NOTE: As provided in LFC policy, this report is intended only for use by the standing finance committees of the legislature. The Legislative Finance Committee does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of the information in this report when used for other purposes.
The most recent FIR
version (in HTML & Adobe PDF formats) is available on the Legislative
Website. The Adobe PDF version includes
all attachments, whereas the HTML version does not. Previously issued FIRs and attachments may be
obtained from the LFC in
|
SPONSOR: |
HJC |
DATE TYPED: |
|
HB |
53/HJCS |
||
|
SHORT TITLE: |
Sex Offender Parole Provision |
SB |
|
||||
|
|
ANALYST: |
Gilbert |
|||||
APPROPRIATION
|
Appropriation
Contained |
Estimated
Additional Impact |
Recurring or
Non-Rec |
Fund Affected |
||
|
FY03 |
FY04 |
FY03 |
FY04 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$0.1 See Narrative |
|
|
Responses
Received From
Administrative
Offices of the District Attorney
Public
Defenders Office
The
Adult Parole Board
Criminal
and Juvenile Justice Coordination Council
SUMMARY
Synopsis
of Bill
House
Judiciary Committee substitute for House Bill 53 creates a new
parole-eligibility category specific to sex offenders. The bill defines sex offender as any person
convicted of, or who pleads guilty to,:
(1)
criminal
sexual penetration in the first, second or third degree;
(2)
criminal
sexual contact with a minor; or
(3)
sexual
exploitation of children.
Under existing law, a sex offender would be subject to a two-year term
of parole. Currently, this is the term assigned to all first, second or third
degree felonies. HB 53/HJCS changes the
parole term for sex offenders to “not to exceed 20 years.”
In determining the term of parole for a sex offender, HB 53/HJCS provides the parole board may consider:
(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense for which the sex offender was incarcerated;
(2) the nature and circumstances of a prior sex offense committed by the sex offender;
(3) rehabilitation efforts engaged in by the sex offender, including participation in treatment programs while incarcerated or elsewhere; and
(4) the danger to the community posed by the sex offender.
HB 53/HJCS grants the parole board the authority to order reasonable conditions of parole with which a sex offender must comply. These conditions may include:
(1) being subject to intensive supervision by a parole officer;
(2) participating in an outpatient or inpatient sex offender treatment program;
(3) an agreement not to use alcohol or drugs;
(4) an agreement not to have contact with certain persons, or a class of persons; and
(5) being subject to alcohol testing, drug testing, polygraph examination, or another similar such examination which may be used to determine if the sex offender is in compliance with the terms and conditions of his parole.
HB 53/HJCS provides that the parole board must review the terms and conditions of a sex offender’s parole at four-year intervals. During a review hearing, the state shall bear the burden of proving to the board that a sex offender should remain on parole. The board may decide to continue a sex offender’s parole, but may also determine that certain terms and conditions of parole are no longer necessary.
Finally, HB 53/HJCS provides that the parole board must notify the chief public defender of an upcoming parole hearing for a sex offender, and the chief public defender shall represent the sex offender at the parole hearing.
Significant Issues
(1) It is widely believed that sex offenders cannot be rehabilitated. This class of criminal is known for its high rate of recidivism.
(2) HB 53/HJCS gives significant discretion and flexibility to the parole board. At the same time, by mandating that in no event will the parole period be greater than 20 years, it protects offenders from indefinite parole.
(3)
The public defenders office raises an equal
protection argument because sex offenders, as a class of criminal, are subject
to conditions that other classes of criminals are not.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
HB 53/HJCS does not contain an appropriation. However, since this bill increases parole periods from the current 2 years up to a possible total of 20 years and mandates the Chief Public Defender to represent all sex offenders at their parole hearings, additional FTE’s may be necessary.
HB 53/HJCS may also
discourage plea agreements, which would increase the number of cases going to
trial. This would impact the courts, the
public defenders office and the district attorneys office. These trials are difficult and costly.
ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS
The parole board will be required to make minor changes to its’ policies, procedures, rules and regulations.
The board will see an increase in the number of parole hearings. For example, if a sex offender is placed on parole for a period of 20 years, the board would have to review his parole status a total of five times (once every 4 years). Without HB 53/HJCS, the parole term would simply be two years total.
The board will likely see a slight increase in administrative responsibilities in those instances where it orders alcohol or drug testing, or attempts to assess a parolee’s compliance with the terms and conditions of his parole.
OTHER SUBSTANTIVE
ISSUES
The substitute bill
requires the state to bear the burden of proving to the board that a sex offender
should remain on parole. The board may
decide to continue a sex offender’s parole, but may also determine that certain
terms and conditions of parole are no longer necessary. In the original HB
53, if the sex offender satisfactorily demonstrates and the board finds that
the sex offender's parole may be discharged or that certain terms and
conditions of parole are no longer necessary, the board may amend its order
accordingly.
Both the public defenders office and the district attorneys office have raised the issue of “equal protection”. Does treating sex offenders different from other types of criminals constitute grounds for an equal protection claim?
Under HB 53/HJCS, the chief public defender
is notified before a sex offender is to go before the parole board. The district attorney should be notified as
well. This would allow victims to be
notified in order that they may address the board, and would allow the State an
opportunity to also present a position.