►
From YouTube: Senate Standing Committee on Judiciary
Description
The first few minutes of this meeting may have issues due to a technical issue. We will be uploading a complete version at a later date after processing the video footage.
A
A
A
Here,
seeing
that
we
have
a
quorum
and
we
are
authorized
to
do
business,
we're
going
to
jump
right
in
we
have
with
us
representative,
samara,
hevron
and
house
bill
310
and
quite
the
the
phalanx
here
of
experts
and
guests
and
then
representative
nemes
with
that.
A
Representative,
we're
here
on
house
with
310,
which
does
have
some
modifications
that
were
made
over
in
the
house,
and
I
do
want
to
point
members
attentions
to
direct
your
attentions
to
the
committee
substitute,
which
was
distributed
this
morning
with
very
slight
changes
that
I
know
senator
mcgarvey.
Excuse
me,
senator
mcgarvey
will
get
into
there
because
they
are
so
slight.
I
know
it's
late
on
getting
a
sub,
but
the
changes
were
that
slight.
I
didn't
think
it
would
be
a
concern
to
go
ahead
and
call
this
up.
E
E
Right
there
are
three
specific
areas
of
this
legislation
that
I
would
like
to
point
out.
First
off
it
requires
the
notice
of
the
parole
board
hearing
scheduled
requirement
to
the
commonwealth,
attorneys
from
any
prisoner
convicted
of
a
class,
a
b
or
c
felony
to
any
prisoner
convicted
for
a
class,
a
b
c
or
d
felony
that
is
defined
as
a
sex
crime
under
krs
chapter
17.5.
E
Currently,
there
is
only
opt-in
notification
that
one
can
sign
up
for
this
issue
is
brought
to
me
by
a
constituent
in
one
of
my
local
county's
attorneys
in
the
18th
district.
My
constituent
shared
that
she
was
not
made
aware
of
the
parole
board's
meeting
and
found
out
her
daughter's
sexual
abuser
had
been
released
from
prison
through
a
secondary
notice.
The
second
piece
to
this
legislation
is
that
it
codifies
that
a
conviction
of
attempted
sexual
assault
qualifies
as
a
conviction
sufficient
to
allow
a
victim
to
obtain
an
ipo.
E
Previously,
the
perpetrator
had
to
actually
complete
the
assault
before
the
victim
could
obtain
an
ipo,
and
I
was
proud
to
work
with
the
kentucky
attorney
general's
office
on
this.
For
the
last
piece
of
this
legislation,
I
would
like
to
give
the
opportunity
for
senator
julie,
rocky
adams,
senator
morgan,
mcgarvey
and
representative
jason
nemes,
the
opportunity
to
speak.
E
Unfortunately,
representative
cantrell
could
not
be
here
this
morning,
because
she's
teaching
a
law
school
class
at
university
of
louisville-
and
I
will
be
honest
and
say
that
this
is
probably
one
of
the
most
special
pieces
of
legislation
that
I've
got
to
work
on,
because
it
shows
how
having
conversations
with
your
colleagues
on
both
sides
of
the
aisle
truly
do
matter
late.
One
night
when
we
were
here,
I
was
talking
to
representative
cantrell
and
the
article
from
wdrb
popped
up
that
there
was
a
loophole
on
a
case
in
louisville,
and
I
was
like
mackenzie.
E
What
can
we
do?
So
we
turned
to
jason
nemes,
which
doesn't
happen
very
often,
and
we
started
talking
to
him
and
representative
cantrell
reached
out
to
senator
mcgarvey,
and
we
were
talking
to
senator
julie,
rocky
adams
and
so
truly.
This
is
just
a
piece
with
rural
and
urban
legislators
working
together
to
make
a
big
difference
in
kentucky
on
both
sides
of
the
aisle.
So
I
greatly
appreciate
that,
and
I
will
turn
this
over
to
senator
mcgarvey,
who
has
a
committee
substitute
as
well
before
morgan
goes.
E
I
also
want
to
call
out
senator
danny
carroll
who,
on
the
floor
immediately
was
like
it
came
to
senator
mcgarvey
and
myself
and
said:
how
can
I
help.
H
And,
and
no
thank
you
to
to
senator
rocky
adams
to
representative
heavens,
reference
nemesis
representative,
cantrell,
senator
carroll,
and
there
have
been
a
whole
host
of
people
that
have
helped
on
this,
not
to
mention
the
prosecutors.
The
defense
attorneys,
the
judges,
the
mental
health
professionals.
Who've
worked
on
this
bill
for
going
on
two
years
now.
This
is
a
problem
that
we've
known
about
for
a
while,
and
we've
worked
on
it
for
a
while.
It
has
taken
the
kane
madden
situation
in
louisville
recently.
H
I
think
to
really
get
the
legislature's
attention,
but
now
that
we
have
it,
we
want
to
give
you
a
product
which
has
not
been
thought
up
overnight
been
worked
on
by
a
lot
of
people
for
a
long
time.
First
I'll
address
the
sub.
The
sub
really
doesn't
make
a
big
substantive
change.
What
it
does
is
on
page
10
of
the
sub.
H
It
clarifies
that
this
this
applies
to
a
narrow
group
of
people
and
what
the
build
does
and
I'll
explain
what
the
sub
does
does
with.
That
is
a
lot
of
people
refer
to
this
as
a
loophole.
It's
not
really
a
loophole
so
much
as
there's
a
crack
in
the
system
that
people
are
falling
through,
and
that
is
if
you
are
deemed
incompetent
to
stand
trial,
and
you
are
not
likely
to
respond
to
treatment.
H
Then
we
let
you
go
and
it
doesn't
matter
the
offense.
Sometimes
it
could
be
a
misdemeanor.
I
understand
that
a
little
bit,
but
sometimes
you
get
into
really
serious
offenses,
and
so
what
the
sub
does
is
clarify
that
this
only
applies
to
people
with
violent
crimes
or
sexual
crimes
that
they've
been
accused
of
committing,
and
if
those
people
are
deemed
incompetent
to
stand
trial
and
they're
not
likely
to
respond
to
treatment,
then
it
immediately
goes
to
another
proceeding.
H
We've
tried
to
mirror
so
much
of
the
language
here
in
202a
and
202b
that
I
know
you
guys
are
familiar
with
now
we're
creating
202c
and
what
you
do
is
the
first
thing
we
have
to
do
is
we
have
to
respect
everybody's
rights,
and
this
came
to
us
actually
from
the
public
defenders
where
we're
going
to
have
an
evidentiary
hearing.
This
is
not
a
determination
of
guilt
or
innocence.
H
In
fact,
anything
in
this
evidentiary
hearing
cannot
be
used
in
a
criminal
or
civil
action
at
a
later
point,
but
what
we
heard
is
there
were
instances
in
which
people
were
accused
of
doing
things.
They
were
incompetent
to
stand,
trial
and
think,
incompetent
really
and
truly
unable
to
stand
trial,
but
it
could
be
proven,
there's
no
way
they
could
have
committed
this
crime.
We
were
given
an
example
of
someone
who
had
been
stabbed.
H
Someone
who
was
incompetent
to
stand
trial
been
accused
of
the
crime,
but
it
could
be
proven
they
were
physically
incapable
of
inflicting
these
wounds.
They
just
were
not
able
to
do
it.
So
that's
what
this
evidence
you're
hearing
is
for.
It
determines
by
a
preponderance
of
the
evidence
whether
there
is
sufficient
reason
to
believe
someone
could
be
found
guilty
of
a
crime
again.
Anything
that
comes
up
in
this
evidentiary
hearing
before
a
judge
is
not
able
to
be
used
in
a
later
proceeding.
H
We
have
it
in
front
of
a
judge
in
front
of
a
jury,
and
there
have
been
some
questions
about
this.
Why
do
we
have
in
front
of
a
judge
in
front
of
a
jury
because
judges
are
the
ones
who
handle
evidentiary
hearings
now?
This
is
not
a
determination
of
guilt
or
innocence.
If
that
is
a
stumbling
block
for
people,
I'm
happy
to
talk
with
others
about
a
floor
amendment
in
that
regard,
but
we
just
thought
because
of
what
it
is
that
it's
best
to
have
an
evidentiary
hearing
in
front
of
a
judge.
H
It
is
not
a
finding
of
fact.
This
is
not
guilt
or
innocence
for
a
jury,
but
again
willing
to
talk
about
that.
If
that
would
want
to
be
a
floor
amendment
or
as
a
stumbling
block
to
getting
out
of
here
today,
so
you
have
that
hearing.
We
guarantee
that
the
respondent,
not
the
defendant,
the
respondent
is
represented
by
council,
doesn't
matter
if
they're
indigent
they
are,
they
are
eligible
to
have
a
lawyer
for
them
and
appointed
to
them.
H
In
addition
to
that,
because
of
the
sensitive
nature
of
this
proceeding,
we
have
gone
and
made
the
step
of
having
a
guardian
ad
litem.
I
know
that's
something
that
senator
rocky
adams
advocated
for
and
many
of
the
people
in
the
mental
health
community
advocated
for
the
guardian
ad
litem
is
not
in
lieu
of
an
attorney.
It
is
in
addition
to
an
attorney.
In
fact,
those
two
are
there,
sometimes
for
separate
reasons.
The
guardian
ad
litem
may
make
investigatory
findings
may
look
into
it,
but
is
there
to
protect
the
well-being
of
the
respondent?
H
We
go
through
the
same
four-part
test
to
be
determined
by
a
jury
if
the
respondent
so
chooses
respondent
or
the
prosecutor
can
choose
to
have
a
jury
just
as
they
do
in
a
202,
a
or
202b
proceeding
right
now,
and
they
must
determine
that
four-part
test
that
we're
familiar
with
and
and
that
is
hold
on.
If
you
have
to
be
assessed
by
a
mental
health,
professional
you've
got
to
find
reason.
H
That
is
in
danger
to
cause
injury
to
others,
or
has
a
substantial
history
of
involuntary
hospitalizations
under
202a
and
202b
prior
to
the
commission
of
this
charged
crime
and
and
not
or,
and
that
a
less
restrictive
alternative
mode
of
treatment
would
endanger
the
safety
of
the
respondent
or
others.
So
these
safeguards
are
still
built
in
there.
After
that,
if
it's
found
that
they
must
remain
in
some
type
of
custody,
they
are
not
going
to
a
general
population
prison.
H
H
Then
you
have
one
a
year
out,
then
you
have
one
two
years
out
and
you
have
a
mandatory
evaluation
even
five
years
out
still
if
someone
is
still
in
custody
at
any
point
during
that,
in
addition
to
those
the
respondent
and
their
attorney,
they
are
guaranteed
the
right
to
counsel
throughout
this
process
can
say
our
circumstances
have
changed.
Maybe
it's
that
they're
they're
going
to
respond
to
treatment.
Maybe
it's
that
they're
competent
to
stand
trial.
Maybe
the
evidence
has
come
forward
that
there's
nothing
they
could
it
couldn't
be
them?
H
It
has
to
be
someone
else.
So
we've
tried
to
safeguard
this.
This
has
been
tricky.
This
is
a
crack
that
people
fall
through.
We
want
to
be
respectful
of
everyone's
rights,
that
includes
the
community
and
when
you
look
at
what
hap
what's
happening
in
louisville
right
now,
with
an
individual
named
kane,
madden
you'll
understand
why
this
is
important.
A
Second,
from
senator
carroll
motion?
Originally
there
from
senator
wheeler,
all
those
in
favor?
Are
there
any
questions
on
the
sub?
The
change
is
there
on
page
10.,
seeing
none
all
those
in
favor
of
adopting
the
sub,
please
vote
by
saying
aye
hi
those
opposed
the
sub
is
before
us
got
a
motion
from
senator
wheeler.
Second
from
the
chair,
any
further
remarks
from
anybody
on
the
panel
about
the
underlying
bill
or
the
changes
made
to
it
or
any
questions.
H
H
My
grandfather
always
said:
don't
sell
past
the
clothes,
but
one
of
the
things
I
think
it's
important
to
understand
how
this
really
does
impact
a
community.
We
have
an
individual
moodle
named
cain
madden
and
he
has
been
a
revolving
door
through
the
judicial
system.
Every
time
he
is
held
to
be
incompetent
to
stand
trial
and
not
likely
to
benefit
from
long-term
treatment,
meaning
they're
not
sure
he
can
get
better.
Because
of
that,
the
judges
are
forced
to
let
him
out
that's
the
only
tool
they
have
at
their
disposal.
H
E
Chairman
westerfield,
if
it's
okay,
I
would
like
for
mr
loxton
to
speak
just
because
he
drove
from
litchfield
this
morning
of.
F
F
This
is
the
underlying
bill
is
just
a
there's
already
a
foundation
there
there's
already
a
block
in
that
foundation.
We
just
need
a
better
block
for
that
and
d
sex
crime.
Victims
absolutely
should
be
included
in
that,
and
I
think
it's
pretty
straightforward
in
plain
language
that
assists
in
that.
Thank
you.
A
I
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
think
senator
care
were
you
first,
okay,
my
question's
quick.
I
think
this
is
fairly
obvious.
I'm
I'm
a
real
estate
attorney,
I'm
not
a
criminal
attorney.
I
know
enough
to
be
dangerous,
so
as
far
as
the
bond,
the
ability
to
bond
out
in
some
of
these
cases,
if
it's
it's
criminal
and
you're,
going
through
normal
process,
you
can
bond
out,
but
I'm
assuming
with
the
on
page
10,
with
the
changes
where
you
do
an
involuntary
committal
that
you
know
that
opportunity
goes
away.
E
G
So
it's
a
matter
of
timing,
more
than
anything
right,
because
they
have
to
make
the
determination
that
he's
incompetent
to
stand
trial
and
the
bond
question.
A
lot
of
the
times
is
made
in
the
middle
of
the
morning
right
after
they've
been
arrested.
So
it
is
possible
that
someone
would
be
able
to
bond
out
and
then
later
be
held,
incompetent
to
stand
trial
and
then
and
then
committed
for
the
safety
of
of
the
public.
G
So
it
is
possible
that
someone
could
bond
out
quickly
and
then
not
be
covered
by
the
protections
here,
but
I
think
that's
the
that's.
The
best.
I
We
can
do,
but
as
a
quick
follow-up,
though
so
once
you
flip
over
into
the
involuntary
committal,
I
I
would
assume
you
would
have
to
lose
that
ability
to
bond
correctly.
H
It
depends
a
little
bit
on
the
situation,
that
instance
the
bond
goes
away,
because
what
you're
determining
is
whether
content
to
stand
trial?
If
you
are
incompetent
to
stand
trial
and
that's
ultimately
the
reason
you're
released
and
there
is
no
bond
because
you
can't
stand
trial
for
that.
Offense
where
the
bond
could
come
into
play
is
let's
say
that
someone
under
202a
right
now
you
have
360
days.
I
think
it
is
that
you
can
be
in
custody
without
responding
to
treatment.
A
And
I'll
remind
folks
that,
if
you've,
if
you
missed
that
in
the
bill,
there
is
a
mechanism
for
a
review,
a
recurring
review
and
it
gets
further
and
further
apart,
but
they're
still
ongoing,
I
think
forever
as
long
as
you're.
In
that
institutional
commitment,
the
judge
is
going
to
have
an
occasion
to
go
back
and
look
at
your
commitment
and
the
circumstances
around
your
commitment.
So
there's
there's
a
safety
valve
there.
Mr.
G
To
this,
in
section
eight,
it
does
require
a
quick
hearing,
expeditious
hearing.
I
think
it
has
to
be
no
longer
than
20
days.
That's
right
and
that's
on
page
16.,
so
that
you
know
resolve
some
of
the
libertarian
issues
that
I
know
that
we
all
share.
Senator
carol
did.
C
On
on
page
nine
of
the
bill
under
subsection,
seven
strangulation
help
me
understand
the
reason,
the
reasoning
behind
adding
the
criminal
attempt
conspiracy,
because
normally,
if
there's
something
of
that
nature,
it's
basically
just
to
assault
someone
not
specifically
strangle
someone
help
help
me
understand
why
that's
needed.
E
That
is
from
the
attorney
general's
office,
and
I
am
not
a
lawyer,
so
I'm
going
to
put
it
in
layman's
terms.
We
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that,
in
order
for
the
person
to
get
an
ipo
that
they
that
they
didn't
actually
have
to
be
strangled
or
they
didn't
have
to
have
the
criminal
attempt.
E
It
if
there
was
going
to
be
an
instance
where
that
was
going
to
happen
where
they
felt
that
was
going
to
happen
rather
than
the
strangulation
or
criminal
intent
actually
happening.
So
it
was
just
they
just
wanted
to
codify
that,
and
I'm
not
a
lawyer
yourself
that
doesn't
make
sense.
I
will
give
that
to
representative
nemes
senator.
G
Don't
know
if
we,
if
we
did
it
last
year
or
two
years
ago,
senator,
but
we
we
trumped
up
the
penalty
for
strangulation
in
particular,
so
maybe
two
years
ago,
thank
you
senator,
and
so
it
was.
This
is
in
keeping
with
that
determination
by
the
about
the
general
assembly.
Okay,.
J
Senator
schroeder,
thank
you,
mr
chair.
I
have
a
comment
and
a
question.
Senator
mcgarvey
apologize
you
and
I
weren't
able
to
connect
before
this
meeting.
I
know
state
and
local
one
over
and
then
I
had
a
health
screening
that
some
of
us
have
to
take
today.
First,
for
the
comment
I
had
a
circuit
judge,
reach
out
to
me
suggested
that
qualified
mental
health
professional
be
changed
to
physician,
psychiatrist
or
psychologist,
not
sure
what
all
falls
under
there
right
now.
H
J
H
It
has
to
be
two
qualified
mental
mental
health
professionals.
One
of
them
has
to
be
a
physician.
The
other
mental
health
professionals
are
outlined
in
the
bill
and
all
must
have
a
specific,
not
only
expertise
and
education,
but
also
practical
experience
and
training
in
dealing
with
individuals
that
have
these
types
of
problems.
J
So
then,
then,
to
my
question,
this
is
the
big
issue
for
me,
as
I
you
know
know
what
has
happened
know
how
serious
of
an
issue
this
is,
but
then
also
look
at
our
kentucky
constitution
and
section
7
and
section
11
and
where
I
sit
and
I'm
struggling,
and
I
know
like
to
try
to
get
us,
you
know
it's
it's
a
tough
way
to
work
around
everything
to
deal
with
a
limited
situation
so,
and
I
and
I
greatly
appreciate
all
of
you
working
on
such
an
important
matter,
help
me
understand,
though,
when
it
comes
to
the
right
to
have
a
jury,
trial
and
a
criminal
proceeding
and
and
what
we're
doing
and-
and
I
guess
some
of
the
rationale
behind
it.
H
So
in
my
mind,
and
again
I'm
going
to
work
with
people
on
this
if
it
causes
a
lot
of
heartburn.
In
my
mind,
the
constitutionality
is
in
the
involuntary
commitment
proceeding
and
there
a
jury,
a
jury
trial
can't
happen.
The
evidentiary
hearing
is
just
to
make
sure
there
should
even
be
an
involuntary
commitment.
Proceeding
it's
an
additional
safeguard
and
again
it
was
the
public
defenders
who
actually
brought
that
idea
to
us,
which
is
do
you
have
affirmative
defenses
and
it
references
affirmative
defenses
in
the
statute.
H
Do
you
have
affirmative
defenses
right
now
that
you
can
prove
by
preponderance
of
the
evidence
that
you
there's
no
way
you
could
even
done
this?
I
mean.
Let's
say
that
you
were
you
were
receiving
inpatient
treatment
at
the
time
this
offense
was
committed.
Then
there's
no
way
you
could
have
done
it.
I
gave
you
the
example
of
the
physicality.
It
was
physically
impossible,
you're
in
a
different
place.
At
a
different
time.
You
have
cell
phone
records
showing
you
you
know.
You
were
at
somebody's
birthday
party.
H
Those
are
the
affirmative,
defenses
you,
you
could
provide
not
to
mention
just
other
type
of
evidence
about
the
crime.
Whether
there
is
dna
left
behind
whether
there's
there's
things
you
can
present,
so
the
evidentiary
hearing
really
is
just
a
ruling
on
those
evidentiary
matters.
I
personally
am
okay
with
a
jury
trial
on
those
evidentiary
matters,
but
we
don't
have
juries
and
I'm
okay
with
senator
west
gave
me
the
look,
I'm
okay
with
it,
because
I
generally
favor
jury
trials.
J
J
H
And
again,
only
to
see
if
there
can
be
an
involuntary
commitment
proceeding,
the
involuntary
commitment
proceeding
is
the
same
as
it
is
under
202a
and
202b,
but
we
are
putting
the
evidentiary
hearing
and
I've
told
several
people
this.
It
makes
you
feel
better,
we'll
take
it
out
what
it
is.
It's
an
additional
safeguard
to
people
who've
been
accused
of
doing
this,
and
so
that's
why
I'm?
H
I
seem
pretty
calm
about
the
whole
thing.
That's
why
I
mean
this
is
a
safeguard
that's
in
there,
because
we
are
trying
truly
to
protect
everyone's
rights
and
understand
that
this
is
a
sensitive
situation
and
you've
all
heard
me
say
this
about
the
first
amendment.
Other
things
you
know
the
the
rights
that
most
need
protecting
are
the
ones
that
may
sometimes
make
us
uncomfortable
and
so
we're
trying
to
build
this
in
to
safeguard
those
rights,
but
those
the
evidentiary
hearing
is
just
that.
H
Is
there
enough
evidence
that
we
are
going
to
have
an
involuntary
commitment
proceeding
under
what
is
now
going
to
be
202c
for
this
narrow
range
of
individuals
who
fall
into
this
crack
incompetent
to
stand
trial
not
likely
to
benefit
from
treatment?
Have
committed
a
serious,
violent
or
sexual
offense.
G
Mr
chairman,
if
I
could
real
quickly,
because
this
this
I'm
glad
senator
schroeder
brought
this
up,
this
bill
has
given
me
this
whole
issue
since
I've
been
elected,
has
given
me
a
lot
of
heartburn.
I
remember
when
we
discussed
tim's
law.
I
was
man,
we
can't
commit
somebody
for
this,
and
I
remember
his
mother
saying
to
me.
My
son
died
with
all
his
constitutional
rights
intact,
and
that
meant
a
lot
to
me.
G
So,
while
on
one
side
I
completely
agree-
and
I
think
we're
probably
very
similar-
maybe
everybody
on
the
committee
that
this
is
the
this-
is
a
soft
spot
or
the
most
difficult
area
of
government.
We're
going
to
involuntarily
commit
somebody
who
hasn't
been
convicted
of
a
crime
we
are
showing,
and
I
think
senator
mcgarvey
and
senator
adams
have
done
a
really
good
job
of
threading,
the
needle
here,
because
we're
very
limited
in
the
offenses
that
are
we're
covering
here
then
we're
throwing
on
all
kinds
of
protections.
G
C
Simply
want
to
say
thank
you
all
for
all
the
effort
very
disturbing.
I
think
public
safety
is
a
basic
tenet
of
government,
and
this
was
one
particular
area
that
I
think
we
have
been
failing
in,
and
it's
it's
very
much
appreciated
that
we're
filling
in
that
hole
and
public
safety
will
benefit
from
this.
Thank
you.
D
J
Mr
explain
my
vote.
Yes
thanks.
I
believe
this
bill
is
going
to
have
the
votes
necessary
today
to
get
out
of
committee.
I'm
going
to
pass
I'm
going
to
follow
up
with
you
sergeant
mcgarvey.
I
know
you
guys
worked
so
hard
on
this.
I
certainly
don't
want
to
slow
it
down.
That's
not
my
intention.
I
just
want
to
get
comfortable
with
the
constitutional
concerns
and
there's
something
else
I
was
going
to
say,
but
it
escapes
me
right
now,
so
you.
J
No,
I
know
what
I
was
going
to
say.
Thank
you.
I
was
gonna
say,
sir
mcgarvey,
I
believe
you
said
on
the
senate
floor
a
while
back
that
you
know
we
should
be
addressing
this
issue
and
I
wish
we
had
taken
it
up
sooner,
so
I
wouldn't
be
passing
today
and
could
be
comfortable,
but
I
hope
to
get
there
for
the
floor.
So
thank
you.
D
Yes,
sir,
I'm
going
to
vote,
I
I
wouldn't
hear
when
you
all
worked
on
this,
I'm
new,
but
I
practiced
lost
in
78,
and
I
know
what
it
was
back
then-
and
I
see
this
big
step
for
the
first
time,
because
that
poor
person
that
was
charged
incompetent
just
stays
in
jail
to
the
time
expired.
D
The
grand
jury
went
out
and
they
were
free
again
and
then
the
grand
jury
endowed
them,
but
there
was
no
process
for
them
to
have
any
right
to
present
evidence
of
showing
that
they
didn't
commit
this
crime
or
any
of
that.
So
this
step
is
really
something
that's
been
needed
for
a
long
time
and
I'm
thank
you
for
all
the
work
and
I'm
voting
on.
I
K
K
I
think
the
government's
first
obligation
is
to
protect
the
public,
and
this
bill
goes
a
long
way
towards
doing
that,
especially
with
this
horribly
tragic
situation
that
we're
all
aware
of
in
louisville
people
like
that,
you
know
if
they
can't
be
helped,
they
really
do
need
to
be
in
a
facility
where
they're
protected,
as
well
as
the
public
at
large
is
protected,
and
I
think
that
the
the
very
carefully
scalped
legislation
that
you
all
have
come
up
with
accomplishes
that.
So
I
just
want
to
say
thank
you
for
for
bringing
this
spill.
A
I
vote
aye
bill
passes
with
favorable
expression,
six
votes
in
favor,
one
pass,
no,
nay
votes,
representative
representatives
and
senators.
Thank
you
all,
mr
logs,
and
I
appreciate
it.
Thank
you
for
making
the
trip,
and
I
appreciate
you
all
his
time,
I'm
looking
forward
to
seeing
it
make
passage
on
the
senate
floor.
So
I
I
appreciate
y'all's
effort
to
do
something
and
again
to
address
a
very
such
a
very
real
situation.
That's
happening
in
jefferson
county,
but
that's
obviously
not
the
only
place
where
these
cases
pop
up
and
I've
prosecuted
a
case.
A
That's
that
actually
wouldn't
be
captured
by
this.
It's
at
the
very
low
end
of
the
offense
spectrum,
so
it
wouldn't
even
be
in
the
population
of
people,
the
very
narrow
population
of
people
that
this
affects,
but
this
is
a
for
the
people
that
are
impacted
by
it,
the
crack
or
that
gap,
as
you
mentioned,
senator,
is
enormous
and
has
lasted
for
decades
decades
and
decades,
and
so
I
I
think
you
have
threaded
the
needle
representative.
A
I
appreciate
those
remarks
and
I
think
you've
managed
to
do
something
here
that
frankly
threads
a
very
challenging
needle
to
thread
and
does
so
in
a
way
that
protects
the
interest
and
the
constitutional
rights
of
those
involved
in
just
about
every
way.
I
can
think
of
doing
and
still
having
plenty
of
safeguards.
So
job
well
done,
and
I
appreciate
it
and
seeing
no
further
business
before
this
committee
I'll
entertain
a
motion
one
more
time
to
adjourn
what
I
think
will
be
our
last
meeting.