►
From YouTube: Senate Standing Committee on Judiciary (8-2-23)
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
Bring
everybody
good
morning,
everybody
Welcome
to
Media
number
three,
the
Senate
standing
committee
on
judiciary.
We
were
waiting.
I
know,
vmap
was
running
a
little
long
next
door,
so
we
were
waiting
on
some
folks
to
come
over
both
members
and
sponsors.
Chelsea.
If
you
don't
mind,
please
call
the
roll.
C
A
A
A
D
You
have
the
floor.
Thank
you.
Senator
chairman
chairman
Westerfield,
this
bill
was
brought
on.
I
was
asked
to
carry
an
existential
to
mine
and
really
hadn't
put
a
lot
of
thought
in
it.
I
just
wanted
to
protect.
The
ladies
are
any
anybody
that
was
being
stalked
or
having
devices
put
on
their
car
to
find
out
where
they're
going
and
whether
it
be
a
EPO
or
yeah.
A
D
D
D
A
You
might
have
any
questions:
Senator,
ma'am,
okay,
I
appreciate
it.
This
is
something
that
that's
been
popping
up:
Apple's,
not
the
first
one
to
do
it,
but
they've
got
these
air
tags
and
I've
got
them
on
my
keys
and
I
bring
an
extra
when
I
travel
and
throw
one
of
my
check
luggage.
If
I
have
to
do
that,
just
to
keep
track
of
it.
Amanda's
got
some
on
her
keys,
but
there
are
other
device.
A
Manufacturers
tile
is
the
other
leading
manufacturer
and
brand
of
these
devices,
but
they
are
being
used
for
this
purpose
very
inappropriately
so.
I
appreciate
you
bringing
the
Bill
thank.
D
C
Explain
a
vote.
Thank
you
for
bringing
the
bill
I
think
this
really
moves
Us
in
the
right
direction,
as
Kentucky
continues
to
lead
the
nation
in
domestic
violence
and
sexual
violence.
I
think
your
bill
really
adds
to
the
efforts
to
move
us
away
from
that
leading
position
and
give
these
victims
of
those
crimes
a
better
sense
of
security.
So
I
appreciate
you
bringing
the
Bill
thank.
D
A
Bill
passes
with
favorable
expression,
unanimous
yeah
I'll
entertain
a
motion
for
consent.
Second,
all
those
in
favor,
please
vote
by
saying
aye
aye
those
opposed
easy
peasy.
A
A
E
You
Mr
chairman
and
members
of
the
committee
and
to
the
individuals
walking
this
was
just
watching.
This
was
just
a
moment
of
levity
in
a
time
that
the
legislative
session
probably
needs
a
few
moments
of
livity,
but
thank
you.
I
want
to
go
through
a
bill
and
situation
and
as
a
practicing
lawyer
who
doesn't
practice
as
much.
This
is
actually
one
area
I
do
practice
in
and
I
want
to.
Thank
you
Mr
chairman,
because
you
and
I
had
a
meeting
on
this.
E
We
both
have
practices
in
this
area
for
individuals
who
are
not
aware
medical
records
are
confidential
and
protected
by
federal
legislation.
Most
people
understand
it.
It's
called
HIPAA,
so
when
you
get
into
just
what
I
think
most
people
think
of
medical
records,
that's
his
is
your
arm
broken
your
leg.
You've
had
some
medical
condition,
it
goes
well
beyond
that
and
it
goes
into
your
mental
and
psychological
records.
Those
are
even
more
protected
under
HIPAA.
E
So
what
we
have
seen-
and
it
came
to
our
attention
Mr
chair-
is
that
there's
probably
not
tight
enough
guidelines
in
our
state
code,
and
this
change
and
I
will
give
you
a
situation
and
it's
not
been
exclusive.
Just
to
this
situation
or
appropriately,
medical
records
related
to
mental
health
and
psychological
records
were
obtained,
and
then
the
hearings
went
through,
but
there
were
very
limited
protocols
placed
upon
the
individuals
who
received
the
records.
E
This
would
put
basically
the
protocols
that
are
described
within
HIPAA
in
State
Statute,
to
say-
and
this
is
something
again
you
and
I
Mr
chairman-
do
when
our
mental
health
provider
clients
get
subpoenaed
to
provide
records
that
we
get
an
order
that
says
look,
you
will
only
use
these
for
limited
purposes.
You
will
only
have
limited
dissemination
and
upon
the
conclusion
of
the
matter,
they
are
not
to
be
disseminated.
They
are
either
to
be
returned
or
destroyed.
E
This
brings
Kentucky
statutes
in
Conformity
with
Federal
statutes
and
HIPAA,
so
that
you
don't
all
of
a
sudden
get
the
records
and
one
party
or
another
or
the
records
are
not
sealed.
Somebody
goes
to
the
records
and
you
see
a
Facebook
post
talking
about
your
mental
health
records
that
may
be
appropriate
for
a
hearing,
but
are
not
appropriate
for
public
dissemination.
That's
this
bill.
A
C
A
A
Thank
you
and
thank
you
Matt
for
the
reminder.
The
last
three
bills
members
do
have
Subs.
They
were
sent
yesterday.
I
announced
that
on
the
floor,
they're
in
your
thank
you
got
a
motion
from
senator
schickel
in
a
second
from
Senator
Neal
on
the
substitute
all
those
in
favor
of
adopting
The
Substitute,
please
vote
by
saying
aye
aye
those
opposed
the
sub
is
before
us.
Senator.
You
have
the
floor.
G
Thank
you,
Brandon
storm,
senator
of
the
21st
district.
My
guest
will
introduce
himself
my.
H
G
We're
here
today
to
talk
about
Senate,
Bill,
225
and
I.
Want
the
committee
to
understand
what
the
bill
is.
Not
the
bill
is
not
soft
on
crime,
any
continuing
criminal
Behavior
crimes
are
committed
while
on
probation,
parole
or
during
incarceration
may
be
punished
in
accordance
with
the
original
intent
of
the
statute.
It's
jury,
empowerment
is
what
this
bill
is
about.
It
continues
to
provide
harsher
sentences
for
the
most
serious
offenders.
Those
who
commit
any
acts
of
violence
against
a
person
or
a
sex
crime
is
defined
in
krs-17500
again
Section
1,
paragraph
1A.
G
G
It
preserves
mandatory
sentencing
for
class
D
offenses
involving
violent
acts
against
a
person
when
sentenced
to
first
degree
PFO.
It
empowers
juries,
most
importantly,
to
determine
an
individual
status
as
a
persistent
failing
offender.
It
restores
judicial
discretion
by
expanding
alternative
sentencing
to
non-violent
Class
C
offenses
and
it
closes
the
eligibility
window
for
individuals
with
completed
sentences.
Lastly,
removes
mandatory
sentences
from
non-violent,
Class,
C,
offenses
and
Mr
West
is
here
to
answer
any
technical
questions.
G
F
Thank
you,
Mr
chairman
and
I
want
to
thank
the
bill.
Sponsor
he's
a
good
man
and
he's
talked
to
me
about
this.
A
lot
and
I
sure
appreciate
it,
as
well
as
the
public
defender's
office.
I
actually
had
a
bill
about
during
enhancement
several
years
ago.
That
didn't
get
heard,
but
this
does
a
couple
other
things
I
want
to
read
you
a
text
from
one
of
my
judges
and
then,
if
you
could
just
respond
to
it
to
it,
it
says
it
says
this
takes
away
punishment
for
persistent
offenders.
F
The
law
already
punishes
people
on
probation
and
parole
if
they
get
a
new
crime,
meaning
time
is
consecutive
and
not
eligible
for
probation.
In
most
instances
the
PFO
is
designed
to
get
it
says
to
get
the
guys
excuse
my
slang,
who
keep
offending
just
respond
to
that.
If
you
could
I
apologize
for
the
informal
language
and
I
will
have
a
follow-up
if
you'll
allow
Mr
chairman.
H
Yes,
actually
what
the
PFO
law
was
designed
to
do
was
to
take
those
people
who
are
not
rehabilitatable
the
incorrigible
the
recalcitrant
or
intransigent
the
ones
they're,
just
never
going
to
change
and
incapacitate
them.
We're
no
longer
going
to
rehabilitate
them
and,
as
we
started
out,
you
had
to
have
at
least
two
services
at
prison,
and
you
had
to
to
after
that
go
back
and
reoffend.
H
But
the
problem
is,
while
other
states
were
saying
this
is
triggered
by
violent
defense
or
one
of
the
things
that
we're
afraid.
One
of
the
you
know
the
offenses
we're
afraid
of
Kentucky
made
it
applicable
to
all
felonies
and
the
problem
with
that
is.
As
my
law,
professor
Bob
Lawson,
who
I
admire
greatly
put
in
his
article,
is
the
problem
with
repeat
offender
law
that
extends
coverage
to
all
defendants
with
a
felony
record.
H
Is
that
you
catch
a
few
of
the
people
you're
trying
to
get,
but
you
throw
too
big
a
blanket
and
you
end
up
getting
a
lot
of
people
who
aren't
actually
the
public
safety
threat
that
we
thought
they
would
be,
and
so
that's
what
it
was
designed
to
do.
What
happened
is
the
general
assembly
I'd,
say
three
decades
ago
started
getting
the
idea
that
instead
of
doing
a
blanket
thing,
we
need
to
really
Target
the
offenses
that
we
want
to
incarcerate
people
on.
So
you
start
seeing
second
or
subsequent
offense
enhancements.
H
You
see
violent
crimes
listed
and
the
list
continues
to
grow.
You
see,
50
parole,
eligibility
for
violent
crimes,
go
to
85
percent.
You
see
no
probation,
no
con,
no
sharp
probation,
no
conditional
discharge
for
those
people.
You
see
that
they
can't
even
be
paroled
until
they
served
85
percent
of
their
sins.
You
see
all
of
these
things
that
are
targeted
towards
the
very
worst
crimes
and
the
most
incorrigible
people.
H
So
basically,
the
PFO
has
now
been
supplanted
by
things
which
do
the
job
much
better
than
the
PFO,
and
the
only
people
that
are
left
being
caught
up
in
PFO
are
people
who
weren't
incorrigible.
We
could
have
done
something
to
rehabilitate
them,
but
now
we're
putting
them
in
prison
so
long,
we're
turning
them
into
the
incorrigible
and
and
taking
away
the
Hope
taking
away
the
promise
of
trying
to
to
do
better.
H
So
that's
kind
of
what
this
bill
does
and
and
in
my
opinion,
some
of
the
provisions
of
the
current
PFO
law,
as
it
is,
serves
only
to
give
the
upper
hand
to
the
state
in
negotiations,
even
though
to
take
the
biggest
time
available
on
the
underlying
charge,
with
the
promise
of
dismissal
of
the
PFO
and
and
it's
become
a
negotiating
bargaining
tool.
Not
what
it
was
designed
to
do,
which
was
actually
put
away.
Repeat:
offenders
who
are
never
going
to
get
it
and
they
probably
never
were.
F
E
Actually,
I'm
going
to
look
and
direct
this
at
maybe
both
the
sponsor
and
both
our
Committee
Member.
This
Center
schickel
said
that
he
had
a
bill
and
I
thought
your
bill.
Wasn't
that
a
jury
and
I'm
just
trying
to
get
a
distinction
that
your
jury
did
not
have
to
have
a
mandated
cause
of
finding
a
PFO
or
not?
It
was
just
a
consideration.
You
know
what
was
the
difference
between
the
and
sorry
Mr
chairman.
This
is
what
I
think
the
committee
process
should
be
I.
F
H
That
that's
a
good
summation.
The
jury
still
finds
whether
the
person
is
a
PFO
eligible
person
and
once
they
make
that
finding
they
get
to
decide
whether
to
go
with
the
penalty
of
the
underlying
felony
or
the
enhanced
penalty
as
a
PFO.
That
is
where
they
get
to
make
their
election.
But
what
is
still
on
the
table
is,
if
you
have
that
PFO
finding
so
many
you
know
the
sexual
offenses,
the
violent
offenses,
those
remain
subject
to
something
outside
the
jury's
discretion.
They
still
can't
be
probated.
H
H
They
are
in
addition
to
the
bill
that
we
presented
to
you
Senator
schickel,
but
they're
in
response
to
things
that
the
general
assembly
has
already
done
in
the
past,
which
is
really
tighten
up
on
sexual
offenses
and
violent
offenses
and
take
you
know:
you've
taken
scalpels
to
some
of
the
worst
crimes
and
the
most
violent
crimes
such
that
the
general
catch-all
now
is
only
getting
the
things
in
the
net
that
you
didn't
want
to
catch
in
the
first
place,
and
so
there
that
is
a
substantive
change
from
the
bill
that
you
had
Senator
motion.
F
A
F
No
and
I'd
like
to
explain
my
vote
Yes,
sir
again,
I
I
really
do
appreciate
this
discussion.
That's
been
open
in
Frank,
but
there's
a
couple
things
I
want
to
say.
First
of
all,
I
cast
this
vote
from
a
larger
perspective
of
what's
going
on
and
what
has
been
going
on
in
the
Commonwealth
of
Kentucky.
F
For
ever
since
I've
been
in
the
general
assembly
we
are
experiencing,
you
know
the
the
public
is
very
concerned
about
crime
and
they
don't
understand
all
this
and
we're
in
the
midst
of
a
of
horrible
crime,
especially
in
my
part
of
the
state
and
I
think
in
others,
as
it
relates
to
juvenile
crime.
We
we're
hopeful,
there's
a
bill
coming
over
from
the
house.
F
We've
been
tried
for
year
after
year
to
get
it
over
we're
hopeful
that
it
will
get
over
this
year
and
we'll
get
it
passed,
and
that
will
be
maybe
one
first
small
step
in
addressing
this
problem.
The
the
other
thing
I
want
to
say
is
that
but
I
guess
really
what
I
said
before
is
I
appreciate
the
the
jury
that
part
of
the
bill,
because
I
think
that
is
the
answer.
F
One
of
the
answers
to
our
criminal
justice
is,
we
need
more
jury
trials
and
we
tend
to
resist
that
because
jury
trials,
equal
work
for
everyone
and
human
nature
is
we
don't
want
to
work?
We
we
and
so
I
get
that
part
of
it
and
I
really
do
appreciate
that
now,
I
can't
remember
if
I
voted
yet
or
not
did
I
Mr,
chairman
I'm,
pretty
sure
you
did
okay.
Thank
you.
F
B
I
Can
I
explain
my
vote?
You
manager
I
appreciate
this
bill
as
a
practicing
lawyer
that
40
some
years
in
this
we
to
change
what
my
good
friend
was
just
talking
about.
We
have
this
simple
thing
that
I
see
all
the
time
from
giving
the
wrong
ID
a
name
that
can
get
you
enhanced.
If
you've
already
got
problems,
throwing
a
bag
of
marijuana
down,
it
becomes
a
felony.
It's
just.
We
got
some
things,
we're
going
to
have
to
change
there
to
keep
this,
and
this
is
a
good
bill.
I
J
Mr
chairman
explain
my
I
vote
Yes,
sir.
You
know
I
I,
although
I
share
my
colleague,
Senator
schickel's
concerns
about
the
rampant
crime
waves
that
are
impacting
large
parts
of
the
United
States
and
the
Commonwealth
I
do
have
great
faith
in
our
juries
and
citizens
of
the
community
to
make
these
types
of
decisions
and
I
don't
see
that
it
really
takes
anything
away
from
the
system.
It
merely
gives
more
empowerment
to
the
members
of
the
community
sitting
on
that
jury.
So
for
that
reason.
A
Vote
and
to
explain
my
vote:
I
I
I
was
once
reluctant
to
to
wade
into
the
PFO
Waters,
but
I
think
this
bill
is
really
carefully
done
and
responsibly
done,
giving
the
jury
the
power
to
make
a
decision
and
use
discretion,
giving
the
court
additional
discretion
and
narrowly
doing
in
a
way
that
helps
do
exactly
Scott.
What
you
were
talking
about,
make
sure
that
this
is
targeted
at
the
very
people
that
PFO
is
supposed
to
be
getting
and
keeping
Behind
Bars
and
keeping
them
there
longer.
A
A
I'm
gonna
go
and
order
seniority,
Senator,
Yates
and
and
yield
to
and
yield
to.
Your
colleague
come
on
up
Senator
Denise
Harper
angel
on
Senate
Bill
282,
an
act
relating
to
victims
of
crime.
I,
don't
want
to
steal
your
show,
so
I'm
not
going
to
talk
about
what
the
bill
is,
and
there
is
a
committee
substitute
and
I'll.
A
Thank
you
and
I'll
make
the
second
from
Senator
wheeler
first
motion
and
then
second
from
the
chair,
all
that's
in
favor
of
adopting
substitute
but
he's
about
to
saying
aye
aye
those
opposed
the
sub
is
before
us,
I'm
embarrassed
to
say:
I
had
no
idea.
This
loophole
existed,
I've
I've
talked
with
countless
victims
during
my
time
in
the
prosecutor's
office
and
through
work
with
Marcy's
law
and
other
policies.
I
mean
had
no
idea
so
I'm
glad
you
brought
the
bill
Senator.
You
have
the
floor.
K
L
You
John
Hardesty
executive
director
office
of
claims
and
appeals.
K
Thank
you.
Mr
chairman.
We
had
a
really
good
working
group
that
worked
together
during
last
year's
interim.
They
found
this
loophole.
I
also
filed
another
bill,
which
is
much
more
comprehensive
as
an
educational
tool
for
this
session.
This
short
session
I'm
hoping
we
can
look
deeply
into
that
during
this
next
interim,
that
Senate
Bill
283,
but
282
increases
the
award
caps
for
awards
to
Crime
Victims
of
the
Crime
Victims
compensation
fund.
K
It
also
clarifies
that
hit-and-run
victims
do
not
have
to
prove
that
the
driver
of
the
vehicle
was
under
the
influence
or
that
the
hit
was
intentional
to
receive
benefits
from
the
fund.
There's
no
need
new
money
needed
to
increase
the
Caps.
We
just
need
to
give
the
board
the
approval
to
use
the
funds
they
already
have.
We
do
that
in
the
committee
sub.
K
A
Questions
on
the
bill
got
a
motion
from
Senator
wheeler
in
a
second
from
Senator
schickel,
whose
voice
I
heard
over
a
couple
again
I
having
dealt
with
victims
filing
claims
under
what
was
then
called
the
victims.
Comp
board
I
knew
that
a
conviction
was
necessary
in
order
to
do
that.
But
if
you
don't
have
like
a
criminal
case,
there's
no
defendant
to
go
after
they're
stuck
so
I
again,
I
that
never
occurred
to
me.
So
I
really
am
grateful
for
the
bill.
We
do
have
one
question
from
Senator
Stivers.
E
K
L
Senator
I
believe
that
when
those
incidents
happen,
the
the
circumstances
give
rise
to
a
crime.
This
would
make
the
victim
com.
This
would
make
the
crime
compensable
this
individual
qualify
as
a
Victim
Because.
When
the
individual
runs,
they
have
no
other
recourse,
they
don't
know
who
did
it?
Oftentimes
insurance
does
not
cover
it,
and
so
it
does
give
rise
to
a
crime.
If
they
ever
found
that
individual,
they
would
charge
them
for
the
hit
and
run
crime
which
would
make
it
a
crime
compensable.
Under
this
I.
A
E
If
okay
Mr
chair,
yes
I
know
the
assumption
is
generally
you
run
because
you
think
you've
committed
some
criminal
act
like
you're
under
the
influence
or
you
were
speeding
or
you
were
looking
at
your
cell
phone
or
something
of
that
nature.
But
that's
an
assumption
that
generally
is
only
assumed
and
not
necessarily
that
you
can
punish
somebody,
because
if
you
know
there
could
be
circumstances
and
there
have
been
in
which
the
individual,
you
know,
thought
they
hit
a
dog
or
star
and
and
I
know.
People
are
gonna
like.
L
Senator
I
will
just
give
examples
and
of
situations
that
we
have
arise
in
front
of
the
board.
Oftentimes
pedestrians
are
hit
by
motorists
and
under
the
current
law,
the
only
situation
where
a
victim
can
be
compensated
by
the
board
for
a
crime
involving
a
motor
vehicle
is
when
the
driver
is
under
the
influence
or
it's
there.
There's
evidence
that
it's
done
intentionally
and
oftentimes
going
along
with
what
you
said,
I
think
the
the
belief
is
that,
in
lots
of
those
cases
where
the
driver
runs,
there
may
be
something
else
going
on
there.
F
How
does
if,
if
I,
let's
say,
I'm
involved
in
the
hit
and
run
and
I
do
have
a
liability
insurance
coverage,
whatever
the
state
minimum
is?
How
does
that
work
as
far
as
the
Compensation
Board
and
insurance?
Is
there
any
coordination
there
or
or
what?
What?
What
is
the
insurance
company's
obligation.
L
Senator
we
have
there's
a
statute
that
sets
a
number
of
different
offsets
collateral
offsets
for
Crime
Victims
compensation.
So
if
insurance
is
available
and
will
pay
for
the
injuries
that
for
which
the
victim
seeks
compensation,
we
would
not
pay
that
from
the
Crime
Victims
compensation
fund
and
I
will
say.
Our
investigators
are
very
thorough
in
looking
for
collateral
sources
to
ensure
that
money
is
not
paid
out
unnecessarily.
Thank
you,
Mr,
chair.
A
L
We
do
a
thorough
investigation,
so
once
we
receive
the
claim
form
which
the
claimant
fills
out
and
includes
lots
of
information
about
their
injuries,
the
crime
that
occurred,
what
law
enforcement
agency
they
reported
it
to.
Our
investigators
will
then
well
it'll,
be
assigned
to
one
of
our
investigators
and
then
they
will
gather
all
law
enforcement
information.
If
there's
a
police
report,
they
will
obtain
that
they
will
interview
the.
L
And
not
in
all
circumstances,
but
in
most
we
we
need
a
police
report
to
prove
that
there's
criminally
injurious
conduct
oftentimes
we'll
talk
to
detectives
too.
If
you
know,
if
we
need
more
information
about
the
crime
or
about
the
alleged
crime,
that
they've
submitted
the
application
for.
A
I
obviously
support
the
bill
or
I
wouldn't
have
given
it
a
hearing
and
I'm
about
to
vote
Yes
on
it,
but
I
think
it
would
behoove
the
the
victims
con
board
to
carefully
consider
its
its
investigation
steps.
What
evidence
it
requires
to
make
sure
people
don't
file
frivolous
claims
or
fraudulent
claims
under
this
very
fact
pattern,
which
is
probably
why
the
the
carve
out
was
there
to
begin
with,
because
I
mean
simply
put
that's
that's
money
going
to
someone,
that's
not
going
to
a
victim
that
actually
needs
the
the
compensation.
A
A
Any
other
questions
seeing
none
we've
got.
Do
we
have
a
motion
on
the
bill
as.
A
B
E
Marvel,
yes,
sir
I
think
this
is
a
really
good
bill
on
the
increase
in
in
potential
compensations
is
long
overdue.
E
I
think
the
chair
was
more
articulate
in
explaining
what
I
was
laying
out
in
scenarios
that
we
want
to
make
sure
is
truly
a
victim
of
a
crime
that
gets
compensated
and
people
don't
come
in
and
start
alleging,
something
that
was
not
necessarily
criminal
in
nature.
A
A
A
There
is
indeed
John
thank
you
as
well
members.
A
We
do
have
a
title,
Amendment
I'm,
going
to
explain
this
briefly
and
you
can
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong
Senator,
but
we
needed
to
do
this
because
of
some
budget
language.
That
Becky
tried
to
explain
to
me
yesterday
that
I
don't
understand,
but
I
do
know
that
it's
it's
necessary
so
that
this
can
work
and
it
doesn't
involve
opening
the
budget.
A
There's
no
appropriation,
we're
not
actually
spending
new
money
because
we're
just
raising
those
caps
so
I'm
going
to
make
a
motion
on
the
title
amendment
to
adopt
that
is
there
a
second
from
Senator
wheeler,
all
those
in
favor
of
adopting
the
title
Amendment,
please
vote
by
saying
aye
aye
does
opposed.
Thank
you.
A
A
It
might
not
be
a
bad
idea
to
have
the
victims
comboard
and
have
Mr
Hardesty
on
during
the
interim
some
time
to
talk
about
their
process,
and,
and
did
you
hear
that
I
just
put
you
on
the
spot
again
sometime
this
summer,
I'd
like
to
have
you
back
and
and
just
walk
us
through
that
entire
process,
I
think
that'd
be
thank
you
Senate
Bill
268
268
an
act
relating
to
child
support
after
driving
Under
the
Influence
glad
to
have
this
bill
and
I'm
glad
we
both
stole
from
Tennessee.
That's.
M
M
Thank
you,
chair,
Westerfield
members
of
the
committee,
thank
you
for
having
me
here:
I'm
David,
Yates,
Senate,
District,
37,
Jefferson
and
present
Senate,
Bill
268
and,
as
the
chair
just
said,
I'm
not
about
Reinventing.
The
will
I
like
to
perfect
it,
but
not
reinvent
it.
This
one
is
personal
to
me:
I
think
it's
it's
open
for
that.
We
have
a
proposed
sentence.
Thank.
A
M
M
We
pray
for
a
miracle
every
day
for
Melanie,
but
we
know
there's
no
way
that
she
will
ever
be
able
to
provide
for
this
child
and,
in
my
practice,
like
many
attorneys
on
here.
We
see
this
situation
over
and
over
again
and
to
me
a
lot
of
times.
People
have
minimal
limits.
You'll
have
the
25
000
come
in
they'll,
do
a
little
bit
of
time
in
prison
and
they
come
out
and
they
move
on
with
their
life,
but
for
Nolan
he's
going
to
struggle,
and
so
what
I
believe
is.
M
This
is
a
this
is
about
fairness
for
the
child.
This
is
about
accountability
for
the
offender.
It's
deterrence
effect,
because
this
is
something
people
will
talk
about.
It
encourages
Justice
for
victims.
We
keep
talking
about
increasing
penalties,
increasing
crimes.
This
is
an
increase
of
a
crime.
This
is
a
restitution.
This
is
trying
to
make
right
you're
wrong.
So
while
this
individual,
when
she
gets
out
of
prison,
writing
that
check
may
not
be
the
end
of
everything.
She
will
write
that
check
and
she'll.
Think
about
that
child.
M
That's
surviving
like
so
many
of
our
constituents
here
in
Kentucky
and
I
think
this
is
a
very
positive.
We
don't
know
how
much
this
will
Encompass,
but
I
think
it
does
give
the
sentencing
court
that
that
ability,
I
think
it's
a
positive
and
I
would
encourage
you.
Yes,
ma'am.
A
F
Thank
you,
Mr
chairman
I
always
been
cautious
when
we
get
bills
that
are
very
emotionally
and
personally
charged
and
I,
don't
know
that
I
understand
the
bill
completely,
but
I
just
wanted
to
ask
you
one
question,
and
that
is
you
said
in
your
testimony.
This
gives
the
court
the
opportunity.
So
this
is
an
option.
M
M
There
was
something
that,
and
there
is
a
civil
suit
it'll
be
offset
to
the
point
that
they
have
been
made
whole
if
they've
had
full
satisfaction
of
the
damages
in
the
event
that
the
the
defendant's
insurance,
if
there
was
dispense
insurance
that
could
pay
for
it,
but
they
would
they
shall
order
restitution
for
the
lost
wages
or
permit
impairment
or
power
to
work.
For
that.
What
they're
doing
is
it's?
No,
if
you've
taken
the
parent
away
that
would
have
provided
support
for
the
child.
M
The
court
shall
order
restitution
in
the
point
of
Child,
Support
and
and
I
know
it's
emotional
here
and
I'll
tell
you
it's
been
emotional
for
the
years,
but
I've
been
practicing
law
when
I
have
a
case.
Come
in
I've
had
a
lot
of
injury
cases
with
with
drunk
drivers,
drug
drivers
and
a
lot
of
surviving
children.
M
I
think
this
is
a
positive
we're
starting
to
see
this
move
it's
while
the
penalty
is
in
place
that
civil
judgment
sometimes
is
bankrupted
or
they
don't
have
anything
it's
bankrupted,
but
this
will
be
a
restitution
restitution
survives,
those
things
it'll
be
in
the
criminal
sentencing.
It
gets
ordered.
So
while
they
may
not
have
a
whole
lot,
there
will
be
a
check
written
as
form
of
that
restitution
to
me,
I
think,
that's
so
important.
Even
if
it's
de
minimis
that
answer
your
question
Senator,
it.