House Judiciary Committee

January 13, 2016

No pressure, House of Reps, but people are dying

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

The Good Samaritan Act was passed in the RI Senate last week on the second legislative day of the season and the enthusiastic support the Act has received from Governor Gina Raimondo and Speaker Nicholas Mattiello gave advocates hope that the bill might be on the fast track. Those hopes were dashed last night when the vice chair of the House Judiciary Committee, Representative Doreen M. Costa (R District 31 Exeter, North Kingstown) motioned to hold the bill for further study.

Larry Berman, communications director for the Office of the Speaker, explained that, “It is customary to hold almost all bills of substance after the first hearing. The exceptions are for minor bills such as marriages. This enables the committee members and staff to review the testimony and many times there are changes made after listening to the testimony.”

The bill exempts “from liability any person who administers an opioid antagonist to another person to prevent a drug overdose. It would further provide immunity from certain drug charges and for related violations of probation and/or parole for those persons who in good faith, seek medical assistance for a person experiencing a drug overdose.”

The bill under consideration in the House is identical to the one that passed in the Senate and it seemed all the members of the House Judiciary Committee were on board with the bill, or at least anxious to be seen sitting in support of it. I have never attended a committee meeting where every member was present when role was called. Even Committee Chair Cale P. Keable (D District 47 Burrillville, Glocester) noted that having no absentees at a committee meeting “hasn’t happened in a long time.”

“Overdoses represent a public health crisis,” said Dr. Nicole Alexander-Scott, director of the Rhode Island Department of Health, in her testimony before the committee, “that is as urgent as any crisis we have ever confronted in Rhode Island in the past.” Both Director Alexander-Scott and Maria Montanaro, director of the Department of Behavioral Healthcare, Developmental Disabilities and Hospitals presented evidence that the law saves lives.

Jonathan Goyer, who is in recovery and works as an advocate combating drug addiction and overdose told the committee, “No pressure, but as I’m sitting in the back of the room, there’s a good chance that as we all sat in here, that we just lost another life… and I don’t think we need to wait until next week, I think it needs to pass today.”

But the bill did not pass, and will not pass this week.

Larry Berman told me the Good Samaritan Act, “is tentatively scheduled to be posted for a vote at the next Judiciary Committee meeting, Tuesday, January 19, and then it could be brought to the floor for a potential vote by the full House on Thursday, January 21.”

No pressure, House of Representatives, but people are dying.

You can watch all the testimony in the video below.

And you can watch Jonathan Goyer explain how Narcan helps save lives here:

A lesson in the use of Narcan

May 28, 2015May 28, 2015

Committee considers driver’s licenses for undocumented immigrants

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

“We are not just nomads looking for benefits.”

That’s what Jose Chacon, an undocumented immigrant living in Rhode Island, said to the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, in support of H6174, which proposes giving driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants.

“It’s just a human thing to do,” he said.

In its current state, the bill allows undocumented immigrants a valid Rhode Island driver’s license if they can provide documents that reliably establish their name, date of birth, place of birth, and Rhode Island residency, among other pieces of information. Those who are under 18 are still required to undergo driving education.

Representative Anastasia Williams (D-District 9), the primary sponsor of the bill, in her testimony, said the bill has been a long time coming.

“I do believe we are going to come to a crossroad where we address the issues before us,” she said. One of those issues, according to Williams, is safety. If illegal immigrants are granted driver’s licenses, then they will have further access to auto registration and insurance, should they get into a car accident.

“It’s about responsibility, accountability, and a duty,” Williams said, citing that it is state legislature’s duty to ensure that everyone is as safe as possible on the road. “It is time for us to do our due diligence to make sure that these individuals on the road have the proper documentation,” she said.

When asked who would pay for these licenses, Williams responded that the process would operate much like the processes for giving a license to a US citizen.

“Time and resources is something that this General Assembly puts forth for many other things,” she said. “We are not giving out free licenses. These individuals will have to pay for them just like you and I.”

Even with supporters like Chacon, many of which attended the hearing, H6174 still has its fair share of opposition. Terry Gorman, the president of Rhode Islanders for Immigration Law Enforcement, came to testify against the legislation. Gorman found many parts of the bill to be unclear, and even called H6174 an “illegal aliens benefit act.”

“Passing this bill would in effect hold all of you in violation of 8 USC 1324, which prohibits aiding and abetting illegal aliens,” he said. “People said they’re doing it anyway, they’re going to continue doing it. There are child molesters, wife beaters, and bank robbers, doing crimes. Should we just ‘Oh they’re doing it anyway, they’re going to continue doing it?’”

Gorman’s main objection to the bill was that many of the documents that undocumented immigrants would be asked to provide are not valid forms of government identification.

“That needs some sort of clarification as to who is going to verify that information, and what the cost will be to verify it,” he said.

Steven Brown from the RI chapter of the ACLU testifying in support of H6174

Currently, H6174 is subject to amendment, but one that has caused some controversy is whether or not undocumented immigrants applying for a driver’s license would be required to submit to a national criminal background check. A major concern is whether or not such information would make its way to United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

“If you do have a national criminal record check, innocent people will be fearful, and understandably so,” said Steven Brown of the Rhode Island ACLU. Brown mentioned that the state Senate version of this bill has an explicit confidentiality provision that prevents the sharing of illegal immigrant’s information without issuing a subpoena.

“I don’t believe that particular provision is in this bill, and we would encourage that it be added,” he said. “We would encourage the committee, in considering this bill, to reject that option, because of its consequences.”

March 12, 2015

Ending life imprisonment without parole for juveniles

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Rep. Chris Blazejewski introduced House bill 5650, sparking a debate in the Rhode Island House Judiciary Committee hearing as to whether or not juvenile defendants should be subject to mandatory life sentences without parole. The American Bar Association, Amnesty International and the ACLU are just three highly regarded civil and human rights groups who have called for an end to this practice.

Juan Méndez, the United Nations special rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment, said, in a recent report, “The vast majority of states have taken note of the international human rights requirements regarding life imprisonment of children without the possibility of release.” And, “life sentences or sentences of an extreme length have a disproportionate impact on children and cause physical and psychological harm that amounts to cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment.”

According to Amnesty International, in written testimony submitted at the hearing, “The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child expressly prohibits life imprisonment without the possibility of release for crimes committed by people under 18 years of age. All countries except the USA and South Sudan have ratified the Convention. Somalia just recently ratified the treaty in January 2015 and South Sudan has already begun the process to become a signatory to the Convention.”

What a terrible place for the United States to find itself as an outlier.

The United States Supreme Court has been evolving on this issue for a decade. In 2012 the Court ruled in Miller v. Alabama that “mandatory sentences of life without the possibility of parole are unconstitutional for juvenile offenders,” yet stopped short of issuing a blanket ban. Judges are simply required to consider the defendant’s youth and the nature of the crime when determining a sentence.

Rhode Island has a historical claim to judicial sentencing temperance, having eradicated the death penalty in 1852. Yet on the issue of life sentences for juvenile defendants, our state is lagging behind. Al Jazeera reports that, “Fourteen states and the District of Columbia have banned life sentences without parole for juveniles.”

Recognizing the potential for rehabilitation, especially of juvenile defendants, is one of the hallmarks of a civilized society. Attorneys general in other states are getting behind similar legislation, according to testimony from Steve Brown of the RI ACLU, yet Attorney General Peter Kilmartin opposes the bill currently under consideration.

Speaking against the bill, Joee Lindbeck, who heads the AG’s Legislation and Policy Unit, brought up the specter of Craig Price, who committed four murders in 1989 while under the age of 16. Reacting to Price’s crimes, the General Assembly “passed a law in 1990 to allow the state to prosecute as an adult any juvenile charged with a capital offense.” Lindbeck maintains that keeping this law on the books prepares us for “worst-case scenarios” like Price.

From a prosecutors point of view, having draconian sentences on the books is important because of the leverage they provide. A kid who committed a crime is much more willing forgo a trial and plead out to a 10 or 20 year sentence if the AG has the power to potentially ask for life without parole. This brings up a question: Should we be empowering the AG with tools to intimidate, or tools to render justice?

Threatening defendants with life destroying sentences seems to save money in the short term, but in long run we have learned that such “cheap justice” is neither.

February 25, 2015February 26, 2015

Experts agree: Criminalizing HIV transmission a ‘backwards step’

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

If freshman legislator Robert Nardolillo accomplished anything with the introduction of legislation that seeks to criminalize the transmission of HIV, it was to demonstrate the hard won strength and unity of the LGBTQ and medical community in resisting a return to the ignorance, fear and stigma attached to the disease in the 1980s.

Though Nardolillo, in presenting his bill to the House Judiciary Committee claims to have done research on the issue, it became immediately obvious that he had not talked to any of the assembled experts in public health policy in the room last night. If anything, it looks like Nardolillo’s research amounted to little more than copying section 44-29-140 of a draconian and unhelpful South Carolina law passed in 1988, at the height of AIDS hysteria in the United States.

Nardolillo, who did not respond to my request to answer questions before the hearings, did speak to Zack Ford at ThinkProgress and when confronted with studies demonstrating the dangers of this kind of legislation, showed himself to be impervious to reason, saying,

‘Have I read the research? I did,’ Nardolillo confirmed, saying that he still felt that HIV was too serious not to prosecute in a distinct way.

Stephen Hourahan, Executive Director of AIDS Project RI strongly disagreed. The legislation’s passage, said Hourahan, “would mark a backwards step” in dealing with HIV. Since the bill criminalizes knowingly transmitting HIV, the bill will, “privilege the ignorance of not knowing your status.” We don’t want the mantra to be, “Take the test and risk arrest,” said Hourhan, adding that such a bill would create a “viral underclass” and should be opposed by all.

Paul Fitzgerald, executive director AIDS Care Ocean State, echoed Hourahan’s comments, adding, “I don’t believe that it’s smart” to pass such a bill.

Anthony Maselli, a healthcare worker and LGBTQ activist, said that transmission of HIV with “malicious intent is improbable and rare.” The law, says Maselli, “adds insult to injury” and is “a slap in the face.” At the conclusion of his excellent testimony, Maselli was greeted with applause from those crowded into the room.

Anthony DeRose, representing the Rhode Island Democratic Party LGBTQ Caucus and the Young Democrats of Rhode Island pointed out that as a country, we are in the process of rolling back similar laws. Laws such as the one Nardolillo introduced, said DeRose, are “outdated.”

Dr. Amy Nunn of Brown University, who I featured in a piece back in December during a State House event held for World AIDS Day, said that passage of such a law would set back decades of work here in Rhode Island. She called Dr. Michael Fine of the Rhode Island Department of Health a visionary for suggesting that Rhode island might be the first state to eliminate HIV transmission through sound public policy.

Rounding out the night’s testimony was Miriam Hospital’s Kristen Pfeiffer, chair of the RI HIV Prevention Coalition and Ben Klein, a Senior Attorney at Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders. Both were vociferous and forceful in firmly opposing the legislation.

In the face of such strong opposition, it seems extremely unlikely that this legislation will advance out of committee.

February 5, 2015February 6, 2015

House sponsor Hull says Raptakis bill is too harsh

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Even the House sponsor of Sen. Lou Raptakis’ bill that would make Black Lives Matter highway protests a felony punishable by at least a year in jail distanced himself from the overly harsh penalty during and after a House Judiciary Committee hearing on Wednesday.

“Is it a felony? I will tell you, no,” said Rep. Ray Hull, a Black police officer from Providence, sponsor of the bill that would make highway protests a felony. “Absolutely not.” Hull told me this after enduring pointed questioning in the public hearing from Rep. Joe Almeida, also a Black man from Providence.

“I don’t know what the percentage rate is, but a good portion of the people of color are going to be walking across that highway,” Almeida said to Hull. “And I can help them with a misdemeanor. My hands are tied with a felony.”

Hull seemed to tell Almeida he would rescind the bill. Steve Ahlquist has video of the exchange:

Hull and Raptakis sponsored versions of the bill that would make the highway protests a felony. Rep. Dennis Canario sponsored a similar bill that would make the protests a misdemeanor. You can read about their differences here.

Nearly every speaker systematically denounced the bills. Even the lone law enforcement lobbyist in support copped to it being overly broad. Most speakers said a felony is far too harsh a penalty for such an offense. Many said creating a new class of crime to target a nonviolent protest that is already illegal is unnecessary and/or unjust.

Former Republican congressional candidate Stan Tran likened the legislation to something Iran or China would do – and couched his comment by reminding the committee that his parents had emigrated from Vietnam. Steve Brown, executive director of the ACLU, said the felony version would implement a stiffer penalty than drunk driving – which, obviously, can also effectuate a traffic jam.

Fred Ordonez, executive director of DARE, dismissed the idea that the potential for emergency vehicle delay warrants a stiff penalty pointing out that ambulances are delayed by traffic issues all the time caused by celebrations, sporting events and unforeseen accidents. He wondered if it was the nature of the message rather than the nature of the protest that inspired legislators to take action.

We’ll have more video from this hearing later today.