Op-Ed - Compass: Other Points of View

Op-Ed

By Governor Sean Parnell

Published by Anchorage Daily News on July 10, 2010

When I launched a 10-year initiative to stop the epidemic of domestic violence and sexual assault, a wide cross-section of Alaskans stepped up to the challenge. Unfortunately, we're now learning that the Alaska chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union is not among the groups that agree we must use every tool at our disposal to protect our women and children.

During the recent legislative session, there was tremendous cooperation between our administration and lawmakers on four pieces of legislation for the DVSA initiative. One of them was the most comprehensive reform of our bail statutes since 1966. It is this effort that the ACLU is attempting to undermine in court.

Let me be clear. If a court ultimately overturns any portion of our bail reform, we will make the necessary adjustments to ensure we're complying with the Constitution while providing the maximum protection possible for victims and our communities.

The new bail law:

* Requires a person charged with a serious sex crime to prove that the conditions of release prior to trial will serve to protect the victim and the public;

* Sets standards for persons under consideration as third-party custodians for defendants who could be released;

* Bars release of a person convicted of a serious sex crime before sentencing or during appeal;

* Increases from 24 hours to 48 hours the deadline for a defendant's first appearance in court, allowing police more time to investigate, prosecutors more time to make better-informed charging decisions and bail arguments, and victims more time to make arrangements for attending; and

* Protects victims of domestic violence by requiring that 20 days must lapse after the arrest before the accused can return to the residence of the victim.

This last provision also is contingent upon the victim agreeing that the defendant may return to the residence, the defendant having no prior conviction for domestic violence and the defendant establishing that the return poses no danger to the victim.

And it was this provision that has been placed under a temporary restraining order, due to an ACLU lawsuit. While a judge may still order the 20-day cooling-off period, for now it is not mandatory, pending the resolution of the litigation. We are asking the Alaska Supreme Court to review the temporary restraining order.

Whatever the outcome, there can be no doubt about the need for tighter procedures and conditions for bail. In the 44 years since our previous bail statutes were enacted, we have seen some disturbing examples of how the system has failed to produce justice and protect Alaskans.

Take the example of Larry Berryhill, convicted of two counts of sexual abuse of a minor at a lodge in Gustavus. Over the objection of the state's attorney, the court released him on an unsecured signature bond, in lieu of posting bail, in the amount of $25,000. Berryhill, who was not a first-time offender, never served a day in jail for his heinous violation of a young boy. He did not appear for his sentencing and fled abroad, eventually dying before he could be arrested. Others like Berryhill are on the streets today after having been released on bail and promptly disappearing.

The ACLU contends that our fixes for these glaring holes in the bail statutes are not constitutional. As usual, they are more concerned with the civil liberties of criminals than those of law-abiding Alaskans who could be victimized. We will vigorously defend the new bail laws in court.

Source