STAND. COM. REP. NO. 874-04
Honolulu, Hawaii
, 2004
RE: S.B. No. 2748
S.D. 1
H.D. 1
Honorable Calvin K.Y. Say
Speaker, House of Representatives
Twenty-Second State Legislature
Regular Session of 2004
State of Hawaii
Sir:
Your Committee on Judiciary, to which was referred S.B. No. 2748, S.D. 1, entitled:
"A BILL FOR AN ACT RELATING TO DRUG DEMAND REDUCTION ASSESSMENTS,"
begs leave to report as follows:
The purpose of this bill is to make permanent the drug demand reduction assessments enacted in Act 205, Session Laws of Hawaii 1995. Among other things, this bill:
(1) Expands the number of offenses for which assessments may be imposed;
(2) Makes assessments mandatory;
(3) Provides that interest accrued on assessments be deposited in the Drug Demand Reduction Assessments Special Fund (Fund);
(4) Provides that probation and crime victim compensation fees are to be paid before the drug demand reduction assessment;
(5) Places the burden on a defendant to show inability to pay the assessment; and
(6) Deletes the sunset provision by which the authority to impose drug demand reduction assessments would otherwise expire on June 30, 2004.
The Department of Health, Department of the Prosecuting Attorney of the City and County of Honolulu, High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Task Force, Honolulu Police Department, and the Crime Victim Compensation Commission testified in support of this bill.
Your Committee finds that the assessments levied against defendants convicted of offenses relating to drugs and alcohol use are necessary to offset some of the costs borne by the taxpayers for substance abuse treatment programs. Your Committee agrees with the intent of this bill that offenders who are involved with drug trafficking play a significant role in creating the demand for illegal drugs and the need to provide treatment programs for drug abusers and addicts. The assessments are not intended to impose a fine or exact punishment on the offender; rather, they are a remedial measure to help abate the effects of drug use and dependency for which the offender is partly responsible.
However, your Committee finds that the first priority is for the offender to receive substance abuse treatment at their expense if they can afford to pay for such treatment. The second priority is for the offender to pay assessments into the Fund.
Accordingly, your Committee has amended this bill by:
(1) Allowing the court discretion to order the offender into treatment at the offender's expense if the court determines that the offender is eligible for probation or will not be sentenced to prison. If the offender undergoes substance abuse treatment, the court may reduce or waive the assessment; and
(2) Clarifying that the Fund shall be used to supplement substance abuse treatment and demand reduction programs.
In addition, your Committee has made technical, nonsubstantive changes for clarity, consistency, and style, including an amendment to subsection (5) on page 3 of this bill, to reinstate the language limiting restitution, to the crimes "enumerated in subsection (1)".
As affirmed by the record of votes of the members of your Committee on Judiciary that is attached to this report, your Committee is in accord with the intent and purpose of S.B. No. 2748, S.D. 1, as amended herein, and recommends that it pass Second Reading in the form attached hereto as S.B. No. 2748, S.D. 1, H.D. 1, and be referred to the Committee on Finance.
Respectfully submitted on behalf of the members of the Committee on Judiciary,
|
____________________________ ERIC G. HAMAKAWA, Chair |
||