Public Safety: Shoring up the System
Public safety has been the theme for the House Judiciary Committee this session. Almost every bill taken up is connected to the crimes and conditions that contribute to the sense that Vermonters are not as safe as we were just a few years ago.
The two most effective crime deterrents are: (1) a high probability of being caught and (2) certain and quick consequences for criminal activity. The probability of being caught depends on the presence and availability of law enforcement. The certainty and immediacy of consequences depends on a well-functioning, well-resourced criminal justice system made up of the courts, prosecutors, defenders, victim advocates, and restorative justice providers.
The legislature’s primary lever to address the issue is the state budget. The Judiciary Committee continues to work with the Appropriations Committee to ensure that all vital elements of the justice system have sufficient resources. This work will enable cases to be heard in a timely fashion so that individuals are being held accountable for their actions as soon as possible.
In addition to advocating for properly resourced criminal justice entities, we’ve voted several public safety-related bills out of the House and on to the Senate.
Expanded Protection for Victims of Domestic Violence
Forty percent of all calls to Vermont law enforcement for violent crimes are related to domestic violence. This fact alone means any attempt to improve public safety must include efforts to prevent and address domestic violence.
H.27 (An act relating to coercive controlling behavior and abuse prevention orders) is one such step. It adds “coercive controlling behavior” to the definition of abuse in the civil statute, making it something for which victims may request a relief from abuse order—commonly referred to as an “RFA.”
During testimony, the committee heard chilling accounts of coercive controlling behavior that ultimately preceded physical violence, including domestic homicide. In one case, a woman’s husband removed the seats from the family minivan because he knew his wife would not drive her children anywhere in an unsafe vehicle. His act served to isolate her in their rural Vermont home and meant that she had no way to escape. He later killed her and their children.
Current law requires seekers of relief from abuse orders to be physically harmed or in fear of imminent physical harm. The aim of this bill is to provide a pathway out of an abusive situation before physical violence occurs.
A Statewide Approach to Restorative Justice
The Judiciary Committee devoted a considerable amount of time to H.645 (An act relating to the expansion of approaches to restorative justice). This bill seeks to codify the practice of pre-charge referrals to restorative justice providers, something we are calling “pre-charge diversion” because it mirrors the existing (post-charge) diversion program administered by the Attorney General’s office.
Pre-charge diversion offers both responsible parties and victims an alternative to the traditional criminal justice system. It has the potential to help reduce the court backlog by not adding cases to the pipeline. It can also produce better results with more accountability and consequences closer to the commission of the crime. The bill also sets up improved data collection.
The committee took great care to honor prosecutorial discretion while making progress toward a statewide vision of restorative justice that ensures geographic equity. The committee also worked diligently to protect victims’ rights and bring a currently functioning-yet-fractured system together for the benefit of all Vermonters.
Addressing Retail and Motor Vehicle Theft
The Judiciary Committee focused on a bill designed to address retail theft, specifically repeat offenses. Currently, retail theft offenses can be charged as either misdemeanors or felonies depending upon the value of goods stolen. Anything up to $900 is a misdemeanor and over $900 is a felony. H.534 (An act relating to retail theft) will enable prosecutors to charge individuals with a felony if the aggregate value of goods stolen within a 14-day period exceeds $900, or if the person acted in concert with someone else.
Given the complex nature of the problem and the co-occurring challenges of substance use disorder, poverty, mental illness, and a significant court backlog, there is no single solution. The committee is committed to finding a path forward that makes things better for retailers and communities, considers the long-term implications of a felony conviction, and plays a part in addressing the court backlog.
The committee combined three bills dealing with motor vehicle theft, unlawful operation, and trespass into one: H.563 (An act relating to criminal motor vehicle offenses involving unlawful trespass, theft, or unauthorized operation). This bill is designed to close a few gaps in statute, including the interesting fact that current law does not prohibit a person from entering another person’s car without consent. This will address incidents of rummaging through someone’s car without actually stealing anything out of it. Accidental entry into another’s car will not be criminalized.
Changes to Judicial Nominating
H.780 (An act relating to judicial nominations and appointments) makes important changes to the judicial nominating process. The way it works now is that a nonpartisan Judicial Nominating Board (made up of legislators, members of the Vermont Bar, and people appointed by the governor) sends nominations for judicial openings to the governor. The governor then reviews and appoints judges from the list of nominees.
Current law does not specify whether or how many times a governor can ask the Judicial Nominating Board to produce an additional list of candidates if they are not pleased with the list as presented. This bill clarifies that a governor may only ask for a new list of candidates one time, which could help expedite the appointment process.
This bill also creates a mechanism by which folks could nominate potential judges, a change from existing law which only allows for self-selecting into the pool of would-be judges. It’s a way to potentially increase diversity in the applicant pool by combating the well-proven phenomenon of women, people of color, and other historically marginalized people failing to see themselves in positions of power, and therefore never offering their own name.