Regular Session - May 11, 1999
2795
NEW YORK STATE SENATE
THE
STENOGRAPHIC RECORD
ALBANY, NEW YORK
May 11, 1999
3:03 p.m.
REGULAR SESSION
LT. GOVERNOR MARY O. DONOHUE, President
STEVEN M. BOGGESS, Secretary
2796
P R O C E E D I N G S
THE PRESIDENT: The Senate will
come to order.
I ask everyone present to please
rise and repeat with me the Pledge of
Allegiance.
(Whereupon, the assemblage recited
the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.)
THE PRESIDENT: The invocation
today will be given by the Reverend Peter G.
Young, from Blessed Sacrament Church in Bolton
Landing.
REVEREND YOUNG: Let us pray.
Today, O God, we honor by our
prayer the professional firefighters of New
York state, for their commitment at our most
dangerous opportunities of facing the problems
of fire and crime.
We pray too for the determination
of our Senate to determine the best way to
serve our youth and to find a way to try to
assist them in their many needs.
We ask You this through Our Lord
now and God forever and ever. Amen.
THE PRESIDENT: Reading of the
2797
Journal.
THE SECRETARY: In Senate, Monday
May 10th, the Senate met pursuant to
adjournment. The Journal of Sunday, May 9th,
was read and approved. On motion, Senate
adjourned.
THE PRESIDENT: Without
objection, the Journal stands approved as
read.
Presentation of petitions.
Messages from the Assembly.
Messages from the Governor.
Reports of standing committees.
Reports of select committees.
Communications and reports from
state officers.
Motions and resolutions.
Senator Farley.
SENATOR FARLEY: Thank you, Madam
President.
On behalf of Senator Maltese, on
page 50 I offer the following amendments to
Calendar Number 843, Senate Print 3229, and I
ask that that bill retain its place on the
Third Reading Calendar.
2798
THE PRESIDENT: The amendment is
received and the bill will retain its place on
the Third Reading Calendar.
SENATOR FARLEY: Madam President,
on page 29 I offer the following amendments to
Calendar Number 597, Senate Print Number 3158.
And that's on behalf of Senator Leibell. And
I ask that that bill retain its place on the
Third Reading Calendar.
THE PRESIDENT: The amendment is
received, Senator Farley, and the bill will
retain its place on the Third Reading
Calendar.
SENATOR FARLEY: I wish to call
up Senator Volker's bill, Print Number 3106,
which was recalled from the Assembly, which is
now at the desk.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
554, by Senator Volker, Senate Print 3106, an
act to amend the Penal Law and others.
SENATOR FARLEY: Madam President,
I now move to reconsider the vote by which
this bill was passed.
2799
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will call the vote upon reconsideration.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 37.
SENATOR FARLEY: The bill is now
on third reading, and I offer the following
amendments.
THE PRESIDENT: The amendment is
received.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: I believe there
are some substitutions at the desk, if we
could please make them at this time.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: On page 14,
Senator Holland moves to discharge, from the
Committee on Rules, Assembly Bill Number 6909A
and substitute it for the identical Third
Reading Calendar, 235.
On page 19, Senator Volker moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 333 and substitute it for
the identical Third Reading Calendar, 359.
On page 32, Senator LaValle moves
2800
to discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 4736 and substitute it
for the identical Third Reading Calendar, 625.
And on page 6, Senator LaValle
moves to discharge, from the Committee on
Rules, Assembly Bill Number 7009A and
substitute it for the identical Second Report
Calendar, 1063.
THE PRESIDENT: The substitutions
are ordered.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
at this time if we could adopt the Resolution
Calendar.
THE PRESIDENT: All in favor of
adopting the Resolution Calendar signify by
saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The Resolution
Calendar is adopted.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
on Resolution 1242, Senator Trunzo has offered
2801
sponsorship for the entire membership. It
concerns School Transportation Personnel Week.
Consent of the Minority will put everybody on.
If anybody wishes not to sponsor the
resolution, they should notify the desk.
THE PRESIDENT: Any members who
do not wish to sponsor the resolution should
notify the desk. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
if we could take up the noncontroversial
calendar.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
236, by Senator LaValle, Senate Print 2475A,
an act to amend the Education Law, in relation
to the powers of the Board of Education.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 11. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 37.
2802
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
238, by Senator Saland, Senate Print 3021A, an
act to amend the Executive Law and the
Education Law, in relation to providing
security information.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
September.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 37.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
593, by Member of the Assembly Weinstein,
Assembly Print Number 3565, an act to amend
Chapter 729 of the laws of 1994.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
2803
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 37.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
595, by Senator Trunzo, Senate Print 2468A, an
act to amend the Retirement and Social
Security Law, in relation to retirement
benefits.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 37.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
750, by Senator Stafford, Senate Print 3989,
an act to amend the Criminal Procedure Law, in
relation to electronic court appearance.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
2804
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
753, by Senator Fuschillo, Senate Print 4210,
an act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to
the offense of assault in the second degree.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
765, by Senator Larkin, Senate Print 104, an
act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law, in
regulation to authorizing the City of
Newburgh.
THE PRESIDENT: A home rule
message is at the desk.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 37.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
767, by Senator Trunzo, Senate Print 4268, an
2805
act to amend the Highway Law, in relation to
highway projects or maintenance activities.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 37.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
776, by Senator Maltese, Senate Print 4572, an
act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law, in
relation to increasing the penalty for
obstructing access.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 37.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
2806
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
781, by Senator McGee, Senate Print 3308, an
act to amend the Tax Law, in relation to
extending the expiration of the provisions.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 35. Nays,
2. Senators Dollinger and Gentile recorded in
the negative.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
785, by Senator Marcellino, Senate Print 836,
an act to amend the Education Law, in relation
to courses of study for cardiopulmonary
resuscitation.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
2807
August.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 37.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
808, by Senator Leibell, Senate Print 3688, an
act to amend the Retirement and Social
Security Law, in relation to the membership of
police officers and firefighters.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 37.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
814, by Senator Leibell, Senate Print 5093, an
act to amend the Retirement and Social
Security Law, in relation to the extension of
the temporary benefits.
2808
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 5. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 37.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
909, by Senator McGee, Senate Print 4318, an
act to amend the General Municipal Law, in
relation to authorizing state agencies to
enter into cooperative agreements.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 7. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 39.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
910, by Senator McGee, Senate Print 4320, an
2809
act to amend the Municipal Home Rule Law, in
relation to authorizing the Secretary of State
to receive.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
January.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 39.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
926, by Senator Johnson, Senate Print 1960, an
act to amend the Family Court Act and the
Vehicle and Traffic Law, in relation to
suspension.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect in 120 days.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 37. Nays,
2810
2. Senators Duane and Smith recorded in the
negative.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
928, by Senator Maziarz, Senate Print 3809, an
act to amend the Family Court Act, in relation
to violations of adjournments.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect in 90 days.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 45.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
938, by Senator Saland, Senate Print 5553 -
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Lay it aside.
THE SECRETARY: -- an act to
amend the Criminal Procedure Law and others.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside, Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
2811
President, could I be recognized for one
second?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Bonacic,
that completes the noncontroversial reading of
the calendar.
SENATOR BONACIC: Thank you,
Madam President. May we now have the
controversial reading of the calendar, please.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger, why do you rise?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
President, I just wanted to introduce someone
in the gallery. In addition to our men in
blue, there is a delegation from the City of
Rochester School for the Deaf, an unusual
group with their sign interpreter. I simply
wanted to welcome them in somewhat unusual
circumstances, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: That is so noted,
Senator Dollinger.
Could we please proceed with the
controversial calendar. The Secretary will
read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
750, by Senator Stafford, Senate Print 3989,
2812
an act to amend the Criminal Procedure Law, in
relation to electronic court appearance in
Franklin County.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Bonacic,
an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR BONACIC: This is an act
to amend the Criminal Law in relation to
electronic court appearances in Franklin
County. What this does is it permits
audiovisual technology in criminal proceedings
in which a person would not have to appear.
It would save money. It's been requested by
Franklin County. There are 13 other counties
in the state of New York that presently have
this. And it's also been requested by the
Office of Court Administration.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President. On the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead on the
bill, Senator.
SENATOR DUANE: Similar to a
situation we had yesterday, this is an
2813
expansion of a pilot program, but we still
have not gotten the results of the initial
pilot program. We don't really know whether
this is raising any money. And before we
expand the program, I think we should see what
the results have been and its impact on the
counties of our state.
So I'm going to be voting no on
this bill.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 47. Nays,
1. Senator Duane recorded in the negative.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
753, by Senator Fuschillo, Senate Print 4210,
an act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to
the offense of assault in the second degree.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
2814
Fuschillo, an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Thank you,
Madam President.
This bill has been before the
Senate since early 1990. The bill would add a
new subdivision to the Penal Law, which is
assault in the second degree for intentionally
causing physical injury to a school district
employee or a BOCES employee.
Recent reports have indicated the
need for this. There has been an increase in
physical attacks against school personnel
throughout the state.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 49. Nays,
1. Senator Duane recorded in the negative.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
2815
938, by Senator Saland, Senate Print 5553, an
act to amend Criminal Procedure Law, the
Executive Law, the Family Court Act and the
Penal Law, in relation to enacting the
Juvenile Justice Accountability and Procedural
Reform Act of 1999.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Saland,
an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR SALAND: Thank you, Madam
President.
Madam President, this bill is a
Governor's Program bill. It's an effort to
deal in a comprehensive fashion with the issue
of juvenile justice. As many in this chamber
are aware, certainly as far back as 1995 the
Senate endeavored to move this issue to the
front burner by establishing, in effect, an
entirely new way or certainly a substantially
new way within which to deal with juvenile
justice.
We have since joined in partnering
with the Governor. The bill before us, as I
mentioned earlier, is a Governor's Program
2816
bill. And it does a number of things. On the
one hand, it expands a number of sentences for
crimes that are committed by juveniles. It
alters what is currently the procedure with
respect to handling matters involving
juveniles, permits the family court to not
only issue warrants but in effect to treat
juveniles in a fashion, under certain
circumstances, that's more akin to the way
that criminal courts respond to these
particular types of cases.
It would, for example, say that
where you've had the opportunity to receive
youthful offender treatment for what otherwise
would have been a felony, and you commit
another act that would constitute a felony
within five years thereafter, that there is a
look-back. The look-back effectively would
permit the youthful-offender prior treatment
to be reviewed, and would serve as a predicate
for a felony charge, if in fact there is a
conviction on the -- as a predicate felon, or
certainly be considered in the course of
sentencing if there's a conviction on the
second felony.
2817
There are a number of additional
things that it does, including additional
access to juvenile records. The -- the bill
contains provisions to ensure parental
responsibility -- or involvement, perhaps more
appropriately, in the course of a disposition
with children who have in fact violated laws
and are subject to placement.
The bill is an effort to try and
deal with the problem of juvenile crime, a
problem which was perhaps last dealt with some
20 to 30 years ago by a Legislature and a
Governor at that time who were dealing with
children who were more or less like Ozzie and
Harriet's children, a time perhaps when they
were concerned with issues such as petit
larceny, perhaps joyriding in a car, perhaps
truancy.
The nature of crime committed by
juveniles certainly has become far more
violent; in many instances, far more
gratuitous. The nature of that crime in terms
of statistics not only greatly exceeds those
numbers from back in 1985, 1986, but even if
given the reality of a diminution of juvenile
2818
crime over the course of the past couple of
years not unlike the diminution in crime
that's been perpetrated by adults, the reality
still remains that the juvenile crime rate in
New York is not only significantly higher for
violent crime than the national crime rate,
and not only is the homicide rate also
significantly higher than the national crime
rate, but even given the reduction over the
past couple of years, New York State's
juvenile violent crime rate has increased some
30-plus percent since the 1987 year to the
1997 year, a period of some ten years. 1997
is the last year for which we have statistics,
complete statistics. And certainly there has
been no increase in population to speak of
since that 1987 date.
And the reality is, is that we can
reasonably expect that the demographics being
what they are, that somewhere shortly after
the turn of the 21st century we will have
another bubble of teenagers, an increase in
population, an increase in a population which
tends to be the most violent population and
one that engages in numbers far too high in
2819
terms of crime.
The bill attempts to deal with the
issue of alternatives. It creates an
alternatives commission, a commission
that's -- the purpose of which is to, in
effect, review what is available to determine
which programs, alternatives to dispositional
programs work, which programs are the ones
that we should be replicating throughout our
respective communities.
It's a bill which I think certainly
is long overdue. I'm hopeful that before this
session ends, if in fact it ever ends, that we
will have the ability to sit at the table with
our counterparts in the Assembly, perhaps
through a conference committee -- ideally
through a conference committee -- and
negotiate our differences. It's been far too
long. This is now, I believe, our fifth
session in which we're endeavoring to try and
come to closure on this issue.
I certainly believe that what we
need to do, if I can speak perhaps more
generally to the subject, is not only on the
one hand ensure responsibility and impose
2820
responsibility; I think we have to effectively
deal with those who commit violent crimes in a
fashion that is akin to the criminal
justice -- most akin to the criminal justice
law. I think we have to take those who we can
divert, particularly those who are engaged in
activities that are nonviolent, try and keep
them out of placements, try and avail
ourselves of the opportunity to alternatives.
And certainly, as part and parcel of any
proposal, there has to be what I would term
this comprehensive or wholistic approach.
The reality is, is that these are
young people who are going to have the
opportunity, regardless of whether they're
placed or incarcerated, to be back out in
society. And I think it's our job to try and
avoid the placement or the incarceration. But
once that has occurred, I think we have to
make every effort to provide opportunities for
rehabilitation that would afford some ability
to function in a fashion which society would
consider to be more appropriate upon release.
Thank you, Madam Chair -- Madam
President.
2821
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Waldon.
SENATOR WALDON: Madam President,
may I ask the gentleman a question or two?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Saland,
do you yield for a question?
SENATOR SALAND: It will be my
pleasure, always, to yield to Senator Waldon.
And the day wouldn't be complete if Senator
Waldon didn't have one or more questions for
me.
SENATOR WALDON: I'm equally
delighted, Senator. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You're welcome.
SENATOR WALDON: Senator, just
for information, are you aware that Ricky
Nelson, the son of Ozzie and Harriet, died in
a plane crash where the one survivor, I
believe, stated that they were free-basing
cocaine, which caused a fire within the plane,
which precipitated its crash?
SENATOR SALAND: I'm not aware of
that. And I'm not quite sure, if in fact that
was alleged, if it was ever established. But
I am not aware of it.
2822
Suffice it to say, though, Senator,
that when I talk in terms of Ozzie and
Harriet's children, I'm talking in terms of a
television program that may represent a
generational thing, perhaps -- I'm a lot older
than you are, but I vividly recall -- I'm
being kind, Senator. Don't look so surprised.
I vividly recall the format, the
presentation, and the sort of utopian
lifestyle that surrounded the family crises
that they endured.
SENATOR WALDON: Madam President,
would the gentleman continue to yield?
THE PRESIDENT: Would you
continue to yield, Senator Saland?
SENATOR SALAND: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
Waldon.
SENATOR WALDON: Thank you very
much, Madam President.
Senator, I understood your
characterization. But I thought it important
for us to be aware, if the body of our
colleagues were not aware, that even -
2823
SENATOR SALAND: Would you suffer
an interruption, please?
Madam President, it may be my
hearing, and I know I've had problems before
with Senator Waldon. I'm having a real
difficult time hearing him.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, could
you speak up, please?
SENATOR WALDON: Senator, I
understood -- thank you, Madam President, for
your indulgence.
I understood what you were trying
to convey to us. But I wanted our colleagues
in the chamber to understand that even in the
most ideal of settings that children may
somehow take a wrong step in terms of their
journey through life.
Now, if I may, you mentioned in
your statement that there was some reduction
in the criminal pattern for our young people
over the last few years. You said from 1986
or '89 that it gone up 30-plus percent. Can
you give us the information as to the rate of
reduction since the first year that it began
to go down as opposed to when it was going up?
2824
SENATOR SALAND: I can't give you
numbers, Senator Waldon. I can tell you that
I believe in 1994 there was a modest
reduction. I believe in 1995 there was an
increase. I believe in '96 and '97, there
were decreases.
Notwithstanding those decreases,
I -- the rate is certainly dramatically above
the rate of violent crime from the mid-'80s
and certainly, as I mentioned earlier, is far
higher and above the national rate. And that
includes not merely violent crime but
homicide. I think the last data that we had
had the homicide rate about 40 percent above
the national average.
SENATOR WALDON: Madam President,
would the gentleman please continue to yield?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Saland,
do you continue to yield?
SENATOR SALAND: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Waldon,
you may proceed with a question.
SENATOR WALDON: Thank you, Madam
President.
2825
Senator, before I ask the next
question, could you tell us, if you know, what
the trend is nationally in regard to reduction
of crime amongst those who are 18 to whatever
is in your catchment group in terms of those
who are juvenile criminals, who are young
criminals? And as well, tell us, if you
know -
SENATOR SALAND: I hate to do
this to you, and it may be something that's
coming from behind me. I heard you say "Can
you tell us, if you know," something about
reduction, and then I lost you, Senator.
SENATOR WALDON: I will repeat
it. And I understand the cacophony in the
back is creating havoc for both of us.
If you know, what is the national
average of reduction over the last few years
in the particular group that we're addressing
with this proposal? And, secondly, can you
tell us about the Boston plan, if you know
about that?
SENATOR SALAND: Unfortunately, I
can't. And I should be able to tell you, give
you a comparison of the national figure versus
2826
New York's. I can't do that. But I can tell
you that New York's violent crime rate is the
highest among the 50 states. New York's
juvenile violence rate is the highest in the
nation.
The Boston plan, while I'm not
familiar with the particulars, I do know that
the -- I do know the Boston plan has captured
certainly the attention of many, that it is a
plan which has seen a dramatic reduction in
violence and one which, as I understand it,
has seen a virtual elimination, at least for a
period of time, of juvenile homicides. And I
can't tell you of all of the particulars of
the plan, but I'm certainly familiar with some
of those particulars and of its reputation.
SENATOR WALDON: Would the
gentleman continue to yield, Madam President?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Saland,
do you continue to yield?
SENATOR SALAND: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
Waldon. Do you have an additional question?
SENATOR WALDON: Yes, I do.
2827
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR WALDON: Senator, there
are plans similar to the Boston plan -- which
has had one homicide in the last four years
amongst people of the age level we're
addressing here. There's one, I believe, in
Flint, Michigan; there's one in Tennessee.
All of these programs give massive
support services to the age brackets that
we're addressing here, both in a preemptive
fashion, before they even become of age and
involved in crime, and, once they are, they
interdict into that group, give them massive
support, put them on the proper track in
regard to education, give them family support,
and even if they are incarcerated or become a
number in the criminal justice system, they
transition them out with tremendous support
services and continue to give them support
until they become -- return to society as
viable citizens.
Have you considered incorporating
any of those types of models in this proposal?
SENATOR SALAND: Senator Waldon,
2828
I'm certainly keenly interested in looking at
those types of models. I would certainly hope
that the commission that we create under this
bill would look at those types of models. And
I don't disagree with the fact that this
cannot be a one-dimensional approach to
juvenile justice.
I think, however, that in response
to what you've said, we have to not only
impose responsibility -- and that
responsibility, in my opinion, and certainly
in the opinion of the Governor, entails the
ability to provide appropriate sentences for
those who engage in violent acts.
But as I mentioned in my opening
remarks, if for no other reason than the age
of the people involved in committing these
crimes, they are going to return to society.
And I think we have the obligation to do our
best to try and provide the ability for their
return to society to be an event which doesn't
result in recidivism.
I think every bit as importantly,
and even more importantly, that we should be
avoiding their getting into the system. And I
2829
think we do that by way of alternatives. And
it may well be that there's much that we can
learn from the Boston plan or other plans.
But I believe that the alternative commission
that is called for in the Governor's bill will
have the ability to do that. And then it will
be up to us, as part of our budget process, to
ensure that funds are adequate to be up to
that task.
Now, it may well be that when we
get to that point, assuming that we get to
that point, there may be disagreements as to
what constitutes being adequate enough to take
care of that. But I certainly think that we
do have the responsibility of traveling down
that path if we're really serious about a
comprehensive approach to dealing with the
issue.
SENATOR WALDON: Madam President,
would the gentleman yield to more questions?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Saland,
do you continue to yield?
SENATOR SALAND: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
2830
Senator Waldon.
SENATOR WALDON: Thank you very
much, Madam President.
Senator, we have discussed, time
and time again, ad nauseam, the schools under
registration review and the community school
boards in this state which are the feeder
systems for our prison systems. You've heard
me say, and we've discussed this either in our
present positions across the room or in
committee or just having conversations, that
those school districts in those Assembly
districts, whether it's 17 or 18 and 11 school
boards -- I've forgotten -- are feeding into
our prison system 80 percent of the people who
are in our prisons as of this moment and the
overwhelming majority in our local jails.
Did you consider or was there
consideration given in the preparation of this
proposal to put massive resources -- a
Marshall Plan, if you will -- into those
particular areas so that those young people
would be given a full opportunity to realize
their fullest potential? And if that had
occurred, in my opinion, it would preclude the
2831
need for such a punitive act as this. Was
there any consideration given to those schools
under registration review and to those school
districts and to those young people?
SENATOR SALAND: Those issues
that you raise are certainly valid issues.
And as I believe we've probably discussed
before within the context of this type of a
bill, those are not the kinds of things that I
have viewed as being within the purview of
this bill. As I mentioned earlier, I thought
they were appropriate for budget and budget
negotiations and would believe that that's
where we ought to be attempting to deal with
those issues.
But let me suggest to you, at the
expense of perhaps seeming confrontational, I
don't -- notwithstanding the fact that you're
correct with respect to the fact that there
are certain districts which disproportionately
seem to be sending people into the criminal
mainstream, I'm not quite sure if the mere
application of dollars in and of itself is
going to wind up in a meaningful way changing
those outcomes.
2832
There's more to it, I think, than
the mere application of dollars. Because if,
in fact, we look at the areas that you're
talking about -- and generally these areas are
areas that have disproportionate poverty
levels, more people in need, and the term we
now use is more people at risk -- I would
submit to you that there probably would never
be the ability for anybody to claim that they
have successfully risen from poverty to attain
whatever position that might occur. People
make choices. And it may well be that
their -- the environment within which they're
placed resulted in them making choices that
you and I might not make.
But there is an element of choice
involved in this. And as part and parcel of
what we propose to do, we say that there is an
element of responsibility for the choices that
you have made. And if you're going to make
those choices, you must understand that there
are consequences.
And that's not contrary to anything
that I've ever said or done in the course of
dealing with members of my family. There are
2833
good consequences, and there are bad
consequences. And there are bad consequences
when you do bad things.
Now, in terms of dealing with the
issues of funding programs, I'm certainly not
adverse to that, and I certainly think we
should be doing our best to meet those
responsibilities. But that's not what you're
going to find within the parameters of this
bill.
SENATOR WALDON: Madam President,
if the gentleman would yield again.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Saland,
do you continue to yield?
SENATOR SALAND: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Waldon.
SENATOR WALDON: Thank you, Madam
President.
Senator, you see before you someone
who obviously, with the help of his parents
and grandparents -
SENATOR SALAND: Thank you,
Senator.
2834
SENATOR WALDON: You see before
you someone who obviously, with the help of
his parents and his grandparents, the Church
of God and Christ, and all of those support
systems that Patchen Avenue afforded me,
someone who made the right choices.
Where we grew up, my first
experience I believe with unions were the rats
and the roaches, who were so organized I
thought they had a shop steward and a
dues-check-off system.
It was a very poor area. But some
of us actually got out of there okay -- Tommy
Davis, Lenny Wilkins, Vinnie Cohen, who's
black despite his name, Cyhillo Green, Frank
Thomas, who headed the Ford Foundation. All
of us came from within a few blocks of each
other. So kids even in that abject poverty
situation that Bed-Stuy was on Patchen Avenue,
between putting them in Gates and putting them
in Fulton Street -- Al Vann, who lived at the
other end of the block -- we all -- some of
us -- not all of us, but some of us did okay.
But others need more than that.
And that's why I raise the point about the
2835
source schools or certain schools and about
massive resources being put into them.
But I'd like to take a different
tack, if I may. I have been into the prisons,
and I believe that you have as well. And
those of us -- those of us who are realists in
terms of what happens within the prisons
understand that when you send someone who's 12
or 13 or 14, 15, 16 into an adult facility,
we're really sending someone in to be abused
and used by the older prisoners.
Is there any consideration being
given or have you given any consideration to
what will happen in a physical sense, in a
psychological sense, in a sociological sense
to those children who will be exposed to
sexual predators and who will come out, no
matter what is able to be done, on the back
end of their incarceration worse than when
they went in?
SENATOR SALAND: Senator Waldon,
it's my understanding -- and please correct me
if I'm wrong -- that when you have juveniles
of the ages that you're talking about -- 13,
14, 15 -- they are not in a general
2836
population. They are effectively segregated
and kept out of that particular population.
SENATOR WALDON: Madam President,
if I may, just one or two more questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Saland,
do you continue to yield for one or two
questions?
SENATOR SALAND: Yes, Madam
President.
If you'd permit me, if I might,
just -- there have been some corrections
people who have told me that they believe that
placing younger offenders in with an older
population might have a stabilizing effect on
the younger, and I disagree with that. I
think it's placing them at risk,
notwithstanding however tough they may have
been and whatever environment they may have
come from.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Waldon,
you may proceed.
SENATOR WALDON: Thank you, Madam
President. It will be only one or two, Madam
President.
Senator Saland, you do understand
2837
that when someone as a young person goes into
the prison system, administratively, at least
up until age 21, they can be extended in terms
of their incarcerated period? You understand
that?
SENATOR SALAND: Yes.
SENATOR WALDON: And that is what
I was talking about. I apologize to you for
failing to make that very clear at first.
Last question, if I may, Madam
President. If I may, last question.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Waldon, with your last question.
SENATOR WALDON: Thank you.
Senator Saland, do you see in the
near future, in terms of your mind-set, that
you would be supportive of not revisiting this
issue but of -- meaning your proposal -- but
of revisiting a massive Marshall Plan approach
to giving kids who have the least in our state
the greatest opportunity to realize their
fullest potential, by duplicating or
replicating programs like Boston or Flint,
Michigan, or the one that's in Tennessee? Do
you think that's a possibility for you as a
2838
person who is in a very important and
influential position here in our Senate?
SENATOR SALAND: Let me give you
an answer that won't be the perfect one that
you might like from me, Senator Waldon.
I stand by what I said earlier,
that I believe it's important for us to deal
with the kinds of issues, particularly in the
communities that you refer to as being so
greatly at risk. I cannot tell you that I
would endorse a -- what you're terming a
Marshall Plan. I certainly would be
receptive, in the course of our budget
negotiations, to try and focus on the needs of
those communities. I believe, notwithstanding
what occurred ultimately with the budget
process that we went through last year, there
was some recognition, you know, of some of the
needs of those communities, recognition that
certainly as the Senate Cochair of the Human
Services Budget Subcommittee I deemed
appropriate.
I'm prepared to work with those who
are pressing for those types of programs.
I've worked with my counterpart in the
2839
Assembly, the Chairman of the Assembly
Children and Families Committee, and hope to
have the opportunity to continue to work with
him. But I'd be less than honest if I told
you that I'd be able to embrace the idea of
a -- of a Marshall Plan. I'm not quite sure
what that would entail particularly, but I
certainly understand what the concept is.
SENATOR WALDON: Thank you very
much, Senator.
Madam President, if I may, on the
bill.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
Waldon, on the bill.
SENATOR WALDON: Thank you, Madam
President, for the manner in which you've
handled this debate. And let me thank Senator
Saland, one of our bright stars here in the
chamber, who's a consummate gentleman.
I believe that we are putting
children at too great a risk if this were to
become law. Despite the fact that there are
some very violent children in New York state,
I think all the recent indicia are that crime
is down. And therefore, there's not such a
2840
need for such punitive and draconian measures
in regard to the punishment for these
criminals.
Also I believe we have a moral
obligation, as a state and as a people, as a
nation, to ensure that there is an opportunity
for people to realize their fullest potential.
And by just punishing them and not creating
support services in the prisons, whether it be
for those who have been sexually abused and/or
raped, those who have become drug addicts,
those who have, for reasons of dysfunctional
families, been thrown on the streets at 7, 8,
9 and 10 years of age and who function alone
without the support and guidance of an adult,
for any number of reasons I believe that we
have a moral obligation to give our kids a
chance to just be kids, so that they can then
become teenagers, adolescents, and adults.
And I don't see that happening here
in this proposal, so I can't support it. I'm
not someone who's soft on crime. I'm
certainly not someone who doesn't believe that
those who are the most violent should be put
away and put away permanently. But I think
2841
that kids at 12, 13, 14, 15 years of age, for
whatever reason, make mistakes. And we ought
to try to salvage them first, as opposed to
putting them away forever and throwing the key
away. And I think that happens sometimes when
a child is arrested, treated as an adult, and
ends up being the object of older and more
violent predator types which are within the
prisons.
So I encourage my colleagues to
think judiciously about this and to recognize
that something in this bill is very positive
and very super, and we should listen to it.
But there are, in my opinion, as many facets
of this proposal which should not be listened
to and which we should not support. And
therefore, I encourage us to vote no now.
Let's negotiate it and come back with
something that's good for all of the people
all of the time.
Thank you very much, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
Senator Dollinger.
2842
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Please
recognize Senator Duane.
THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me.
Senator Duane can be recognized.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you very
much, Madam President. It's my preference to
speak on the bill.
I think that this bill is a
terrible, terrible piece of public policy. I
think it is a terrible criminal justice piece
of legislation. I think the idea of making
and treating 12-to-14-year-olds as adults in
the criminal justice system is just wrong. I
also think it's an absolute wrong way to go,
to treat even more 14-to-16-year-olds as
adults in the criminal justice system. I
think that that is not helpful towards making
this a safer state.
Very few people, very few people
are calling for treating more young people as
adults in the criminal justice system. Not
DAs, not the federal justice system, not
judges, not experts in the area of juvenile
justice. No one is for this, really, with the
exception of -- sadly -- politicians.
2843
You know, I'm not someone who I
guess is totally beyond using politics as a
way to shape public policy. But in this case,
it is wrong. It is very, very damaging. We
are risking destroying young people's lives -
not a few, but many, many young people. Crime
is down in our state, including and especially
among young people. All of the statistics
that are gathered across the nation -- not
just here in New York state, but across the
nation, in very conservative states, by those
who have an interest in seeming as
law-and-order as possible, have shown that
ATIs work, that other things work much better
than treating young people as adults.
In fact, young people who go
through the adult system commit many more
crimes than young people that are treated as
juveniles in the criminal justice system. So
this does not work as well as treating
juveniles within the juvenile justice system.
Treating them as adults is not just wrong, but
it does not work. It doesn't work here, it
doesn't work in Alabama, it doesn't work
anyplace where it's being used.
2844
There is a much smaller range of
things that you can do with a young person who
is being sent through the adult system. A
young person that goes before a criminal court
judge, the judge does not have as many options
for that defendant, for the criminal, the
young criminal, than does the family court
judge. In fact, oftentimes the criminal court
judges give less time than the family court
judge does, and the family court judge has far
greater supervision all along the way than the
criminal court judge does. The supervision is
stricter, the range of options open are
better, and the success rate is better when
they go through the family court judge.
And this is going to become even
more important if the court system is merged,
because it means that in fact there will be
even less people who are familiar with the
range of options that will work for young
people who are going through the system.
Again, the only people in the field
who are for treating youthful offenders as
adults are politicians, no one else. Not
judges, not DAs. And we probably would have
2845
heard about that -- and you may say, oh, you
know, he's making that up. I'm not. That's
what the facts show. If we'd had a hearing on
this, then we could have brought the experts
in, including DAs and judges and people in the
criminal justice system and juvenile justice
to tell us about those statistics so that you
would hear it not just from me, but it could
be proven to you that not treating youthful
offenders as adults is the better way to go,
short term and long term.
I can't believe that we are about
to pass something that is not helpful for
young people and not something which is going
to make the state of New York safer. To have
young people go through the family court
system is far greater. The supervision is
better. They are often sentenced and under
supervision for longer periods of time. And
the idea that we will now be creating a
maximum-security prison for young people is a
complete outrage and a waste of money and will
not make the state any safer.
I understand that some of you may
not be compelled at the idea that what we
2846
should be doing is preventing crimes committed
by young people. Maybe you don't think that's
a good idea. I do. I think prevention is
better than punishing after the fact. I think
it's better not to have these crimes be
committed.
But even if you disagree with me
about that, everything -- all of the
statistics, all of the public policy people,
all of the situations which have been looked
at across this nation say that it is bad
public policy, it is not helpful to treat
youthful offenders as adults in the system.
They should be treated through the family
court system with closer supervision, with
many more options. That's the way to prevent
crimes in the future, not by making the
punishment harsher at the other end.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, Madam
President. Would the sponsor yield for a
question or several questions?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Saland,
2847
will you continue to yield?
SENATOR SALAND: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes.
Senator Saland, I have figures here that
reflect the number of people in prison, on
parole and probation in New York State. And
that figure -- this is relatively -- well,
this is 1998 figures, so it could be
different. But it's around 266,000 people in
New York State.
Is that the figure that you have
for the number of people incarcerated, on
parole or probation in New York State, about
266,000 people?
SENATOR SALAND: I know that the
number of those incarcerated is a little in
excess of 70,000. I will accept, for purposes
of whatever your presentation is, the other
number for the balance. I can't verify that.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: All right.
Thank you.
And now I see here for 1997 the
2848
admissions to the Office of Children and
Family Services by ethnicity, and I believe
that this perhaps reflects the same percentage
breakdown in the prison system generally: 60½
percent were African-American, 35 percent were
Latino, and 3.1 percent white and 1.4 percent
Asian and other.
Does that mean that only 3 percent
white actually commit crimes, and is that why
that percent is so low? Or is that a
disparity that we have here in the admissions
to OCFS?
It's the same rate of admissions to
the prison system, the penal system generally.
What does that reflect to you in terms of the
crime rate among the different groups?
SENATOR SALAND: I can't begin to
tell you what that reflects to me. I can only
tell you that, contrary to some of the things
that were just raised by our colleague,
Senator Duane, effectively there is no mandate
requiring somebody to be placed either in
OCFS, under their supervision, or in a
criminal setting. Effectively the district
attorney determines, given the facts and
2849
circumstances of the case, whether it shall be
tried as a criminal case or within the family
court.
For whatever reason, there seems to
be -- and again, it might be couched in some
of the things that were suggested by Senator
Duane -- a disproportionate number of
African-Americans and Hispanics who are being
placed in OCFS. Assumedly, again,
representing some prosecutorial discretion,
and certainly counter to some of the
implications of what was stated in Senator
Duane's comment. Apparently the decisions
were made by the OCFS placement not to try
them as juvenile offenders within the criminal
system. Because I don't believe that the
adult population necessarily reflects those
same disparities, although there are
disparities within the adult population.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Okay.
Senator Saland, the adult population reflects
the exact same disparities, I can tell you.
I just want to pursue further with
Senator Saland, Madam President, if he would
continue to yield.
2850
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Saland,
will you continue to yield?
SENATOR SALAND: Certainly.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Senator
Saland, I have information here from the -- I
believe it's the -- it's compiled by the
Correctional Association, and it gives -
makes a point of discussing the profiles of
programs that are alternatives to
incarceration. There's a program that they
called CASES, which is, I believe,
Community -- wait, I have an acronym for it.
I believe it's Community Alternatives -- oh,
dear. I'll find it in a minute, Madam
President, if you'll just bear with me.
Center for Alternative Sentencing
and Employment Services. That's CASES. I
don't have the number of people who are in the
program. But it costs the state, per youth
served, $6,500. The recidivism rate of youth
involved in this program is 31 percent. There
is another program, Juvenile Intensive
Supervision and Probation Program. It costs
2851
the state $4,800 per youth, and the recidivism
rate is 36 percent. DFY facilities cost the
state $70,000 per youth, and the recidivism
rate is 76 percent.
My question to you is, where do we
stand in terms of expanding these programs
that save us so much in terms of state dollars
and reduce recidivism -- with a reduced
recidivism rate, which on a long-term basis
saves the state an incalculable amount of
money?
SENATOR SALAND: Senator, let me
just suggest to you that there is not one word
or one iota of content in this bill that in
any way, shape or form prejudices the use of
those programs. If in fact those are
diversionary programs, it may well be that
they would serve as wonderful models to be
replicated by the commission that's proposed
in this bill.
This bill, understand, deals
generally not with the issue of prevention,
which has been the tone and tenor of most of
the comments that have been coming from your
side of the aisle. This bill deals with what
2852
do we do after somebody has engaged in what
could be politely termed antisocial behavior
and more appropriately termed criminal
behavior.
And this bill attempts to do it in
a two-step fashion, or a bifurcated fashion.
Number one, providing penalties for those who
commit the most egregious and violent acts and
saying that those penalties should be stepped
up. And, number two, saying that we should
divert those who aren't violent, those who
should be provided opportunity to avoid a
placement or to be incarcerated.
There's certainly nothing
inconsistent in that bill with anything that
you are proposing by way of the programs that
you're citing.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Okay.
Senator Saland, I also have here that the
Juvenile Justice Coalition of New York has
proposed, suggested some ways to deal with
juvenile justice. One of them is to institute
graduated sanctions, where when a young person
first -- there is a first offense, at that
moment there is intensive intervention and
2853
diversion, hopefully, which can be done at the
community level. If that young person
continues, has other infractions, that the
sanctions are graduated up to a point where
that youngster is obviously a repeat offender
and needs more of the kind of sanctions that
are in your bill.
Is that graduated-sanction approach
in this legislation?
SENATOR SALAND: Let me say that
to some extent it is, yes.
And let me say that those who are
familiar with graduated sanctions I think
would tell you that generally graduated
sanctions does not say that where you've had
somebody who may even be a first offender who
has committed a violent crime, that we do
not -- or let me rephrase that. Well, that we
do not contemplate placing them in a -- either
into the criminal system or into a restrictive
placement in a juvenile system.
That is not implied by graduated
sanctions. Graduated sanctions basically says
where you have somebody who's engaged in
criminal behavior which doesn't rise to the
2854
level of violent behavior, you should
effectively attempt to divert or use a less
restrictive means of dealing with them at the
initial contact.
But that is not inconsistent with
the kinds of sentences that are being proposed
here for the types of crimes that are being
covered by this. And while it doesn't spell
out graduated sanctions in here, I certainly
would think that the purpose of the
alternative commission would be effectively to
put us into that particular mode.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Okay.
Senator Saland -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Saland,
do you continue to yield?
SENATOR SALAND: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
Montgomery. Do you have additional questions?
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, I do,
thank you.
The Juvenile Justice Coalition also
suggests that we need to develop a strong
system of youth-court diversion programs,
2855
where there is involvement of teens and a
system of peer sanctioning of young people.
And this obviously would coincide with a
strong graduated-sanction program, where you
would have young people adjudicated, quote,
unquote, at the level of a community, where
their peers and other community people,
including local youth officers, as well as a
judge, would be involved. But nonetheless,
it's not -- they're not going into, as you are
saying, criminal court at 12.
So is that a part of this
legislation?
SENATOR SALAND: You will not
find any -- Senator, you will not find any
specific reference. But again, you referred
to it as an alternative disposition, I
believe. Or diversion. I don't recall the
exact term that you used.
I certainly would think that
that -- that program which is shown to be
effective in a number of areas -
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes.
SENATOR SALAND: -- would be
something that would be endorsed or embraced
2856
and recommended by this commission.
The reality is, as I think we all
know, very often there are programs which have
advocates. And those programs,
notwithstanding their advocates, may not rise
to the level of efficiency or effectiveness
that we would like to see, notwithstanding the
advocacy of those who seek to advance it and
carve out their niche, whether it be in terms
of alternatives or otherwise.
These are public dollars that would
be being spent for a variety of alternative
programs. And we don't want to get embroiled
in fiefdom battles. We don't want to get
embroiled in situations where it's really the
power of the advocacy and not the
effectiveness of the program that determines
funding.
And that's the purpose of this
commission. We want this commission. We want
experts to tell us that -- notwithstanding the
laudatory claims of the advocates for many of
those programs, which are working, which are
working well, and which should be the ones
that we are encouraging and funding.
2857
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Okay. Thank
you, Senator Saland, for your patience and
your explanation.
Madam President, on the bill,
briefly.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead,
Senator, on the bill.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Obviously,
the question of disparity in the penal system,
the criminal justice system, is very real. We
have evidence of it everywhere. And we can
only assume that it's going to impact in the
very same way once this legislation goes into
effect.
Unfortunately, at the same time
that we are trying to deal with these young
people -- incidentally, there is information
that I have here where it says juvenile
arrests in New York state of children under
the age of 16 account for 6 percent of the
total arrests made. Violent juvenile arrests
account for less than 1 percent of all arrests
in New York state. So we're actually talking
about a small number of people that this -- we
are doing this huge legislation to deal with.
2858
But we're not saying anything in
this juvenile justice bill about what we are
going to do to in fact prevent young people
from entering into criminal activity, to
reduce recidivism. That means that we don't
want them in a revolving door, starting at the
point when they're 12 and they go in and they
come out and they go back in for the rest of
their lives.
We know that juveniles who are
incarcerated with adult prisoners are twice as
likely to be beaten by prison staff and
50 percent more likely to be attacked with
weapons by other inmates. We know that
they're much more likely to come back to
prison. Yet the bill is totally silent to any
of the areas that would in fact keep them from
doing that, to in fact reduce crime.
So this is not really an anticrime
bill as I can see, because clearly all of
those areas that are truly meant to reduce
crime are somehow absent from this bill. So
I -- I have another name for the bill, which I
will not say here on the Senate floor. But it
is truly a dark moment for me and for a number
2859
of other people in this state, and especially
for young people, because there is no -
wherever I look in this budget, wherever I
look in terms of policy that comes down from
on high, wherever high is, there is nothing
that speaks to the fact that we really want to
reduce crime, that we really want to protect
children throughout this state, especially
12-, 13-, 14-, 15-year-olds, especially
African-Americans but also white youngsters.
All of our youngsters are crying
out for help, and we're not giving them any
support in this Legislature, not nearly
enough. We ignore them as a group. Maybe
it's because they don't vote. Maybe it's not
politically sexy to talk about what we need to
be doing for young people. But we're not
doing it.
So I'm voting certainly against
this bill, because it is not a juvenile
justice bill, it is just a bill which says to
people we're going to further punish without
attempting to help, support and protect young
people.
Thank you.
2860
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Seabrook.
SENATOR SEABROOK: Yes, Madam
President. Will the sponsor yield for a few
questions?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Saland,
do you continue to yield?
SENATOR SALAND: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
Seabrook.
SENATOR SEABROOK: Yes. Senator
Saland, could you tell me, if you can, the
number of murder 2 incidents that have
occurred in this state by 12-year-olds?
SENATOR SALAND: Could I -- I'm
sorry, Senator Seabrook, could I ask you to
repeat yourself? My apologies.
SENATOR SEABROOK: Not a problem.
Could you just tell me the number of
12-year-olds that have actually committed
murder 2 in this state in the last year?
SENATOR SALAND: I'm afraid,
Senator Seabrook, I can't. I don't know the
answer to that question and couldn't provide
it to you.
2861
SENATOR SEABROOK: Maybe in the
last five years?
SENATOR SALAND: I -- again,
Senator Seabrook, I could not give you an
answer.
SENATOR SEABROOK: Senator
Saland -- will the sponsor yield?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Saland,
do you continue to yield?
SENATOR SALAND: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
Seabrook.
SENATOR SEABROOK: Senator
Saland, could you tell me, is there a
compelling need to pass legislation that would
have 12-year-olds committed and tried as
adults if we have not collected the data to
say really if there's that need -- that
they're creating this type of murders in this
state?
SENATOR SALAND: Again, I will
say to you that while I don't have the data
available, I suspect if we check we will find,
if not in New York, that elsewhere there have
2862
been incidents where children less than the
age of 13, which is the current law, have
committed homicides.
Certainly this legislation I think
addresses that situation and is, I believe,
also an attempt to let people know, whether it
be parents or whether it be young people who
are prone to violence, that there will be a
criminal justice response to those who would,
with intent, seek to take the life of another.
SENATOR SEABROOK: But we really
don't know the number of 12-year-olds in this
state that have actually committed these
crimes.
SENATOR SALAND: Well, I do
believe that at least in the instance of one
or perhaps more of the situations that
occurred nationally -
SENATOR SEABROOK: No, I'm
talking in this state.
SENATOR SALAND: -- that were the
subject of much media attention and certainly
national notoriety, I do believe that there
was at least one 12-year-old involved.
And again, I can't tell you,
2863
Senator Seabrook, but the mere fact that we
are aware of instances in which it has
occurred I believe makes it certainly
appropriate to be placed in this bill.
SENATOR SEABROOK: Would Senator
Saland yield to another question?
SENATOR SALAND: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
Seabrook.
SENATOR SEABROOK: Senator
Saland, when that act outside of this state
was committed, that homicide, what was the
weapon used?
SENATOR SALAND: I couldn't tell
you with certainty what the weapon was. I
believe it may have been a semiautomatic. I'm
not -- and again, I can't tell you with
certainty.
SENATOR SEABROOK: But it was a
gun.
SENATOR SALAND: Yes, I believe
it was.
SENATOR SEABROOK: To your
knowledge, have you known of any 12-year-old
2864
committing murder with a fistfight -- their
fists?
SENATOR SALAND: I'm not -- to my
knowledge, I'm not aware of anybody
bludgeoning somebody to death with their
fists.
SENATOR SEABROOK: Will the
sponsor yield?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Saland,
will you continue to yield?
SENATOR SALAND: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
Seabrook.
SENATOR SEABROOK: Senator
Saland, to your knowledge are you aware of any
12-year-olds that manufacture guns?
SENATOR SALAND: Not unless
they're particularly bright and capable and
have all the tools to do it.
SENATOR SEABROOK: But you're -
not to your knowledge?
SENATOR SALAND: I'm not aware
of -- whether a 12-year-old would have the
ability to alter a gun to make it perhaps a
2865
weapon that would be even more dangerous than
that for which it was designed, that would be
an entirely different question. And I
certainly wouldn't say that that would be out
of the realm of possibility.
SENATOR SEABROOK: Can a
12-year-old own a gun in this state?
SENATOR SALAND: Lawfully?
SENATOR SEABROOK: Lawfully. Can
they purchase a gun in this state?
SENATOR SALAND: No.
SENATOR SEABROOK: So the -- can
you tell me when was the last juvenile justice
bill passed in this state as a need?
SENATOR SALAND: As a what?
SENATOR SEABROOK: As a real
need, a compelling need, that there was a real
sense of an urgency to pass a juvenile -
SENATOR SALAND: Well, I'm not
quite sure what you mean by "compelling need."
There have been any number of
juvenile justice bills that have been passed
that have basically modified in some way,
shape or form some element of the existing
system. Some 15 to 18 years ago, there was
2866
some significant changes in the system. But
the last major reform and the one that
basically defines the parameters of our
current system was, I believe, a 1970s
phenomenon.
SENATOR SEABROOK: Will the
sponsor yield?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Saland,
do you continue to yield?
SENATOR SALAND: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
Seabrook.
SENATOR SEABROOK: Senator
Saland, I see in this bill it talks about some
reform. How is an arrest warrant issued in
this state, or a warrant to search in this
state or a municipality? How is that done?
SENATOR SALAND: Are we talking
criminal court or are we talking the family
court?
SENATOR SEABROOK: Well, both.
SENATOR SALAND: The family court
currently lacks that ability. And this bill
would give it that ability, the ability to get
2867
a search warrant.
SENATOR SEABROOK: Right.
SENATOR SALAND: The criminal
court has that ability. And there has to be
some showing of probable cause to get the
requisite order for the warrant -- or the
requisite warrant.
SENATOR SEABROOK: And in this
bill, is it allowing a peace officer or police
officer to arrest without a warrant or search
without a warrant?
SENATOR SALAND: No search
without a warrant. This bill -- under this
bill, you would need a search warrant. And
that is one of the things that we're
attempting to permit within the framework of
the family court, the Family Court Act. Just
as it is in the criminal court.
SENATOR SEABROOK: But in this
bill, does it allow a police officer or peace
officer to arrest a youth without a warrant
even if -- going into the house?
SENATOR SALAND: If you're
talking about an arrest as distinguished from
a search, yes, you have the ability to make an
2868
arrest. If, in fact, the officer has observed
the crime. Just -
SENATOR SEABROOK: But -- but -
SENATOR SALAND: Just as it is in
the criminal court.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Saland,
do you continue to yield to Senator Seabrook?
SENATOR SALAND: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you have a
question, Senator Seabrook?
SENATOR SEABROOK: Yes, Madam
President.
Senator Saland, in reference to the
unsealing of youthful offender records and
this 12-year-old commits his first crime and
he's a 12-year-old and basically now he has
made a mistake, is he allowed in terms of
deciding to be a police officer, be an elected
official? Does that preempt him from doing
this, his first felony offense?
SENATOR SALAND: You're talking
basically about a juvenile delinquent. You're
not necessarily talking about a YO.
And if in fact there was a YO
2869
treatment of a juvenile, under this bill you
would have the ability, if you made
application to be a police officer, to review
the records that constituted the underlying -
that underlie the YO. Or, for that matter, to
be able to possess or own a gun lawfully.
SENATOR SEABROOK: And so this
bill does not allow an individual, a police
officer, the right without a warrant to go in
and search for a young person? Because part
of what I'm reading in the bill, it says that
they would have that actual right to just
arrest and search.
SENATOR SALAND: If you want to
point out where you're reading it, I'll be
happy to look at it. That's not my
understanding of what we do here nor what we
intend to do. But if you have a specific
section in which you feel that that occurs,
I'll be very happy to respond to your
question.
SENATOR SEABROOK: Okay. On the
bill.
Thank you, Senator Saland.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Seabrook,
2870
on the bill.
SENATOR SEABROOK: I think that
here we're faced again with a continuous
knee-jerk response to juvenile crime and
juvenile justice. And part of what we're
looking at, the last compelling -- quote,
unquote, compelling need for juvenile justice
came about with a rave of incidents in New
York City, with the Timmons brothers and Willy
Bostik and the push-in robberies that was
actually occurring, so the Legislature felt a
need.
Here there seems to be no
statistical data which indicate that
12-year-olds are committing these type of
crimes that would allow us to talk about
trying individuals, when we can't name within
this state one individual 12-year-old who has
actually committed that crime which allow us
now to change the law. If there was a
compelling need or an interest to do that.
The incidents that took place
outside of New York state, that particular
issue and all of those incidents occurred
within individuals with guns or other weapons.
2871
Therefore, young people aren't producing any
weapons. They have not -- in any case that we
have seen, they have not developed the
scientific imagination to change those objects
that they play with and make them guns, other
than to purchase guns to be violent. They
have not purchased those guns. Those guns
basically came out of the possessions of
family members.
The majority, the overwhelming
majority of young people outside of this
state -- because 12-year-olds have not
committed those crimes in this state -- those
guns came from grandparents and parents who
purchased those guns, trained those
individuals to use those guns. And so
therefore the 11- and 12-year-olds that did
the shootings in various other places did not
commit homicides with their fists. They
committed them with guns.
So the question becomes if we're
talking about juvenile justice, then there
needs to be some adult justice. Because
adults have allowed these crimes to be
committed by providing the ammunition and the
2872
hardware to allow this to exist.
So I think that if we're talking
about it, we do understand, one, that there's
such a thing in this state called children.
If we do believe that 12-year-olds shouldn't
be married, if we do believe that we should
not give 12-year-olds the right to drive our
cars by themselves, if we do believe that we
should not draft them, if we do believe that
we should not allow them to vote, then we do
believe that they don't pay rent so they don't
own their homes to be searched.
Here the justice that we need to
talk about is America's violence. And
America's violence and the proliferation and
the oversaturation of guns have created the
problems in American society in terms of
that's the violence, that's the crime that's
being committed. Juveniles don't vote.
Juveniles don't participate. There should be
just as much attached to this bill as dealing
with those who supply guns, those who
manufacture guns, a sense of their liability
to those killings, since none is committed by
hand other than pulling a trigger.
2873
So we would have to talk about
justice, a real juvenile justice bill, when we
talk about all of the characters in this whole
sense of a conspiracy. If a child cannot
purchase a gun, has no right to own a gun -
and we've witnessed that there is not this
proliferation in this state -- that means that
we should be talking about the parents that
provided them with the guns, the grandparents
that provided them the opportunity to get the
guns.
So when we talk about juvenile
justice, we should be fair about justice and
what justice means. If we decided to treat
children as children in this state and
provided them with all of the opportunities as
children in this state, then we can allow them
to be productive citizens and adults. But if
we're saying that there's no such thing as a
first chance for failure with some sense of
redemption, then we are dooming these young
people for that prison-industrial complex that
Senator Waldon talked about.
So I say that this bill is not a
juvenile justice bill. Juvenile justice means
2874
that our parents have a responsibility to
ensure the safety of our children. So I will
say that this bill should be amended. And if
we're talking about responsibility for
juveniles, then we should have it attached in
here to talk about -- the responsibility of
parents and gun manufacturers should be
attached to this bill. Because I have yet to
find a 12-year-old who owns a manufacturing or
ammunition company. And if we're seriously
talking about it, let's deal with justice
360 degrees.
So I would urge my colleagues to
pull this bill and talk about real justice for
young people by having adults being
responsible.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Hoffmann.
SENATOR HOFFMANN: Thank you.
Madam President and members of the Senate, if
I could just ask your indulgence for a moment.
On behalf of Senator Goodman, who
has been delayed, we are very privileged to
have a distinguished guest with us on the
floor today. And if I could just take a
moment to introduce him, I know that debate
2875
will resume with no further interruption or
distraction. But we are very pleased to have
with us the Deputy Consul General from the
Federal Republic of Germany, Hans-Heinrich
Freiherr von Stackelberg. And Mr. von
Stackelberg is a resident of New York City in
Senator Goodman's district when he is in this
country.
He has been in this position since
September of 1993. Before coming to New York,
Mr. von Stackelberg was the deputy director
for the United Nations Policy Questions at the
Foreign Office in Bonn. He has also held
positions in the Office of U.S. Affairs and in
the Office of Defense and Security Policy.
From 1987 to 1990, Mr. von
Stackelberg was assigned to the German Embassy
in Tel Aviv, as cultural counselor. He has
served in similar assignments in Moravia,
Liberia, and Bucharest, Romania.
We are very pleased to have Mr. von
Stackelberg with us today, because he is here
exploring economic opportunities between the
United States -- namely, New York state -- and
the Federal Republic of Germany. And I ask
2876
all of you to join me in making him feel
welcome in the Senate.
Thank you, Madam President. Thank
you, Senator Leibell.
THE PRESIDENT: On behalf of the
Senate and as its President, I extend to you
all of the courtesies of the Senate and wish
you the best in your entrepreneurialism in New
York State.
(Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I'll yield
the floor, Madam President. Excuse me, I'm
not -- no, I'm not going to waive.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
DeFrancisco.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I'll follow
Senator Dollinger's lead. If he won't talk, I
won't talk.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you,
Madam President. I'll be quite brief.
I was quite moved by the remarks of
Senator Montgomery and Senator Duane and
2877
Senator Waldon and Senator Seabrook. And I
would just like to go back to some of the
comments that Senator Montgomery made when she
said that only 6 percent of the arrests in the
state are arrests of younger people, and less
than 1 percent of the arrests in the state are
younger people committing violent crimes.
When we look at the fact that only
one-half of 1 percent of younger people are
committing crimes, what are we really doing in
this legislation for the 99½ percent of young
people who have managed to avoid the family
court system and the criminal justice system?
The fact is that there is a
recurring theme that I found in this debate
today. And that was the question would be
asked of Senator Saland, do you support some
of the programs that have demonstrated real
preventative care with respect to younger
people? And Senator Saland personally seems
to find some merit in those programs.
And it's not Senator Saland's
responsibility, but he cannot guarantee that
those types of endeavors would be taken in our
budget process or in subsequent legislation.
2878
So to some extent, Senator Saland was
constrained by the questions that he was
asked. He was very gracious in responding to
them, and much of the information was very
informative.
But this is not an issue to be
resolved with Senator Saland. This is an
issue to be resolved by the Senate and the
Assembly conference committees, or someone who
can bring us together on some viable
legislation that will help younger people. We
need only look at the study in Boston,
Massachusetts, that from 1990 to 1997, the
police department, working with 45 community
groups, reduced the violent crimes in that
city by 90 percent.
And though we do have an
opportunity in this bill for a commission, we
have to understand that in spite of
commissions, our problems with youth have been
studied ad nauseam and yet our children
continue to fester and seethe, our
neighborhoods continue to be twisted and
wasted many times, and our young population
that gets past all of the obstacles into
2879
higher education experiences the greatest
difficulty at any effort at self-help.
And so while there are some
improvements that are suggested by this
legislation, and perhaps some stricter
sentences that might be rightly applied to
those who are violent and who do it at the
time of their younger years, the fact remains
that this bill is only half a loaf. We have
not really addressed the proven issues that
Senator Montgomery and Senator Duane talked
about that have been effective in ameliorating
many of the problems that younger people have.
If you look at the arrest records
of younger people as compared to their adult
counterparts, if you create a matrix in which
you multiply out the numbers of ages, say, 12
to 18 and compare it to those over 18, you
find that young people are actually less
violent and less apt to become involved in the
criminal justice system than their elders.
And therefore, many of the preventative types
of care that we're suggesting are really just
in furtherance of the care that younger people
already receive.
2880
So programs that would help younger
people from 3:00 to 8:00, which are the high
crime areas, 3:00 to 8:00 p.m., would actually
be very effective, as are the programs right
now from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. when they're
in school and the custodial care prevents them
from getting into trouble.
So I think that until there is that
kind of comprehensive look at this type of
legislation and that we provide the
preventative care along with the punishments
that in some cases are needed, we're really
only -- we're not really addressing the
problem but are really addressing it in a
rather cursory way, in a way that sounds like
we're getting tough but we're not really
getting smart.
And so I would urge a no vote on
this legislation. Hopefully, with the kind of
negotiation that would produce something that
would be real, something that would bring
resources into our communities and into the
areas where we do have higher incidences of
at-risk youth, and try to establish some real
prevention.
2881
As Senator Seabrook pointed out,
blaming young people for their antisocial
behavior while at the same time not giving
them the right to vote, the right to sign a
contract, any kind of adult responsibilities,
shows really an anachronistic way that we look
at that time period in which young people are
growing. If we do understand that they are
not fully capable of making decisions at those
ages, we have to understand that some of the
decisions they make were made in some
diminished capacity.
And we owe them as younger people,
with all of our phrases like "the Decade of
the Child" and "the best interests of the
child," we owe them some of our own
responsibility toward trying to reach out to
them and give them an alternative.
This is not something we're talking
about, say, in areas of sexual predators,
where the statistics have shown that there
really isn't any improvement, or even in cases
of substance abuse, where the information is
that it is often that two-thirds of substance
abusers are victims of recidivism.
2882
Here we have documented evidence
that the right prevention really is a pound of
cure, and that you have amazing results with
just some intervention. But as Dr. Martin
Luther King once said, you can tell where a
nation's priorities are by where it spends its
money. And I suggest, Madam President, that
you can tell the way a state really feels
about its young people by how it invests its
resources.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you,
Madam President. On the bill.
The -- I find the issue of juvenile
crime and juvenile justice is something I've
thought about for a long time. My first job
after I got out of college was a stint of two
years working in a prison. And I remember
very clearly the fact that I was much more
afraid of 20-year-old recidivist car thieves
than I was of 35-year-old murderers, for a
very -- and the reason, I learned later, was
justified by the literature. Because one of
the most important factors in changing a
2883
criminal profile is age, acknowledged by
everyone.
And I think the problem I have with
this bill is that I don't think pretending
children are not different than adults makes
them any less different. And I do not like
the current juvenile justice system. I think
it has a lot of problems.
But I'm saddened by the fact that
as thoughtful and comprehensive an effort this
is to do an overall review of that system, I
think it misses the mark. Because what we
really need to do is recognize, as every
criminal justice expert recognizes, that age
is a critical factor. Youthful offenders need
different treatment than adult offenders. And
by "treatment" I don't just mean treatment in
a benign sense. They need to be treated
differently in every sense.
I think there are things we can do
for them sometimes -- there are people you can
skim out of the system so they don't fall in
forever -- that you can't do with older
offenders. Youthful offenders -- and one of
the reasons they're so scary, if any of you
2884
have ever spent time with them, they're not
fully formed. They don't understand life and
death sometimes. I mean, I remember this very
distinctly. People who didn't have a sense of
their own mortality can be very scary. And
that's true of a lot of children.
But because they are different,
because they are not just short adults, we
have to have a different approach. And I just
think from a criminal justice point of view
the approach here, which tends to eliminate
some of the distinctions and treat more
children as adults, I think is a flawed
approach.
And I hope that we can revisit this
issue. I do not think that treating youthful
offenders more like adults is something that
has any beneficial effect from a criminal
justice point of view. One thing we know
about the overwhelming majority of the
youthful offenders this bill will address is
that someday they are coming out. And I'm
afraid what we are doing is making the
circumstances under which they will come out
worse. And it's actually undermining some
2885
other very good efforts to improve the
criminal justice system.
So I am going to be voting no on
this bill. I think that we know what it takes
to reduce violent crime in the United States.
And we know that more police reduce crime,
that better police-community cooperation,
fewer guns, and drug treatment reduce crime.
I don't think that treating children like
adults reduces crime.
I think this bill is a flawed
approach to a very difficult problem, and
therefore I'm going to urge my colleagues to
join me in voting no. Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 101.
This act shall take effect in 120 days.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will announce the results.
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 938 are
Senators Duane, Gonzalez, Markowitz,
2886
Montgomery, Paterson, Rosado, Santiago,
Schneiderman, Seabrook, Smith, Stavisky, and
Waldon. Ayes, 47. Nays, 12.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator Fuschillo, that completes
the controversial reading of the calendar.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Madam
President, is there any housekeeping at the
desk?
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Montgomery, why do you rise?
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes. I
would like unanimous consent to be recorded in
the negative on Calendar 753.
THE PRESIDENT: Hearing no
objection, you are so recorded as voting in
the negative on Calendar 753.
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Madam
President, is there any housekeeping at the
desk?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, there is.
2887
Senator McGee.
SENATOR McGEE: Madam President,
on behalf of Senator Libous, on page number 50
I offer the following amendments to Calendar
Number 842, Senate Print Number 2463B, and ask
that said bill retain its place on Third
Reading Calendar.
THE PRESIDENT: The amendment is
received, Senator McGee, and the bill will
retain its place on Third Reading Calendar.
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Montgomery, why do you rise?
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: I'm sorry.
Yes, thank you.
I would also like unanimous consent
to be recorded in the negative on Calendar
Number 926.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Montgomery, you will be so recorded as voting
in the negative on Calendar Number 926.
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Madam
2888
President, there being no further business, I
move we adjourn until Wednesday, May 12th, at
11:00 a.m.
THE PRESIDENT: On motion, the
Senate stands adjourned until Wednesday,
May 12th, 11:00 a.m.
(Whereupon, at 4:45 p.m., the
Senate adjourned.)