point. I'm, I like the bill. I like protecting, uh, children, but when these kind of allegations are thrown around, uh, Very loosely,
Speaker 367
1:51:59
uh, is that not problematic? Certainly. Uh, you know, we as prosecutors have to evaluate all of our
cases, uh, and in a light that, that we feel that we can prove. Do, do we feel like we can prove, uh, the allegations. We have to scrutinize allegations. You know, I, I, I don't know how to answer it better than that. Every case we file, we have to, uh, look at all the evidence in the case file, uh, and make a decision, do we at least have probable cause, but should we, but we should be able to, we should
think when we file a case that we ought to be able to prove that case beyond a reasonable
Speaker 372
1:52:47
doubt to a jury. And I'm not sure if that
answers you, sir. I'm, I've given you the best, there's two sides here. We want to protect I think there's really no limit of what I think
you should be able to do to somebody who rapes a child. Uh, on the other hand, I've seen I
think I know it's a, it's Against ethic rules. I know it's
against the law for an attorney to advise that, but as many cases as I see, I can't believe attorneys aren't advising that to to make an abuse, physical abuse or sexual abuse charge so that you'll at least have custody for the moment. Uh, and those are serious charges, right? And I think people who make them when they're unwarranted and especially then coaching. A child To testify to it that there ought to be a really harsh
penalty for them, which we just seem to ignore, uh. The so we come back here though that let's say a mother. Makes these charges. And let's for the point of this discussion, let's say it's not true. But of course you don't know it's not true, right? If somebody makes the allegations, you don't know that it's not true, but these allegations aren't normally coming first to you, are they? They're normally coming to DCFS. Am I correct?
Speaker 367
1:54:14
But they sometimes they come through the hotline, uh, sometimes, uh, they do not, there are people that are mandated reporters, they should be reported to the hotline, but they,
they come in, uh, into our office in different ways, I'm not talking about mandated reporters. I'm not talking about somebody on the outside. I'm, I'm talking about the families themselves. That those
Speaker 367
1:54:40
normally come through DCFS. They, they certainly Can
they could go, they could go to CACD and I I've seen a few, but I don't see most go
to CCD, which means that from the hotline we're not thinking it's criminal. We think it's criminal. We're normally going to
Speaker 381
1:55:00
CACD instead of DCFS for the investigation. That, that is, uh, certainly the state police investigate those is, is the way that that should work. That is correct,
that's where it should start, so I don't know if anybody
has numbers, but I'm, I would be surprised if we don't about how many allegations get made, and I
was thinking about one young man who called me and I said, You shouldn't have called me if you're guilty. Because we'll get to the truth. And I had, uh, leadership in DCFS and CA CD take a look at it and they said there's not any truth in this. But then the next time we came back, it was the dad and 4 friends. That made and it was child rape, which Uh It was so bizarre the second time that I don't think anybody
believe it, but a lot of times a therapist, uh, somebody working at one of these uh clinics where we protect children sometimes they do jump on board early, uh, whether they're warranted or not. And so do we get into a place like Mr. Rosensweig has talked about that were prosecuting somebody with the death penalty who's
going through a nasty divorce and didn't do anything. It would be my greatest fear. I mean, it, I, I, I,
Speaker 381
1:56:09
it would be my greatest fear. It would be the thing that I would be most concerned about. So you think it's possible.
You know, I, I, I, I would like to think that I absolutely would not be involved in that, uh, and I would do everything within my power and through my investigative power not to do anything like that. I, I just, you know, it,
Speaker 378
1:56:32
it is, it is a great fear, and I will not say that anything, I, I mean, I certainly will
not say that it isn't. And I don't say that to your bill Center stone. I just think that we need to know that
uh Mr. Rosensweig's points on that subject are not out of
bounds, but that there is a danger. Uh So any other questions from committee Senator McKee, and then Center.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So this bill doesn't make
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
1:57:05
the death penalty an automatic or a necessity. It just gives you the prosecuting attorney the option to ask for that sentence. That's correct. Are there other instances in
which You don't request the death
penalty when you could because of the severity of the case or the details of the case. Yeah, if you're at, you're
Speaker 387
1:57:28
asking me? Yes, please. Thank you. Your mark is off. Would you, would
Speaker 345
1:57:31
you please turn your mic on, please? We've got too many. I believe it's on now. Is it that means we got too many on so. And, and I
Speaker 378
1:57:39
think that I've got it now. And I apologize. I didn't know
Speaker 367
1:57:52
the microphone was off and I will say first that our prosecutors in general don't, there's not a position on this yet. I think that we would all want to discuss this more fully. I'm here helping Mrs. Cours out, and I wanted to be here, but I and I'm giving it the best I can. I just wasn't prepared to testify on this. That being said, yes, to answer your question. We do have cases that we charge as capital and we don't go forward
on the death penalty. We have cases of murder where we charge a lesser degree murder we save those the death penalty type cases for the absolute worst type of offenses. I appreciate that answer.
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
1:58:38
So you had mentioned that Obviously, Charging someone with rape of
a minor or rape of someone under 13 and then going
after the death penalty and finding out that individual was innocent is one of your greatest fears. So would you say that under existing law and your ability to seek the death penalty for another offense for capital murder, finding
out that individual was innocent was also one of your greatest fears? Certainly, sir. I think, I
think that should be all of our fears,
Speaker 389
1:59:16
right? It should be everybody involved in the system, thank you. Thank you very much.
Center. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to call it in the in the bill itself
and I think this is a great discussion around the evidence side um. And thank you, Mr. Chair, for bringing prosecutors up to
have a well-rounded discussion on it, but um in the this this bill does Talk about evidence required in capital rape charges, at least in my layman's term, understanding, and I'm seeing on
page 25 line 8 and 9, I'm sorry, 7 and 8 page page 25, lines 7 and 8, in the context is when talking about juvenile rape. It says that the prosecution must overcome these presumptions by a preponderance of the evidence. So there's, there's, there's talk there, then I would highlight and I'd love the prosecutor's opinions on some of these segments, 3 segments, that's 1. Number 2 is page 29, line 33 through 34.
In this segment it talks about the sex offenders registration, um, in which physical evidence on line 34 is mentioned, physical evidence, not just testimony. And then the last segment. Page 33. Line 2 This segment talks about concerning the definition of sexual assault as it pertains to the admissibility of evidence of similar crimes and sexual assault cases. And so to me,
I continue to see that evidence is required in this escalated or elevated um Uh, punishment. And
so I would love to maybe hear from both sides of these examples of evidence being required in
Speaker 60
2:01:18
these cases. Senator, first, the first
Speaker 63
2:01:21
thing you referred to on page was in the juvenile court system. You were the first references were in the juvenile court system with regard to
competency to proceed against the juvenile who by definition is not going to be subject to capital punishment. What they did was in every place as far as I could tell where the word rape was is in the code. They added capital rape as a as a separate as a separate offense. Now the question is, yes, there there have been
Speaker 62
2:02:04
since really the DNA came became uh a
Speaker 63
2:02:07
thing, you know, some 20 years ago we've had a statute that requires the preservation of evidence that may exist. That doesn't mean that the evidence exists. It's just that if they have it, they've got to keep it. Uh, but again, as, as Mr. Walton said there's no requirement that they have it. Under that since testimony since
in this case, the uncorroborated testimony of a person is sufficient. So I, it doesn't, you know, that doesn't, uh, I appreciate you pointing out these these things, but it doesn't solve the underlying problem. Uh, one thing I
Speaker 392
2:02:56
was gonna say, these, these child cases are particularly difficult
Speaker 360
2:03:00
because there are cases that are horribly heinous, and I think Mr. Walton has examples of those, in which cases the
prosecutor would probably want to be able to use a tool like this, but as Mr. Rosenswe has stayed in, and he's not wrong about that. There are also cases where, because it's this kind of case and not a death case, there's the only evidence that is there's not corroboration, like you don't have to have Physical evidence in some rape cases, even child rape cases, testimony of victim alone of the victim alone is sufficient, but as Mr. Walton explained to you
all that's where a prosecutor's discretion has to come in, and the prosecutor would have to make a decision. Their role is to seek justice and to do what's right in a particular case. So just like in a death case, they may feel like that the death penalty is not appropriate, they would then on these types of cases have to exercise that same discretion. So
if I understood that, what in the cases that are um Um, not as clear.
There it's, it's a, there's a, a great trial and it's hard to know what's truth. Because there's lack of evidence and there's hearsay on both sides. I understand that point. And so there's concern that this could be applied too far in those cases, but I also understand that there's cases where there's overwhelming evidence, maybe even um Maybe even a uh Where the offender has it full admittance. And so those situations. I know is what I, I'm why I'm in
favor of this bill is because we, we are, as Senator Stone led with, were listening to what the criminals are telling us. And, and so that that's what, that's where my mind goes to, and it sounds like great defenders like Mr. Rosensweig can can get their clients off in the cases where there's not, where there's not overwhelming evidence, and there's so there shouldn't be as much concern, I guess that's why I'm trying to understand
the missing piece I could respond. No, I've had
Speaker 63
2:05:18
cases that I that I've been firmly convinced the client was innocent and and sometimes the jury has Convicted sometimes convicted of a lesser offense and an
Speaker 336
2:05:32
obvious compromise. I had I had a case a
Speaker 62
2:05:38
few years ago and uh you know, another county where the jury
Speaker 63
2:05:44
recommended probation. It was an obvious compromise verdict
Speaker 62
2:05:51
because there was, there was no evidence of anything the the And the jury convicted and then uh, you know, you would think that if the jury had really believed What had happened they would have locked the guy up for decades, and they gave
Speaker 63
2:06:11
them a minimum amount of probation because you never know what a jury's going to do. You never know different prosecutors have
different have have different ideas of what their role is. Mr. Walton is an extremely responsible prosecutor. One of his predecessors back a number of years ago, Mr. Harmon. was not and and caused all sorts of problems which the system is still, you know, is still trying to, still trying to resolve and and we've got what, 28 elected
Speaker 62
2:06:54
prosecutors and and you've got you've got prosecutors who take a Wii file anything attitude and you know, sort it out later. Others
Speaker 63
2:07:05
will actually, you know, think about it beforehand, some, you know, some prosecutors have are in jurisdictions where the
Speaker 62
2:07:15
investigators are properly trained. Others were there or not.
Speaker 367
2:07:28
You know, I, I, I, I will venture in
Speaker 396
2:07:33
one last time just. To the point. About severe cases, you know, we had one in
Speaker 367
2:07:41
Saline County where we. We had one in Saline County where we had an 8 month old baby that uh uh was uh penetrated by a boyfriend, uh, it was like a full episiotomy, lots of blood. They had to
save the child because they thought that the child was going to bleed out. There was a question as to whether or not That child was ever going to be able to have kids when she got of age. So they are. Absolutely extreme cases and there are cases where I think some people would be justified in feeling like they would want to be able to charge
this case and to seek the death penalty, and that case would have been one of them. Senator
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:08:47
Tucker, do you recognize? Thank you, Mr. Chair. As we've been having this discussion, something has occurred to
me. Uh, I think we all agree these sorts of crimes are heinous. No one's debating that, OK, but I'm
concerned about Younger offenders. OK. And I want to set this bill aside for the moment. But under the statutory rape law in Arkansas. If you are not more than 3 years older than the victim. Then that's an affirmative defense to a charge of statutory rape, right, Mr. Walton and Murri. So just to put to use a real life example if you're 15 and you have sex with a 13-year-old, you're not guilty of statutory
rape. Correct? And, and you can prove that. Correct. But if this bill passes, And you're 15 and you have sex with a 13 year old, you could be charged and convicted of capital rape. Correct? I apologize. I would have
Speaker 381
2:09:55
to vet the bill more closely. I do not want to speak to something that I'm not sure about. I was fixing
to ask if the Attorney General's office would
Speaker 315
2:10:09
like to come back to the table. Thank you, Senator Tucker. There is not the
Speaker 317
2:10:14
similar age restriction. Would you identify yourself on the record again, please. I apologize, Mr. Chair. Dylan Jacobs with the AG's office. Senator Tucker, the, within 3 year age provision is not included with this, but the difference is, um, Under the rape statutes it currently is, that's sort of um
I want to say a lack of consent, you know, it doesn't matter with that, but in here you have a set of additional elements that have to be met, so either has to be the use or threatened use of force, so additional set of felonies that are committed with that or the use of a deadly weapon, and so we're not talking about something like a girlfriend boyfriend situation if that's what you're worrying about.
shot. right And Senator Tucker to just also be clear that this bill doesn't allow the imposition of the death penalty for someone who's under under the age of 18. I'm
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:11:19
aware of that, but that's the only distinction for age. It's just that if you're, if you're under 18, then you can't because of other Supreme Court law, you can't be subject to a penalty of capital punishment or life without parole, correct? That's correct. And the bill doesn't attempt to do
Speaker 328
2:11:32
that. Yeah, and that's the but that's the only
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:11:35
distinction made on age in the bill. Correct
Speaker 317
2:11:39
That's correct. If someone who is 17 commits the offense of capital rape against the victim in that, so, OK,
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:11:47
I see your point on there has to be another element beyond just sexual intercourse, unlike
with statutory rape, but there's other provisions in the statutory rape law about You know, knowledge of the victim. Knowledge of the victim's age. And then also,
That that goes up to At the age of 20 for the offender. If you're
over 20, you don't have the, you're not entitled to that affirmative defense. But if you're under 20, you have, you're entitled to an affirmative defense that you believe the victim to be older, so there's, there's some notion of knowledge of the victim's age. In statutory
rape law, and I'm wondering whether that should be included. In the bill.
Speaker 403
2:12:43
Senator, do you have a A code section that you're
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:12:51
looking at for the sure It's, it's 5-14-102.
So if you look at B for example, If you're 20 or older, you don't, you're not entitled to that defense. I see, I
see what you're saying. The larger point is that there's some acknowledgment of an age gap.
That's a factor in prosecuting these crimes that are universally heinous. No one's arguing that point. But the bigger the age gap, the worse it is, and there's there's an acknowledgement of that in the law as it applies to
Speaker 317
2:13:50
statutory rape. Senator, I think that the difference is that the capital rape statute isn't a statutory rape. Statute and so for example under forcible rape, prosecution, um. The lack of knowledge of the age wouldn't matter here when this involves violence or other crime, then it's not, it's not going to matter whether you knew how old they were.
Right, because it's, it's basing the punishment on their age. I think there are lots of examples in the law where attributes of the victim aren't required to be known by the offender and the way that this bill is currently written. Because the conduct that it attaches to is so heinous. I don't think that it's Necessary to put any particular mental state about the rapist knowing, you know, that the victim that he was violently threatening or
harming to know the particular age for the punishment to make sense. What are some examples? Or the
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:15:05
A characteristic of the victim contributes to the severity of the punishment, and it's not necessary for the offender to have known that. The most The
Speaker 414
2:15:13
one that comes to mind would be A person can be charged
Speaker 317
2:15:17
with the murder of an unborn child. They murder a pregnant woman, and I don't believe we require the
murderer to know that the victim was in fact pregnant when that murder occurs, and yet we punish the victim for both murders. OK. I'm not trying to quiz you. I'm
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:15:36
just curious if there are other examples that you can think of off the top of your head. I'm just, just curious. Off the top of
Speaker 414
2:15:44
my head, that's not something that I would have an
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:15:47
exhaustive knowledge of. Fair enough. Just curious, as I said, OK, thank you. I
Speaker 336
2:15:52
could point out something that that would cause a lot of, may
Speaker 62
2:15:57
cause a lot of litigation on this rape statute talks about forcible compulsion. The capital rate statute, the capital rape
Speaker 63
2:16:05
statute doesn't use forcible compulsion but says cause or threatens to cause serious physical injury, and so is that, uh, how does that relate to forcible
Speaker 62
2:16:18
compulsion. Is it worse? Or less. We don't know, and that's, that's going to be, but
Speaker 356
2:16:28
we're, we're picking out where we're coming up with some
new and different language. OK, before I go to Senator McKee, This is a serious bill. We're talking about the death penalty, and so it is proper that we seriously vet it. I think we have a so I'm going to ask including you, Senator McKee, are there any questions to be asked that will change your vote or someone else's vote, possibly
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
2:17:01
or is everybody pretty set, McKee. Chairman, I appreciate that. Thank you for giving me a little latitude. I I don't know if it'll change anybody's vote or not. It's a question I'd like to know. Go ahead and ask, I guess, and I'm probably asking the Attorney General's office, Dylan, what was your last name? Jacobs, Jacobs, sorry, thank you. Uh, the discussion has gone back and forth about the evidentiary requirements for capital cases, and so I'm just curious, is there language that could be
added. That with respect to evidentiary requirements that would give some of these some of these concerns, some some level of comfort that I mean like chairman said this is a death penalty bill. And so I don't know. I don't know the exact laws and how they're written and how this would be handled normally, whether it be with the capital murder case or another kind of rape case, the evidentiary requirements that are there. So is there language that could be
added that should be added that deals with the requirements for evidence that would make these things. I would say that it would give our prosecutors a
level of comfort. that they know that
Speaker 317
2:18:17
they've got the right guy. So the Attorney General supports this bill and its current form. The Attorney General believes that this sufficiently addresses those concerns and I think it's subject to And this was discussed, the same procedures that exist in capital murder in the context if you
have prosecutors who have the job of discerning the types of cases that deserve to be charged under the death penalty, and you have juries who have to vote unanimously to both convict and impose the death penalty in every case. It's a very high burden to meet. It's a burden that I think everybody involved takes seriously. Um, and the Attorney general supports this
Chair
Unverified
2:18:58
bill. OK. Senator Johnson. So what you're saying is, as Mr. Rosenswe said.
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
2:19:07
This is not going to be treated the same as a regular rape. Trying trying to prosecute on this, on this offense is not going to be the same as prosecuting on a regular rape case. This is going to be, uh, Very, uh, an offensive case, very hard to defend case and it's not the same as a typical regular rape case. Is that correct?
Speaker 317
2:19:38
Senator, I can't speak for the prosecutors, but I can tell you from looking at the way that current capital murder is treated that capital murder is is different. The cases are prosecuted different and there is a higher level of care that is given whenever prosecution is conducted seeking the death penalty from start to finish, including when our office deals with those cases on appeal through the appellate courts. Thank you. OK.
Any other questions? See none. Sister Stone, would you like to close for your bill, or would you like for us just
Matt Stone
Unverified
2:20:21
to make a motion? You go ahead. Yeah, I would like to close from
Senator Matt Stone
Unverified
2:20:26
a bill, please. You know, it was stated that it's just a small percentage of rapes happen in the woods. But to the rape victim, I don't think they care if it was in the woods or at their house. The rape occurred occurred and it was a life altering change.
Keep talking about a lack of evidence, but let's talk about when there's plenty of evidence, kind of like a Kennedy versus Louisiana, the case I was just quoting a while ago, an 8 year old girl. Had 4 sexual intercourse that called it a laceration to the left wall of her vagina where it separated her cervix from the back of her vagina, causing her rectum to protrude into the vaginal structure and our entire perineum was torn from the posterior forchette to the anus. That is evidence.
8 year old girl could point to her stepfather and say he was the perpetrator. There are plenty of cases that I've heard prosecutors talk about where they even filmed it. There's semen. Evidence available that that could tie it back to a DNA. We talked about the civility of our country. I want to live in a civilized country. But civility comes with the cost right now these trials and
incarceration, death penalties, that's being borne by the taxpayers. But the societal part of the child rapes are being borne by our children. The most vulnerable among us. We've already heard that the prosecutors have prosecutor prosecutorial discretion on areas that may be a little gray, and the judges even have the discretion when they do a sentence whether it be life sentence or send somebody to the death penalty.
Matt Stone
Unverified
2:22:18
I think we need to be able to
do that here. I'm closed for my bill. And, uh, So to Ross you recognize. a motion to pass, 2nd from Senator Gilmore. Discussion. Henry
Nunn all the motion signified by saying aye I post motion carried. Congratulations, Senator Stone, you have passed your bill. Senator Penzo.
Speaker 424
2:22:51
Uh, this one was 1479, correct? OK, so this one you have to do. OK, we got a motion to adopt the amendment in a second. Is that OK
with you, Senator Penzo? That is OK. OK. Any discussion? Oh, well, you
got ahead of us, Senator Tucker, so your staff a minute, all for the
motion signapa was saying ah all opposed. Motion carried if you
want to read the amendment, you should have waited. OK, Central Pennzo, you are recognized to
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
2:23:36
present your bill as amended. OK. Thank you committee for letting me get this amended. So we, we changed the language to say a
licensed engineer or surveyor who prepared the original survey replat lot split boundary line adjustment or
other instrument that affects or is related to the title of the real property, so it addresses what Senator Tucker was concerned about I hope it does, Senator Tucker. Senator Tucker does it.
Speaker 427
2:24:04
That's a, that's an excellent amendment there, Senator Penzo. I'll
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:24:11
be moving to pass your bill at the appropriate time. I really appreciate that. Just so you know,
the chair was completely out of order in allowing that, but
So I'm, I'm closed. OK, you're finished. We have no testimony for, not against. Uh And he had, uh, any questions? Hearing none, Senator's already said he's clothes for his. Bill
motion motion to pass is amended. Senator Johnson. Second from Senator Tucker, that's the verbal
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
2:24:56
amendment and the written amendment, correct?
Yes, that's we had already amended it before. Everyone, any discussion. Carry none all
for the motion to pass the bill as amended twice. Uh Singapo was saying all opposed. Congratulations, Central Penzo,
you have passed your bill. Thank you. OK, Senator Clark, is Senator Clark here? Yes, he is Senator Clark, you have 4 bills. Senator
Des, would you take the chair? Really need to get these out of here if y'all would like to batch them, you can. That's only
Speaker 408
2:25:38
for the other. It I'm gonna trust you with my billfold. there. come over. Yeah,
Speaker 424
2:26:03
it's 3 or 4 of these students, so just let me know what number. now. So All right. Chairman,
you are welcome to the end of the table, please introduce yourself for the record. State Senator Alan Clark,
District 6. You are recognized. Please tell us which bill you'd like to
start with. The 325, and there's amendment to 325, and I'll need a copy of the amendment. OK. We'll
get that amendment passed out. Is Mr. Chair, may I go ahead and tell you about the amendment, please do.
Uh, I can't tell you what's in the amendment. But we had a meeting Thursday evening. I was 17 stakeholders. And this amendment is comes from them, the changes that they
wanted to see, uh, and so like I said, I'm not going to get into detail on it, but it was to make the appropriate stakeholders happy with
the bill. All right, members, you heard the description. We've got a motion to adopt. I see a second, uh, all in favor to adopt the amendment. Say aye. I pose like sign and congrats. You're free to present your bill as
amended. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, members of the committee. SB 325 primarily
takes people off of the To maltreatment, central registry that don't belong there. The It doesn't take anyone else that has committed sexual abuse or been found Uh, true findings for sexual abuse, it doesn't take off for physical abuse. It takes people off for neglect. We have people, uh, especially in rural parts of the state that would like to go to work as a school janitor and
can't, uh, besides that, they didn't belong on the list to start with, we're the list is not about punishing people. The list is about protecting the public from someone who may harm a child. And in the case, most cases of neglect, that's just not the case. We amended it for DCFS. This is part of the amendment that's there that says that if you commit this neglect and your professional role like as a teacher or a childcare worker
then you do go on the list, but if you, if your neglect was With your kids, uh, etc. that's not likely that you would go into a job even as a childcare worker, and it's also, you know, up to an employer to make good decisions who they are. Child care worker or working in a school that you're the fact that you neglected your children does not follow that you're going to hurt someone else's child, and that's what this,
that's what this list is about. We're behind other states on this. We We have more people on our list and other people do, and we have them there improperly. I'd be happy to take questions, you heard the description of
the bill. Any questions? See no questions. We
do have a few signed up. It's just one but Jane Robertson. You have a J. Robinson. So Jay Robinson.
You're welcome to join us at the table and introduce yourself for the record, please. And,
and are you speaking for or against or on
Jay Robertson
Unverified
2:29:47
for the bill, OK. Please introduce yourself and who you represent. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My name is Jay Robertson. I work with Opportunity Arkansas. We're a state-based organization that works on solving generational challenges that face the state of Arkansas, and we care about child welfare and foster care reform because we know that getting this right has a huge positive impact on kids' lives,
and when we get it wrong, it can really have a negative impact. We're supportive of this bill from Senator Clark because we see how when the registry is overly expansive, includes people on there that have minor findings. It has the unintended consequence of making it more difficult for people to find employment and provide for their children, and we believe that the focus of our child welfare system should be to protect children and ensure they grow up in a good home, and so we're supportive of this bill
because we believe it helps accomplish those goals. We would urge you to support it, and I'd be happy to answer
any questions just for my understanding, this registry obviously a public registry list and so you're saying it employers Review this potentially and um has impact on employment for those individuals. Right, yeah, yeah,
Jay Robertson
Unverified
2:31:03
yes, that's correct. And so that's that's the primary concern and the, the bill, what it does is it focuses the
registry on serious offenses that doesn't impact people who had findings of abuse or sexual offenses purely findings of neglect because once again it does impact employment prospects. Not only affects employment prospects. There
are jobs that you cannot. Take or be hired for if you're on this list. Makes sense, Senator Senator Tucker, you working as?
Thank you, Mr. Chair. My question is really
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:31:36
about, I understand what you're trying to do.
But I think we all recognize we want
to be careful and make sure kids are protected on, and so you, I'm sure you've thought through this and I'm just curious about it. But anyway, at the bottom of page 2, Top of page 3. You're eliminating The requirement that the court have a written home study before a child can be Can have unsupervised visitation. Mr. Tucker, Mr. Tucker, Senator
Tucker, Mr. Chair, would it be OK if I have a Miss Martin come to the table to provide assistance. Yes,
please. Please identify yourself for the record and
Speaker 440
2:32:30
who you represent. Yes, I'm Martin. I am a senior director at Casey Family Programs. We are a foundation. Um, we
Speaker 441
2:32:36
have actually signed a technical assistance agreement with Senator Clark for the Senate Judiciary Committee to offer technical assistance, both as an Arkansas expert as well as
a national expert. And to answer your question about page 2, so while it eliminates the requirement. If you'll look above on online 32, it still allows the court to order studies evaluation. And then if you move on to page 3 and lines 1 and 2, it then allows the court um to may order unsupervised visitation or placement. So while it's no longer a requirement, it really gives judges more judicial discretion to be able to determine whether it's appropriate to have a full
homesteady or to whether to just have a home evaluation because you can see there on page 2 line 32, they have the authority to order a study or evaluation or a home study and so it the judges more discretion to determine what's appropriate. I saw that,
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:33:32
so I guess the follow up question then is, are there cases where it's appropriate to place a juvenile with unsupervised visitation where
there has not been a home study. Well, right, because, well, let me just answer the
Speaker 441
2:33:47
question versus um uh I'm not advocating for a necessary position, but I will give you a situation so you don't have to have unsupervised visits in the home. A lot of times in child welfare cases, we actually encourage unsupervised visits. to maybe happen out in the in the community. It could be, you know, meeting up at McDonald's because a lot of rural communities have McDonald's and so it can be a step in the process and there wouldn't need to be a home evaluation or a home study if you were having an
unsupervised visit at at McDonald's. Well what if
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:34:20
we said in the bill this may be a question for Senator Clark. What if we said that
you have to have a written home study. Before you can have unsupervised visitation in the home, but it's not necessary if you have an
unsupervised visitation outside the home. Senator Tucker, I appreciate your input. Uh, the I'm
not pretending to be an expert, uh, but again, of the 17
people there, they represented probably at least 10 organizations included, and I'm don't let me misinform you that any of them have said They're on board, uh, but that included DCFS CACD, it included the juvenile judges and All of them were good with the amendments as we, we took all of their amendments, uh, and I believe that's true. I think we took and again there was a lot of discussion over 3 hours, but
we took their amendments and they seem to be happy with it as written, although I Uh Uh, Ms. Martin may be able to add whether uh why that would be a good idea or not. Senator
Speaker 441
2:35:38
Tucker also just add that most of these circumstances are older youth. We're talking about reinstatement of parental rights. So typically these kids um would have had their rights terminated when they're younger. They've been in care for a long
time. So when you're thinking about what is, what is safe for a 1516 or 17 year old is a different standard and a home study is defined in the law, and it is quite a, it is quite a document and so giving the court the discretion to determine and their community, whether to have a home evaluation where the worker goes out, looks at the home, maybe if there's been previous substance abuse, the court could say, I want a drug screen on that parent before we do anything, or, you know, it gives the court the ability to
really look at the case and say, what is appropriate in this case because what you probably don't want to happen is a 17 year old whose parent is back in the picture and who the entire court team, remember we're talking Cosa, Ala. DHS attorney, um, maybe even parent counsel is back involved because in this new bill they could be have parent counsel back on them, uh, back appointed to them. What you don't want to happen is have to wait 3 months or 6 months to have a full home
study before you could start unsupervised visits, but again it would be up to the court to decide what the appropriate um evaluation would be for that specific case. OK. So my
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:37:06
previous question to you was, Should we rewrite
the language um Oh no, my previous question to you, Ms. Martin, was, are there instances where It's appropriate to have unsupervised visitation without a home study, and your answer was, well, you can have
unsupervised visitation in, in, in places other than the home, right? So really my follow up question to that is, I'm not asking for your opinion because I know you're not advocating, right? I'm asking for your knowledge based on your extensive experience, which is much more than mine, whether you are aware of cases
where it was appropriate. To have unsupervised visitation in the home specifically without a home study, yeah, so I
Speaker 441
2:37:51
would say based on my years of experience in child welfare, I
would expect that the worker, the DCFS worker would have at least been in the home and evaluated the situation of the parent. So yes, but an evaluation of the home which is allowed under this law does not meet the legal definition of a full home study. So I would if I was a judge and based on my experience. I would want someone who to have been to the home, but more than just see the home, have sat down and met with the parent, assessed, are they working? What is their, have they, if the drugs if were a
previous issue, a drug screen, talked to what's going on in their life, which happens in a homesteady but does not, does not meet the full definition of a homesteady. OK. Well, You keep prompting
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:38:43
more follow-up questions. I'll try to stop at this one. Should we there's a, so I understand that a home study can be quite extensive. It can take 3 or 6 months. I understand that. And but what you're describing is other steps that can be taken that maybe aren't quite as extensive that you would always
expect to have happened before someone can have unsupervised visitation in the home.
Speaker 449
2:39:04
Should we put those lower requirements in in here as
Speaker 441
2:39:09
mandatory in every case. Well, I think that we should give judges the ability to hear from the parties because we have a lot of parties, independency neglect cases and give them the discretion to evaluate what is appropriate, but I mean you as a legislator, you determine, you know, what, what is the, what is
Speaker 448
2:39:28
the minimum that you think should be required, so you as a legislator absolutely could put that
in the law. OK, thank you. Inner questions from members. OK, Miss Robinson, is any more testimony? Did you close up? OK,
thank you, Ms. Martin. Thank you, Mr. Robinson. All right, members, um, Any further questions for for Senator Tuck up for Senator
Clark on his bill. um, you are. All right, seeing none, uh. Senator Clark, would you like to close
for your bill? Oh, I'm sorry, let me interrupt myself here. OK, we don't have anybody signed up for again, so
would you like to close for your bill? Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Uh I'm closed and I make a motion to pass. We've got a
motion to pass. We've got a second by
Senator Johnson any discussion? Those are, those are motion to pass as amended, as amended, and as the first we've got a second by Senator Johnson. Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor of Senate Bill 325 as amended. Say aye. posed like sign. All right. Congratulations, Mr. Chair, your, your bill has passed. Thank you, would you like to go to next? SB 326. All right, sounds like we have another amendment with 326. We'll get
Speaker 118
2:40:59
that passed out. Do You are recognized to describe
your amendment. OK, I do not have the amendment yet, but the amendment is like SB 3. 25, it is done at the behest of the stakeholders. That were involved embedding this bill.
OK, I make a motion to adopt the amendment. I see
a second by Senator Rice. All those in favor signal by
saying I pose like side. All right, congratulations, your amendment is is adopted. You're recognized to Present the bill as amended. Thank you, Mr.
Chair. As we look at the title, Drop in line 10 to amend the child maltreatment Act to modify guidelines for a judgment made in the best interest of the child to amend procedures around reporting and child maltreatment dependency neglect and family in need of services matters to
amend procedures regarding screenings for child maltreatment and for other purposes. The Since this Martin is here to give technical advice. And was participate in the debate. I would like for her, uh, to tell you what's in the bill and You can also question this where everybody what questions came up on the bill, Ms. Martin, would you identify yourself again
in the organization you're with for
Speaker 440
2:42:31
the record, please? Sure, again, I'm Mica Martin. I'm a senior director at Casey Family Programs.
Speaker 441
2:42:36
Again, we do not have a position on this bill, but we are here to provide technical assistance, um, to you all as well as provide information on both national research as well as um my expertise in Arkansas. So as Senator Clark says, uh, I also happen to be a lawyer. So I'll walk you section by section from this bill. Section one is around best interest. You can see that um lines 32, there's added information about
really including language around best interests involving the family and not just the child, a child. So looking at page 2, that's the the real new text where um that when a child can safely remain in his or her family that a child should remain in his or her family. So that would both impact the court's decisions around val but as well as um the law requires that best interest be found at every point in the case decision point, which includes reunification, so, um, the stand
the judge would have to consider, is it safe for the child to return home. It also includes language around lines 16 to 22 when they're considering best interests. They have these additional 4 factors family integrity, the health and safety of a child, timely permanent decisions and ensuring that the child will become self-sufficient. The next 3 to 4 pages are around the definition of neglect, um, and adds in to, even though it's the next 3 or 4
pages, there's two main changes. Um, it does add in language around pattern of acts or omissions instead of just a single act, as well as now, um, the amendment that Senator Clark Rand changes on page 2 because the bill did originally include Garrett's neglect to have a pattern and so the amendment takes that out as well. The definition of pattern is is on page 4 lines 25 to 27, which
says that a pattern requires a persistent pattern of family functioning where the caregiver has not met or sustained the basic needs of a child. And then you will see on um page. 5. This is now we're moving away from neglect, um, the standard of removal in a fins case, family in need of service case currently allows the court to order the child directly into foster care, um, all other removals require 72 hour hold and so this just makes that
consistent with other types of removals and adds that the judge would take a 72 hour hold, just like he, he or she would do in a juvenile case or other juvenile proceeding that he or she is presiding over. And then you'll see on page 6 again that language around best interests and um the other substantive change is or the, the last one really gets around to page 8 lines 29, which requires the hotline to um consider family history, the age of the child, relationship of
the reporter, the risk, and also requires that the hotline use a standardized tool and how they assess and take cases into the child abuse hotline. And then I I said last, but really last but not least is the end of page 9, which says that a child cannot come into foster care or custody on the sole basis of poor uh poor school attendance, that's that I'm going into page 10, poor school attendance when the parent is unable to provide food, clothing, or shelter due to
financial inability or um because the child needs to receive behavioral health services or developmental services, and that really strengthens the language from earlier in the section that requires that a child only come into foster care when they are in immediate danger. There is some um national research as well as I'm aware of Arkansas data that would um that talk that is regarding some of these issues in these bills, and I'm happy to answer questions related to that. Thank you, Ms. Martin. We'll be happy to take any questions.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:46:43
All right, members see Senator Tucker. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um. So I'm curious. With the amendment, a pattern of was
deleted from page 3 line 36, but kept elsewhere in the bill. That's
Speaker 441
2:47:05
right. So the pattern is, so what happened is if you have, you have two, you have different types of neglect. So like if you look at um, if you look at page
2, line 27, that's the beginning of the typical neglect definition. So the pattern stays there and it includes all your normal failure to provide necessary food, clothing, and shelter. uh, um, failure to provide for the juvenile's care and then as you get on down to line 36, that next section is all Garrett's law. So causing a child to be born with an illegal substance present in the child's body. Well, you don't want a pattern on Garrett's law, right? Like you just had one birth and one
child. So, um, I think that was just a drafting error. I mean, I can't speak for certain, but I think that was a drafting error when it was drafted, because it doesn't make sense to have a pattern for a mother born with a baby, so that there was an um Senator Clark ran an amendment to take that out of that section. OK.
Speaker 330
2:48:05
On page 3 line 12. Why are we striking emotional needs of the
Speaker 441
2:48:14
juvenile. Oh, thank you for catching that. uh, uh,
emotional abuse is in is in another section, but a part, well, I can't answer for Senator Clark, so let me say I can't answer for Senator Clark, but the reason for some of the, the changes around neglect, there is, um, even some national research about overly vague and broad definitions of neglect and so making sure that um an emotional neglect is a is a very broad term that's hard to define and so, um, that it I suspect I'll let Senator Clark
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:48:50
talk, but it's a broad term without definition. Uh, yeah, OK, Senator Clark, because I noticed that elsewhere in the bill too on page 7 and
other places is, is that your answer? That is correct. It's broad term not very well defined.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:49:12
On page 8 line 31. You've got a standardized
Assessment tool. Did you consider having that be a validated assessment tool instead of it could be a standardized
bad tool, right? Um, so that's why I'm wondering if we considered validated instead of
standardized. The In all the discussions we had on that and we had quite a bit. I don't think
we had that discussion. Uh, Senator does versus what
Senator Tucker, I'm sorry, you said validated, validated. The Senator
Speaker 441
2:49:58
Tucker, so let's let, I mean, I hear what you're saying. I will say just on page 9, line 2 through 4, and I think you make a valid point. I mean, the national research is around using an assessment tool to help more consistent. Consistent decision making. The bill does require that the data would be, uh, the data would be collected and then use the data
to evaluate the consistency of screening decisions. I'm not sure that totally goes to your question, but the, I think the the idea from even a national perspective is how do you actually use data to make sure that you're making consistent and good decisions. Part of my thinking, Senator Tucker,
is that Uh, working with these various agencies. I
try to change what absolutely has to be changed, and I try to leave as much freedom.
As I can, as we can, uh, and a standardized tool that they decide that is standardized and they developed so that everybody that's working the hotline does the same thing. Uh, the difference between that and a validated is one of the reasons our 50 different states work as well as they do, is we can go to other states and see what they're doing that works. Uh, and so I have the belief that our CCD can come up with a better tool than maybe that which is validated. If we find that not
to be true, I'll be glad to to change that, but they have the experience here in the state, uh, we're just saying it has to be a standardized tool that everybody's
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:51:39
doing the same. I, I support the use of Assessment tools because I've worked on this on the justice side. Of things and I've seen some tools that assessment tools that are standardized but very bad, and we're actually at Senator Gilmore and I are working on some language where we're
requiring validated risk-based assessment tools rather than just In any old tool because there there are some tools that that can be pretty bad. So anyway, I thought I would ask just raise that issue, um. Did you accept any recommended changes from AOC or the juvenile judges on this. We did. What were their concerns? I think
the general judges spoke more than anyone did, or at
least their assistant spoke, uh, the I can't Remember again, everything that we uh 3 hours at the end of the day on Thursday is a long time and uh I can't think of anything that we did not. that we did not either answer or and I know there was a couple of uh Amendments that came from from
them, but as far as to what their concerns were, a lot of this you have to understand there's a lot of agreement. That We on the previous bill that we've got too many people on the list. There was no disagreement on that. It was how do we get down to the right ones on the list. And on this bill, there's also that we're, we take kids into care when we shouldn't, and nobody knows that, I think more better than judges, but a lot of people, you know, just if you're out among the public and you
work on child welfare the way I do, well, we ought to take these kids. Well, people don't know what where we take those kids, there's not some magic wand. that then his way, uh, and so many times the children unless the abuse is really bad, we're better off at home than they are in the system. First of all, it's traumatic, no matter what the reasons are, and there are so many cases where we have to take kids. The trauma, it's well documented
that kids have for life because they were taken, uh, and then second, sometimes the what they run into in the system. is also traumatic. We have wonderful foster parents. We have foster parents that aren't so wonderful. Uh, and So there is a Belief that we don't want to take kids unless we absolutely need to, uh, and I think everyone is supportive of that direction.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:54:32
So I understand, you know, generally the issue that you're Working toward, but I just was curious specifically about the concerns of the juvenile judges, and I understand and I'm, I'm not being critical, but you just don't remember,
you don't remember all of their concerns, but, but your belief is that you, with the amendment that you've addressed addressed all of them. We'll keep in mind that the juvenile judge that
was there. Made it clear that they couldn't speak for all the juvenile judges, which we understand,
but and they, they ever question they had, they brought forward I think in almost every case, the juvenile judge that was there was happy. Keep in mind that all juvenile judges don't agree. There are general judges be much more favorable than others, uh, to what we're trying to do, but we out to include them and I really wish because I can remember the judge speaking and I can remember, but
I really don't have Mr. Martin may have a better memory than I do. Uh, it probably does, uh, younger brain that's not quite as fried, but, uh, because it was late that evening, it's late this evening, right, Senator Tucker as the facilitator of
Speaker 441
2:55:50
that meeting, I took notes and then also did a summary of what amendments were requested by what stakeholder, um, if you'd like me to do a very quick rundown of that. OK, great. So, um, add
relatives to be able to file a dependency neglect in Finn's case that was uh that was administrative office of the court's request, um, when you list the concern, will you also list
Speaker 287
2:56:15
whether it's been addressed. Oh, OK, sure, give me just one
Speaker 441
2:56:19
second because I want to make sure I have my most updated. s Because actually some stakeholders gave me feedback on the notes and I updated them, so I want to make sure that I am giving you my most updated if I interrupt just a second, they
were all authorized to send us to send amendments directly to VLR, and many
did, and we I don't think there's anything they sent we didn't. We didn't accept. OK, I'm ready now. So
Speaker 441
2:56:51
create an exception for a teacher's daycare workers, foster parents, home to home childcare workers and so on. Um, oh, now, do you want the list for I'm sorry, do you want the how long is the list's not that long. It's not that long. DHS requested that
and that was in the amendment on the other bill. Add that, uh, parental reinstatement position uh petition be able to file it in the original county. That was the DHS request. Add relatives to be able to file DN and Finsins. um, petitions that the administrative office's request. And that is that every bill this one or 325? That's in this bill that is in, OK, let me, let me point you to the amendment. Now that might take me one more second, but um,
OK, so add, you're going to have to give me 1 2nd to correspond the amendment to the bill. Be. OK, so that one, the fins add the add the relative to the fins is um the 3rd Amendment down.
On page 5, line 1. Um Change 72 hour hold language to May instead of a shell on fins that would be That would be page 517, which would be the next amendment that was AOC's request, uh, delete. I'm some of my notes are, are blended between 325 and um 326. The next one was delete section
5 of 325 AOC was a part of that conversation and that was amended, but that's in the the first bill, um, then delete after on the hotline assessment, um, that was raised as a concern by ASC but also as a concern of uh DHS and that was amended on That's on the 2nd page of the amendment says page 8, line 29,
delete after Ms. Martin, can I interrupt for a minute? Senator Tucker, it sounds like all the testimony I heard that there wasn't any changes that were denied.
And BLR had access to all those um uh and so it was there, was there issues there? I think there's just
Speaker 441
2:59:37
one other section that I think I need to tell Senator Senator Tucker about to be transparent, um, Senator, this is my notes. Senator Clark asked AOC to send language, and he agreed to review and consider language on these issues neglect
language around a substitution of the word pattern, a specific assignment to assigned parent counsel. Oh, I'm parental rights, but that did get in the, that did get in the amendment. That was in the draft and then language for to neglect to automatically fall off the registry after some specified time or something in the middle. Senator Clark specifically asked for all suggested
Speaker 443
3:00:12
language and amendments be provided by losing business
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
3:00:16
on Friday. OK. One last question is whether the
Speaker 476
3:00:22
state police have a position on the bill. Not that I know of. Uh, the, uh,
I cannot remember the major's name. Drew, Major Drew, uh had some concerns I was definitely on the impression that by the time we finished and it was, I'm trying to remember what his major concern. His concern was just that we let anybody off the list the groups
I spent time specifically so that Major Drew could share his concerns and the and in the end, I believe he will have to speak for himself, but I believe that he was Good with the fact that We definitely had too many people on the list, and he agreed with the fact that all
the other stakeholders wanted it changed, and we listened to his objections, and I would be surprised if they took a position against they're not here, um, but again this is at this point is a rush. We've met with everybody for 3 hours. We took all their amendments the there were things we agreed not to change, and that's one of the things that that we agreed not to change. Uh, so I don't want to misstate.
Uh, where the, where the state police or CACD specifically might be but I believe that while they none of us completely agree on everything, but while they were not completely agreed on everything that they did not seem to be in a position to oppose. Thank
Chair
Unverified
3:02:19
you, Senator Clark. Thank you, Senator Reich recognized
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
3:02:22
Clark, I appreciate vetting these like we have vetted it well, we're keeping staff.
Extra time, uh, I, I would ask us to wrap up. I've got a motion at the proper time if
you don't want to give it. Uh, any further questions, Senator Senator Clark, if there's, would you like to close
for your bill? I'm closed. I make a motion
to pass. Thank you. We did have members sign up to speak for the bill, but I've spoke to him. He's waving it off, so we've got a motion do passed by Senator Rice a second motion to pass as amended by Senator Rice, a motion to pass
2 I'm sorry, motion by Senator
Clark, second by Senator Rice. As amended, all those in favor to pass Senate Bill 326 as amended. Say aye opposed like sign. Congrats, uh, congrats Senator Clark, your
bill has passed. Thank you. SB 340. Yes,
sir. Could I ask, is Kristen here?
I Kristen from Arkansas Advocates for children and
families to join me at the table. OK.
Um, Senator Clark, it appears we do not have a quorum at the moment. I think they're still
Speaker 215
3:03:46
here. They mentioned they may not be. Um
Give me a moment. Give me a moment, sir.
Speaker 139
3:04:05
I still see a quorum. You're correct. All right, you're free to present
Speaker 483
3:04:14
your bill, please recognize yourself for the record. Good
Speaker 485
3:04:17
afternoon, Kristen Harper, Arkansas Advocates for
Children and Families. Thank you, Kristen. All right, Senator, you're recognized. This bill is
mainly about and I'll let Christian really speak to the details this bill is about uh services that are not only ordered by judges but needed by families
that we've done a survey for the past few years that we, I think we came to a total of about $140,000 I think the judges may have come back with $180,000 but not a lot of money, but it's a lot of money for impoverished families, and so we're moving this to from the backs of impoverished families to a fund that already exists, and I'll let uh Christian take over if she would.
Speaker 483
3:05:08
Thank you. Uh, good afternoon again. So yes, um SB 340 essentially what this is trying to do is eliminate fines and fees for juveniles and their families who have delinquency cases. Um, it does not mean juveniles would still be able, would still be required to pay restitution when that is ordered and it does not touch any fins, um, but ultimately, of course the purpose of the juvenile justice system is to focus on rehabilitation. Um, unfortunately, uh, many juveniles in the system when they're charged fines and fees. goes to the families typically
and not on the juveniles, so it can actually trap them in the system, and while some of these fees are not very much, and it can, as, as Senator Clark said, it can be a lot for families. And so we really want to make sure that the families are not, um, penalized, um, for, um, and, and have to bear the cost of uh of the courts themselves. I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you, Kristen. Members, any questions, Bill?
Say none to everybody signed up for or against on 340. Yes, we do. We have a Mr.
Greg Parrish signed up to speak. For the bill on the bill, Mr. Parish, please
Speaker 488
3:06:26
identify yourself and who you represent. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Greg Paris with the Arkansas Public Defender Commission, and I'll be very, very brief. The only part of problem I have with the bill is the part where it basically gives the, the juvenile judge, the public defender's going to be appointed in every case at this point with this bill
because there's no requirement for the affidavit revengeency. There's no concern with the parents assets or anybody else's assets. Uh, and having been in this position, I know it's much easier for a judge to say I'm appointing the public defender rather than dealing with a pro se defendant, and as everybody on this committee knows, We have more cases than we can shake a stick at already, and I see this is opening up a lot of the gates for the numerous juvenile judges across the state
to appoint us. With that said, that's fine. Just as long as everyone understands that that happens, I'm going to be back in here saying our case voters. Multiplied by however many. The rest of the bill, I have no problem with. I just wanted to point that out. Thank you, Mr. Parish. Members, any questions for Mr. Parish?
And Nunn, thank you for your testimony. Anybody else would like to speak for or against the bill? See none,
um, Mr. Chairman, it's your chance to close for the bill.
I'm closed. I would appreciate a good vote and I make a motion to pass. I see, I see a motion
there. I see a second by Senator Tucker in your discussion on the motion. And just to confirm, this one did not have an amendment, correct? OK, no, OK, members are all in favor of passing the do pass motion 2 for Senate Bill 340 signaled by saying I in like sign oppose. Congratulations, Senator, your bill has passed.
I think he has another one as well. OK. All right. On 342 uh Mr. Chair, I would like just to make a point and then I'll pull it down for today. The biggest objection to this bill has been line 35, a person knowing
that a dog has killed or is about to catch injure or kill a domesticated animal has a right to kill the dog without liability to the owner of the dog. I would like to point out
that's already law. That's not something I've added. I would have added it if it weren't there.
But it's already there, so the only thing that changes is on the back page,
uh. which basically says that you can seek triple damages of a neighbor's dog kills your livestock, uh, but I'll be glad to pull it down and bring it back to you on Wednesday. OK. Thank you, Senator.
You do have an amendment on 342. Are you asking to hear that amendment as well today. That's
just adding up a sponsor, I think. Would you like to adopt that in committee today? Yeah, if y'all don't mind. OK. Um,
yes, we'll do that. We've got a motion to adopt. I see a second as well from Senator Johnson, all those in favor to adopt the amendment on Senate Bill 342 signaled by saying I opposed say no. Congratulations you're meant 342 has the amendment has been adopted. Uh, and are you asking to run
this at a later date or I will pull SB 342 down to run on Wednesday. OK, understood. Thanks, 342 as
amended. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman, for finally getting a sponsor, the house sponsor for a meal. I always do, Senator Johnson. Thank you. All right, Mr. Chair,
Speaker 492
3:10:01
we welcome you back up here. You can go. You can go ahead
Speaker 493
3:10:07
and gavel us out. Members, any other business before us tonight?
Speaker 78
3:10:21
See a nun, we will be back in committee Wednesday at 10 a.m., I believe, unless otherwise stated or otherwise posted online. Thank you for the long night. Uh, we are adjourned.
Agenda
RE-REFERRED TO COMMITTEE
Call To Order
SB302 Gilmore TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF GIFT CARD FRAUD; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
REGULAR AGENDA Number Sponsor Subtitle
HB1479 Warren TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING SCRIVENER'S AFFIDAVITS; AND TO ALLOW A LICENSED ENGINEER, SURVEYOR, OR NOTARY PUBLIC TO EXECUTE AND RECORD A SCRIVENER'S AFFIDAVIT IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.
HB1474 Joey Carr CONCERNING THE PREVENTION OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING; AND TO REQUIRE THE DISPLAY OF INFORMATION ABOUT THE NATIONAL HUMAN TRAFFICKING HOTLINE.
SB314 Irvin TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING SEXUAL SOLICITATION; AND TO AMEND THE PENALTIES FOR THE OFFENSE OF SEXUAL SOLICITATION.
SB325 A. Clark TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS JUVENILE CODE OF 1989; TO AMEND THE CHILD MALTREATMENT ACT; TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING REINSTATEMENT OF PARENTAL RIGHTS; AND TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING THE CHILD MALTREATMENT CENTRAL REGISTRY.
SB326 A. Clark TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS JUVENILE CODE OF 1989 AND THE CHILD MALTREATMENT ACT; TO MODIFY GUIDELINES FOR A JUDGMENT MADE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF A CHILD; AND TO AMEND PROCEDURES AROUND REPORTING CHILD MALTREATMENT.
HB1527 Hudson TO AMEND THE PERMISSIBLE INVESTMENTS A GUARDIAN OF THE ESTATE MAY MAKE ON BEHALF OF A WARD
SB340 A. Clark TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING CERTAIN FEES, EXPENSES, AND COSTS IMPOSED ON A JUVENILE OR THE PARENT, GUARDIAN, OR CUSTODIAN OF A JUVENILE.
SB342 A. Clark TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING INJURIES TO CERTAIN ANIMALS BY DOGS TO AUTHORIZE TREBLE DAMAGES.
SB375 Stone TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF CAPITAL RAPE; AND TO AMEND A PORTION OF ARKANSAS CODE WHICH RESULTED FROM INITIATED ACT 3 OF 1936.
HB1489 Wardlaw TO AMEND THE METHOD OF EXECUTION TO INCLUDE NITROGEN GAS.
SB393 D. Wallace TO AMEND THE SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT OF 1997.
HB1581 Henley TO ADD TRAFFICKING OF PERSONS TO THE LIST OF OFFENSES INCLUDED IN THE DEFINITION OF SEX OFFENSE FOR RIGHTS OF VICTIMS OF A CRIME.
HB1609 Lundstrum TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING HUMAN TRAFFICKING; TO CREATE AN ENHANCED PENALTY FOR RECRUITING TRAFFICKED PERSONS FROM CERTAIN PLACES; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
Adjourn
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — JUDICIARY COMMITTEE - SENATE AND HOUSE, Mar 10, 2025 | Agenda | 2 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
Senator Tyler Dees Chair
Unverified
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
Speaker 21
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
Speaker 18
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
Speaker 53
Speaker 55
Speaker 60
Speaker 62
Speaker 63
Speaker 65
Speaker 69
Senator Dave Wallace
Unverified
Chair
Unverified
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
Speaker 126
Speaker 127
Speaker 142
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
Senator Alan Clark Chair
Unverified
Kristen Nguyen
Unverified
Speaker 184
Speaker 183
Speaker 201
Speaker 206
Sarah Moore
Unverified
Speaker 223
Speaker 227
Speaker 236
Speaker 241
Speaker 244
Speaker 246
Speaker 248
Speaker 250
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
Speaker 265
Representative Dolly Henley
Unverified
Speaker 278
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
Speaker 292
Matt Stone
Unverified
Senator Matt Stone
Unverified
Speaker 317
Speaker 319
Speaker 322
Speaker 324
Speaker 330
Speaker 176
Speaker 336
Speaker 194
Speaker 347
Speaker 353
Speaker 243
Speaker 354
Speaker 357
Speaker 342
Speaker 360
Speaker 361
Senator Greg Leding
Unverified
Speaker 346
Speaker 367
Speaker 370
Speaker 372
Speaker 381
Speaker 378
Speaker 387
Speaker 345
Speaker 389
Speaker 392
Speaker 396
Speaker 315
Speaker 328
Speaker 403
Speaker 414
Speaker 356
Speaker 424
Speaker 427
Speaker 408
Jay Robertson
Unverified
Speaker 440
Speaker 441
Speaker 449
Speaker 448
Speaker 118
Speaker 287
Speaker 443
Speaker 476
Speaker 215
Speaker 139
Speaker 483
Speaker 485
Speaker 488
Speaker 492
Speaker 493
Speaker 78