By John P. Gregg — Valley News Staff Writer
|
On Sex Crimes Sentencing
Montpelier — After three weeks of debate, members of the Vermont Senate Judiciary Committee have agreed to a compromise that would include some mandatory minimum sentences in a proposed overhaul of Vermont's sex-offender laws, a key legislator said yesterday.
Senate Majority Leader John Campbell, a Quechee Democrat, yesterday said he and three other members of the six-person committee agreed on three mandatory sentences — 10 years for aggravated sexual assault, first offense; and a "presumptive" five-year mandatory minimum for a second conviction for lewd and lascivious conduct, doubling to a presumptive mandatory 10 years for a third conviction.
Campbell said the presumptive measure allows judges to deviate from the mandatory term if they explain their rationale in court.
Campbell previously had been opposed to mandatory minimum terms — which were also rejected by the Vermont House in February — citing testimony from victims' advocates that they could discourage plea bargains and force young children to testify.
But Campbell yesterday said he was concerned that lengthier 25-year mandatory terms might otherwise be proposed on the floor of the Senate, where several members are under intense political pressure on the issue. Using the possibility of a 10-year mandatory term as a threat, Campbell said, would still allow prosecutors to win a sexual-assault plea bargain with some prison time in cases where the victim was reluctant to testify.
Campbell said the legislation, which is likely to be voted out of the Senate Judiciary Committee today or tomorrow, dramatically expands the number of offenders who will appear on the state's sex offender registry.
"We're going to change the registry to make it more user-friendly," he said.
The bill would also allow Vermont to mirror federal rules of evidence in sex-crime cases, which Campbell said give prosecutors more leeway in introducing "prior bad acts" by defendants.
— John P. Gregg
|
The New Hampshire House last month overwhelmingly rejected a proposal that would allow prosecutors to seek a mandatory minimum of 25 years for adults convicted of aggravated felonious sexual assault of a child under 13, or for abuse of a child that results in permanent injury.
"The harm that sexual predators do to their young victims stays with these children the rest of their lives. The punishment that sexual predators face should be commensurate with their crimes and with the lasting damage that they inflict," Lynch said in his testimony yesterday. "I strongly believe that a mandatory minimum sentence of 25 years is an appropriate punishment."
Although praising the House bill — which includes mandatory terms for some repeat offenders; court-approved civil commitment of a person deemed to be a "sexually violent predator" likely to strike again; and stronger registration requirements for sex offenders — Ayotte said the mandatory minimums were a missing, but important, component.
"My concern is that took the teeth out of a major provision in this bill," said Ayotte.
She said the provision was crafted in a way to allow prosecutors to "take into account" the vulnerability of victims, such as children who could be re-traumatized by having to testify, in determining whether to seek the mandatory terms. The provision sought by Lynch and Ayotte would leave it up to prosecutors whether a defendant should face a mandatory minimum sentence, where, if convicted, the judge would have to impose at least a 25-year sentence.
Vermont lawmakers also are struggling (see story at side) with whether to impose mandatory minimum terms — a central provision in "Jessica's Law" legislation sweeping the nation and named for a 9-year-old Florida girl who was raped and murdered last year.
Two members of the New Hampshire House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee who opposed mandatory minimums testified that they would hamstring judges best able to determine a suitable sentence in often-complex cases. Many young sex-abuse victims are attacked by a family member or someone they know, experts have testified, and this can create complexity.
"We think we've got to have some flexibility in sentencing," said state Rep. Lee Hammond, a Lebanon Democrat on the House panel. "We think the judges are the best ones to think about this."
But Senate Majority Leader Bob Clegg, R-Hudson, cited a recent case where, he said, an offender convicted of a serious sex offense received only a two-year sentence and suggested judges were not being tough enough.
"I'm not sure the judges think the way we think," Clegg said.
At least two county attorneys joined Ayotte at the hearing to call for mandatory minimums, including Merrimack County Attorney Daniel St. Hilaire.
During a break in the hearing, St. Hilaire said annual prosecutions of sex crimes involving children have doubled in his county since the 1990s and said mandatory minimum terms are suitable for "egregious" cases.
"We feel that the 25 years will protect the public and act as a deterrent for others in the future in committing these kinds of crimes," he said.
Earlier this year, his brother, Grafton County Attorney Rick St. Hilaire told the Valley News he didn't see a need for legislatively mandated minimum prison terms in his jurisdiction because sentences from judges had included "fair and just" prison time for sex offenders.
State Rep. Peter Batula, a Merrimack Republican and prime sponsor of the original bill, said the House "weakened" the legislation by excluding the mandatory minimums for first-time child rapists. And given the strong opposition in the House to mandatory minimums, he was unsure of their fate even if the Senate adds them to its version of the bill.
"That's a big stumbling block. I'm very concerned about that," Batula said of the House opposition.
May not be reprinted without permission