MINUTES OF THE JOINT MEETING OF
	SENATE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
	AND
	ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

	Sixty-eighth Session
	February 14, 1995


The Joint meeting of the Senate Committee on Judiciary and the Assembly 
Committee on Judiciary was called to order by Chairman Mark A. James, at 9:30 
a.m., on Tuesday, February 14, 1995, in Room 4401 of the Sawyer State Building, 
Las Vegas, Nevada.  Exhibit A is the Agenda.  Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.

SENATE COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Senator Mark A. James, Chairman
Senator Jon C. Porter, Vice Chairman
Senator Maurice Washington
Senator Dina Titus
Senator Mike McGinness
Senator Ernest E. Adler
Senator O. C. Lee

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mr. Brian Sandoval, Vice Chairman
Mr. Bernie Anderson, Chairman
Ms. Barbara Buckley, Vice Chairman
Mr. Thomas Batten
Mr. John Carpenter
Mr. David Goldwater
Mr. Mark Manendo
Mrs. Jan Monaghan
Ms. Genie Ohrenschall
Mr. Richard Perkins
Mr. Mike Schneider
Mrs. Dianne Steel
Ms. Jeannine Stroth

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT :

Mr. David Humke, Chairman (Excused)



STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Allison Combs, Senior Research Analyst
Dennis Neilander, Senior Research Analyst
Lori M. Story, Committee Secretary
Maddie Fischer, Primary Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Frankie Sue Del Papa, Attorney General, State of Nevada
David Sarnowski, Chief Criminal Deputy, Nevada State Attorney General
Charles Thompson, Deputy, Clark County District Attorney
Jerry Keller, Sheriff, Clark County
George Glanville, President, Families of Murder Victims
Arlene Hayes, Member, Families of Murder Victims
Bob Miller, Governor, State of Nevada
Steven Twist, Attorney, Representative, American Legislative Exchange 	
	Council
Jan Jones, Mayor, Las Vegas, Nevada
Judy Hillberry, Member, Families of Murder Victims
Louise Lizzi, Member, Families of Murder Victims
Donna Hunzeker, Program Manager, National Conference of State Legislatures
Sandy Heverly, Executive Director/Cofounder, Stop DUI (driving under the 	
	influence)
Irene Signor, Member, Stop DUI
Steve Tanner, Member, Stop DUI
Victoria Meyers, Member, Stop DUI
William Meyers, Member, Stop DUI



Senator James opened the hearing with some prefatory remarks.  He told the 
audience the joint hearing is an example of the cooperation being fostered between 
the two houses of the Legislature in order to effectively handle the "difficult crime 
issues: with consideration, this session, of far-reaching reforms in the prison 
system; the criminal justice system, as a whole; the juvenile justice system, and 
issues such as truth-in-sentencing."  The division of labor, as loosely agreed upon 
by the two committees' leadership, includes the Senate handling the prison, truth-
in-sentencing, and habitual offender issues.  The hearing today, he said, will feature 
presentations and testimony from many of the top officials in the state.


Following the joint hearing, a subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Judiciary 
will be formed and will meet in the afternoon following this joint hearing, and again 
as the session proceeds, the senator stated.  The subcommittee will be made of up 
the chairman, Senator James, along with Senator Ernie Adler, and Senator Maurice 
Washington, he said, and this subcommittee would work to formulate a piece of 
legislation that will effectively address these issues.

Noting that truth-in-sentencing is one of the most prevalent and controversial topics 
in criminal justice reform, Senator James continued, recalling for the committee 
members and the audience a presentation made by the department of prisons.  The 
focus of the presentation, he explained, is not only the types of crimes for which 
prison sentences are imposed, but the length of these sentence terms, and the 
actual amount of time served for these sentences.  He reminded the committee 
how sentence credits are accumulated and applied to a sentence, with one example 
showing a 5-year sentence actually translates to 1 year of "flat time" served by the 
convict.

This morning, the chairman said, he has asked Robin Bates, Chief Classification and 
Planning Officer, Nevada State Department of Prisons, to be available to provide 
statistics on the length of stay of someone who is sentenced to a fixed term of 
incarceration.  He noted the national average for a fixed term of incarceration is 26 
months or 34.4 percent of the actual sentence given, in Nevada it is 23.8 months. 
 Therefore, the issue is, a sentence is given and a small proportion of the sentence 
is actually served, Senator James noted, and the question is, whether changing the 
system will be beneficial to the system.  

There are two types of truth-in-sentencing the committees are considering, the 
senator continued.  One, a sunshine truth-in-sentencing, is where a legislative 
enactment requires candid and truthful notification to the victims and public of 
what the sentence will actually be, he said.  The second kind requires a person to 
actually serve a greater percentage of the given sentence; with recommendations 
ranging from requiring a convict to serve 85 to 100 percent of the sentence given, 
to abolition of the parole board, entirely.


Next, the senator moved to discuss Nevada's crime rates and its changes over the 
last 2 to 3 decades.  Referring to Exhibit C, he told the audience the figures in the 
table were compiled by members of the American Legislative Exchange Counsel 
(ALEC).  This table shows the crime rates and their percentage of change from 
1960 through 1992; and the senator pointed out that overall, where the crime rate 
decreased by 23.6 percent, the incarceration rate had increased by 153.3 percent. 
 This shows an inverse relationship (i.e., when the incarceration rate increases the 
crime rate decreases), he explained, with the incarceration rate figures using a ratio 
of the number of incarcerations per 1000 crimes reported to police, and the crime 
rate figures using a ratio of the number of crimes per 100,000 resident population. 
 
These figures may be incomprehensible to many, the senator said, and because of 
this he provided graphs to illustrate these trends.  Exhibit D illustrates the overall 
crime and incarceration rates and Exhibit E illustrates the violent crime and 
incarceration rates, Senator James said.  He told the committee and audience the 
difference between violent and general crimes, as set by the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation (FBI), and he further explained that other statistics are available which 
compare the number of people incarcerated with the total population.  According 
to Steven Twist, who will speak later, the senator continued, comparing the 
number of people incarcerated with the entire law-abiding population does not 
render a "good number."  Using Mr. Twist's figures puts Nevada in a more average 
range of crime rate when compared to other states, Senator James said, adding 
this is one issue of great importance for this legislative session.
 
The next speaker before the committee was Frankie Sue Del Papa, Nevada State 
Attorney General.  She was accompanied by David Sarnowski, Chief Criminal 
Deputy, Nevada State Attorney General. She gave a statement to the joint 
committees which is attached as Exhibit F.  Senator James, at the conclusion of 
her statement, thanked her and noted the assistance that has already been afforded 
by her office by Mr. Sarnowski.  She took a moment to commend the senator and 
the committees for their consideration, their approach, and their time, adding she 
and her office looked forward to working with the Legislature in this endeavor.

Charles Thompson, Deputy, Clark County District Attorney, addressed the 
committees, noting he is a former district judge in Clark County.  Mr. Thompson 
offered the assistance of his office and his personal assistance in the pursuit of the 
reforms in the criminal justice system.  The term truth-in-sentencing means many 
things to many people, and in his experience as a judge, Mr. Thompson stated, he 
was never really sure "what term of years an individual would do when I sentenced 
that individual."  It was his practice as a judge, he told, to give a convicted felon 
a sentence that was approximately three times longer than the time he wanted him 
to serve.  This upcoming year, Mr. Thompson noted, the Clark County District 
Attorney's Office will be instituting a policy to inform the victims of violent 
offenses when the convict is likely to be released.  This policy, of course, will vary 
depending upon the results of this legislative session, he added.


Senator James expressed his view and hope the Legislature could actually enact 
a sunshine law which would tell just what a sentence means, and when a convict 
would be eligible to be released.   He thanked the district attorney's office for their 
assistance.  Mr. Thompson asked to add one comment in reference to the 
suggestion that parole be removed and minimized.  He stated his opposition to this 
noting:

...there is some utility in having a long term sentence hanging over a 
persons head when they are released, so that if they go out and 
commit any other kind of an offense their parole can be revoked 
rather quickly.  And, we can always go ahead and prosecute them in 
addition to that, but there is great utility in having that hanging over 
their head.

The chairman again thanked Mr. Thompson for his testimony and then took a 
moment to introduce guests in the audience.  These guests are members of the Las 
Vegas Chamber of Commerce and included Jil Flores, Ann Ramirez, Pat Grenier, 
and LeAnne Abegglen.  He welcomed them to the process.  The senator called 
Jerry Keller, Sheriff, Clark County, to address the committee.

Mr. Keller took the floor and offered his perspectives on truth-in-sentencing.  He 
noted his experience does not lie in the area of incarceration, but in law 
enforcement.  After listening to all that goes on in the political arena and the talk 
of how to make a difference, he stated, he realizes there are two sides to actions 
in law enforcement; the side of enforcement, where there is already a victim, and 
the side of prevention.  Prevention, he said, incorporates more than neighborhood 
watch, it also include the "swift and rapid apprehension of a criminal suspect," and 
the long-term incarceration of a chronic offender.  These strategies cannot work 
alone, the sheriff told, they must work together.  Prevention is imperative, because 
"if slamming people in the jaws of justice was all that was required to make a 
difference, I could work myself out of a job in a couple or 3 weeks."  He 
emphasized the need to keep the chronic offenders off the streets in order to better 
serve the victim. Sheriff Keller asked the Legislature to not make him spend 
anymore of the taxpayers' dollars to send a felon back to prison, keep them there 
is the first place.


Senator Adler asked the sheriff if his comments should be taken to mean the focus 
of the committees should be to deal with the repeat violent offender by taking them 
off the streets permanently.  The sheriff responded he agrees the primary focus 
should be on violent crime reductions, but if those who commit these violent 
crimes are repeatedly released to offend again, the state is wasting money and 
many other resources.  The senator noted his belief there is a bill proposing a 
"super habitual criminal statute" that mandates it be charged when the criteria are 
met and further mandates a life sentence.  He asked the sheriff if he could support 
such a bill.  The sheriff replied when discretion is taken away from the judges, it 
does them a disservice, adding he would need to examine the entire bill before he 
stated his support or lack of support.

Senator McGinness asked the sheriff for his views on parole.  Claiming no expertise 
in the area, he opined that removing all options but one would be a disservice to 
the system.  He described parole as a viable and valid alternative to incarceration, 
especially when facilities are at a premium, and felt he could defer to the opinions 
of Mr. Thompson and Mr. Bell on that issue.

Senator James thanked the witness and asked who, in the audience, might wish 
to testify at the hearing.  He then called representative of the organization Families 
of Murder Victims.  George Glanville, President, Families of Murder Victims, and 
Arlene Hayes, Member, Families of Murder Victims, took the floor.  Mr. Glanville 
thanked the committee for their time and introduced Ms. Hayes.  

Ms. Hayes told the committee her husband was murdered, shot 11 times, and his 
killer did not even do 11 years in prison.  It is her opinion, she stated, there is no 
truth-in-sentencing in Nevada.  Additionally, Ms. Hayes told, her son was killed in 
August of 1993, and his killer had committed two previous crimes.  This killer had 
been sentenced to 8 years on one offense but was released in 180 days to serve 
the remainder of his sentence on house arrest, she said.  While under house arrest, 
the man killed Ms. Hayes' son.  Ms. Hayes continued stating:

I am angry, disappointed in the state of Nevada, and I blame them for 
the death of my two loved ones.  I blame them for the stroke I had 
because of the pressure I am under.  Trying to get the trial set for this 
person, two trials have been postponed.  This boy gets exactly what 
he wants in prison, the victims get not anything but disappointment. 
[If] I sound bitter, I am.  The state of Nevada did it to me, and I am 
bitter.  Senator James spoke on Saturday, I was watching you on TV, 
of the crowded prisons. Let them stay in crowded prisons and maybe 
we mothers won't have to go through what we are going through. 
 


We live a nightmare.  Everyday of my life I have to wake up knowing 
I can never see my son or my husband again.  Yet, and still, my 
husband's killer got life without the possibility of parole, but he is 
walking free in northern Nevada.  So, there is no truth...there is no 
true sentence in this state, and I don't care who said there is.  I'm a 
living witness, it's not, and I am angry.  There has got to be 
something done in this state, not other states to change this, because 
I am one angry mother, and I'm not going to sit by, even if it costs 
me my life.  And like the doctors told me today, if you go it might 
cost you your life.  My life is important to me; my son's life was 
important to me; my husband's life was important to me.  But yet and 
still, the state will not prosecute this boy.

You can put 10,000 policemen on the police force.  The ones we 
have do their jobs.  It's not the policemen that are not doing their 
jobs, it is the judges and the state cannot make a decision.  It is the 
parole board who makes the wrong decision because the prisons are 
too crowded.  Maybe you should send them to Huntsville, Texas.  
They have a way of dealing with criminals.  But when you have to 
lose two of your loved ones and there is nothing done about it, and 
if you go and complain...."she's a frustrated woman..."  Well, I am a 
frustrated woman and I will not give up the fight. I will fight whoever 
gets in my way, and I mean that.  I want something done about this 
boy that killed my son.  And, if there is any way possible, I am going 
to see if I can get this person, who killed my husband back in prison. 
...

I was never notified that he was getting out.  I was never notified that 
he was paroled or anything.  When I called the parole board, they said 
that was a private matter.  And I am angry.  I am so angry with the 
state of Nevada because they are letting everybody down.  Oh sure, 
they prosecute a few, but the murderers go free.  There is a saying 
about the judge who let my son's killer go free: `Do a heinous crime, 
go in this judge's court, you do no time.' ....  Thank you.

Ms. Hayes ended her testimony and the chairman thanked her for her attendance 
and offered her his respect for her strength.  He told her that her presence would 
have a heavy impact upon the deliberations of the committees.  He addressed her 
concern about the crowded prisons, noting his concern is that there will be enough 
room in them for those who belong there.  

Bob Miller, Governor, State of Nevada, was the next speaker.  He addressed the 
committee and provided the committee with the text of his statement (Exhibit G). 
 The Governor thanked the committee, stating his desire to sign into law 
responsible legislation.  He added the need for community involvement because 
governors, legislatures, and law enforcement cannot work alone.  He offered to 
answer questions for the committee.


Senator Titus stated she appreciates the Governor's concern for fiscal responsibility 
when considering the crimes package.  Her concern, she added, is the committee 
is passing various bills, enhancing penalties, and creating new crimes, without any 
fiscal notes attached. Adding, that once the large package bills are developed, she 
anticipates the assistance of the experts and staff the Governor has gathered in 
determining how much it is going to cost.  The Governor agreed this is essential 
and that the experts are available and have been.  He outlined some of his own 
goals and projections for dealing with the increased prison population, noting "we 
can continue to build prisons to the exclusion of everything else in the state of 
Nevada, or we can develop a balanced approach." This balance can be 
accomplished by "couching" public zeal and response with a balance which 
recognizes "that as you lock up the violent criminals you have got to make sure 
there are enough cells in totality."

Senator James thanked the Governor for his comments and reassured him the 
committee is not proceeding in any "willy-nilly fashion" with the legislation they 
have thus far addressed, and is very interested in working with the Governor's 
office to achieve a balanced, fiscally sound reform package.  

Senator Adler asked the Governor if he will support the bill before the committee 
dealing with mandatory habitual criminal charges for third time violent offenders. 
 In response, the Governor noted he has not seen the particular bill but it sounds 
in line with the concept outlined in his bill.  He emphasized his desire that no 
discretion be left in cases of third-time violent offenders, that "we get rid of them." 
 Senator Adler continued citing previous testimony which called attention to a need 
for a facility to house violent juveniles separate from the adult facilities.  He asked 
the Governor to have his staff research this need to see if any space of this sort 
might be available.  The Governor stated this has already been looked into as a 
response to the need to return to Nevada those youths who are currently being 
housed out-of-state.  Unfortunately, he added, negotiations with an in-state facility 
have not turned out positively, and the need is still being addressed.  

Assemblyman Stroth spoke next stating her appreciation for the Governor's 
presence and his plan.  She said, however, as "the mother of a murdered son I find 
it very offensive to think there might be three victims before a violent criminal is 
put away for life."  She noted her approval of the Governor's proposed sentencing 
commission, asking who would be on such a panel.  The Governor's reply noted 
his concern for victims of violent crime and then turned to the makeup of the 
sentencing commission.  He said he does not want to limit discussion and intends 
to include law enforcement, the defense bar, the judiciary, and the citizenry-most 
likely to include victims.


Assemblyman Anderson thanked the Governor for the support he and his office has 
already offered.  He said it is his feeling there is a great need for a program to 
address the problems of the criminals in order to "bring about behavior change," 
rather than simply warehousing them indefinitely.  The Governor reiterated his 
feeling the Legislature should not try to do the entire reform in one session, but 
rather allow time to gather information and to "view the whole picture."

Senator James asked the Governor if he will support legislation sent to him this 
session which addresses violent crime.  The Governor said he "did not want a 
situation where haste makes waste," and it is imperative to carefully consider the 
fiscal impact that such legislation might create.  Changes on one end of the 
spectrum will require equal changes on the other end, in order to balance the strain 
on the correctional system, he added.  Senator James also wondered if there will 
be a legislative representative on the sentencing commission as proposed by the 
Governor.  The Governor said he is amenable to that.

Senator Porter asked the Governor what percentage of the sentence served will be 
sufficient, in his opinion, to truly provide truth-in-sentencing.  His response was a 
request the committee proceed cautiously on percentage, at this point in time.  He 
recognized the desire to be consistent with federal guidelines which may result in 
some federal funding, but any dramatic change in sentences would impact the 
number of cells needed to house inmates.  The Governor ended his testimony.

Senator Titus asked to restate her concern regarding a deficiency in fiscal 
statements attached to the bills before the committee.  Secondly, she thanked the 
chairman for his voiced support of the `Lifeskills' program the Governor hopes to 
have included in the correctional system reform package.  Senator James 
responded that fiscal impacts were examined and none were found in bills the 
Senate passed.  The chairman called the next witness.

A presentation was next made by Steven Twist, Attorney, Representative, 
American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).  He offered the committee an 
overview of his credentials noting his involvement with the drafting and passage 
of a 1991 Arizona constitutional amendment dealing with the "victims' bill of 
rights."  Since that time, he said, he has worked with other states that have 
addressed victims' rights through referendum or other means, along with authoring 
the truth-in-sentencing legislation which was passed in Arizona two sessions ago.


Working with Dr. Michael Block, who was appointed by President Reagan as a 
member of the United States Sentencing Commission, Mr. Twist told, he did a 
study for ALEC entitled Report Card on Crime and Punishment, which was 
published a few months prior.  He offered the committee copies of an article he 
wrote with Dr. Block entitled Lessons from the Eighties: Incarceration Works, 
(Exhibit H) and one entitled The Economics of Truth in Sentencing, (Exhibit I) which 
they may find interesting and perhaps useful, and certainly telling of his own biases 
on the subjects.  

This bias, Mr. Twist noted, results from his experiences as a prosecutor, a victim's 
advocate, and as a more detached researcher.  A theme emerges, the witness said, 
from all the studies which points to the effectiveness of getting tough.  "It works 
to bring down crime rates, and it works to control costs that are otherwise imposed 
on society," he said.  The costs are imposed daily, whether through the wages and 
time paid to persons working to reform laws or through the losses to families of 
murder victims, he pointed out; adding that everyday there are 14 people murdered 
in the United States by someone on probation or parole.  These murders are 
committed by a person who has already been caught and convicted, but who is 
subsequently released due to a reduced or commuted sentence, he emphasized. 
 He offered many other examples of crimes committed by parolees including rape, 
burglary, and armed robbery.

The crimes he told of, Mr. Twist stated, do not have to happen, but they do 
happen as a result of bad policy choices.  In the 1960s and early 1970s there was 
a period of time when thought was that finding a solution for the causes of crime 
would reduce or end crime, he reminded the committee.  If poverty, lack of 
education, poor nutrition, and housing needs were addressed then crime would be 
alleviated and society would be safe, Mr. Twist said, and this resulted in a major 
reduction in the "punishment" aspect of criminal justice.  This continued into the 
1980s, until public attitudes changed again; and according to the witness, there 
came a realization that the "root causes theory" of punishment was not sufficient 
to deal with the "runaway crime in society."  This change of attitude resulted in a 
moderation of the crime rate at the end of the 1980s and into the 1990s, the 
speaker noted.  This pattern has been shown in every state Dr. Block and he 
examined, Mr. Twist told, with a remarkable increase in crime following a reduction 
in incarceration and the opposite phenomena when incarceration was increased.

This proves, I think, in a graphic way what the academics have been 
saying for a long time.  Professor Donald Lewis, one of the most 
respected researchers in this area who published the results of his 
research in the British Journal of Criminology, demonstrated dramatic 
crime control effects by controlling for every other possible factor, the 
demographic, the age group numbers, the unemployment rates, I 
mean, you name it.  The most dramatic crime control or crime 
prevention effects demonstrated by public policy changes are in the 
changes of incarceration or punishment rates.  


The most dramatic ways in which legislatures can step forward to 
protect the citizens of their states is by affecting both aspects of the 
incarceration issue.  Both the disposition question and the duration 
question.  The disposition is the question of whether or not a person, 
who is convicted of a crime, will be sent to prison or be given some 
alternative. ....  Then the other side of the equation, which is duration. 
 Once the decision is made to send the person to prison there are 
dramatic effects from the durational decision, how long the person 
will serve in prison,

Mr. Twist stated.   

Economists talk of the "signal to noise ratio," he continued, which is a way of 
saying there is a lot of talk about the problem of crime, the severity of victimization 
and the need for long sentences (the noise) and very little actual time spent in 
prison, even by those who receive long, or even life sentences (the signal).  This 
signal is easily picked up by the criminals within the system, he noted, and by the 
citizens in society, and this signal is one that the sentences do not mean anything.

In Arizona, there were enacted laws which mandate prison for violent and repeat 
felony offenders and sexual assault perpetrators, Mr. Twist said; but there still 
remained a discrepancy between sentence given and time served.  In response, the 
governor took on the task of a truth-in-sentencing law and enacted an 85 percent 
rule which applies to every person sentenced to the state prison; for every felony 
offense.  Major fiscal impacts were avoided, he noted:

...by looking at the average length of time served, calculating the 
prison sentences that would be necessary in order to increase that 
prison time served for violent offenders, and keep it moderate, or 
somewhat reduced for those nonviolent, first-time offenders who are 
being sent to prison.  The impact of the 85 percent rule was fiscally 
responsible and it was done in 1 year, and it was done with the 
concurrence of sort of all of the different groups that you have talked 
about...."

Senator James interrupted to asked if the Legislature was actively involved in the 
process, "or was it delegated to someone else...?"  Mr. Twist replied the 
Legislature was actively involved without delegation of responsibility.  There were 
other representative from all the appropriate groups, as well as experts from the 
department of prisons to provide statistical information, he added.  


The chairman asked for questions.  Assemblyman Anderson took the floor to 
inquire of Mr. Twist if there exists a correlation between the number of crimes and 
the increased number of police officers on the streets, in other words, would the 
increase in reported crimes have to do with the increase in police officers?  Mr. 
Twist said there is no connection between the rate of crimes reported and the 
number of officers per 100,000, to the best of his knowledge, noting he has never 
seen such an analysis.  Mr. Anderson asked if it is possible to make such a 
comparison. Moving on, Mr. Anderson spoke of the purpose of prison and 
wondered if Mr. Twist saw behavioral change as a function of the prison system. 
 The witness said that rehabilitation is a worthy goal and programs should be 
available; however, the effects of rehabilitation are minimal in the area of crime 
control and reduction.

Mr. Anderson pointed to the figures provided by ALEC which shows Nevada's 
incarceration rates and noted "an anomaly" in that, at the time Nevada was number 
one in incarceration, it was also very high in crime rates; but when Nevada moved 
into 6th place in incarceration rates, the crime rates also reduced.  Mr. Twist 
replied that comparisons among states are based on figures that distort the 
situation.  These figures compare incarcerated persons with the entire population 
of the state, which is subject to criticism, he said.  It is more reasonable to 
compare the number of people in prison with the number of crimes committed, he 
opined, because it more accurately describes the state's response to crime.  Using 
these figures, Nevada moves out of the number one position, he pointed out. 

Senator James took a moment to read a quote from the Report Card on Crime and 
Punishment, authored by Mr. Twist:

This measure of prison population and total crime is the most direct 
measure of a state's punishment level.  Some measures are expressed 
in terms of total prison population in relation to the total state 
population, but such a standard disconnects the prison population 
from the level of crime experienced in a state and is, therefore, less 
useful.  Prison populations should be compared to crime, not the 
number of largely law-abiding citizens.


Mr. Goldwater spoke next, noting his person catharsis since seeing firsthand law 
enforcement's perspective of the streets.  This has brought home to him, he said, 
the victim's point of view.  He further stated, it is his feeling the worst thing the 
government can do is lie to those victims, which is effectively what is being done 
when they are told that locking up criminals will solve the problems of violent 
crime.  He recalled Mr. Twist's testimony that the attitudes and approaches of the 
1960s and 1970s were ineffective, and he disagreed with that opinion, citing the 
committees' recent trip to drug court.  This program, he stated, is an example of 
what can be done to keep people out of jail.  He emphasized his disturbed feelings 
that Mr. Twist's report fails to consider other socioeconomic factors that influence 
the crime rate.

Senator James addressed Mr. Goldwater's statement questioning whether he 
means to suggest that violent criminals should be returned to the streets.  Mr. 
Goldwater stated that is not his suggestion.  Mr. Twist added his feeling that 
consensus can be reached with enough discussion and, in his opinion, it is very 
important to have a complete understanding of the complete picture.  In Nevada, 
Mr. Twist asserted, the vast majority, between 65 and 75 percent of the people 
convicted of felonies do not go to prison, but instead, serve some alternative 
sentence, including probation, house arrest or something similar.  While not 
suggesting this system should change drastically, the witness stated, if the state 
will sentence violent and repeat offenders to prison, for a longer term of 
incarceration, there will be "the most dramatic effects that you can fashion as a 
legislature on crime rates."  There is a body of literature, worldwide, that will 
support these assertions, he said, adding he did not say no other factors were 
relevant.  An example of what is relevant, he said, is the breakdown of the family; 
however, studies show "conclusively" the best results when seeking reduced crime 
rates, are higher incarceration rates.

Mr. Goldwater countered that academic research shows a very weak correlation 
between incarceration rates and crime rates, and he noted, he feels it is a 
disservice to victims to say "locking people up will solve the crime problem."  The 
academic research Mr. Goldwater cites shows poverty, illiteracy, and substance 
abuse impact crime rates.  The chairman invited Mr. Goldwater to present to the 
Senate subcommittee on truth-in-sentencing his research that supports his 
allegations.

Assemblyman Carpenter asked Mr. Twist how long it took Arizona to pass their 
truth-in-sentencing, and how it was accomplished.  Mr. Twist informed the 
assemblyman the legislation passed in a single session, using all the available 
resources including: prison administrators, review of current laws, lots of meetings 
of the groups involved, and without a sentencing commission.  Mr. Carpenter asked 
how the public received the legislation, and Mr. Twist replied it was well received, 
as shown through polling data.


Senator Adler asked Mr. Twist to consider the charts presented earlier (Exhibits D 
and E), noting 1980 was the point at which there were the least good-time credits 
available.  These available credits have since increased, along with the decrease in 
crime, Senator Adler added, which actually makes the sentence structure much less 
determinate. This seems to show the crime rate decreases with a less determinate 
sentence structure, he said, which disturbs him.  Mr. Twist noted the lines on the 
chart do not indicate determinate or indeterminate sentences.  The point being, he 
said, increasing the disposition to prison impacts crime rates separately from and 
along with the duration of the sentences.  The most dramatic effects, he admitted, 
result from the increase in the rate at which people get sent to prison.  In sum, the 
overall punitiveness of the criminal justice system "is the determining factor," Mr. 
Twist stated.  Senator Adler asked which factor is more important, disposition or 
duration.  The presenter stated "there are more crime control effects, more 
dramatic crime control effects, from increasing the imprisonment rate than from 
increasing the duration," with one caveat.  When the numbers handed down by the 
court bear no relation to the actual time served, the whole impact is undermined, 
Mr. Twist explained.

In response to a question by Senator Washington regarding a formula that will 
allow fiscally sound implementation of the 85 percent sentencing rule, Mr. Twist 
 told the committees that Arizona looked at the rates of incarceration by crime 
category and by offender category, calculated the average time served, matched 
 those figures with the current sentencing structure, and then amended the 
structure to allow the implementation of the 85 percent rule, (i.e., the convict 
serves 85 percent of the sentence imposed while still achieving roughly the same 
average length of time served).  This, with additional time added to sentences for 
violent crimes and time reduced for some nonviolent crimes, allows a balancing of 
fiscal impact with the goal of 85 percent of time served, he finished.

Assemblyman Sandoval asked if there is data available regarding the consequences 
of truth-in-sentencing to Arizona.  Mr. Twist promised to provide that data to the 
committees.  Mr. Sandoval then asked which sentences were increased and which 
reduced in Arizona.  Mr. Twist replied he was unable to offer a complete list, but 
"as a general proposition, the average length of time served for violent crimes went 
up and the average length of time served for nonviolent, first-time offenders, at 
least those who were sentenced to prison, and not many are,  stayed the same or 
went down slightly.  Mr. Twist added the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) 
violent crime categories include murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault, and 
Arizona added arson and armed burglary, and any sexual offense to the list of 
violent crimes.  This concluded Mr. Twist's presentation.

Jan Jones, Mayor, Las Vegas, Nevada, next addressed the committee offering her 
support of the Governor's proposal for a sentencing commission and a full-time 
sentencing analyst.  She opined the issue is not whether alternative sentencing 

should be reduced or removed, but whether there is consistency in sentencing.  In 
Nevada, "there is every indication that Nevada citizens have lost faith in the 
sentencing process and our justice system, overall," the mayor stated.  She offered 
examples of failures in the sentencing system, which, she said, undermines the 
entire criminal justice system.

It is not necessary, when seeking truth-in-sentencing, Ms. Jones noted, to move 
away from compassion in making sentencing determinations.  Families, as an 
example, strive for consistency in dealing with infractions of the household rules, 
she explained, but, if circumstances or excuses are allowed to modify the 
consequences for failure to observe the rules, the parent loses credibility.  There 
are several good examples from other states that show the effects of truth-in-
sentencing to be good, if carefully designed and tailored.

Senator Washington asked Mayor Jones if she feels a sentencing commission might 
remove responsibilities from elected officials, that is rightfully theirs, whether 
legislators or sentencing judges.  Her reply showed a feeling that responsibility 
would be retained if care was taken in putting together the commission and if a 
range of discretion was maintained for the sentencing judge. Following her 
response, Senator Washington asked her what role the sentencing judges might 
play in the sentencing commission.  She noted that should be determined by the 
Legislature.  She reiterated that "if there are certain violent crimes that deserve a 
minimum sentence, that should be determined and then upheld."  Senator 
Washington interrupted stating it is his understanding that is exactly what the 
Legislature is "supposed to do, enact legislation that would lend credence to truth-
in-sentencing, with the criteria passed to the judges that this is what we want 
implemented when you convict or incarcerate the offender."  

Senator James thanked Mayor Jones for her attendance and support and asked her 
if the Legislature, using the resources and individuals that might otherwise serve 
on a sentencing commission, is able, this session, to formulate a truth-in-
sentencing plan, would she be able to support it.  She replied in the affirmative.

Next to address the committees were Judy Hillberry and Louise Lizzi, Members, 
Families of Murder Victims.  Ms. Hillberry took the floor stating her appreciation 
that the committees were taking the time to hear her concerns.  She stated:

A lot of violent crimes are plea bargained from day one.  When a 
person accepts a plea bargain, they stand before the court and they 


admit what they did.  They tell exactly how they committed the act. 
 They plea bargain to get a lesser sentence.

In the case of my son's death, the plea bargain was voluntary 
manslaughter.  Maximum sentence at this time for voluntary 
manslaughter is 10 years.  The man that shot my son was given 9 
[years].  The deadly weapon enhancement was retained in our case, 
and he was given an additional 9 year sentence.  That, in a lot of 
cases, is plea bargained away.  There used to be signs hanging in 7-
11s that said, `Use a gun, go to jail.'  They don't put them there 
anymore, because it is not fact. 

When we have parole hearings, the gentleman that shot my son in the 
back of the head was incarcerated in November of 1990.  In 
September of 1992 he had his first parole hearing.  We have them 
every year, every September.  This past year we were given 6-days' 
notice that we were going to have a parole hearing.  When you sit in 
the same room with a person who committed a crime it is very 
difficult to sit there, and you absolutely want to strangle him, but you 
know you can't.  You can't talk when he's talking, you can't say 
anything.  After the parole hearing it is alright as victims to ask to 
speak to the parole board after the prisoner is removed.  And we did 
that, and we were informed by the parole board that guidelines for the 
State of Nevada, on a voluntary manslaughter charge is 48 months. 
 So my son got a death sentence from this person, who Nevada feels 
4 years is sufficient amount of time for him to stay in prison.  I 
disagree with that.  

Our lives revolved around our boys and I have had my life so torn 
apart by this person, and he has these rights and I listen to statistics 
on how many people there are incarcerated in the United States.  But 
I think it is time that somebody counts the victims that are left behind 
and give us the rights that you give people that are incarcerated.  
Thank you.

Chairman Sandoval thanked Ms. Hillberry for her testimony and assured her that 
her testimony was not falling upon deaf ears.  There was one question from Mr. 
Perkins.  He inquired about Ms. Hillberry's conversation with the parole board, 
asking if there was any reference to the fact that the crime committed was not the 
same crime sentence was imposed for.  She replied that while it did not come up 

in the course of their conversation, she believes it is part of the killer's prison 
record.  She added that prior to shooting her son, the killer stabbed him and 
stabbed another man as well.  She noted the parole board stated these were 
guidelines with some discretion available to the board.  

Ms. Hillberry stated she has been unable to determine who the parole board 
answers to, whether it is the Governor or some other entity, but guidelines for 
manslaughter indicate there was not a "threat to life."  "How can you justify 48 
months?" she asked.  Senator James added his thanks for her testimony.  

Assemblyman Anderson spoke to the witnesses to point out that members of the 
Legislature are people who have also had their lives touched by violence and crime. 
 In his own case, the assemblyman told, a family member was murdered in 
California.  That individual, he said, was sentenced to death, but the sentence was 
not carried out because of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling which ended capital 
punishment for a period of time.  He has since been released, Mr. Anderson said, 
adding he wishes to tell her he understands her feelings and her pain.  For these 
reasons, he said, the state Legislature brings with it a certain empathy and 
understanding for victims.  However, it is very important that people such as the 
witness bring reminders to the Legislature so there is no forgetting, he stated.

Assemblyman Manendo wished to note the officers of parole and probation hold 
an average caseload of 110 cases per person, with no computer support.  The 
point he is trying to make, the assemblyman said, is there is a huge backlog of 
nonviolent prisoners who are awaiting parole hearings and release, and if funding 
was made available to provide more staff and better equipment, more beds would 
be available for the violent offenders to occupy.  

Ms. Lizzi spoke to the committee telling of the murder of her daughter in 1992.  
She said her daughter was tortured and killed and left in a closet.  One of the 
persons who did this to her daughter, Ms. Lizzi said, was a woman who had 
already been convicted in Utah of another crime.  Because the state needed her 
testimony to convict the other perpetrator, they offered her a deal, Ms. Lizzi told, 
which dropped the first degree murder charges and left only a robbery.  The judge 
sentenced the woman to the maximum 15 years allowed by law.  The woman 
didn't even make it to prison and she had her sentence reduced to 9 years by the 
prison officials.  Last week, Ms. Lizzi stated, she had a parole hearing.  The woman 
has not even testified in the murder case of her daughter.  "The victims here are 
the ones with the life sentence.  Everyday of our lives we think about our loved 


ones."  Life is not easy when you are dealing with such events, the witness said, 
meanwhile the felons have all their needs provided for.

Continuing, Ms. Lizzi told the committee the other murder suspect in her case was 
a 28-year-old man who was on parole after serving 7 years of a life sentence for 
sexual assault.  If the man had been held, Ms. Lizzi said, her daughter and her 
daughter's friend would be alive today.  Like Mrs. Hayes, Ms. Lizzi said, "I can't tell 
you how angry I am.  I'm angry at the state, at the parole board.  We should 
abolish this pardons board.  How dare they have a pardons board?  When a jury 
finds people guilty, gave them a death penalty, and these people appeal and 
appeal."

Asking the committee's patience, Ms. Lizzi spoke about the sentencing phase of 
a trial where the jury decides the sentence, but the jury really has no idea what that 
sentence means.  "How can you expect a jury to make an informed decision when 
they don't know that a life sentence does not mean a life sentence?" she asked. 
 Ms. Lizzi read an excerpt from a newspaper article which told about the 
Congressional crime bill.  This is where we can find money to build the necessary 
prison cells, she said.  Senator James thanked the witness for her testimony.  Mr. 
Glanville wished to state one thing before leaving the floor.  He noted that every 
politician in the state from the Governor on down professed to be tough on crime, 
during the campaign.  He said he hoped they are not backing down now.

The chairman called Donna Hunzeker, Program Manager, National Conference of 
State Legislatures, to testify about truth-in-sentencing proposals.  Ms. Hunzeker 
addressed the committee noting it was her understanding the committees wished 
to review all available options in sentencing, as well as other recent laws enacted 
by other states, and any information that may be of value in their search for 
effective truth-in-sentencing legislation.  She read from a prepared statement 
(Exhibit J), prefacing her remarks with the statement that she comes without any 
ideology preference and without the intention of making a "pitch" for any particular 
reforms.  Her organization is a bipartisan, objective organization that seeks to 
provide information and training to members and their staff to help [them] make 
more informed decisions," she stated.

After making her initial presentation, Senator James asked some specific questions 
about Maine's determinate sentencing system with no post release supervision. 
 He wondered if Ms. Hunzeker could comment on why Maine would have such a 
low likelihood of criminal victimization, according to ALEC statistics.  She declined 
to comment of these figures due to her lack of familiarity with them.  She did 

speculate this might result from many other factors (e.g., unemployment, law 
enforcement structures, and other social factors), and therefore, she usually 
advises against attempts to make comparisons based upon a policy in one state or 
another, she said.  Ms. Hunzeker continued her presentation referring to a report 
titled"Three strikes" Sentencing Legislation Update (Exhibit K).  She noted when 
considering no parole provisions and the length of sentences, while not impacting 
the system immediately, they do have a great impact when the prison population 
starts to age.  She summarized by noting that "crafting a sentencing system that 
provides appropriate lengths and types of sentences for the many offenders who 
fall in the middle, is your greatest challenge." 

Assemblyman Goldwater directed comments to the area of making comparisons 
that are related to isolated policy areas.  He wondered if the information provided 
by Mr. Twist would be considered to be one of those "isolated comparisons." Ms. 
Hunzeker emphasized her previous statement in that regard, noting there is not 
empirical study that she was aware of that could eliminate everything else that 
might impact the crime rates.  Mr. Goldwater felt it necessary to point out the 
charts presented earlier (Exhibits C through E) were, in fact, making such 
comparisons.  These comparisons, he stated, "tacitly make [the] promise" to 
correct the crime problems in the state.

Senator Adler asked if Ms. Hunzeker could agree that longer sentences for violent 
criminals does improve public safety.  She did, indeed, agree adding they also have 
an effect on recidivism.  She noted the need to make a distinction between what 
 improves public safety and what provides for crime control, which is a much more 
difficult thing to address.  

Senator Titus asked Ms. Hunzeker if she could inform the committee about some 
of the states with guideline sentencing systems.  She asked if they have set the 
guideline through "the legislative process or through a sentencing commission" as 
suggested by Governor Miller.  Ms. Hunzeker noted that many of the states have 
used commissions, "perhaps not all."  She pointed out that a commission would 
simply do the "legwork" for the Legislature but could not "trump" the decisions of 
the Legislature.  Arizona, in 1991, established a joint legislative study commission 
on the criminal code, she explained, that was composed of a variety of individuals 
from the criminal justice system who studied and made recommendations to the 
Legislature in regard to sentencing.  Senator Titus restated her understanding that 
the commission system works with the Legislature retaining veto power.  Ms. 
Hunzeker agreed, but added commissions were not a necessity for reform.


Assemblywoman Monaghan asked what the difference is between a sentencing 
commission and the interim study committee that gathered information prior to the 
session.  Ms. Hunzeker replied commissions are different in different states and 
circumstances, depending on what they are charged with by the Legislature.  Ms. 
Monaghan next asked if an interim study committee could not perform the same 
function.  Ms. Hunzeker answered affirmatively.  The problems might arise in 
getting the other members of the criminal justice system to buy into the changes, 
she added.  The chairman thanked the speaker for her information.  She offered to 
provide any further information the committees might require.  Senator James 
asked her to be available to preview the changes proposed by the committees to 
offer input and expertise.  She agreed.

Senator James stated for the record his reluctance to consider a sentencing 
commission.  The recent election was run on a "tough on crime" platform, which, 
by appointing a commission to study the issue further, would make the legislators 
appear to be sidestepping the concerns of their constituents and the promises that 
were made, he observed.  Ms. Hunzeker noted that in several cases quick and 
effective changes were made to deal with the most violent offenders along with 
provisions which provided additional legislative review to address the other, slightly 
less pressing concerns.

The chairman asked the representatives of Stop DUI to take the floor.   Sandy 
Heverly, Executive Director, Stop DUI, addressed the committee offering her 
appreciation and support for Mr. Twist and his presentation.  Ms. Heverly pointed 
out to the committee that one crime omitted from the discussions of truth-in-
sentencing is the crime of felony driving under the influence (DUI).  The chairman 
explained that felony DUI is included in the violent crime category.  Ms. Heverly 
also noted the discussion about prevention programs, stating her organizations 
efforts in that area are extensive.  She stated: 

Victims should be able to see some semblance of retribution, and 
since we don't have an eye-for-an-eye system, unfortunately, it would 
seem truth-in-sentencing would be the very least we could expect, 
not only for the victims, but for society as a whole.  For victims there 
is no good-time credit, no early release from the pain and suffering, 
no parole, no appeals, and no pardons.  Once you become a surviving 
crime victim, you begin the arduous task of seeking justice.


Ms. Heverly told the committee that for surviving victims grieving is the hardest 
thing to do and going through the criminal justice system is second.  As a victim, 
she said, the prosecutor will tell a person that "technically the crime is a crime 
against the state."  This statement is difficult for a victim to understand, since it 
was not the state who was murdered, raped, or mutilated because of a crime 
"against the state."  Victims attending hearings, testify, face postponements and 
continuances, and deal with a changing parade of prosecutors during the process 
of adjudication, she continued.  Through all of this and more, the victim must try 
to maintain a productive, normal life, while attempting to influence the officials in 
the criminal justice system to seek justice.  

In some cases, Ms. Heverly said, the criminal is eligible for parole in less time than 
it takes to get to prison.  With the good-time credit system that allows prisoners 
to earn 10 days good time a month "just for sitting in their cell," 20 days a month 
for participating in certain prison programs, and 30 days a month for participating 
in "accelerated programs," it is not difficult to see how a person convicted of DUI 
and sentenced to 20 years, can be out of prison in 2 years and 4 months, the 
witness exclaimed.   

Ms. Heverly offered the committee many examples of the devastation caused by 
the criminal actions of drunk drivers.  Then, she told, these same victims of drunk 
drivers must endure stress, frustration, and revictimization "by the very system that 
is supposed to be there to protect them."  She asked that truth-in-sentencing be 
implemented specifically to address violent offenders including drunk drivers 
causing death of injury.  She thanked the committee for their time and introduced 
 the next speakers Irene Signor and Steve Tanner, members, Stop DUI.  

Ms. Signor told the committee her husband is a victim of a DUI since June 10, 
1992, and is now confined to a wheelchair.  He continues to suffer grave effects 
from the injury.  The offender, she said, is due for a parole hearing in March of 
1995, but she does not know the exact date.  She expects to be notified shortly 
before the hearing date, she added.  She explained to the committee that while she 
and her husband will not be able to work again-he due to injuries, she due to 
having to care for him-the drunk driver is housed in a restitution center and can go 
to work every day.  Her husband wishes daily that he had been killed in the 
accident, she reported, because he cannot endure the pain and limitations that have 
been placed on his life.  Additionally, Ms. Signor told the committee the situation 
has overwhelmed her and takes time away from her care for her husband.  This 
situation has caused her to contemplate suicide, she said, while the driver has been 
given chance after chance.


Mr. Tanner spoke next telling the committee his 20 year old daughter was killed by 
a drunk driver and now "she has a small space..." a grave, that is smaller than the 
space allotted in crowded prisons.  Talk about overcrowding in prisons really 
causes him grief, he said, because he is certain a casket is smaller than a prison 
cell.  In the case of his daughter's killer, 25 months of an 18 year sentence is what 
the drunk driver will serve.  This is not the 30 percent the committee has been 
discussing today, he continued.  He offered to do whatever is necessary to change 
the system so that it works more effectively and offers some justice to the victims 
 of violent crime.

Finally, Victoria and William Meyers, members, Stop DUI, addressed the committee. 
 Mrs. Meyers offered the committee a heart-wrenching story of the death of her 6 
year old son.  Her statement follows:

I am here today because there is no honesty and honor in our judicial 
and legislative systems because there is no truth-in-sentencing.  It is 
inconceivable to me to know a person can be found guilty of an 
heinous crime against another person, be sentenced a penalty of time, 
and yet, not be required to do that time.  It makes our court system 
appear like a group of jesters or, at least a poor imitation of a TV 
game show.  The old adage `do the crime, do the time,' no longer 
applies in the United States of America.

I am appalled that we can give a man 20 years, like the man that 
killed my son, while drinking and driving, but he will only do a fraction 
of that time, if he is a `good boy.'  It is unimportant whether he is a 
`good boy' in prison, he wasn't a good boy to get there in the first 
place.  I was always under the impression that it is an abomination to 
kill, rape, and maim our society, but the message we now receive is 
that it is acceptable, so long as the offender spends a short time 
`cleaning his house.'   


Here are the memories that will be imprinted on my mind until the day 
I die, caused by a violent criminal.  One minute my 6 year old son, 
Dirk Meyers, was holding onto the stroller, in what I thought was a 
safe median on Boulder Highway.  The next minute I see him hurling 
through the air.  I can see his limp body descending toward the 
ground.  His face was white and pale, his eyes were fixated and 
pierced right through me.  In a fraction of a second I was catapulted 
into a world of terror that I'd never known.  When my son's tiny body 
impacted the ground, he rolled twice and came to rest on his back. 
 I couldn't believe my eyes, as the impending death lay before me.  
The horror engulfed me and all I could do was scream for help, while 
the offender-that some of our legislators feel so sorry for, so 
concerned for his welfare, and want to compensate him so much for 
being a good boy while he's in prison-just stood there, at his weapon, 
and watched, making no attempt to help me and my son.

Within a short time, my son was whisked away to University Medical 
Center.  When I caught up with him I was able to catch a glimpse of 
my son being wheeled out on a gurney.  He did not look good.  I was 
terribly worried and very full of fear.  The first time we saw a doctor 
we were told that there were no internal injuries, but that the swelling 
in his head was quite critical.  They were giving him maximum 
dosages to bring the swelling down.  I tried my damndest to remain 
hopeful.  When we finally got to visit our baby, his body was 
unbearably cold.  All I wanted to do was tuck him in and keep him 
warm.  His face was ghostly, his eyes were opened, his nose and 
inner ears were dripping blood on the bedside beside him.  I tried to 
put my arms around him, just to hug him, but I could not-he was in 
traction.  

We were then escorted into a room where we were forced to be 
confronted with our worst possible nightmares.  Just 2 and 1/2 hours 
after this, soon to be `good boy,' plowed into my son, the doctor 
explained that there was nothing more that could be done for him.  
Dirk suffered irreversible brain damage.  His brain was pulpified and 
totally shattered.  Soon his heart would give out, and there would be 
no sense in reviving him.  We stood in disbelief, and then, as reality 
set in, all we could do was scream and wail for the loss of our little 
boy.  The last time I saw him, barely alive, I closed his eyes so he 
could sleep in peace.  We were beside him when the heart monitor 
went to a flat-line, and cried `good-bye.'  

My next memories are of a week later, at his viewing. When my 
husband and I went into the viewing room of the mortuary, there was 
a sadness that came over us like nothing we had ever felt before.  
The stillness, the silence was ear-piercing.  As I approached my son's 
casket, his face was so ballooned and so unnaturally fattened, due to 
the swelling.  I just kept anticipating him jumping up to greet me, but 
he never moved.  I was faced with the reality that my son was dead. 
 


Mrs. Meyers testimony continued, telling the committee of the horror of examining 
a child who was prepared for burial.  

For some reason, I checked to see if they had put socks on his feet. 
 The had, 
however, 
to my 
surprise, 
which I 
guess I 
should 
have 
expected, 
his left 
foot 
revealed 
a toe-tag. 
 I now 
picture a 
horrid 
scene of 
my little 
boy in a 
morgue, 
with no 
clothes 
on but a 
blanket or 
a sheet to 
cover his 
head and 
body.  
Having no 
identity 
but this 
damn toe-
tag that 
has the 
name Dirk 
Meyers 
on it. ...
	

...I'll never truly hear his voice, hear him sing, or hear his hearty 
laughter again.  These are the memories that I have been sentenced 
to live with.  There are my penalties, as a victim.  My final memory 
is when the judge faced my son's killer and told him `he got a damn 
good bargain at 20 years.'  

However, the battle does not end, as now we must fight to keep this 
man in prison, because he has been afforded the opportunity to get 
out incredibly early.  I'd like to now give you two pictures of my 6 
year old son.  (Exhibits L and M) These picture I hold very dear.  One 
of them shows his loving side, cradling his younger sister in his arms, 
showing off his strength and his love for life.  The other picture 
shows he's not happy or playing and being the ham that he was.  In 
this picture he is bloody, he's badly scratched and bruised.  Lying, not 
on a cozy warm bed, but on a hard cold table, ready for dissection. 
 He is at the coroner's office.  I ask you to keep these pictures, take 
them with you-I have copies-to remind yourselves why this man 
received 20 years, and to instill in all of you, that this man, thanks to 
`bleeding hearts' will be allowed out on our streets to kill and rape and 
give these memories to another parent, in just 2 years, 4 months, up 
to 5 years, instead of the 20 years he was punished with.  These are 
pictures of a violent crime.

Mrs. Meyers reminded the committee that most of the people who commit violent 
crimes are repeat offenders.  The driver who killed her son, she said, was a four 
time DUI offender.  This man still does not understand what he did wrong, the 
witness explained, and she does not understand him.  She closed her testimony 
stating," There has got to be a way to make the changes necessary to provide us 



with the satisfaction," to keep these violent criminals off the streets. The chairman 
thanked Mr. and Mrs. Meyers for sharing their story. 

There being no further business before the committee, the hearing was adjourned 
at 1:10 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:


                                        
Lori M. Story,
Committee Secretary


APPROVED BY:



                                               					
Senator Mark A. James	  		
Chairman				

DATE:                                      



                                               					
Assemblyman Bernie Anderson
Chairman

DATE:                                      				




                                               
Assemblyman David Humke
Chairman

DATE:                                      				
Senate Committee on Judiciary
Assembly Committee on Judiciary
February 14, 1995
Page