Advocates for children and people who prosecute child abuse cases describe themselves as "stunned" by a last-minute measure that did away with mandatory minimum sentences for child molestors.
Senate Pres. Lane Beattie, R-West Bountiful, shocked spectators by amending a bill at the very last minute so that sex crimes against children would carry a prison sentence of one year to life. Later, the House amended that to five years to life.Many are upset about the process. The change didn't go through the usual series of public hearings accorded most legislation.
"While I am concerned about the change in the law, that's of secondary importance to me," said Scotti Davis, director of Utah's Chapter for the Prevention of Child Abuse.
"Of primary importance is the way in which this happened. I find this an appalling breach of ethics and a detriment to the democratic process of letting citizens have input.
"To suggest this was to protect victims is dreadful . . . This is nothing more than further vic-tim-iza-tion."
Davis said that the Sentencing Commission already planned to study minimum-mandatory sentences this year. That process would have allowed public com-ment.
And she can't say whether the change in law is beneficial or not because she - and others actively involved in child-abuse prevention and education - were not allowed to see the proposal before it was introduced and passed.
Even the attorney general's chief deputy was surprised.
"It caught us completely off guard," said Reed Richards. "I had no idea it was coming. We were not consulted and had no part in it other than getting five (years) instead of one. Usually such an issue is studied extensively and dis-cussed."
Richards said it will have a "massive effect" on prosecution. More cases will likely be tried and those convicted will serve less time. Cases will probably either go to trial or go to second-degree felonies, rather than being worked out with a plea bargain and the minimum-mandatory sentence, he said.
"I'm not necessarily saying it wasn't time to relook at minimum mandatories and reconsider them. . . . It may well have been time to make that change. But it was not done here in a very organized man-ner."
Prosecutors and others involved in such cases must go through the process backwards, he said. They'll have to analyze the change and its effect, without the flexibility to negotiate compromises or suggest a different approach.
The new law will likely not have a chilling effect on prosecution, said assistant attorney general Mark Nash, director of Utah's Prosecution Council. But it will "probably have the effect of making either more cases go to trial, thereby making more children test-ify or the alternative is to reduce (charges) to a second-degree felony as opposed to first-degree."
Nash said he first heard a rumor about the proposal the last day of the session. "Nobody would confirm it, and several people with a lot more pull than I have were trying to get copies. Nothing was a-vail-able."
Nash said he's not surprised that legislators are concerned about minimum-mandatory sentencing; it's been an issue for several years. Had it been "put forth up front and gone through the regular hearing process, and it came out the back end that most legislators supported the change, I may or may not have been pleased, but the process would have been followed and the public and those with expertise would have had the opportunity to have input. I'm very displeased with the process."
His displeasure is shared by others.
Cynthia Taylor of Utah Children believes passage of a "surprise" measure in the final hour of the session represented "a very poor use of legislative power and pro-cess.
"We work hard all through the session to follow all the legislative items and make sure the public knows what's happening. He (Beattie) blindsided the public. It shows a lack of trust in citizens and citizen organizations, as if we're just a bunch of dummies not intelligent enough to deal with this."
The decision to change the law should have started with the Sentencing Commission, which reviews basic sentencing laws, said Grethe Peterson, a long-time advocate for children. That would allow judicial, victim and corrections input, since all those entities are represented on the commission.
"I am surprised if not appalled at the process. I think this was irresponsible," she said, adding that the change may, in fact, be the best thing to give the pardons board flex-ibility.
But she said she doesn't intend to react hastily. "There needs to be a very careful response to this. It should never have been rushed."
"The message it sends is incredible," said Mary Noonan, director of the Division of Family Services, which investigates child abuse allegations.
"We didn't have a chance to look at it or comment on it . . . that in itself is troubling. But until I can understand its effect on children and families, I'm going to refrain from further comment."