Date: 03/26/2013

Final
BILL SUMMARY for HB13-1254

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

Votes: View--> Action Taken:
Adopt amendment L.004 (Attachment D). The motion p
Adopt amendment L.006 (Attachment E). The motion p
Refer House Bill 13-1254, as amended, to the Commi		Pass Without Objection
Pass Without Objection
PASS



03:21 PM -- House Bill 13-1254

The committee returned to order.

Representative Lee, prime sponsor, presented House Bill 13-1254. The bill creates a $10 surcharge on all crimes, to be deposited in the newly created Restorative Justice Surcharge Fund, which is subject to annual appropriation to the Judicial Branch for the costs of restorative justice programs and administrative costs associated with the Restorative Justice Coordinating Council.

The bill creates a restorative justice pilot project consisting of two new restorative justice programs in the 10th and 19th Judicial Districts and two existing programs in the 12th and 20th Judicial Districts. At each program site, if a juvenile, who has not been previously charged with a crime or who has not participated in the pilot project, could be charged with a misdemeanor, the district attorney is required to assess the juvenile's suitability for restorative justice programs. The district attorney is also permitted to refer juveniles charged with a class 3, 4, 5, or 6 felony if the juvenile has not been previously charged or has not participated in the pilot project. If the juvenile is deemed suitable and agrees to participate in the restorative justice program at his or her own expense, the district attorney will not file charges pending completion of the program. If the juvenile fails to complete the program, the charges may be reinstated by the district attorney.

Each of the programs are required to provide certain information to the Division of Criminal Justice (DCJ) within the Department of Public Safety by July 1, 2014, and each July 1 thereafter concerning the following:

The DCJ is then required to prepare a report by December 1, 2014, of the information it receives. The DCJ is required to prepare a second report by December 1, 2015, that includes a summary of the pilot project and existing sites.

Additionally, the bill makes changes to the existing Restorative Justice Coordinating Council within the Office of the State Court Administrator. The council is required to:
The membership of the council is expanded to include:

Finally, under current law, restorative justice victim-offender conferences may only be initiated by the victim. The bill allows the district attorney or the offender to initiate such a conference under some circumstances.


03:27 PM

Representative Lee listed the merits of restorative justice practices. He distributed a fact sheet about the bill (Attachment C), prepared amendment L.004 (Attachment D), and prepared amendment L.006 (Attachment E). He responded to questions from the committee.

13HseJud0326AttachC.pdf13HseJud0326AttachC.pdf 13HseJud0326AttachD.pdf13HseJud0326AttachD.pdf

13HseJud0326AttachE.pdf13HseJud0326AttachE.pdf

03:38 PM -- Marsha Willis, representing herself, testified in opposition to the bill. Ms. Willis spoke about her son's death in a drunk driving accident. She discussed her experience with victim-offender conferences. She expressed her opinion that timing is crucial for such a conference and that only victims should be able to request them. She stated that the criminal justice system protects the accused to the detriment of the victim. She stressed that she supports restorative justice, but only under specific guidelines.

03:47 PM -- Nancy Lewis, representing the Colorado Organization for Victim Assistance, testified in opposition to the bill. Ms. Lewis expressed her enthusiastic support for restorative justice practices. She listed the provisions of the bill that she supports. She stated her support for strike-below amendment L.003 (Attachment F). She commented that the bill needs to be victim-centered. She stated that the amendment exempts all Victim Rights Act (VRA) crimes from participation in the pilot program and indicated that this exemption is crucial. She responded to questions from the committee about her position on the bill as introduced and with the possibility of the amendments.

13HseJud0326AttachF.pdf13HseJud0326AttachF.pdf

04:03 PM

The committee continued to discuss various potential amendments.

04:05 PM -- Jennifer Clouse, representing Mothers Against Drunk Driving, testified in opposition to the bill. Ms. Clouse discussed her support for restorative justice. She expressed her opinion that standards and guidelines are crucial to successful outcomes for victims. She spoke about the timing of victim-offender conferences. She responded to questions from the committee.

04:10 PM -- Steve Siegel, representing the Denver District Attorney's Office, testified in opposition to the bill. Mr. Siegel stated that the bill does not discuss standards for screening. He recommended that the Restorative Justice Council and the Colorado Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice provide guidance on this issue. He stated that restorative justice should not be used for certain types of cases. Mr. Siegel responded to questions from the committee.

04:18 PM -- Kim Dvorchak, representing the Colorado Juvenile Defender Coalition, testified in support of the bill. Ms. Dvorchak spoke about the types of crimes committed by juveniles. She addressed comments by prior witnesses about only allowing victims to initiate restorative justice dialogues. She talked about avoiding entry into the juvenile justice system and how such avoidance has been shown to keep at-risk juveniles from becoming habitual adult offenders. Ms. Dvorchak responded to questions from the committee about victim initiation of victim-offender conferences.


04:30 PM

The committee discussed the appropriate use of restorative justice practices.

04:33 PM -- Greg Ruprecht and Mike Violette, representing the Colorado Fraternal Order of Police, testified in support of the bill. Mr. Violette spoke about the appropriate use of restorative justice and the positive outcomes associated with such practices. He discussed ways the bill improves the current restorative justice environment in Colorado. He commented about his personal experience with restorative justice. Mr. Ruprecht spoke about his professional background as a law enforcement officer. He indicated that, as a young police officer, he would have been opposed to restorative justice practices. He commented about his desire as a new officer to make criminals pay for their crimes. He discussed an experience he had in 2004 with an incident of juvenile property crime that changed his mind about appropriate sanctions for juvenile offenders. He expressed his opinion about the benefits of restorative justice practices and the long-term outcomes of the participants.


04:44 PM

Mr. Ruprecht continued to speak about the benefits of restorative justice. He responded to questions from the committee about the mechanics of restorative justice programs.

05:04 PM -- Bruce Richards, representing himself, testified in support of the bill. Mr. Richards spoke about his experience as a volunteer victim advocate and restorative justice practitioner. He discussed standards established by the Pikes Peak Restorative Justice Council. He provided information about the mechanics of restorative justice practices. He stressed that the purpose of victim-offender dialogues is to make sure everyone involved understands the level of harm caused by the offender and what needs to happen to make things better. He responded to questions from the committee about who benefits most from restorative justice.

05:12 PM -- Bridget Klauber, representing the Colorado Criminal Defense Bar, testified in support of the bill. Ms. Klauber praised the pilot program and data collection provisions of the bill. She responded to questions from the committee. Representative Lee weighed in as well.

05:20 PM -- Cayenna Johnson, representing the Victim Offender Reconciliation Program of Denver, testified in support of the bill. Ms. Johnson spoke about her professional background. She commented that offenders in the restorative justice process are active participants who are forced to take responsibility for their actions, as opposed to those in the justice system, who tend to become victims. She stated that her program uses a victim surrogate panel and she spoke about the process of using such a panel. She talked about recidivism rates for juveniles who complete the program; those who enter, but do not complete the program; and those who never enter the program. She expressed her opinion that standards should be locally determined. She discussed the restorative justice process.
BILL:HB13-1254
TIME: 05:34:07 PM
MOVED:Lee
MOTION:Adopt amendment L.004 (Attachment D). The motion passed without objection.
SECONDED:Buckner
VOTE
Buckner
Court
Gardner
Lawrence
McLachlan
Excused
Murray
Pettersen
Salazar
Wright
Lee
Kagan
YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 1 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: Pass Without Objection


BILL:HB13-1254
TIME: 05:39:08 PM
MOVED:Lee
MOTION:Adopt amendment L.006 (Attachment E). The motion passed without objection.
SECONDED:Salazar
VOTE
Buckner
Court
Gardner
Lawrence
McLachlan
Excused
Murray
Pettersen
Salazar
Wright
Lee
Kagan
YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 1 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: Pass Without Objection


BILL:HB13-1254
TIME: 05:47:45 PM
MOVED:Lee
MOTION:Refer House Bill 13-1254, as amended, to the Committee on Finance. The motion passed on a vote of 6-4, with 1 excused.
SECONDED:Salazar
VOTE
Buckner
Yes
Court
Yes
Gardner
No
Lawrence
No
McLachlan
Excused
Murray
No
Pettersen
Yes
Salazar
Yes
Wright
No
Lee
Yes
Kagan
Yes
Final YES: 6 NO: 4 EXC: 1 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS



05:47 PM

The committee adjourned.