►
From YouTube: 3/4/2021 - Senate Committee on Judiciary
Description
For agenda and additional meeting information: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/Calendar/A/
Videos of archived meetings are made available as a courtesy of the Nevada Legislature.
The videos are part of an ongoing effort to keep the public informed of and involved in the legislative process.
All videos are intended for personal use and are not intended for use in commercial ventures or political campaigns.
Closed Captioning is Auto-Generated and is not an official representation of what is being spoken.
B
C
B
D
D
E
And
my
clock
is
showing
1pm,
so
I
will
call
this
meeting
of
the
senate
judiciary
committee
to
order
it
is
thursday
march
4th
2021,
and
I
would
ask
the
eu
secretary
to
please
take
the
role.
G
I
G
E
And
I'm
also
here
and
today
we
have
patrick
guynan
from
lcb
with
us
today
and
as
a
reminder
to
the
members
of
the
committee
and
anybody
else
who
might
be
expecting
some
legal
counsel
today.
Nick
anthony
is
not
with
us
because
he's
very
busy
drafting
all
of
our
bills,
and
we
appreciate
all
his
hard
work
very
much.
That
being
said,
he
will
be
able
to
answer
questions.
He
won't
be
able
to
answer
them
right
now
here
on
camera
during
the
meetings,
but
patrick
our
policy.
E
E
After
we
hear
the
bill,
we
will
have
testimony
and
support
testimony
opposition
and
testimony
in
the
neutral
position.
Everybody
testifying
in
any
one
of
those
three
positions
will
have
two
minutes
to
speak
and,
in
addition,
I
do
want
to
point
to
a
number
of
exhibits
that
have
been
uploaded
on
nellis
for
the
benefit
of
both
the
public
and
the
members
of
this
committee.
E
They
include
an
assortment
of
letters,
different
position
statements
as
well
as
an
amendment
that
amendment
comes
from
individuals
who
will
be
testifying
in
opposition
and
they
will
be
presenting
the
amendment
during
their
opposition
testimony
and
with
that,
I
believe
we
are
ready
to
open
up
the
hearing
on
sb
22.
K
K
Existing
nevada,
revised
statutes
require
deductions
in
a
priority
sequence
that
conflicts
with
the
priority
sequence
stipulated
by
the
nevada
constitution,
as
amended
by
marcy's
law
legislation
approved
during
the
2000
2015
and
2017
legislative
sessions
and
approved
by
nevada
voters.
On
november
6,
2018
sb
22
amends
nrf
chapter
209
to
comply
with
the
amended
nevada
constitution
and
will
allow
the
ndoc
to
meet
mandated
compliance
with
both
nrs
and
nevada
constitutional
requirements.
K
L
Good
afternoon,
madam
chairsheim
members
of
the
committee,
this
is
james
jones.
Acting
deputy
director
support
services
from
the
nevada
department
of
corrections
senate
bill.
22
is
what
I'll
be
speaking
on
currently
nrs
209
against
the
director
of
the
nevada
department
of
corrections,
the
authority
to
determine
a
reasonable
amount
to
be
applied
for
offenders.
Deposits
of
payroll,
nrs
209.247
defines
the
priority
of
deductions
for
non-wages,
including
deposits
from
offenders,
families
and
friends,
and
nrs
209
463
identifies
the
priority
of
deductions
from
wages.
L
One
of
the
deductions
under
each
section
is
for
an
offender's
responsibility
to
quote
to
meet
an
existing
obligation
of
the
offender
for
restitution
to
a
victim
of
his
or
her
crime.
Unquote,
senate
joint
resolution,
17
commonly
referred
to
as
marcy's
law,
received
approval
during
the
2015-17
legislative
sessions
and
was
passed
by
the
nevada
voters
in
november
2018..
L
The
measure
amended
the
state's
constitution
and
expanded
the
rights
of
victims
of
crimes
as
it
relates
to
restitution.
The
nevada
constitution
now
states
that
hope.
Each
person,
who
is
a
victim
of
crime,
is
entitled
to
the
following
rights
to
full
and
timely
restitution
and
to
have
all
monetary
payments.
L
Thank
you,
matt,
adam
tara,
scheibel
and
the
members
of
the
committee
we're
here
to
answer
any
questions
you
may
have
pertaining
to
the
bill.
B
Please
excuse
my
ignorance,
I
don't
I
don't
know
much
about
this
part
of
the
law,
but
I'm
wondering
if
you
can
tell
me
a
little
bit
about
the
difference
between
the
existing
obligation
of
the
offender
for
restitution
to
a
victim
and
the
amount
that
a
offender
must
put
into
the
fund
for
the
compensation
of
victims
of
crime.
I
guess
I'm
wondering
why
we
have
them
doing
both.
E
I'm
also
going
to
ask
those
of
you
who
are
in
the
room
together,
testify
and
try
to
get
as
close
to
the
microphone
as
possible
or
move
the
microphone
as
close
as
possible
to
the
person
who's
answering
the
question
and
state
your
name
clearly
for
the
record.
Please.
D
Good
afternoon
members
of
the
committee,
this
is
venus
fajoda,
I'm
the
chief
of
purchasing
and
inmate
services
for
the
department
of
corrections,
so
senator
harris
to
answer
your
question.
D
So
one
which
is
the
restitution
to
a
victim,
is
a
specific
person
that
an
offender
has
been
ordered
to
pay
victim-specific
restitution
towards,
whereas
the
victims
of
crime
fund
is
a
fund
managed
where
people
can
apply
to
have
payment
to
reimburse
them.
So
it's
it.
They
are
two
different
funds.
E
D
B
So
I
guess
I
guess
what
I'm
wondering
is
and-
and
you
know
what
maybe
this
isn't
specifically
to
the
bill.
So
so
I
apologize,
but
I'm
wondering
why,
if
we
have
offenders
compensating
their
victims,
do
we
need
to
have
this
additional
fund
that
so
I'm
an
offender?
I
victimized
you.
I
owe
you
a
certain
amount
of
money,
but
then
I
also
have
to
contribute
to
a
general
fund
for
any
other
victim
that
someone
else
may
have
harmed
I'm.
I
guess
I'm
confused
on.
It
seems
like
a
bit
of
double
dipping.
M
Hello,
this
is
jennifer
ray
with
victim
services
for
the
nevada
department
of
corrections,
jennifer,
j
e
n
n,
I
f
e
r
ray
r
e
y
and
through
the
chair
to
you
senator
harris.
I
would
like
to
address
that
question
because
it's
a
actually
a
really
great
question.
Most
people
don't
realize
that
we
do
have
additional
means
that
victims
can
seek
to
get
bills
paid.
M
M
So
I
would
not
get
restitution
for
any
bills
that
the
victims
of
crime
compensation
had
funded.
That
said,
there
is
a
limit
to
the
victims
of
crime
compensation
fund.
If
I
have
a
million
dollars
in
medical
bills
and-
and
there
are
some
that
do-
people
who
have
fallen
into
comas
as
a
result
of
their
injuries,
the
victims
of
crime
compensation
fund
is
not
going
to
guarantee
me
a
million
dollars.
You
know
they
may
pay
anywhere
from
five
to
ten
thousand
and
say
I'm
sorry,
that's
you
know.
M
B
The
offender
is
going
to
pay
restitution
to
the
victim
and
then-
and
I
please
correct
me
if
this
is
not
how
it
happens
in
practice,
and
then
let's
say
if
one
of
your
victims
had
to
tap
into
the
compensation
of
victims
of
the
fund
for
the
competition
compensation
of
victims
of
crime.
That's
when
you
may
see
additional
dollars
go
there
is
that
right.
M
Jennifer
ray
for
the
record,
it's
my
understanding
that
anything
that
wasn't
covered
or,
for
instance,
if
I
couldn't
provide.
N
M
Actual
receipt
for
a
bill
that
I
have
the
court
could
not
order
an
offender
to
pay
restitution
when
there
is
not
evidence
that
it
has
been
an
actual
cost.
So
if
I
do
not
have
a
bill
or
a
receipt,
it
is
not
going
to
be
something
that's
going
to
be
requested.
For
instance,
if
I'm
going
to
require
long-term
care,
the
court
is
not
going
to
order
an
offender
to
pay
just
for
the
long-term
care.
Whatever
that
amount
is
it's
always
a
set
dollar
amount.
There's
always
a
cap.
E
Thank
you
senator
and
thank
you,
ms
ray
vice
chair
cannizzaro.
I
believe
you
had
a
question
or
a
couple
of
questions.
H
Yes,
thank
you,
chair
schreibel,
and
I
do
have
a
couple
of
questions.
I
you
know.
H
I
I'm
listening
to
the
presentation
and
I
can
read
the
bill
and
I
see
where
there
is
language
that
sort
of
realigns
where
restitution
to
victims
needs
to
be
paid
sooner
than
some
of
the
other
things
that
are
included
in
this
bill
and
that
I
think
that
part
makes
sense
to
me,
but
I
think
it
leaving
it
leaving
this
build
just
to
that
sort
of
glosses
over
where
I
think
there
are
some
inherent
issues
that
have
kind
of
brought
this
to
the
forefront
and-
and
certainly
I
was
here
in
17
when
we,
when
we
voted
on
the
resolution
for
marsy's
law,
to
go
to
the
ballot
and
am
very
familiar
with
the
language
there
that
talks
about
how
victims
are
entitled
to
timely
and
prompt
restitution.
H
H
It
then
was
reduced
down
to
50,
and
so
I
I
guess
I
would
like
to
talk
about
that
issue,
because,
while
certainly,
I
think
we
all
agree
that
victims
are
entitled
to
to
prompt
restitution
by
the
constitution
and
and
the
reordering
of
priorities
makes
sense
where
I
think
the
real
issue
with
the
policy
here
is
is
with
how
much
it
it
is,
that's
being
taken
from
offenders
accounts
and
basically
the
two
separate
ones,
and
I
I
think
I
I
probably
have
different
ideas
on
the
two
one
is
the
offender's
wages
which
they
earn,
which,
in
my
opinion
and
I'm
sorry,
this
is
kind
of
a
long
statement
and
then
a
question.
H
In
my
opinion,
you
know:
you're
a
defender
you've
been
ordered
to
make
restitution
the
crimes
that
you've
been
convicted
of
or
pled
to
that
restitution
that
you
are
paying
from
your
wages,
I
think,
is
a
little
different
than
family
members
who
are
saying
we
want
to
send
some
money,
so
you
know
our
our
loved
one
who
is
incarcerated,
can
have
you
know
some
different
food
options
or
maybe
postage
options
or
whatever
the
case
is
that
they're
paying
for?
H
H
I
don't
think
you're
getting
a
lot
of
objection,
that
some
of
that
money
should
go
towards
restitution,
but
can
we
talk
just
a
little
bit
about
where
it
is
that
we're
seeing
this
reasonable
amount
come
from?
Where
we've
seen
now,
decisions
about
80
versus
50
and
what
you,
as
the
department
of
corrections,
is
sort
of
looking
to
be
able
to
do
with
respect
to
those
percentages?
H
K
Thank
you
for
your
question.
This
is
director
daniels
department
of
corrections
I
like
to
start
out
by
saying
the
authority
to
make
that
adjustment
false
within
at
least
temporarily
my
discretion
as
the
leader
of
the
department
of
corrections.
However,
those
decisions
are
then
reviewed
later
at
a
board
of
prison
commissioners
meeting
and
those
individuals
at
that
meeting
can
approve
or
come
up
with
options
as
to
what
we
present
to
be
the
final
number.
So
what
sparked
this?
K
Well,
there
was
a
there
were
two
votes
of
the
citizens
of
this
state,
in
which
the
legislative
lecture
both
brought
up
the
issue
of
marsy's
law
and
victims
restitution,
both
of
those
are
passed
by
the
legislature
and
then
later,
voted
on
by
the
citizens
of
the
state
in
the
affirmative
that
they
put
mercy's
law
in
place
and
that
they
wanted
to
make
as
a
priority
restitution
to
the
victim.
K
So
after
that
was
passed,
and
once
we
realized
we
needed
to
take
some
action
for
the
agency
to
come
in
compliance,
I
met
with
my
my
executive
team
and
we
came
up
with
a
percentage
of
80..
Now,
when
we
were
discussing
it,
it
was
the
first
20
of
all
monies
coming
in,
and
wages
would
go.
Go
that
the
inmate
would
keep
I'm
sorry,
the
offender
would
keep
and
then
we
would
then
take
restitution
and
so
on
out
of
the
remaining
80
percent
after
this
was
submitted
to
the
board
of
prison
commissioners.
K
There
was
some
objection
to
the
to
the
eighty
percent
and
they
thought
that
it
may
be
a
better
option
to
drop
that
number
to
fifty
percent,
so
in
other
words
the
first
fifty
percent
of
all
wages
and
other
associated
monies
coming
into
the
inmate
would
then
be
sequestered
and
that
money
would
go
towards
victims,
restitutions
and
court
orders
and
so
on.
And
then,
as
we
move
forward,
there
was
further
discussion
with
the
board
of
prison
commission
which
the
three
primary
members
are,
the
the
governor,
the
secretary
of
state
and
the
attorney
general.
K
K
So
that's
when
it
left
the
department
of
corrections,
hand
and
went
over
to
the
board
of
prison.
Commissioners
and
they've
been
having
hearings
and
from
my
understanding
meeting
with
various
constituency
groups.
So
you
have
two
two
groups
and
the
families
of
the
offenders,
but
then
you
also
have
the
victim
advocates
and
the
people
that
are
supporting
the
victims,
for
which,
quite
frankly,
marxist
law
was
drafted
to
take
into
consideration
because
the
victims
felt
as
if
they
were
not
being
hurt.
K
K
I
have
the
authority
to
make
sure
that
I
am
in
compliance
with
statute
and
the
law,
as
well
as
the
eighth
amendment
of
the
united
states
constitution,
the
board
of
prisons,
commissioner
they're,
the
ones
that,
if
we
make
a
change
in
our
internal
policies,
they're
the
ones
we'll
either
approve,
modify
or
deny
whatever
we
change
and
that
system
seems
to
be
working.
Well,
there's
been
a
lot
of
conversation.
K
I
know
that
many
members
of
every
group
have
had
an
opportunity
to
meet
with
those
that
have
an
interest
in
this
process,
and
so
this
is
where
we
are
right
now,
and
this
is
why
we
are
obviously
looking
at
submitting
sba
22,
as
we
think
it's
important
and
it's
in
compliance
with
how
the
system
is
supposed
to
work.
K
H
Yeah-
and
I
I
appreciate
that,
I
I
understand
marcy's
law-
I
obviously
you
know-
have
a
significant
amount
of
contact
with
victims
of
crime
in
in
my
other
daily
activities.
So
I
I
completely
understand
those
issues,
and
I
was
here
in
2017
when
we
had
very
lengthy
conversations
about
marsy's
law
and
hearings
on
that,
so
I'm
very
familiar
with
marsy's
law
and
what
it
contains
like.
I
said.
H
I
don't
think
that
saying
that
there
should
be
a
reprioritization
based
upon
that
constitutional
amendment
to
say
that
restitution
should
be
paid
in
a
different
order
than
what
is
currently
in
statute.
I
guess
my
question
is
really
because
this
issue
is
not.
I
don't
think
anybody
is
arguing
with
whether
we
should
pay
restitution
before
paying
some
other
things
based
upon
marsy's
law
right.
H
I
don't
think
that
that's
where
there's
a
lot
of
consternation
about
this,
but
what
this
brings
forward
is
this
decision
and
the
authority
that
exists
in
this
statute
to
say
that
it
should
be
based
on
whatever
a
reasonable
decision
is.
So
you
know
what
was
the
percentage
before
it
was.
It
was
reverted
to
80
percent
from
what
was
being
deposited,
for
example,
in
section
1
of
the
bill.
What
was
that
percentage
prior
to
that
decision?.
L
James
jones,
for
the
record,
senator
cavezario.
I
would
defer
this
over
to
venus
de
la
to
answer.
D
H
H
What
prompts
the
decision
for
this
to
go
up
to
80
percent,
because
marcy's
law
doesn't
say
it
has
to
be
80
right,
mercy's
law
says
reasonable
and
timely,
prompt
and
timely
rather,
and
we
have
any
number
of
constitutional
provisions,
statutory
provisions,
time,
provisions
that
deal
with
timely
and
prompt,
that's
always
going
to
be
sort
of
situation
and
case
determinative,
depending
on
what
you're
talking
about.
So
what?
What
prompts
this
whole
decision
to
move
to
80
percent.
M
What
what
makes
something
fair-
and
we
did
look
at
that
and
the
only
way
that
that
we
really
could
compare
ourselves
to
any
other
existing
quote-unquote,
fair
statutes
was
to
look
at
other
states
and
one
of
the
first
things
that
we
realized
that
out
of
the
13
states
that
have
marsy's
law,
our
state,
nevada
and
california
are
the
only
two
states
in
the
union
that
have
a
marxist
law
with
two
dictates
regarding
restitution,
one
that
the
victim
is
paid
prior
to
funds
being
used
for
anything
else
and
two
that
the
victim
is
also
entitled
to
full
and
timely
restitution.
M
So
within
the
united
states,
nevada
and
california
have
the
strongest
restitution
laws
in
the
country.
So
we
looked
at
california.
What
do
they
do
and
we
saw
that
they
take
fifty
percent
in
addition
to
a
five
percent
administrative
fee,
and
we
we
realize
we,
we
probably
don't
need
in
any
kind
of
administrative
fee,
but
given
that
our
laws
are
are
so
similar.
M
That
would
be
something
that
we
could
consider,
so
we
backed
off
from
the
80,
because
we
did
not
think
that
that
it
was
reflexive
of
what
we
were
seeing
in
other
states
that
are
most
like
us.
However,
there
are
still
other
states
that
don't
have
marsy's
law
with
stronger
restitution
components
than
what
nevada
has
arizona.
M
For
example,
they
have
a
specific
subsection
in
in
their
statute,
ars
13.804,
and
it
says
the
restitution
must
be
paid
prior
to
financial
obligations
and
that
the
court
will
determine
how
restitution
will
be
paid
rather
than
their
department
of
corrections.
However,
in
nevada,
it's
it's
left
up
to
the
department
of
corrections,
so
we're
different
in
that
regard.
M
Again,
if
you,
if
you
take
a
look
at
hawaii-
and
these
are
just
a
few
states
that
you
can
easily
look
at-
you-
can
access
their
their
different
policies
online
that
are
still
more
robust
than
what
we
have
in
nevada.
So
we
knew
we
needed
something
more
robust,
but
we
also
knew
we
needed
to
be
fair.
So
really
those
comparisons
are
how
we
ended
up
at
the
the
50
that
we
discussed
at
the
board
of
prison.
H
M
Jennifer
ray
for
the
record:
do
you
chair
to
senator
as
far
as
I'm
aware,
marsy's
law
does
not
seek
to
in
any
way
limit
the
way
in
which
a
state
implements
marxist
law,
meaning
through
which
branch
of
government
or
to
what
extent
it
is.
It
is
simply
a
a
bill
of
rights
for
victims
that
is
enshrined
in
the
constitution,
so
that
it
cannot
be
changed.
So
as
far
as
my
understanding
of
marsy's
law
it,
it
would
be
within
the
scope
of
legislature
to
to
do
so.
H
Yeah-
and
I
guess
that
that
sort
of-
and
this
is
more
of
a
rhetorical
question
and
then
sure
I'm
happy
to
turn
it
back
to
you.
So
the
rest
of
the
members
can
ask
questions,
but
it
sort
of
begs
the
question
of
when
we
talk
when
we're
talking
about
reasonable
and
asking
questions
like
why
80?
Why
50
and
the
and
the
answer
is
well
marcie's
law
says
restitution
has
to
be
paid
first
and
foremost.
H
That
really
isn't
a
dictate.
That's
given
by
that
constitutional
provision
right
as
long
as
we're
putting
procedures
in
place
to
pay
restitution
in
as
timely
a
fashion
as
possible,
which
I
think
this
the
language
here
certainly
does,
but
the
other
issues
that
surround
this
with
regard
to
how
much
we
are
taking
from
various
things
and
again,
I
think,
there's
a
difference
between
when
the
families
are
giving
money
versus
when
an
offender
is
has
wages
that
we
are
taking.
H
Those
are
really
policy
discussions
that
I
think,
give
me
just
some
questions
about
whether
it
would
be
more
prudent
to
put
something
in
statute
that
doesn't
give
discretion,
because
to
me,
marcy's
law
is
not
the
reason
for
why
we
see
percentages
changing
right,
there's
some
sort
of
other
reason
why
we
would
bump
it
up
to
80
or
bump
it
down
to
50,
and
that
may
change
in
the
future.
H
E
Thank
you.
I
think
that
you
elucidated
a
lot
of
the
questions
that
a
lot
of
us
have.
So
I
appreciate
that
vice
chair,
canezaro
and
I'll
move
next
to
senator
orrin
shaw.
O
Thank
you
chair
and
a
couple
questions.
I
want
to
follow
up
a
little
bit
on
the
majority
leader's
questions,
and
I
know
that
it's
it's
a
fine
balance
trying
to
you
know
make
sure
that
victims
are
made
whole
and
also
trying
to
not
dissuade
anyone
who's
incarcerated
from
participating,
work
programs
from
family
trying
to
help
them
while
they're
there
at
ndoc.
O
But
you
know
right
now.
I
I
want
to
turn
to
page
four
of
the
amendment
and
I
wonder
if
anyone
from
ndoc
can
describe
what
they
envisioned
with
this,
this
quarterly
package
program
where
they
arrived
at
the
300
maximum,
you
know
amount
and
the
restriction.
O
The
ability
to
take
part
in
that,
if
someone's
a
disciplinary
segregation
is
that
is
that
something
like
that
currently
happening
with
use
of
funds
on
an
inmate's
account,
or
would
that
be
something
new
that
would
be
instituted
here
in
this
bill.
E
O
E
I
have
no
problem
with
you
asking
the
presenters
they've
also
received
a
copy
of
this
amendment
if
you
want
them
to
to
speak
to
what's
in
the
amendment,
and
you
know
their
response
or
opinions
on
it,
I
just
wanted
to
be
clear
that
this
is
not
coming
from
the
department
of
corrections.
This
is
coming
from
return:
strong
families,
united
for
justice
of
the
incarcerate,
the
american
civil
liberties,
union
of
nevada
and
nevada
attorneys
for
criminal
justice.
O
D
Venus
fajouta,
chief
of
purchasing
and
inmate
services,
senator
oran
shaw,
thank
you
for
the
question.
We
currently
do
provide
a
quarterly
package
program
where
inmates
and
outside
parties
can
purchase
clothing
hygiene
food
items.
The
amendment
submitted
for
your
consideration
is
actually
more
restrictive
than
what
our
current
program
allows.
So
we
actually
allow
a
425
dollar
limit
quarterly
for
most
of
our
locations
for
food
and
clothing
and
then
actually
at
our
transitional
housing
facilities.
D
As
far
as
disciplinary
restrictions,
I'll
have
to
turn
that
over
to
deputy
director
opium.
L
For
the
record
deputy
director,
harold
wickham
department
of
corrections
through
the
chair
to
the
honorable
senator
as
far
as
disciplinary
segregation,
we
typically
do
not
allow
the
package
program
for
disciplinary
segregation
due
to
the
fact
that
there's
obvious
reasons
they're
there
for
a
disciplinary
reason.
So
we
don't
allow
the
amenities
that
come
in
the
packages.
L
We
also
don't
allow
it
in
our
medical
division
and
that's
typically
based
on
doctor
supervision,
because
we
don't
want
people
ordering
a
bunch
of
honey
buns
if
they're
in
there,
for
you
know
specific
reasons,
so
that's
the
primary
reason
and
then
there's
a
space
issue
when
we're
concerned
with
the
medical
facilities,
there's
just
no
storage
space
there,
because
it's
a
temporary
housing
unit.
I
hope
that
answers
your
question,
sir.
O
D
Venus
fajota
for
the
record.
Yes
senator
you
are
correct.
E
Absolutely-
and
that
brings
me
to
a
follow-up
question
without
the
amendment-
will
the
nevada
department
of
corrections
continue
to
with
its
current
package
program.
E
All
right,
thank
you
and
do
any
of
the
other
members
of
the
committee
have
questions.
E
I
am
not
seeing
any
questions,
so
we
will
move
on
to
testimony
and
support
of
sb
22.
Again,
testimony
will
be
limited
to
two
minutes
per
person.
If
you
wish
to
testify,
please
click-
and
you
have
not
already
done
so.
Please
click
on
the
participate
button
next
to
the
agenda
on
the
nellis
website,
you'll
be
prompted
to
provide
your
name
and
email
address
in
order
to
get
the
phone
number
to
call
in
for
those
who
have
already
called
in.
E
P
P
C
C
C
C
C
Both
have
got
out
on
parole,
both
have
left
the
state.
One
has
violated,
parole
and
fell
back
in
custody.
She
has
not
paid
a
dime.
She
sat
in
jail
and
got
an
inmate
website,
my
son,
to
this
day,
10
years
after
screams
and
his
dreams
reliving
this
brutal
murder,
eight
types
of
blood
required
to
him
survive.
C
They
could
not
find
a
pulse
until
the
crime
investigator
came,
sit
there
and
victimize.
Him
again
is
uncomfortable
and
I
will
stand
in
support
of
it,
and
I
want
you
folks,
your
senators
to
put
yourself
in
my
shoes
if
this
was
your
child.
What
would
you
want
forget
about
the
rights
of
a
criminal
who
thinks
nothing
of
taking
someone's
life
and
attempting
to
take
someone's
life?
This
is
not
stealing
a
pack
of
gum.
C
C
P
Q
P
P
P
R
E
All
right,
thank
you.
I'm
going
to
ask
one
more
time:
if
there's
anybody
left
who
wants
to
give
support
testimony,
I'm
sorry,
mr
kyle,
is
it
star
6
or
star
9?
They
need
to.
E
E
P
O
Hello
and
thank
you
chair,
schaible
and
committee
members-
this
is
nick
chipak,
s-h-e-p-a-c-k
policy
and
program
associate
with
the
aclu
of
nevada.
I
want
to
give
you
all
a
brief
history
of
the
inmate
trust
account
issue.
Nacj
will
speak
to
the
amendment
and
return.
Strong
will
address
some
confusion
with
the
package
program,
part
in
september
of
2020,
without
warning
to
incarcerated
individuals
or
families.
The
nevada
department
of
corrections
began
garnishing
family
deposits
to
funds
and
cur
and
money
currently
in
the
trust
account
at
a
rate
of
80
percent.
O
For
those
who
are
restitution,
77
pages
of
letters
from
currently
incarcerated
individuals
from
this
time
have
been
submitted
as
an
exhibit
to
help.
You
understand
the
issue
and
the
importance
of
statutory
caps
on
deduction
this
led
to
a
large
outcry
from
families
and
families
of
the
incarcerated
and
advocacy
organizations
which
garnered
a
good
deal
of
media
attention.
O
The
board
of
prison
commissioners
met
again
on
this
issue.
On
january
25th,
there
was
no
document
available
to
review
before
the
meeting.
A
deadline
for
written
comment
was
originally
set
at
noon.
Six
days
before
the
meeting,
a
decision
was
made
to
temporarily
cap
deductions
at
50,
while
ndoc
prepared
a
new
ar
reflecting
this
decision.
The
deduction
started
without
warning.
Just
a
few
days
ago,
we
had
a
meeting
with
ndoc
recently
to
try
to
find
some
common
ground
on
our
proposed
amendment
for
this
bill.
O
While
we
appreciate
them
taking
the
time
to
meet
with
us,
they
were
not
willing
to
work
with
us
at
that
time.
Our
meeting,
however,
did
help
us
understand
that
ndoc's
legal
team
believes
that
a
gift
to
be
on
the
program
is
unconstitutional,
but
a
package
program
is
not.
That
is
why
we
have
gone
with
a
package
program
in
our
proposed
amendment,
we'd
like
to
see
to
ensure
that
that
exists
in
a
robust
fashion
moving
forward.
O
P
C
Hi
good
afternoon,
chair
and
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is:
will
pregnant
w-I-l-l
like
peter
r-e-g-m-a-n?
Let
me
stand
opposed
to
sp22
as
written.
However,
we
rise
in
support
of
the
amendment
property
by
aclu
and
return
strong
for
the
following
reasons.
Without
statutory
protections,
families
of
the
incarcerator
are
left
in
an
extremely
stressful
situation,
where
they're
unsure,
if
they'll
be
able
to
provide
for
their
loved
ones
who
are
incarcerated.
C
We
urge
endoc
to
work
with
the
impacted
families
advocate
organizations
and
legislators
to
find
a
balance
that
protects
both
families,
the
incarcerated
and
the
victims
who
are
owed
their
due
restitution
families
need
clarity
of
how
much
money
they
expect
to
be
deducted
from
their
deposits.
Caps
will
help
with
and
the
caps
will
help
with
this.
While
everyone
agrees,
the
victims
deserve
restitution.
The
burden
of
restitution
should
not
be
placed
on
the
family
members
of
those
incarcerated.
Thank
you
for
your.
P
P
D
These
things
are
always
important,
but
during
a
pandemic
even
more,
so
it's
inconceivable
to
me
that
the
hundred
dollars
that
I
manage
to
send
my
husband
every
month
would
no
longer
be
enough.
I
work
a
full-time
job
and
a
part-time
job,
and
we
have
six
kids
between
us
and
living
from
paycheck
to
paycheck
is
hard
enough,
and
yet,
despite
that,
how
lucky
am
I
that
I
still
have
a
job
at
this
point,
so
many
others
are
not
so
lucky,
so
imagine
being
in
that
same
situation,
while
also
facing
housing
and
job
insecurity.
D
I
have
been
both
the
victim
of
a
crime
and
now
I'm
the
wife
of
an
incarcerated
individual,
and
I
personally
did
not
choose
to
become
a
victim
when
I
was
13-
and
I
also
did
not
victimize
anyone
myself,
but
while
I
realized
that
victims
are
entitled
to
restitution,
I
do
not
believe
that
anyone,
except
the
person
responsible
for
the
crime,
should
be
held
accountable
for
it.
I
did
not,
and
still
don't
expect,
that
man's
wife
or
his
adult
kids
to
pay
for
my
medical
expenses
by
garnishing
it
from
what
families
deposit
on
these
accounts.
P
C
Hi,
jim
hoffman,
representing
nevada,
attorneys
for
criminal
justice,
similar
to
what
mr
chipak
stated.
We
currently
oppose
this
bill,
but
we
would
support
it
if
the
proposed
amendment
on
nellis
were
adopted,
I'm
here
to
explain
the
amendment.
The
overall
goal
is
to
establish
a
predictable,
transparent
process
so
that
both
inmates
and
victims
know
how
things
are
going
to
work
while
not
preventing
families
from
supporting
inmates
in
their
attempts
to
rehabilitate
to
explain
the
specific
provisions.
The
amendment
basically
makes
four
changes.
C
C
Third,
the
amendment
would
allow
families
to
deposit
up
to
300
once
per
quarter
without
any
deductions.
I
know
there
were
some
concerns
with
this
part
of
the
bill
I'll.
Let
return
strong
address
that,
but
I
want
to
note
that
we
would
not
have
a
problem
with
changing
that
amount
to
reflect
current
practice.
These
two
changes
would
ensure
that
families
are
able
to
pay
for
a
minimal
amount
of
things
like
food
postage
or
anti-covered
cleaning
supplies
without
just
having
that
be
confiscated.
C
Finally,
the
amendment
would
require
ndoc
to
give
what
are
essentially
bank
statements
to
inmates
so
that
everything
is
transparent
and
predictable
for
inmates
and
their
families.
We
believe
this
amendment
would
strike
an
appropriate
balance
between
the
needs
of
inmates
and
their
families,
the
needs
of
victims
and
the
administrative
interest
of
ndoc.
We
urge
you
to
support
it.
Thank
you.
P
P
D
A-M-A-N-D-A-C-A-N-D-E-L-A-R-I-A
and
I'm
here
in
opposition
of
sb
22
as
it
stands
right
now,
my
loved
one
is
currently
incarcerated
at
nncc
and
we
will
be
greatly
affected
by
the
changes
that
ndoc
is
trying
to
implement
for
the
inmate
deductions.
His
mother
and
I
have
been
supporting
him
financially
when
we
were
able
to,
but
due
to
kobit
19.
His
mother
is
no
longer
working
and
is
on
a
very
fixed
income.
I
myself
work
full
time,
but
I
have
children
and
grandchildren
of
my
own
to
support.
Still
we
do
what
we
can.
D
D
Wouldn't
it
make
more
sense
to
lower
the
deduction
amount
to
25,
so
something
can
be
taken
out
for
what
he
owes,
rather
than
have
it
be
at
50
or
higher,
and
we
spend
nothing
also
in
other
prison
systems
such
as
california,
family
members
are
able
to
order
weekly
commissary
online
for
their
loved
ones.
Would
it
be
too
much
to
ask
for
ndoc
to
look
into
doing
this?
Also,
we
fully
understand
the
obligation.
Our
loved
one
has
to
pay
his
restitution,
but
please
understand
that
this
is
his
obligation,
not
ours.
D
P
P
A
Good
afternoon
my
name
is
jenna:
j
e
n,
a
chapman
e-h-a-t-m-a-n
and
my
husband
is
incarcerated
in
ndoc.
I
want
to
try
to
explain
to
you
some
of
the
things
that
haven't
been
said.
Yet
my
husband
was
brought
to
nevada
for
a
parole
violation.
He
didn't
submit
his
change
of
address
now.
He
is
back
in
prison
finishing
his
time
right
before
he
was
moved.
He
was
diagnosed
with
stage
3
prostate
cancer.
While
we
are
not
personally
impacted,
I
want
to
address
some
of
the
things
that
cause
additional
impact
for
families
with
these
deductions.
A
Yes,
we
spend
money
for
food
and
hygiene,
but
we
also
spend
money
for
their
medical
treatment.
Nevada
is
the
only
state
in
the
country
that
has
not
ended
medical
co-pays
for
inmates
during
covert,
so
our
loved
ones
still
pay
eight
dollars
for
medical
care,
and
if
they
don't
have
it,
we
will
have
to
pay
it
one
way
or
another.
The
idea
that
they
award
their
estate
and
are
taken
care
of
is
just
not
true.
So
if
the
deductions
leave
you
indigent,
you
don't
have
the
eight
dollars
to
be
medical
or
even
worse.
A
If
your
medical
condition
worsens,
you
have
to
calm
man
down,
which
is
like
9-1-1
that
will
cost
you
85
during
coven.
Ndoc
did
not
freely
make
remedies
available
like
most
states,
they
changed,
they
charged
our
loved
ones.
For
the
most
basic
remedy.
The
nurse
at
gene
conservation
camp
stood
in
the
front
of
a
dorm
of
women
who
were
all
sick
with
cough
drops
and
telling
them.
It
was
ten
dollars
for
six
to
eight
cough
drops
when
the
director
deemed
it
reasonable
to
take
80
percent
and
now
50
percent
of
people's
money
for
restitution.
A
It
is
the
reality
of
survival
that
was
left
out
of
the
story
when
he
is
questioned
at
the
prison
board
of
commissioners
or
the
sentencing
commission,
or
here
he
doesn't
ever
tell
the
whole
story.
I
don't
know
why
either
he
is
that
out
of
touch
with
reality
of
what
is
happening
or
he
just
doesn't
care
or
he
lies.
There
are
not
very
many
options
and
I
don't
know
the
answer,
but
I
know
this.
What
happened
in
september
and
is
happening
now
is
not
reasonable.
A
I
understand
that
reasonable,
like
timely
is
subjective,
but
without
definition,
the
director
has
proved
himself
unreasonable
and
we
need
to
make
sure
that
he
can't
be
given
the
power
to
make
decisions
like
this.
Without
someone
providing
true
oversight,
I
have
no
choice
but
to
be
an
opposition
of
sb
22.
Our
very
last
depend
on
you
protecting
us
from
the
whim
of
the
director.
Thank
you.
P
N
L-A-B-I-N-A-W-A-G-O-N-E-R
and
I
have
a
loved
one
at
ndoc,
who
has
been
impacted
by
the
deductions,
which
then
puts
the
additional
burden
on
our
family.
We
are
already
living
without
his
income
and
now
to
make
sure
he
would
be
okay.
We
would
need
to
send
extra,
which
honestly
we
just
can't
do.
We
are
in
a
opposition
of
sb-22,
because,
honestly,
it
has
created
a
disaster
for
incarcerated
people
and
their
families.
We
received
a
letter
from
a
woman
at
gene
conservation
camp
that
was
so
upsetting.
N
She
has
worked
to
get
a
place
where
she
is
rebuilding
her
life.
She
is
at
gene
and
working
for
ndf.
She
wrote
this.
I
think
it
is
just
wrong
to
take
money
from
our
families
and
put
on
our
books
to
help
us.
I
understand
that
our
victims
deserve
restitution
and
understand
fines
and
fees
should
be
taken
from
any
prison
earned
wages,
but
not
from
the
money
our
f
family
sent.
This
is
not
their
responsibility
and
sadly,
they
already
pay
the
cost
financially
and
do
the
time
emotionally
with
us.
N
It
is
hard
to
understand
when
you
aren't
living
it
at
the
camp.
We
have
multiple
sets
of
various
overpriced,
closing
items
to
work
for
ndf.
In
addition,
at
camp
we
pay
for
room
and
board
fire
packs
and
other
random
things.
We
make
almost
no
money
working
for
them
and
can't
get
a
job
with
them
once
we
are
free,
but
now
even
the
money
my
family
sent
to
allow
me
to
purchase
these
work.
Related
items
is
gone.
I
am
basically
forced
to
work
and
hustle
around
the
camp
to
obtain
what
my
family
already
tried
to
provide.
N
For
me,
I
am
doing
everything
in
my
power
to
get
my
life
together,
but
it
feels
like
a
fruitless
endeavor.
It
feels
hopeless.
Was
this
the
point
of
marzi's
law?
I
don't
think
it
was.
I'm
asking
you
today
for
all
the
reasons
that
I
have
mentioned
to
protect
us
in
any
way
you
can
from
the
director
deciding
what
is
reasonable.
He
has
proven
that
he
should
not
have
power.
Thank
you.
P
P
I
My
name
is
nicole,
tate
t-a-t-e,
a
registered
voter
in
senate
district
8..
I'm
calling
in
today
for
opposition
of
sb-22
the
addition
of
marshy's
law
to
the
nevada
constitution
was
said
to
have
inspired
these
changes.
However,
the
verbiage
of
marshes,
while
states
for
victims
to
receive
full
and
timely
restitution,
while
the
nrs
does
include
definitions
for
a
vast
variety
of
terms.
The
definition
of
timely
does
not
exist.
I
Timely,
a
word
that
could
have
different
definition
for
different
people,
in
addition,
is
the
period
of
time,
while
one
is
incarcerated,
the
most
appropriate
time
to
start
collecting
these
funds,
as
even
if
employed,
are
only
making
slave
wages
at
best.
Let's
face
it,
the
only
funds
an
incarcerated
person
can
really
use
are
the
ones
sent
in
by
their
family
members
once
an
individual
is
released
in
on
parole,
probation
restitution
is
still
owed.
I
Nrs176A.430
allows
someone
in
danger
of
violating
those
conditions
for
failure
to
pay
restitution
to
be
entitled
a
financial
hardship
hearing.
This
is
why
someone
is
out
of
prison
and
able
to
make
at
least
a
minimum
wage.
How
is
it
determined
that
someone
who
does
not
have
the
same
ability
of
wage
earning
be
held
to
a
higher
standard,
as
there
is
no
financial
hardship,
hearing
capability
for
them
or
their
family?
I
Even
during
a
pandemic,
when
a
large
portion
of
people
are
suffering
financially
family
members
who
wish
to
send
funds
to
support
the
hygiene
and
food
needs
of
their
loved
ones,
as
what
is
provided
by
ndoc
is
not
adequate.
I
don't
believe
the
spirit
of
marcy's
law
was
meant
for
the
families
of
the
incarcerated
to
be
the
ones
financially
responsible
for
the
payment
of
restitution.
I
have
dealt
with
similar
type
of
financial
deductions
from
ndoc
for
medical
bills.
From
an
injury
my
husband
incurred,
while
incarcerated
for
every
100
I
sent
he
received
approximately
30..
I
In
addition,
I
would
like
you
to
invite
the
invite
you
to
inspect
the
price
differences
of
package
items
between
nevada
and
california.
Prices
here
are
substantially
higher.
These
are
just
a
few
reasons
why
I
would
like
to
vote
you
to
vote
no,
as
sb
22
has
written.
Thank
you
for
your
time
and
consideration.
P
S
Since
september.
First,
I
have
stood
with
other
families
and
have
seen
the
distress
that
it
caused.
The
family
I
am
representing
is
unable
to
attend
today
due
to
working
and
they
can't
risk
losing
their
jobs
and
ask
me
to
speak
for
them.
This
family
has
sacrificed
during
their
child's
incarceration
in
order
to
help
him
be
able
to
turn
a
new
leaf
and
redeem
himself
from
the
choices
he
made
that
were
never
intentionally
criminal
but
were
due
to
abusing
drugs.
She
says
I
am
writing
this
letter
under
much
distress.
S
Due
to
the
decision
to
defend
from
my
son's
account.
It
is
unreasonable
to
believe
that
this
decision
does
not
victimize
families
the
way
the
deductions
were
taken.
First,
at
80
percent
and
now
at
50,
without
warning
blind
type
families.
I
understand
there
are
victims
who
have
not
received
restitution
for
the
crimes
committed
against
them.
I
am
not
insensitive
to
their
being,
however,
the
responsibility
of
the
person
who
committed
the
problem.
He
is
released
and
begins
the
process
of
restoring
what
is
required.
S
I
haven't
made
my
question:
it
has
been
an
investment
in
my
child
to
help
him
find
a
new
direction
when
he
is
released
by
taking
these
funds.
This
way,
ndoc
is
robbing
him
of
opportunity
to
voluntarily
restore
what
he
broke
and
robbing
me
of
the
ability
to
provide
the
foundation
for
a
different
direction
for
him.
S
Families
were
never
meant
to
pay
full
and
timely
restitution.
The
state
of
illinois,
also
a
marcy's
law
state,
has
created
that
hold
the
offender
responsible
for
restitution.
They
allow
five
years
after
release
to
repay
their
restitution.
I
am
in
opposition
of
b22.
The
director
has
not
been
responsible
in
his
decisions.
He
has
not
been
reasonable
and
I
fear
the
power
that
has
given
him
in
this
bill.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
P
P
A
A
The
past
several
months
has
been
a
roller
coaster,
trying
to
deal
with
all
of
the
confusion
of
how
or
why
the
director
thought
that
it
was
reasonable
to
take
80
percent
plus
of
anyone's
income
was
no
notice
during
a
pan
debbie
I
mean
it
was
bad
enough
dealing
with
the
pandemic
out
here,
but
to
add
that
to
wondering
what
happens
to
my
loved
one,
if
he
gets
colgate
in
there,
but
then
he
got
cold,
but
I
remember
when
all
this
was
happening.
It
didn't
feel
real.
I
have
two
young
children.
One
is
the
really
autistic.
A
I
literally
took
all
of
my
money
and
sent
him
a
package
with
275
of
bars
of
soap
and
lotion
and
deodorant,
because
I
was
watching
everything
run
out
on
store
shelves
out
here
and
was
terrified
of
all
the
things
that
could
go
wrong
if
he
didn't
at
least
have
soap.
He
is
diabetic
and
57
years
old.
It
was
crazy,
real
fear
and
panic.
I
sent
him
the
rest
of
the
money.
I
had
and
then
I
lost
my
job
due
to
the
pandemic.
A
Then
the
director
thought
it
was
reasonable
to
take
80
of
the
money
I
sent
for
victim
restitution
and
left
all
of
us
struggling.
It
was
like
being
caught
in
a
landslide
that
just
wouldn't
stop
drowning
me.
I
was
helpless
to
fix
it.
We
had
kids
out
of
school,
no
job,
we
didn't
have
what
we
needed,
but
he
was
even
worse
off
and
all
I
could
think
of
was
what
happened
if
we
lose
him.
What
if
his
sentence
with
an
out
of
date,
becomes
a
death
sentence,
then
it
is
your
family.
A
You
make
a
sacrifice
to
make
sure
you
know
they
are
safe,
even
if
that
means
we
hit
food
banks,
we
could
survive
and
protect
ourselves
out
here,
but
what
was
he
going
to
do
with
a
hotel
side,
bar
soap
or
roll
with
toilet
paper,
and
one
thread
bear
mask
to
last
per
month.
All
of
these
things
together
have
created
anxiety
that
makes
life
very
functional
some
days.
We
all
are
loved
ones.
All
the
families
need
some
certainty.
The
director
has
ripped
the
rug
out
from
under
families
twice.
He
did
it
again
march
1st.
P
R
R
Consequently,
people
end
up
continuing
to
pay
on
cases
that
have
long
since
been
paid
off
and
for
the
record
incarcerated
people
have
little
ability
to
get
that
corrected.
If
any.
This
writer
says
this
month
out
of
the
four
hundred
dollars
that
was
sent
to
me,
I
am
able
to
spend
59
and
17
cents
on
canteen.
This
is
for
restitution
that
I
do
not
believe
I
even
still
owe
and
have
grieved
with
no
response.
It
is
from
an
expired
case.
In
2007.
R
R
I
haven't
been
able
to
afford
phone
time
to
call
my
five-year-old
son,
it's
crazy,
because
I
heard
about
the
director
saying
that
families
can
buy
phone
minutes
for
us
to
call
them,
which
is
true.
What
isn't
true
is
that
my
ex
isn't
going
to
buy
a
phone
minutes
for
me
to
talk
to
my
son.
I
budget
that
out
of
the
money
that
I
have
coming
in
tell
the
whole
story.
Director
daniels.
R
R
P
T
What
bothers
me
about
my
sentence,
however,
is
how
it
affects
my
family,
who
love
me,
for
they
are
innocent,
law-abiding
people
with
love
and
compassion
in
their
hearts.
It
seems
unjust
to
punish
them
by
association
for
my
crimes,
I've
already
seen
firsthand
how
much
pain
is
spread
exponentially
by
one
death
or
murder.
The
restitution
I'm
ordered
to
pay
is
confusing
to
me,
however,
because
I
am
legally
forbidden
from
earning
a
wage
by
default,
because
I
am
on
death
row.
I
live
in
isolation
due
to
that
status.
T
You
can't
have
it
both
ways
so
either
you
want
me
to
pay
for
my
crimes,
monetarily
or
you
want
me
to
pay
with
my
life,
but
I
can't
do
both
and
mercy's
law
and
nevada's
implementation
of
deductions
does
not
account
for
any
of
that
life
on
death
row
is
lonely
and
miserable,
and
the
state
does
not
provide
adequately
for
a
person
to
survive
in
isolation
out
of
love.
My
family
provides
me
financially,
so
I
can
buy
clothes
to
wear
stamps
and
phone
time
to
communicate
with
them,
food,
coffee,
art
supplies
and
a
handful
of
appliances.
T
So
I
don't
lose
my
mind
and
humanity
altogether
under
normal
normal
circumstances
as
conditions
that
elite
and
death
row
are
deplorable,
with
the
pandemic
is
even
more
intense.
The
pandemic
has
affected
my
family
with
illness
and
job
loss,
and
then
this
revised
ar
in
the
destruction
sp
22
is
not
about
deduction,
but
it's
about
power.
The
director
doesn't
need
a
bill
to
order
deductions,
and
we
all
know
it.
He
needs
it
to
retain
unchecked
power.
We
oppose
this
p22
myself.
This
writer
and.
P
F
Good
afternoon
my
name
is
tammy
irvine
t-a-m-I-I-r-v-I-n-e,
my
loved
one
is
incarcerated
at
high
desert
state
prison
and
I
live
in
senate
district
3..
I
am
in
opposition
to
sb
22
and
will
read
a
letter
from
a
member
who
couldn't
attend
today
because
they're
at
work.
This
is
what
she
wrote
regarding
her
family
experience.
During
the
time
the
director
implemented
the
deductions.
F
My
name
is
laura
and
I'm
writing.
In
regards
to
an
experience.
Last
fall
when
money
was
taken
from
inmate
accounts,
my
husband
is
incarcerated
in
nevada.
He
wasn't
personally
impacted,
but
the
truth
is.
We
are
all
in
a
horrible
position.
This
deduct.
This
decision
impacts
us
all
inside
the
prison
and
outside
inmates
who
has
money
and
who
don't.
My
husband
immediately
noticed
a
shift
in
the
dynamic
on
the
tear
inmates
who
no
longer
have
money
are
pressuring
other
inmates
who
do
to
purchase
for
them
because
survival
kicks
in.
F
In
order
to
achieve
their
highest
level
of
humanity,
they
must
have
their
basic
human
needs
met.
The
deductions
partnered
with
the
impact
of
the
pandemic
extended
lockdowns
no
contact
with
their
families,
because
the
visits
have
been
stopped
for
a
full
year,
along
with
the
aftermath
of
the
destructive
covet
outbreak,
it
is
been
traumatic
for
both
people
inside
the
prison
and
families
outside.
We
can't
continue
this
way
as
a
concerned-
wife,
citizen
and
voter
who
actually
supported
marcie's
law
when
it
was
on
the
ballot.
This
is
not
what
I
believed
it
would
be.
F
This
is
an
abuse
of
power
and
the
only
opportunity
to
stop
it
is
to
stop
the
passing
of
sb
22..
I
post
sb
22
in
its
current
form.
Now
speaking
for
myself,
it
is
concerning
the
director
is
now
choosing
to
implement
this
deduction,
because
even
50
is
outrageous.
F
When
would
you
what
would
you
do
if
you
woke
up
one
morning
and
eighty
percent
of
everything
your
mother
owned
was
gone
and
she
suddenly
lived
on
fifty
percent
of
her
income?
Would
you
find
you
would
find
any
means
necessary
to
help
support
her
or
families
do
not
have
a
choice?
The
pressure
will
be
on
us
to
find
a
way
to
be
there
for
our
loved
ones.
I
am
in
opposition
of
sb
22
for
all
the
reasons
I
have
stated
and
for
the
fairness
of
basic
human
needs.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
P
P
G
G
My
husband
and
brother
are
incarcerated
in
nevada
department
of
corrections,
like
many
others,
you
have
heard
from
today
via
letter
and
voice.
Our
family
has
been
affected
by
the
garnishments
placed
on
inmate
accounts
director
daniels,
deemed
it
reasonable
to
deduct
up
to
80
of
the
money
received
by
inmates
to
pay
restitution.
G
He
said
that
it's
only
impacted
1800
people
that
specifically
owned
victim
restitution,
but
the
cost
of
incarceration
is
high
and
ultimately,
families
pay
for
it
to
keep
our
bonds
with
our
father,
mothers,
grandparents,
children,
phone
minutes,
quarterly
packages,
money
on
their
books
and
etc.
It's
all
expensive.
These
garnishments
is
falling
on
us,
the
families
of
prisoners
in
nevada.
We.
A
G
Our
children
are
paying
the
price
and
impact
to
these
deductions.
When
this
first
happened,
we
sent
a
test
amount,
because
we
had
no
idea
what
was
going
on
and
I
couldn't
afford
to
lose
the
little
money
I
had
so
I
sent
twenty
dollars.
He
received
four
dollars
in
that
the
state
left
him
in
digit,
but
less
than
10.
In
his
account,
the
money
we
send
is
not
for
luxury.
It's
for
basic
necessities.
G
Hygiene,
food
and
things
of
that
nature,
which
they
currently
receive,
is
not
sufficient
either
in
quality
or
quantity.
Do
you
know
that
during
the
culvert
outbreak,
we
turn
strong?
We
see
letter
after
letter
after
letter
from
different
facilities,
everyone
with
the
same
thing,
lack
of
food
and
different
things:
a
hard-boiled
egg
and
a
piece
of
bread
for
breakfast
people
reported
a
slice
of
bologna
and
a
pack
of
mayonnaise
and
packs
of
salt
and
peppers
for
a
bag,
lunch
oatmeal
with
maggots
at
nncc.
G
We
send
money
for
food
because
it's
a
necessity.
We
must
remember
that,
regardless
of
crime
and
culpability,
our
loved
ones
are
human.
Before
they
are
inmates,
and
as
such,
they
are
worthy
of
being
loved
and
thought
of
and
cared
for.
The
money
we
sent
to
our
loved
ones
is
how
we
can
convey
those
things,
especially
at
times
like
this,
when
we
are
unable
to
physically
see
or
touch
them.
These
are
very
trying
and
unprecedented
times,
but
all
that
is
happening
around
us
and
we
are
struggling,
whether
it
be
financially
emotionally
or
physically.
P
I
I
Since
september
1st,
I
could
have
just
paid
his
restitution
and
called
it
a
day,
but
something
about
this
feels
wrong
feels
wrong
for
the
burden
to
be
put
on
me,
even
though
I
love
him
and
forgive
him
for
the
choices
he
made
to
end
up
back
in
prison,
his
restitution
is
purely
his.
I
don't
own
any
part
of
that,
then
I
started
thinking
about
the
pieces
of
injustice
that
are
part
of
this
system.
I
Incarceration
doesn't
mean
that
justice
was
served,
doesn't
define
a
moral
line
between
victim
and
offender,
and
it
doesn't
always
equate
to
right
or
wrong.
It
just
means
that
one
person
has
a
debt
that
is
owed
to
another
I've
obsessed
about
this
for
months.
I
kept
thinking
about
it
and
I
came
to
the
point
where
I
really
have
been
focused
on
two
words:
they've
been
thrown
around
today,
multiple
times
by
both
sides
and
the
first
one
is
reasonable.
I
I
decided
to
go.
Look
it
up,
because
I
wanted
to
do
more
than
say
it
doesn't
feel
reasonable.
So
reasonable
is
two
things.
One
is
having
sound
judgment,
fair
and
sensible.
The
second
reason-
the
second
definition
is
as
much
as
is
appropriate
or
fair
or
moderate.
The
way
the
director
approaches
decision
regarding
inmate
deductions
did
not
follow
any
of
those
criteria.
It
wasn't
reasonable
in
any
shape
or
form
and
sorry,
even
under
director,
daniel's
own
current
explanation.
Today
it
was
so
completely
random.
It
wasn't
made
with
sound
judgment.
I
The
second
word
that
I
keep
thinking
about
is
timely
and
that's
defined
as
occurring
as
a
state
occurring
at
a
favorable
or
youthful
time.
You
apply
that
to
inmates
trying
to
pay
restitution
when
they
aren't
unable
to
work.
It
doesn't
seem
like
that
is
a
relevant
term,
even
though
it
was
put
into
the
constitution.
I
Ndoc
repeatedly
brings
up
states
that
have
more
robust
marshes
law
requirements,
but
what
they
don't
talk
about
are
the
states
that
have
more
fair
marsy's
law
process
like
south
dakota
that
allows
offenders
a
sliding
fee
and
to
create
a
budget
with
their
case
worker
ohio
inmates
only
pay,
25
percent,
but
only
from
work
programs.
Illinois
doesn't
take
restitution
from
in-million
accounts.
They
have
five
years
post
incarceration
to
pay
that
debt.
Why
does
ndoc
only
mention
the
states
that
are
more
aggressive
instead
of
all
of
the
information?
I
I
E
C
P
P
J
V-A-L-E-R-I-E-O-N-E-I-L-L
good
afternoon
my
name
is
valerie
and
I'm
a
voter
in
senate
district
12
and
my
son
is
incarcerated
in
nevada
department
of
corrections
and
I'm
here
to
try
to
express
to
you
how
horrible
this
has
been
on
incarcerated
people
and
on
their
family.
There
are
some
things
you
just
may
not
understand
about
life
as
a
prison
family,
and
today
I
want
to
try
to
paint
a
picture
of
what
life
is
like,
especially
when
the
director
deemed
it
reasonable
that
up
to
100
of
the
person's
income
could
be
taken
for
victim
restitution.
J
My
son
doesn't
owe
victim
recitation,
but
I
stand
with
families
and
people
you
will
hear
from
today,
and
I'm
going
to
tell
you
the
story
of
a
woman
from
gene
camp
who
wrote
to
return
strong
about
the
devastation
that
this
caused.
She
works
for
the
nevada
division
of
forestry
and
does
a
variety
of
jobs
in
the
prison,
but
the
prison
doesn't
provide
her
the
thing
she
needs
to
do
her
job.
J
She
has
been
saving
for
thermals
and
a
coat
and
sweats
and
gloves
to
be
able
to
stay
warm
while
working
along
the
side
of
the
highway.
This
winter,
so
she
woke
up
on
september
1st
and
her
money
was
gone
without
notice.
Her
family
has
lost
all
their
jobs
due
to
living
in
vegas
during
the
pandemic
and
are
not
able
to
help
her.
As
a
matter
of
fact,
she
sent
some
help
for
her
grandkids
out
of
the
very
small
wages
she
receives.
J
In
her
letter
she
says
most
of
their
money
goes
for
children,
grandchildren,
rent
gas
food.
Do
you
see
where
this
is
going?
Because
of
this?
I
can't
even
afford
hygiene
if
my
family
could
send
one
hundred
dollars,
ndoc
would
take
ten
percent
for
the
savings
spend
the
eighty
percent,
which
is
now
fifty
percent
for
restitution.
That
leaves
us
ten
dollars
to
buy
one
box
of
tampons
ndoc
gives
us
seven
pads
per
month.
Can
you
imagine
making
a
three
year
cycle
on
seven
pads?
J
I
would
love
to
be
able
to
watch
with
real
soap,
not
the
lie.
They
give
us
even
once
in
a
while,
not
to
mention
some
food,
coffee
or
ivory
efficient.
What
would
you
sacrifice
for
your
loved
one?
How
would
it
feel
to
know
you
had
to
choose
between
your
mother
eating
or
your
child
eating?
These
decisions
have
consequences
on
real
life,
people
and
families,
and
you
just
can't
separate
them
by
when
they
hit
the
send
button
on
money.
J
P
Q
C-H-A-R-R-I-S-E-L-O-T-H-A-M-E-R,
my
loved
one
is
incarcerated
at
warm
springs
correctional
center.
While
we
are
not
directly
impacted,
it
is
ludicrous
to
think
that
we
would
not
all
be
impacted,
as,
as,
as
others
have
said,
we
stand
together
as
community
against
sb
22
and
the
power
it
has
given
director
daniel
to
tear
our
lives
apart.
Q
Q
D
Q
Will
take
responsibility,
but
not,
but
once
the
state
chooses
to
incarcerate
someone,
there
is
obvious
acknowledgment
that
that
person
does
not
have
an
actual
income
or
an
opportunity
at
a
living
wage.
Even
if
they
are
working
in
a
prison,
they
don't
earn
a
living
wage
and
living
in
prison
isn't
free.
Q
Q
My
wife
is
essential,
essentially
a
single
parent
due
to
my
poor
choices.
She's
left
working
full
time,
while
overseeing
remote
learning
for
four
young
youngest
children
due
to
the
pandemic,
she's
struggling
to
keep
her
job
and
food
on
the
table
and
housing
and
our
oldest
child
lost
their
job
and
moved
home
due
to
coca-19.
Needless
to
say,
there
isn't
much
left
over
in
september.
She
managed
to
send
me
twenty
dollars
and
that
was
difficult
to
come
by.
Q
She
was
charged
a
hefty
fee
to
send
me
the
money,
eight
dollars
to
send
twenty
dollars
by
the
time
indox
took
deduction.
She
paid
twenty
dollars
for
me
to
receive
twelve
dollars.
Twenty
five
cents,
no
one
is
denying
that
victims
deserve
restitution.
Oddly,
many
of
the
women
who
you
have
heard
from
today
and
many
letters
from
the
incarcerated
people
have
been
victims
of
crimes
and
not
just
offenders.
Q
T
P
E
All
right,
you're
indicating
there
are
no
callers
in
the
queue
to
give
opposition
testimony.
P
E
Okay,
I'm
going
to
keep
it
open
for
opposition
testimony
and,
let's,
let's
go
to
the
first
caller
who's
currently
in
the
queue,
and
they
can.
Let
us
know
if
they're,
not
in.
P
A
W-I-L-L-I-A-M-S
and
I
reside
in
senate
district
17.,
I'm
here
to
share
a
letter
from
an
incarcerated
person
impacted
by
the
revision
in
september
and
their
concerns
and
thoughts
about
it
to
take
80
or
even
50
percent
of
people's
earnings,
as
well
as
gifts
sent
to
them
by
their
family,
says
to
that
person.
You
are
less
than
nothing
and
we
can
and
will
take
from
you
whatever
we
choose.
Obviously
that
is
a
really
horrible
feeling
to
know
that,
because
of
your
past,
you
will
be
crushed
at
every
opportunity.
A
Under
no
circumstances
can
you
call
it
fair
or
reasonable.
We
are
already
being
punished
for
a
crime
by
the
loss
of
our
freedom.
Restitution
is
technically
not
a
punishment
for
the
crime
restitution
is
repaying,
restoring
or
compensating,
while
the
deductions
aren't
intended
to
be
punishment.
The
way
they
have
been
implemented
have
clearly
resulted
in
that
anyway.
A
Then
there
is
the
impact
of
on
families.
I
only
have
my
mother.
If
I
tell
my
elderly
mother,
I
need
a
deodorant
and
the
deodorant
is
250
and
she
has
to
pay
another
fee
to
send
me
the
250,
let's
say
five
dollars
and
then
to
offset
the
deduction
she
has
to
spend
12
dollars
plus
the
fee.
She
has
to
send
17
for
me
to
get
a
2.50
deal.
How
is
that
reasonable?
A
My
mother
is
a
law-abiding
tax,
paying
citizen
who
is
just
trying
to
help
me
because
she
loves
me.
Regardless
of
what
brought
me
to
prison,
we
have
people
who
care
about
us
and
only
want
the
best
for
us,
even
if
that
only
means
a
new
deodorant,
justin
justice
in
its
purest
form
is
about
balance.
That's
why
the
scales
of
justice
right
the
balance
between
crime
and
punishment
and
rehabilitation.
A
P
R
R
A-R-E-L-I-R-O-D-R-I-G-U-E-Z,
I
am
here
today
to
read
a
portion
of
a
letter
written
by
one
of
members
who
is
incarcerated
and
the
impact
all
of
this
has
had
on
her
family.
My
hope
in
writing
is
to
bring
attention
to
the
effects
that
the
change
to
inmate
detentions
bring
not
only
to
inmates
but
to
our
families
as
well.
R
First,
I
understand
the
reasoning
behind
marty's
law
and
agree
that
victims
deserve
restitution,
but
I
am
the
one
that
caught
the
pain
and
only
I
should
be
the
one
that
makes
these
payments
for
restitution
if
someone
pays
pays
it
for
me
handles
my
consequences.
It
allows
me
to
avoid
the
consequences
myself
taking
care
of
your
own
obligations
is
a
part
of
a
restorative
restorative
process
that
heals
people.
R
I
also
understand
from
my
mother's
perspective.
She
is
the
only
person
that
has
remained
supportive
of
me
through
my
income
incarceration.
She
also
now
cares
for
my
seven-year-old
daughter
and
consequently
rarely
can
give
me
financial
support.
I
have
survived
in
prison
on
the
on
a
twenty
dollar
dollar
per
month.
I
make
for
working
within
the
facility.
Even
from
that.
I
send
five
dollars
home
every
month
to
help
my
mom,
even
if
it
only
pays
for
a
field
trip
I
gave
what
I
could.
R
These
deductions
aren't
only
about
the
money,
but
now
I
can't
afford
phone
time
to
call
my
mother
and
daughter
and
try
to
maintain
a
relationship
with
both
of
them.
I
know
that
the
director
said
that
our
families
can
buy
phone
time
for
us,
and
that
is
half
true,
but
only
true
if
they
have
the
money
to
purchase
purchase
it
in
the
first
place.
The
biggest
indicator
of
my
successful
transition
home
is
maintaining
community
and
family
connections.
That
is,
that
has
now
become
impossible.
R
I
understand
there
are
many
factors
to
consider,
but
I
hope
my
letter
served
its
purpose
in
boarding
your
perspective.
For
all
the
reasons
we
previously
mentioned,
the
fact
that
director
still
has
not
been
100,
truthful
and
families
have
not
been
able
to
have
a
seat
at
the
table
to
show
the
other
side
of
the
truth,
because
it
is
clear
that
there
has
been
little
interest
in
the
whole
truth.
I
stand
with
other
families
and
opposed
to
sb
22
in
its
current
format.
Thank
you.
P
P
C
R
P
R
Good
afternoon
my
name
is
amber
cannon
a-m-d-e-r-c-a-n-n-o-n.
First,
I
want
to
thank
the
senate
judiciary
committee
for
taking
time
to
listen
to
us.
I
do
have
a
loved
one
who
is
incarcerated
at
warm
springs,
professional
center,
which
is
located
in
senate
district
16,
and
I
am
here
today
to
speak
as
a
victim
who
has
owed
his
own
restitution
and
also
to
speak
on
behalf
of
an
impacted
family
who
can't
be
here
due
to
work.
Her
name
is
nikki
graves,
and
this
is
what
she
has
sent
to
us
and
asked
us
to
tell
her
your
story.
R
Nikki
writes.
I
am
writing
in
regards
to
the
struggles
myself
and
other
families
are
having
due
to
the
revisions
to
ar
258
and
our
fear
of
that
power
for
director
daniels
and
the
ndoc
to
be
called
law.
I
have
four
children
to
support,
as
well
as
rent
and
bills
to
pay.
I
do
my
best
to
send
money
to
my
incarcerated
family
for
personal
items
and
food.
Although
I
work
I
don't
make
as
much
and
the
pandemic
has
made
that
inconsistent.
R
It's
not
fair
to
the
families
that
ndoc
is
taking
our
hard-earned
money
to
pay
restitution.
I
understand
that
they
owe
restitution
and
their
victims
need
to
be
paid,
but
they
are
already
the
lowest
point
of
their
lives,
and
these
revisions
and
restitution
feel
the
last
shred
of
dignity
that
they
have
their
last
hope
is
to
be
seen
as
a
human
being,
even
taking
it
from
their
wages,
which
is
basically
slavery.
Anyway,
let's
be
honest
about
that.
It
is
not
humane
to
take
what
little
else
they
have
to
hold
on
to
do.
R
R
We
all
need
to
survive,
everybody
makes
mistakes
and
they
are
paying
for
their
with
their
loss
of
their
freedom
and
they
should
be
held
responsible
for
restitution,
but
I
do
not
believe
that
that
was
the
purpose
of
mercy's
law
to
force
inmates
and
their
families
to
break
their
spirit.
Sp
22,
basically
legalizes
the
oppression
that
ndoc
has
instituted
with
the
revisions
to
the
ar
it
is
not
reasonable.
It
is
abuse
and
it
was
never
required
by
mercy's
law,
no
excuses.
R
P
P
P
E
All
right,
seeing
as
we
have
made
the
last
call
for
opposition
testimony
and
nobody
has
joined
the
queue,
I
will
now
close
opposition
testimony
on
sb
22
and
open
the
floor
for
neutral
testimony
on
sb
22.
P
E
All
right,
as
we
did
with
support
and
opposition,
I
will
make
one
final
call
for
neutral
testimony
and
give
you
about
30
seconds
to
hit
star
9.
If
you
wish
to
testify
in
a
neutral
position
today,.
E
All
right,
seeing
as
there
are
no
more
callers
to
give
testimony
in
any
position
on
sb
22,
I
will
now
close
the
hearing
on
sb
22
that
takes
us
to
the
last
item
on
our
agenda.
Public
comment.
Public
comment
will
also
be
limited
to
two
minutes
per
person
and
mr
kyle,
if
you
would
go
ahead
and
start
us
off
now,
they
need
to
make
a
public
comment,
but
get
people
in
the
liverpool
comment.
P
P
P
E
All
right,
thank
you
so
much
for
your
help,
mr
kyle.
Thank
you
so
much
to
the
members
of
the
committee
and
our
presenters
here
today,
who
I
know,
listen
very
carefully
to
all
the
testimony
and
had
a
very
fruitful
hearing
today.
I
appreciate
all
of
your
participation.
That
concludes
our
meeting.
For
today
we
will
be
meeting
again
on
monday.
That
would
be
february
february
march,
8th
at
1pm,
and
we
are
now
adjourned.