►
From YouTube: Senate Standing on Judiciary (1/20/22)
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
A
B
A
A
C
C
And
they
were
the
ones
who
brought
me
this
bill
idea,
and
actually
the
bill
itself
is
just
mainly
a
housekeeping
housekeeping
measure
and
before
I
let
them
tell
their
quick
story
if
you
notice
in
section
one
it's
it's
the
violent
offender
statute,
and
all
this
does
is
just
include
on
page
two
incest
as
described.
C
So
all
that
means
is
it
is.
We
are
going
to
put
that
under
the
violent
offender
statute,
which
means
that
anybody
who
has
been
convicted
of
this
crime
has
to
serve
85
percent
of
their
their
time.
D
D
However,
very
soon
thereafter,
he
was
pearl
eligible
at
15
surf
time,
which
is
what
is
currently
the
serve
time
to
be
parole
eligible
for
incest
as
it's
written
now,
and
so
it's
really
important
to
us
that
we
work
to
to
get
incest
classified
as
a
violent
offense,
as
is
the
other
sexual
offenses
that
are
listed.
I
think
it's
excluded,
because
it's
not
in
chapter
510,
where
the
other
sexual
offenses
are
are
listed.
D
It's
actually
in
the
the
family,
the
family,
offenses
chapter
and
so
including
that
I
think,
is
very
important,
because
sexual
abuse
to
a
child
is
super
traumatic
and
it
it
is
only
compounded.
Each
time
you
go
to
the
parole
board
and
and
putting
that
off
to
85
would
just
be
tremendous
for
survivors.
So
thank
you
so
much
for
your
time.
E
Sir,
thank
you,
mr
chairman,
thank
you
senator
for
bringing
this
before
us.
I
do
have
some
questions
and
I
probably
need
some
assistance,
maybe
from
some
of
the
lawyers
on
the
committee.
What
because
I
read
this-
and
it
refers
to
another
statue
and
for
layperson,
can
get
kind
of
confusing.
E
What
about
a
situation
where
you
have
minors,
let's
say
very
much
minors,
let's
just
for
example,
10
11
years
old
to
ge
and
together
and
have
would
this
apply
to
them.
D
It
would
only
apply
to
class
a
and
b
the
way
I
read
it
class,
a
and
b
felonies,
as
as
in
the
the
higher
part
of
the
the
section
of
the
statute,
and
so
if,
if
the
crime
is
not
an
a
or
b
felony,
which
I
don't
believe
that
would
be
the
case
in
that
scenario,
then
it
would
not.
G
G
E
A
E
I'm
asking
is
if
two
juveniles
ten-year-olds
are
have
some
sort
of
relation
consensual
relationship,
and
both
of
them
are
not.
Neither
one
of
them
is
is
mentally
incapacitated.
Does
this
enhance
penalty
apply
to
them.
A
I
the
I
mean,
that's
what
I
would
say.
Mr
president,
I
the
the
definition
of
incest,
is
pretty
clear.
It
requires
there
to
be
that
familiar
familial
relationship.
A
But
even
then
that
that
familiar
relationship
is
enough
under
2a,
even
if
it's
between
two
adults
but
the
the
bit
about
being
an
adult,
isn't
required
under
2b
or
2c,
then
it's
based
on
how
you
commit
the
act
and
the
or
the
age
of
the
victim
upon
which
the
act
is
committed.
A
F
Then
it
would
necessarily
fall
could
within
the
adult
range
if
they
are
charged
with
that
crime.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
G
F
Yes,
yeah
and
to
continue
this
conversation
on
and
it's
been
a
while
since
I've
dealt
with
this,
so
how
would
the
with
the
violent
offender
statute?
How
would
that
apply
under
juvenile
proceedings
in
relation
to
the
85
percent
served
I
mean.
How
would
that
factor
in.
A
If
you,
it
wouldn't,
unless
you've
been
transferred,
as.
A
If
you've
been,
if
your
juvenile
case
has
been
waved
up
to
circuit
court
as
a
wi-o,
then
you
are
any
any
adult
sentence
is
available
to
you,
including
the
parole
eligibility
set
forth
in
439
34
or
430
yeah.
Four,
three
439
341,
which
is
the
85
statute,
senator
stivers.
H
This
is
just
kind
of
along
the
lines
of
what
the
definition
of
intercourse
or-
and
this
is
not
one
of
the
more
you
know
socially
acceptable
discussions
that
you
would
have
around
drinks
of
the
evening,
but
I
think
intercourse
is
defined
as
penetration
of
certain
parts
of
the
slightest,
so
there
does
not
have
to
be
any
damage
or
anything
else
to
hominal
rings.
Anything
of
that
nature
deviate.
Sexual
intercourse,
I
think,
has
a
totally
different
definition
and
you
have
to
go
back
to
the
definitional
sections
to
see.
H
When
you
know
senators
are
in
the
definition
they
are,
and
you
so
to
senator
schickel's
question.
I
think
it
has.
It
would
be
almost
fact
specific
as
to
what
the
acts
were
and
if
they
were
covered
by
the
definitional
sections
of
sexual
intercourse
or
deviate
sexual
intercourse
before
you
start
getting
into
how
it
would
apply
under
439
3401,
if
I'm
not
badly
mistaken,
senator
wheeler.
I
You
know,
I
guess,
maybe
I
think
you
alluded
to
this.
Mr
chairman,
you
know
I
would
assume
there
would
have
to
be
a
fact.
Finding,
also
that
the
the
behavior,
even
amongst
the
two
juveniles
described
by
senator
schickel,
would
have
to
be
of
such
abhorrence
or
or
or
you
know,
significantly
violent,
slash,
deviant
behavior
to
get
it
out
of
the
juvenile
system
up
into
adult
court.
Would
it
not
the
the.
I
So
I
think,
under
that
scenario,
the
court
would
look
at
the
totality
of
the
circumstances
and
have
to
transfer
it
to
adult
court
for
this
to
apply
in
in
that
manner.
I
think
if
it
was
something
that
was,
you
know,
inadvertent
out
of
ignorance,
that
that
would
probably
remain
a
juvenile
action
and
not
be
covered
by
this.
Would
that
be
correct?
Senator
adams.
C
We're
not
changing
any
definitions
of
incest,
we're
just
working
off
of
the
fact
that
these
people
have
been
convicted
of
a
crime
and
we're
just
inserting
incest
into
that,
so
that
they
have
to
serve
85,
but
we're
not
changing
any
definitions.
We're
not
changing
any
crimes.
A
E
B
A
J
A
K
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
members
of
the
committee
of
I've,
been
here
before
talking
about
expungement,
and
I
think
we've
done
some
good
work
in
in
that
area.
This.
My
previous
exposure
reveal
dealt
with
felonies.
This
deals
with
misdemeanor
expungement,
there's
about
180
bills,
right
180,
misdemeanors
right
now.
I
think
that
if
I'm
matt,
if
I'm
right,
that
fall
under
this
category
that
have
no
expiration,
they,
they
can't
expunge
them
and
under
under
current
law.
K
Krs
431.078,
a
person
convicted
of
a
misdemeanor
or
a
series
of
misdemeanors
arising
from
a
single
incident,
may
petition
the
court
in
which
the
person
was
convicted
for
ex
for
expungement
of
his
or
her
misdemeanor
record.
As
long
as
the
fence
was
not
a
sex,
offense
or
offense
committed
against
a
child.
The
current
law,
however,
does
not
have
a
provision
for
expungement
in
the
event
that
offenses
may
be
enhanced,
with
additional
penalties
on
an
indefinite
basis.
K
Senate
bill
33
amends
the
statute
to
permit
a
person
convicted
of
offense
that
is
subject
to
enhancement
on
an
indefinite
basis
to
petition
the
court
for
expungement,
provided
a
period
of
at
least
five
years
has
elapsed
since
the
date
of
the
fence
and
primary
reason
for
doing
this
is
you
know,
enhance
employment
opportunities
and
add
clarification
for
the
kentucky
state
police
as
they
work
through
these
expungement,
like
I
said,
there's
180
different
misdemeanors
that
currently
fall
in
this
category
that
have
no
expiration
date
and
some
of
them
as
simple
as
violation
of
a
stop
order
for
buying
selling
or
processing
eggs
without
a
license
transaction
of
a
business
by
an
unlicensed
person
with
the
permit
to
permitted
producer
of
milk
buying
and
selling
muscle
shells
or
muscles
in
the
shell
without
a
license.
K
K
Know
well
spitting
in
a
food
establishment,
but
there
are
some
that
are
obviously
more
egregious
than
than
want
a
failure
to
comply
with
temperature
requirements
for
a
refrigerated
locker
and
receive
receiving
alcoholic
beverages
from
a
carrier
in
the
dry
territory.
B
K
It
can
be
enhanced,
there's
some
that
are
a
little
more
egregious
using
the
title
of
doctor
without
a
degree,
criminal,
gang
recruitment,
assault
of
a
sports
official,
there's,
there's
some
stuff
in
here
and
some
narcotics
possessions,
and
that
sort
of
thing
so,
but
a
lot
of
them
have
a
five-year
look
back
dui
as
you're
very
familiar
with
as
the
10-year
look
back.
K
But
a
lot
of
these
have
no
look
back
what
this,
what
this
bill
would
do
was
simply
say
if
it
doesn't
have
a
look
back
if
it
doesn't
have
a
time
on
there
that
be
five
years
and
and
after
five
years
that
misdemeanor
you
could
apply
to
have
it
expunged.
A
J
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
know
on
some
of
these
bills
in
the
past
we've
gotten
into
the
idea
of
looked
at
fees.
What
what
would
happen
with
if
someone
wanted
it
expunged?
K
There
is,
and-
and
it's
it's
been
in
the
in
the
statute
for
quite
some
times
a
50
fee-
to
to
to
apply
apply
for
for
misdemeanor
expungement.
A
It's
actually
a
hundred
there,
the
first
fifty
dollars
of
each
fee
was
collected
pursuant
to
the
subject.
J
A
J
A
Just
want
to
say-
and
this
is
not
at
all
directed
to
you
senator
higdon,
but
to
the
trial
court
judges
in
the
commonwealth.
I
I
am
frustrated
by
our
supreme
court's
ruling
that
removed
the
fee
on
expungement
at
petitions.
A
They
did
that
and
they
they
wanted
to
do
that
in
in
a
service
to
the
the
poor
of
kentucky
that
want
to
apply-
and
I
appreciate
that,
but
we
wouldn't
have
had
the
fee
in
there
in
the
first
place,
if
trial
court
judges,
all
of
whom
I
have
immense
respect
for
and
other
practitioners
on,
this
committee-
have
a
ton
of
respect
for
as
well.
A
If
they
actually
made
an
inquiry
into
the
needs
of
the
defendants
in
their
courts,
I
don't
see
that
being
done
ever
I
just
don't
send
I
don't
know
any
other
practitioner
that
sees
that
being
done
on
any
sort
of
regular
basis.
There's
a
lot
and
dpa
would
tell
you.
I
think
that
there's
a
lot
of
the
people
they
represent,
that
shouldn't
be
represented
by
the
department
of
public
advocacy,
which
thins
the
resources
for
the
ones
that
do
need
representation
by
the
department
of
public
advocacy,
not
to
mention
everything
else.
A
We
need
our
trial
court
judges
to
actually
make
an
inquiry
and
hold
people
accountable,
and
if
they
are
not
entitled
to
a
dpa
council,
they
need
to
get
their
own
lawyer
and
free
up
those
resources
for
the
ones
that
actually
do
need
dpa,
council,
and
if
they
were
making
that
inquiry,
we
wouldn't
need
the
fee
to
collect.
This
is
a
fee,
the
fee
that
we
put
in
statutes,
pretty
modest,
and
I
don't
so
if
any
of
you
are
thinking
about
bringing
a
bill
that
codifies
what
the
supreme
court
did.
A
A
F
K
K
K
Gotcha
with
drugs,
sorry,
thank
you.
There's
there's
several
of
them
there,
as
you
would
most
any
felony.
There's
a
companion,
misdemeanor.
G
K
G
And
I
and
I
actually
thought
this
came
at
the
request
of.
Maybe
I
misunderstood
you
when
I
it.
K
It
did
but,
like
I
said
there,
each
is,
is
different.
Some
are
a
little
more
conservative
than
others.
This
was
a
starting
point:
okay,
but
but
I
I
did
have
a
conversation
with
a
commonwealth
attorney
yesterday
and
told
him
that
I
would
would
certainly
entertain
a
a
amendment
that
you
know
to
this
bill.
If
there
was
something
he
was
wanted
to
see,.
E
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
senator
you
and
I
have
talked
a
lot
about
this
and
I
admire
your
your
tenacity
and
your
advocacy
for
this,
because
I
know
all
your
motivations
are
pure
and
but
I
do
just
want
to
make
a
statement
about
maybe
kind
of
the
flip
side
of
this,
because
I
don't
think
it's
been
said.
E
We've
done
a
lot
of
this
kind
of
legislation
and
some
of
some
of
it
I
voted
for
and
some
of
it
I
voted
against,
but
as
a
fellow
that
has
worked
a
lot
with
prisoners
and
re-entry
and
back
in
a
former
life,
I
had
this
thing
called
the
boone
county
jail
work
camp
where
we
matched
up
prisoners
with
employers
and
contrary
to
what
mainstream
media
and
the
state
chamber
tells
you
and
all
a
lot
of
these
advocacy
groups.
I
never
found
a
shortage
of
employers
willing
to
hire
people
with
a
criminal
record.
E
The
problem
is
not
that
the
problem
is
this:
once
these
folks
get
a
job,
many
of
them
are
incapable
of
of
keeping
it
and
there's
a
couple
common
denominators
that
we
see
a
drug
and
drinking
problems,
alcohol,
alcoholism,
a
lot
I'll,
never
forget
I'll,
never
forget
one
time
I
had
a
restaurant
hire
a
prisoner.
I
said
man,
this
guy's,
a
great
cook,
he's
going
to
be
wonderful
and
I
was
really
excited
about
it.
The
next
day
the
owner
called
me,
reaming
me
out,
told
me
to
get
down
to
his
restaurant.
E
I
went
in
the
kitchen
there,
this
guy
was
laying
drunk.
He
couldn't
even
stand
up.
The
lesson
was
he
could
perform
in
a
controlled
environment,
but
in
an
uncontrolled
environment
he
he
was
incapable
of
it.
So
I
find
employers
very
very
willing
to
do
this
and
then
a
lot
of
them
have
anger.
Some
of
it's
anger,
management,
problems,
appearance,
punctuality
or
just
showing
up
is
a
big
deal,
all
these
different
things
and
almost
always
when
they
get
fired
or
they
lose
their
job.
E
E
But
what
really
happened
was
someone
gave
them
the
job
and
for
one
reason
or
another,
they
couldn't
keep
it
up
and
that's
why
programs,
like
our
print,
our
senate
president
or
with
alcoholism
and
drug
abuse,
are
so
important
to
try
to
find
that
secret
sauce
to
to
help
to
help
the
people
with
I
apologize
for
being
so
lengthy,
but
here's
my
point.
E
What's
going
on
and
the
background
of
a
person
and
I'm
not
sure
it's
prudent
for
the
the
the
person
wanting
it
or
for
the
employer
who's
taking
that
risk
to
kind
of
hide
that
stuff
at
such
an
a
such
a
in
such
a
short
time.
The
other
thing
I
would
say
is
that
if
we
have
bad
misdemeanors
on
the
books,
let's
repeal
those
bad
misdemeanors
and
get
them
off
the
books.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
L
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
I
would
like
to
speak
a
little
bit
in
response
to
my
good
friend
who
just
got
through
speaking
as
a
lawyer.
I
represent
people
every
day
that
have
these
little
things
and
you've
quoted
a
number
of
things
from
the
bringing
a
case
of
beer
in
from
a
dry
county.
Part
of
harlem
was
dry
in
part,
and
I
set
mine
up
in
the
back
of
the
car
and
said
police
officer.
L
L
That's
got
no
knowledge
that
the
driver
has
a
marijuana
joint
in
the
ashtray
and
the
law
says
you
both
get
charged
unless
one
of
you
takes
that
charge.
So
this
innocent
kid
ends
up.
Has
this
on
its
record?
Some
employer
is
not
going
to
hire
them.
One
kid
was
going
to
drop
out
of
the
university
of
kentucky
college,
didn't
want
his
parents
to
know
and
thank
the
lord.
He
called
me
and
we
got
it
worked
out
and
I
could
go
down
the
list
of
how
many
children
that
I've
helped
from
off
in
college.
L
L
L
I
have
a
little
girl
that
was
in
walmart
with
another
girl
that
was
shoplifting.
She
wasn't
shoplifting,
but
guess
what
walmart
charged
her
and
to
get
that
thing.
Expunged
you've
got
to
go
through
a
process
she's
now
working
at
walmart
in
the
pharmacy
counting
pills
and
they
think
she's
the
best
employee,
but
guess
what?
L
L
I
could
go
down
a
list
of
hundreds
of
them
and
I
think
we
owe
it
to
the
public
to
do
what
you're
doing
here
senator
and
I
want
to
say
I
support
it-
100
and
appreciate
what
you're
doing
to
help
these
young
people
and
it's
young
people's
who's
suffering
from
it
and
are
out
trying
to
get
jobs
and
trying
to
get
education.
They
can't
get
housing.
I've
got
one
who's
got
charge.
L
She
can't
get
in
the
nursing
program
because
you've
got
to
go
through
the
aid
program
before
you
get
to
the
nursing
program,
but
because
she
was
riding
in
a
car
with
some
guy
that,
when
bought
some
of
what
he
said
was
marijuana,
but
it
was
different
than
the
police
stop
they
charged
her
too
for
innocent,
but
she's
still
waiting
on
a
trial
date.
She
can't
get
in
the
nursing
program
once
this
thing
gets
over
with.
If
we
don't
get
it
expunged,
I
could
just
keep
going
on
and
on,
but
I
don't
want
to.
L
M
I
have
several,
mr
chairman,
if
you
don't
mind,
no,
I
don't.
First
of
all
I
want
to.
I
want
to
thank
you
for
senator
higgins
from
bringing
this
bill.
I
think
it's
clearly
a
common
sense
measure.
It's
my
understanding
that
this
bill
five
years
would
have
to
lapse
before
an
individual
can
actually
apply
for
expungement.
M
Expunge
is
not
necessarily
automatic,
and
certainly
in
the
realm
of
misdemeanors,
we
we
divide
these
things
up
into
misdemeanors
and
felonies.
Certainly
in
mr
menace
five
years
is,
is
more
than
enough
for
a
person
to
be
clear
of
this
and
to
have
a
second
chance
now.
M
The
reason
I'm
raising
this
in
this
framework
is
that,
contrary
to
what
I
have
heard
here,
I've
I'm
privy
to
multiple
situations
where
people
have
been
denied
a
job
because
of
of
some
charge
on
a
particular
record,
and
I
think
that
this
is
a
reasonable
way
of
approaching
this,
and
I
appreciate
the
fact
you
brought
this.
I
guess
I
didn't
have
a
chance,
a
question,
mr
chairman,
so
I
think
it's
a
good
bill.
Thank
you.
G
Mr
chair
explain
my
vote.
Yes,
sir,
I
vote
I
I
did,
as
senator
hickman
knows,
have
concerns
on
the
underlying
expungement
bill
that
we
passed
a
few
sessions
ago.
I
do
think
I
have
a
concern
for
officers.
G
A
Folks,
I
I
do
anticipate
having
that.
That
concludes
our
agenda.
For
today,
I
do
anticipate
having
a
meeting
most
every
week
from
here
on
out,
so
remember
that
for
thursday
mornings
at
10,
I'm
also
going
to
institute
a
new
rule
starting
next
week
and
I'll
share
that
with
you.
When
we
get
here
next
week,.