►
Description
House Criminal Justice Committee - February - 16, 2022 - House Hearing Room 2
A
B
A
You
very
much
members,
I
know
both
representative
howell
and
chairman
doggett
are
across
the
hall
presenting
other
bills,
so
they
are
here.
We've
got
their
stuff
in
the
room,
they're
just
not
quite
in
the
room
yet
so
just
wanted
to
draw
that
to
your
attention
before
we
get
started.
We've
got
a
pretty
good
calendar
today,
but
any
personal
orders
before
we
get
started.
A
C
Mr
chairman
and
members
house
bill
1833
is
very
simple
by
design
it
is
every
it's
in
regard
to
the
disposal
of
automobile
tires
and
unauthorized
areas.
Basically,
I
think
is
what
has
taken
place.
Is
the
state
of
georgia
has
strengthened
their
penalties
on
the
disposal
of
car
tires
and
which
has
funneled
littering
in
that
epidemic
up
to
bradley
county?
C
A
C
Mr
chairman,
mr
chairman
house,
bill
1834
is
also
very
simple.
It
basically
says
that
if
a
parent
of
a
minor
child
dies
at
the
hands
of
a
dui
driver,
the
convicted
dui
driver
is
responsible
for
child
support
it
take
this
bill
takes
the
shackles
off
of
the
d.a
and
the
judge,
and
it
does
several
different
things
at
once.
It
relieves
the
burden
from
the
from
the
great
state
of
tennessee.
It
holds
the
dui
driver
accountable
and
it
protects
our
most
valuable
resource,
which
is
our
children,
and
with
that,
mr
chairman,
I
renew
my
motion.
Members.
A
C
Chairman
dixie,
I
left
that
at
the
discretion
of
the
judge,
hopefully
in
the
future,
there's
a
formula
in
place,
but
right
now,
I'm
under
the
impression
it's
going
to
be
handled
almost
like
a
divorce
settlement
agreement
where
child
support
is
placed
there's
a
formula
and
it's
a
percentage
of
your
income.
So
it's
not
a
one
size
fits
all.
A
Thank
you
chairman.
Thank
you.
Okay,
any
other
discussion,
seeing
none
any
objection
to
the
question,
seeing
none
all
those
in
favor
of
adopting
amendment
coded
12856
to
house
bill
1834,
please
signify
by
saying
aye
those
opposed
you
adopt
members.
The
amendment
made
the
bill,
but
do
you
have
any
anything
to
add?
Mr
sponsor?
No,
sir?
Okay,
seeing
no
objection
to
the
question:
we're
ready
to
vote
all
those
in
favor
of
sending
house
bill
1834
as
amended
to
calendar
and
rules,
please
signify
by
saying
aye
aye,
those
opposed,
sir.
You
had
the
calendar
and
rules.
A
Mr
chairman
committee,
yes,
sir,
thank
you.
That
brings
us
to
item
number
three
which
is
house
bill.
1767
by
representative
gillespie,
sir.
You
have
a
motion
in
a
second
sir.
I
also
see
an
amendment
on
this
coded
one.
Three,
two,
nine
one
got
a
motion
in
a
second
you're
recognized.
Thank
you.
Mr
chairman
committee
question's
been
called
on
the
amendment
with
that
objection.
We're
ready
to
vote
all
those
in
favor
of
attaching
amendment
code
13291
to
house
bill.
1767,
please
signify
by
saying
aye
that
was
opposed.
You
adopt
members.
The
amendment
made
the
bill.
D
B
A
B
D
D
A
B
A
A
E
A
E
Chairman
and
members,
the
fiscal
note
on
this
is
probably
the
most
instructive
of
exactly
what
we
would
accomplish
if
this
bill
were
to
become
law,
and
I
gave
a
relatively
lengthy
description
of
this
and
sub
the
subcommittee,
I
will
not
repeat
that
just
for
purposes
of
time
today,
but
obviously
we'll
answer
any
questions.
Anybody
has
about
this
this.
E
This
has
been
the
product
of
really
about
a
decade's
worth
of
work
and
comes
from
sitting
on
multiple
task
forces
having
hundreds
and
hundreds
of
conversations
with
both
those
that
have
served
time
and
correctional
facilities,
those
that
have
had
loved
ones
harmed
or
killed
by
someone
who
is
serving
time
in
a
correctional
facility.
I've
gone
to
multiple
different
parole
hearings.
I
mean
it's
just
task
force
after
task
force.
E
Force
has
been
appointed
on
this
and
it
really
boils
down
to
this
in
1989
when
our
current
sentencing
structure-
and
this
is
the
the
current
structure
was
set
up,
it
was
set
up
because
we
were
under
a
federal
lawsuit
for
prison
overcrowding
and
we
established
we
being
the
legislature.
None
of
us
were
here
at
that
time,
a
structure
that
looks
tough
on
crime.
On
paper,
and
then
it
really
relies
upon
tdoc
and
the
parole
board
to
manage
their
population
in
a
way
that
doesn't
get
overcrowded.
E
I
mean
that
that's
the
basic
structure
that
we're
under
now
that
doesn't
make
any
sense,
not
from
a
community
safety
standpoint,
not
from
just
a
basic
fairness
standpoint
for
the
inmates
that
are
inside
a
correctional
facility.
What
would
make
sense
would
would
be
something
along
the
lines
of
this
bill
and
my
humble
opinion.
E
So
I
mean,
like
nobody,
really
hears
the
percentage.
I
wish
put
it
there
for
effect.
Obviously,
but
what
people
hear
is
the
10
years,
both
the
defendant
and
the
victim
and
their
families?
I
mean
that's
what
they're
hearing
is
10
years
for
a
defendant,
and
I
spoke
to
one
gentleman
that
actually
emailed
me
because
he
he
couldn't
stand
the
bill
hated.
The
fact
that
it
was
called
truth
and
sentencing
thought
it
dealt
with
mandatory
minimums
and
a
bunch
of
other
stuff.
He
had
served
time
at
a
correctional
facility.
E
I
emailed
him
asked
for
his
number.
We
had
a
wonderful
conversation
once
he
had
reviewed
what
the
bill
actually
does.
He
said
yes,
absolutely
I'm
in
favor
of
that.
As
someone
who
had
served
time
in
prison,
he
said
when
he
went
in
in
this
particular
circumstance.
I
believe
he
told
me
he
had
a
27-year
sentence
at
30
percent,
okay,
over
a
theft
related,
offense,
obviously
very
large
theft
and
all
he
heard
was
27
years.
He
assumed
he
was
going
to
die
in
prison.
E
Now
in
the
subcommittee,
I
highlighted
how
horrible
is
for
victims
to
have
to
go
before
a
parole
board
over
and
over
again
just
for
today's
purposes.
I
want
to
highlight
looking
at
it
from
the
other
side,
when
a
defendant
has
been
committed
to
a
prison
and
they've
been
ordered
to
serve
by
an
elected
judge,
a
specific
sentence,
and
they
hear
27
years,
they
lose
hope
and
there's
not
a
whole
lot
there
to
look
forward
to.
I
mean
you're
going
to
be
in
prison
for
the
remainder
of
your
young
years,
if
not
your
entire
life.
E
Depending
on
what
age
you
are,
even
if
it's
30
eligibility
take
10
years,
for
instance,
many
10-year
sentences
can
be
up
for
parole
in
as
early
as
a
year
and
a
half
to
two
years
that
doesn't
mean
you're
gonna
make
parole
so
that
first
pro
hearing
what
that,
what
that
inmate
has
to
do
is
for
most
for
most
purposes,
they're
gonna
try
to
get
a
letter
from
somebody
outside
or
multiple
letters,
saying,
hey,
here's
where
they're
going
to
be
living!
Here's
where
they're
going
to
be
working!
Here's
somebody
that's
going
to
vouch
for
them.
E
They're
going
to
get
folks
to
testify
in
front
of
parole
hearing
and
many
many
many
times
are
going
to
be
denied
parole
the
first
time
around.
So
everybody
gets
all
geared
up
for
their
son,
daughter,
husband,
wife,
family
member,
to
come
home
from
prison.
A
prison
incentive,
say
guy
a
10-year
sentence
at
30.
They
get
all
worked
up
about
it
and
try
to
get.
You
know
that
person
out
on
parole
and
they
get
denied
well
a
year
two
years
down
the
road
they
try
it
all
again.
E
Then
they
get
denied
again
by
the
time
they're
up
the
third
time,
the
whole
family's
given
up
on
the
process
and
pretty
much
given
up
on
hope,
because
it's
well,
we
got
denied
two
other
times.
Maybe
this
time
will
be
the
time
that
they
come
home
and
it
all
depends
on
the
personality,
quite
frankly,
of
the
parole
board,
the
folks
that
before
and
just
kind
of
what's
going
on
in
the
world
at
that
time.
E
If
you
don't
believe
me
just
talk
to
some
of
the
folks
that
have
been
on
the
pro
board
over
the
years,
they
do
a
very
good
job
but
they're
people
and
they
they
do
the
best
job
they
can.
But
if
there's
somebody
that's
coming
up
for
parole
and
most
would
not
necessarily
admit
this,
but
you
can
see
it
happen
in
the
parole
grant
rates
and
there
are
several
types
of
one
specific
crime
in
the
news.
E
Over
a
span
of
months,
you
can
watch
the
parole
rates
drop
of
the
individuals
that
are
up
for
parole
in
that
specific
type
of
crime.
These
people
have
already
been
sentenced.
Why
should
they
be
re-sentenced
again
by
the
parole
board
shouldn't
they
be
able
to
know
on
the
front
end,
what
their
sentence
is
going
to
be,
and
the
last
thing
I'll
leave
you
with
this
bill
also
changes
the
way
we
look
at
prison.
E
For
that
date,
not
some
amorphous
state
that
some
you
know
board
of
people
somewhere
might
give
them,
but
that
specific
date
and
get
folks
on
a
plan
to
success
so
that
hopefully
they
don't
reoffend.
It's
a
big
bill.
It's
a
lot
of
years
in
the
work,
but,
mr
chairman,
that
is
basically
what
the
bill
does
and
I
stand
ready
for
questions.
F
F
In
sub
you
know,
I
I'm,
I
have
I've
ideas
that
this
might.
If,
if
I
was
a
criminal
and
I
was
I
in
jail
right
now
or
in
prison,
I
should
say,
and
and
and
right
now
you
you
work
to
better
your
life.
You
work
to
get
on
programs.
You
work
to
really.
You
know,
work
start
framing
your
case,
so
to
speak,
for
the
parole
board
and
that
you
know
I'm
I'm
getting
my
rehab.
F
You
know
I'm
getting
the
things
that
I
need
to
be
a
good
member
of
society
and
with
your
and
with
your
proposed
legislation
here
that
is
taken
away
and,
and
you
have
put
in
the
one
year
of
good,
if
you,
if
you're
don't
get
into
any
trouble,
have
a
clean
record,
then
you
have
one
year
work
release,
basically
our
privileges,
I
think
you
determined,
or
how
do
you
determine?
Let
me
let
me
let
me
go
back
to
that.
E
What
this
draft
has
has
done,
and
so
the
work
release
I
mentioned
is
is
actually
I
know
it's
kind
of
hard
to
think
about
this
in
prison
in
this
fashion,
work
release
would
be
during
the
incarcerated
portion
of
their
prison
time.
So,
if
someone
has
three
years
at
100
percent,
they
could
potentially
be
leaving
the
prison
walls
during
that
time
period.
Now
we're
only
talking
prisoners
that
fit
very
strict
criteria,
very
low
level
risk,
but
these
folks
are
doing
programs
like
tri-core
and
other
programs
inside
the
prison
walls.
E
Now
we
have
jails
that
have
really
good
work
release
programs
for
lower
level
offenders.
There's
no
reason
why,
during
the
time
period
that
they're
incarcerated,
they
couldn't
actually
have
work
release,
it
has
worked
well
in
other
states
and
other
areas.
It
can-
and
I
think
will
work
very
well
for
us,
and
I
have
other
confidence
in
tdoc
to
be
able
to
manage
that
so
that
it's
only
those
folks
that
are
so
the
work
release
is
part
of
that
time.
E
That
they're
incarcerated
these
the
good
time,
credit
for
lack
of
a
better
word
on
this
that
is
built
in
during
the
percentages.
Now
that
it's
a
moving
target
every
month,
I
mean
you
know
it
just
it
depends,
and
it
almost
depends
on
the
whims
of
kind
of
the
the
staff
at
the
facility
you're
in
as
to
whether
or
not
you're
getting
that
good
time,
and
it's
it's
very
difficult
to
kind
of
determine,
but
that
good
time
is
built
in
automatically
to
this
bill.
E
So
if
someone
gets
a
five
year
sentence,
it's
five
year
sentence
suspended
to
four
years
at
100
to
serve
with
one
year
on
supervised
release,
so
the
the
parole
as
we
know
it
is
literally
built
into
this
bill,
and
it
gives
tdoc
the
absolute
authority
to
be
able
to
allow
that
to
be
a
moving
line
dependent
upon
their
behavior.
So,
instead
of
assuming
that
every
prisoner
is
going
to
be
bad
and
not
do
programs,
this
bill
assumes
that
they're
going
to
do
programs
and
if
they
don't
time,
can
be
added
into
their
sentence.
E
And
I
was
having
a
conversation
with
a
gentleman
earlier
today
and
we
were
discussing
this
very
thing.
The
hope
would
be
if
somebody
has
a
four-year
sentence.
Let's
say
during
the
first
two
years:
they
do
absolutely
nothing
which
many
prisoners
now
will
do.
They
will
say,
look
I'm
not
interested
in
programs,
I'm
not
an
issue,
parole
I'll!
Just
take
my
time,
I'll,
take
it
to
the
wall.
Let
me
out
when
you
let
me
out,
I'm
not
doing
any
of
your
stuff.
E
Okay,
they
can
still
get
some
good
time
just
for
not
getting
in
fights
or
whatever
else.
This
bill
says,
instead
of
assuming
everybody's
going
to
be
bad
and
rewarding
those
few
that
might
be
good
and
go
above
and
beyond.
This
assumes
that
we're
going
to
have
a
valid
program
that
everyone
should
follow
and
if
you
don't
follow
it
and
say
the
first
two
years,
do
absolutely
nothing
during
your
time.
E
Time
could
be
added
on
to
your
sentence
during
that
one
year
supervised,
release
and
say
two
years
in
you,
you
see
the
light
and
they'd
added
six
months
old.
So
within
that
five
year
sentence,
you
got
a
four
year
sentence,
100
with
a
year
to
serve
on
supervised,
release,
they've
added
six
months
to
it.
So,
instead
of
get
out
in
four
years
now,
you're
getting
out
in
four
years
in
six
months,
you
get
closer
to
that
release
date
that
you
thought
was
four
years
had
you
done
the
program
and
you
start
asking
around
hey.
E
How
can
I
get
my
six
months
back
and
start
doing
programs?
They
can
then
reduce
that
time
back
down,
but
only
to
the
four.
So
what
it
does
is.
It
builds
the
good
time
into
the
bill,
but
in
a
very
certain
way,
and
it
also
gives
tdoc
the
ability
to
be
able
to
manage
that
instead
of
an
outside
entity
in
the
parole
board,
so
the
folks
that
are
working
with
prisoners
every
single
day
on
the
programming,
the
ones
that
know
them
the
most
and
the
best.
F
E
That
correct
yes,
sir
okay
and
we
have
lowered
the
sentences
on
paper
again
this
this
structure.
Here
it
doesn't
work.
If
you
raised
every
single
one
of
these
sentences
up
to
100,
the
fiscal
note
is
in
the
hundreds
of
millions
I
mean
literally
six
to
seven
hundred
million,
because
this
was
never
designed
to
be
a
100
sentencing
structure.
It
was
designed
to
be
very
bloated
on
paper
with
very
low
res
release
percentages.
E
By
definition,
I
mean
because
they
they
had
very
high
sentences,
that's
how
they
got
prison
overcrowding.
This
bill
literally
takes
those
sentence
ranges
down
to
where
they
are
now
to
work,
the
average
that
folks
are
serving
right
now-
and
it
just
is
honest
about
it.
I
mean
that's
the
reason.
The
fiscal
note
over
a
10-year
time
period
saves
approximately
25
million
dollars
because
there's
no
parole,
so
all
of
that
expense
and
everything
that
goes
with
parole
would
be
savings
in
this,
but
there's
also
not
great
expense.
E
With
this
bill,
the
fiscal
note,
because
of
the
way
we
calculate
them,
I
think-
comes
in
at
10
million
10.9
million
dollars
because
we
have
to
calculate
the
most
expensive
year
without
any
savings
being
calculated.
So
in
the
year
that
it
actually
cost
10.9
million.
It
saves
19.7,
because
we've
we've
created
a
more
streamlined
system.
That's
certain!
F
E
Yes,
sir,
it
wouldn't
sunset,
I
mean
the
parole
board
has
a
role
beyond
just
determining
whether
or
not
someone
will
be
released.
I
mean
they
do,
handle
other
types
of
hearings.
I
mean
so
that
this
wouldn't
be
the
only
reason
for
them.
So
there
could
be
a
truncated
purpose
for
them
to
be
there,
but
their
their
primary
duties
now
would
definitely
be
wound
down,
and
we
don't
sunset
them.
We
don't.
We
don't
technically
do
away
with
the
board,
but
yeah
I
mean
their.
E
F
A
E
Lambert,
I
will
say,
while
I
I
don't
know
that
they
have
any
specific
stance
on
this
bill,
one
way
or
the
other
I
mean.
I
don't
know
that
it's
been
flagged
one
way
or
the
other.
I
I
have
had
conversations
with
lots
of
folks
within
the
different
departments
of
state
government
and
tried
to
take
in
unofficially
I
mean
because
again
officially
this
this
is,
you
know
a
bill
that
I
have
sponsored.
This
is
not
a
department
or
administration
bill.
E
This
is
a
bill
that
you
know
I've
worked
on
for
years,
but
I
have
tried
to
listen
and
learn
from
folks
both
within
tdoc
parole
board
everyone
else
I
mean
they've
been
on
many
of
these
task
forces.
So
while
they
are
not
here
to
testify
today
there,
there
lots
of
things
have
come
from
those
conversations
over
the
years
that
are
embedded
within
this
representative
beck.
F
F
E
Judges
would
have
more
discretion
on
whether
or
not
someone
would
be
able
to
go
to
probation
and
do
a
rehabilitation
program
or
have
a
sentence
to
serve,
and
then
we
we
allow
for
all
of
those
programs
that
are
within
tdoc,
and
I
hope
that
we
continue
to
encourage
and
fund
more
programs
that
are
available
to
them.
But
nothing
in
this
would
take
away
from
those
programs.
It
would
actually
add
to
the
number
of
populations,
because
those
sentence
rate
range
ranges
excuse
me
are
right-sized
so
right
now
any
sentence
above
10
years
is
a
two-serve
sentence.
E
Some
of
these
sentences
folks
are
not
serving
10
years.
So,
if,
instead
of
having
again,
you
know
a
21-year
sentence
at
30
percent,
you
know
you're
bringing
that
sentence
range
down
to
where
it
really
is
now,
and
so
folks
that
would
not
be
eligible
for
probation
would
be
eligible,
doesn't
mean
they're
going
to
get
it.
That's
up
to
the
judge,
but
right
now
that
judge's
hands
are
tied
with
anything
that's
over
10
years.
So
if
there's
a
sentence
range,
that's
outside
of
10
years
right
now
under
this
structure,
then
you
go
to
prison
like
you.
E
Leader,
lambert,
no,
we
do
not.
However,
I
will
tell
you
that
additional
facilities,
regardless
of
what
you
want
to
call
them,
because
again
it
in
my
opinion,
it
would
be
better
if
we
took
a
deeper
dive
and
look
into
what
our
prison
system
looks
like
right.
Now,
it's
like
a
light
switch
either
in
prison
or
you're.
Not.
E
We
do
very
slightly
some
of
the
conditions
of
your
imprisonment,
but
for
the
most
part
you're,
either
in
or
you're
out,
you're,
either
on
probation
or
you're
in
prison
long
term.
It
would
be
a
really
good
idea
to
look
at
our
facilities
and
design
them
around
the
programming
that's
actually
available.
So
while
no,
we
don't
need
an
additional
capacity
through
this.
We
just
in
a
budget
hearing
yesterday
had
a
discussion
with
tdoc
over
how
much
money
is
spent
on
the
current
prison
system
that
we
have
now.
E
How
much
has
been
reverted
back
and
at
least
had
a
conversation
of
are
there
facilities
that
would
serve
the
population
that
we
have
better?
I
think
that
there
are
facilities
that
can
be
designed
that
would
really
meet
those
programming
standards
that
we've
all
talked
about
in
here,
but
the
current
prisons
are
difficult,
for
instance,
just
work
release
it's
very
difficult
to
have
somebody
a
work
release
in
a
traditional
prison
setting
just
from
them
coming
in
and
out
of
a
prison.
That
is
a
very
traditional
lockdown
secure
facility.
E
If
you're
going
to
have
folks
on
work
release,
just
like
the
local
jails,
you're,
normally
not
going
to
want
those
folks
to
mix
back
in
with
them
with
the
rest
of
the
population
on
a
regular
basis.
It
creates
a
massive
security
risk,
our
our
prisons,
as
we
have
them
right
now,
it's
difficult
for
them
to
be
able
to
do
that,
not
impossible.
So
long
question
or
long
answer
to
a
short
question
I
apologize,
but
while
this
bill
does
not
envision
needing
additional
facilities,
I
personally
feel
like
in
tennessee.
G
G
Do
you
know
how
many
offenders
are
anticipated
to
be
spending
more
time
in
prison
based
upon
your
legislation
and
also
there's
a
line
that
concerns
me
very
much
in
the
fiscal
memo,
and
that
is
regarding
well.
It
says
the
following,
however,
due
to
unknown
factors,
including
the
capacity
of
existing
facilities,
those
are
among
the
reasons
that
they
have
difficulty,
giving
a
precise
fiscal
impact
at
this
time,
even
though
they've,
given
you
some
very
specific
numbers,
but
my
concern
is
with
the
staffing
shortages
we've
seen
in
my
region
and
others
across
the
state.
G
E
Lambert,
so
if
pages,
four
five
and
six
of
the
fiscal
note
go
into
great
detail
to
that.
To
that
exact
question
and
again
trust
me,
when
I
tell
you,
I
have
spent
literally
days
with
fiscal
review
and
our
legal
and
our
extraordinary
lawyers
to
try
to
get
to
that
very
question,
because
the
goal
of
this
legislation
is
to
neither
drastically
increase
or
decrease
the
sentences
that
are
being
served
now.
It
is
to
drag
those
sentences
out
into
the
daylight
and
make
it
transparent
as
to
what
they
are.
E
So
if
someone
was
serving
on
average
a
three
year
sentence
under
this
current
sentencing
plan.
So,
let's
just
say,
hypothetically
that
a
10
year
sentence
at
30
percent,
an
average
number
of
people
are
serving
three
years.
It's
not
that
by
the
way,
but
what
this
bill
would
do
is
it
just
make
that
makes
this
make
would
make
that
a
three
year
sentence
with
one
year
unsupervised
release
so
a
four
year
sentence
three
years
100.
So
you
see
what
we've
done
there
to
ensure
that
we're
not
increasing
the
number
of
prisoners
that
we
have.
E
We've
made
this
the
average
of
those
sentences
that,
over
the
last
10
to
15
years,
they
were
able
to
calculate
so
it
neither
drastically
increases
nor
decreases
the
number
of
prisoners
or
time
that
they're
serving
it
reflects
the
time
that
they're
serving
now
in
a
better
fashion.
Now
the
line
in
there
about
facilities
is
a
relatively
common
note
to
see
in
the
fiscal
note,
some
of
that
from
my
understanding,
deals
with
the
fact
that
it's
hard
for
us
to
understand
and
predict
what
crime
patterns
may
arise.
E
So
there
are
crimes
that
you
know
during
that
will
kind
of
rise
and
fall
as
to
the
propensity
of
the
population
to
commit
those
crimes.
So
it
is
very
difficult
to
say
here's
exactly
what
the
next
10
years
is
going
to
look
like,
but
the
numbers
in
this
bill
are
based
on
what
we've
seen
in
the
past
and
the
best
predictor
of
future
performances
is
really
past.
Behavior.
G
E
Leader,
lambert,
that's
exactly
what
it
says
now
again:
small
amounts
one
way
or
the
other
not
large
distinctions,
but
I
mean
just
look
at
the
top
line:
aggravated
assault
resulting
in
death.
There's
a
very
small
number
of
missions
there,
but
it's
2.8
emissions.
The
average
time
sentenced
was
7.8
years.
The
time
served
was
3.09
and
the
so
the
estimated
sentence
on
this
is
five
years.
There's
a
fiscal
note
of
forty
two
thousand
five
hundred
dollars,
because
there
would
be
a
tiny
tick
up
in
the
amount
of
time
that
those
individuals
would
serve.
E
It's
almost
impossible
to
get
it
perfect.
I
mean
there's
small
dips,
one
way
or
the
other
when
you
try
to
design
a
bill
that
actually
reflects
the
average
time
served,
and
so
yes
on
some
of
those
again
it
could
be
a
little
bit
down
or
a
little
bit
up.
But
it's
the
goal
is
that
it's
going
to
be
pretty
close
to
that
median
representative
campbell.
G
E
So
that's
it's
very
that
one's
very
difficult
to
kind
of
figure
and
the
reason
the
percentages,
so
the
larger
number
of
cases
that
you
have
within
any
category.
Obviously
your
changes
are
not
going
to
reflect
as
much
when
you
just
have
one
case.
The
estimation
on
that
percentage-wise
is
going
to
look
very
different,
so.
H
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
I'll
try
to
be
brief.
I
support
this
legislation.
My
criticism
is,
you
know
the
sentences
probably
aren't
long
enough.
That's
why
we
need
them,
but
I
recognize
the
fact,
as
I
think
leader
lambert,
does
it
the
only
way
we're
really
going
to
get
the
public
to
recognize
and
appreciate
where
we
are
at
prison.
H
Sentences
in
tennessee
is
to
have
truth
in
sentencing,
so
that's
first
and
foremost,
and
I'm
going
to
support
it
on
that
basis
alone,
and
I
advocate
that
we
take
a
serious
look
at
the
offenses
and
the
level
of
incarceration
for
some
of
these
offenses
because,
first
and
foremost,
we
need
to
protect
the
innocent
citizens
in
tennessee.
I
did
want
to
mention
about
the
facilities
and
so
forth.
As
a
I
used
to
be
assistant
attorney
general
for
the
state
of
tennessee,
I
visited
every
single
state
prison
in
the
state
of
tennessee
in
that
job.
H
E
Recognize
and
thank
you
for
those
comments,
and
I
want
to
kind
of
combine
two
answers
here
to
or
one
answer
two
different
questions
like
aggravated
burglary
on
this
list.
They
estimate
it's
118
admissions,
the
time
that
someone
sentenced
to
on
that
is
8.3
years.
The
time
served
as
3.7.
This
would
actually
go
up
by
about
0.4.
E
I
I
can
tell
you
right
now
that
on
continuous
sexual
abuse
of
a
child
on
aggravated
burglary
on
several
of
these
crimes
that
are
on
here
when
you
look
at
this
list,
several
of
these
crimes
folks
are
not
serving
anywhere
near
what
they
should
now
look.
That
is
a
project
for
another
time
or
even
later
in
this
session.
E
But
this,
I
hope,
exposes
what
this
hides,
because
when
you
look
at
this
list
or
if
you
look
at
like
you
know
an
aggravated
burglary
and
you
hear
in
court
that
they're
getting
8.3
years-
I
mean,
let's
just
say,
somebody's
getting
a
nine
year
sentence.
What
sounds
pretty
good?
I
mean
you
know
it's
like
okay,
they
burglarized
someone's
home.
They
they
validated.
Thank
you
to
that
home.
They
got
nine
years
to
serve,
but
when
you
know
they're
coming
out
in
three
and
a
half
years,
that
kind
of
is
a
different
scenario.
E
So
exactly
what
you
just
said,
I
hope
is
what
this
exposes,
regardless
of
where
this
goes.
I
hope
it
would
pass
this
committee,
but
I
mean
several
of
these
sentences
are
too
low.
I
will
tell
you
that
when
you
look
at
the
full
list
of
every
felony
and
we
had
fiscal
review
break
it
all
down,
I
mean
it
took
a
long
time
and
I
really
appreciate
our
our
attorneys
from
the
legislature
and
fiscal
cert
and
fiscal
review
working
on
this.
There
are
some
of
these
sentences.
That
would
surprise
you
are
probably
too
high.
E
Now
I
mean
it's
just,
but
it's
all
hidden,
because
it's
all
hidden
with
percentages
the
year
gets
set
in
court
and
then
it's
30,
it's
85
percent.
I
mean,
I
hope
we
continue
to
look
at
all
of
this
and,
quite
frankly
raise
several
of
these
sentences
in
a
different
bill
and
even
potentially
lower
some.
But
that
is
a
conversation
for
another
day.
This
just
exposes
where
it
is.
D
D
A
E
Lambert
again
great
question
the
exact
same
way
it
is
now
so
we
leave
all
of
that
discretion
in
our
judge's
hands.
There
are
other
statutes
that
deal
with.
You
know
whether
or
not
something
should
be
consecutive
or
concurrent
or
run
on
you
know,
together
or
one
after
the
other
all
the
percentages
and
ranges.
We
don't
touch
any
of
that.
A
A
And
if
you,
if
you
choose
to
stand
or
sit
either
one,
there
should
be
there'll,
be
a
button
on
the
microphone
in
front
of
you.
That
looks
like
a
has.
A
picture
looks
like
a
voice
talking
if
you'll
press,
that,
if
the
red
light
is
illuminated,
then
it's
on,
and
if
you
could
please
state
your
name
for
the
record
and
if
you
represent
an
organization.
Let
us
know
that
and
then
share
with
this
committee,
whatever
you'd
like,
and
you
have.
A
I
I
I
I
I
came
here
today
because,
when
I
met
with
leader
lambert
and
I
was
trying
to
understand
the
purpose
of
this
bill,
I
had
to
kind
of
think
back
about
what
I
went
through
when
I
did
time
at
a
hundred
percent,
and
I
can
assure
you
that
individuals
inside
the
tennessee
department
of
corrections
that
are
doing
time
at
a
hundred
percent
number
one.
The
sentence
reduction
credits
mean
everything:
the
sentence
reduction
credits,
despite
the
fact
that
I
had
a
hundred
percent
and
had
three
years
shaved
off
of
it
meant
everything
to
me.
I
I
I
I
I
had
to
take
accountability
for
what
I
did.
I
did
that
I
met
with
the
victim
I
made
amends.
I
did
my
time.
I've
been
proactive
and
I've
come
out.
I
graduate
this
summer.
I
have
a
great
job
and
I'm
just
really
standing
here
before
you
today,
because
I
want
you
to
think
before
you
pass
this
bill
and
that
thinking
is
to
say
that
if
you
commit
someone
to
the
tennessee
department
of
corrections,
leader
lambert
at
a
hundred
percent,
no
matter
what
class
the
felony
is,
you
are
layering
oppression.
A
E
E
And
hopefully
you
admit
that
while
it
doesn't
change
your
circumstance
but
to
have
a
specific
sentence
with
one
year
of
supervised
release-
and
it
doesn't
add
on
more
supervised
it
depending
upon
what
you're
doing
in
the
prison
it
can
either
increase
up
to
that
one
year,
how
much
time
you
serve
or
potentially
keep
it
at
that
date.
Certain,
and
so
I
don't
know
if
you
want
to
comment
on
that
at
all.
E
I
know
you
shared
some
things
with
me
in
the
office
about
how
it's
helpful
for
folks
to
have
a
date
certain
that
they
can
work
towards.
But
that's
what
we
I've
tried
to
design
into
this
is
to
make
sure
that
folks
do
have
hope
and
they
know
when
they're
going
to
come
out.
So
they
can
do
those
programs.
E
I
Yeah
so,
mr
wayne,
I
appreciate
that
leta
lambrett,
let
me
say
this
again
substance,
not
balance.
The
reason
why
I
say
that
is
because
the
bill
does
have
substance
leader
lambda,
and
the
thing
that
I
just
want
to
continue
to
mention
is
that
it
needs
to
have
balance,
in
other
words,
when
you're
taking
the
sentencing
reform
act
and
repealing
it
and
pla
replacing
it
with
this
bill.
Every
class
of
felony
from
what
I
understood
in
the
bill
itself
would
serve
100
percent.
I
You
do
not
know
what's
going
on
with
these
men
mentally
number
one,
and
for
me
the
fact
that
I
stayed
with
a
mental
health
specialist
in
the
tennessee
department
of
corrections
for
15
years
and
worked
with
them
prior
to
getting
out.
I
can
assure
you
that
leader
lamberth,
looking
at
the
fiscal
note
from
a
mental
health
perspective,
men
and
women
that
are
doing
100
in
lengthier
sentences
and
maintain
oppression.
The
state
of
tennessee
is
going
to
be
spending
a
lot
of
money,
and
I
understand
that
leader
lambeth
is
bringing
this
forward.
I
C
C
As
we
put
this
product
together,
tell
me
a
little
bit
about
behavior,
and
I
I
see
where,
where
we're
going
with
this
piece
of
legislation
that
we're
talking
about
all
right,
you're,
going
to
start
with
xyz
and
and
that's
that's
the
end
date
for
you
and
if
you,
if
there
is
bad
behavior,
if
you
don't
do
your
classes,
if
you
don't
do
it,
then
we're
going
to
add
three
months
six
months,
12
months
to
that
your
your
initial
blush
reaction
tells
me
you
don't
think
that's
an
effective
way
to
improve
behavior
in
the
prison.
Setting.
I
I
What
was
able
to
help
guide
me
was
the
fact
that
I
was
able
to
get
sentence,
reduction
credits
off
the
back
end
of
my
sentence,
so
I
wouldn't
have
to
do
the
full
sentence
and
not
just
that
that
allowed
me
to
go
into
programs,
because
typically,
individuals
with
violent
offenses
are
not
allowed
to
go
into
programs
into
the
tennessee
department
of
corrections.
Based
on
your
classification.
I
There
are
specific
offenses
that
they're
just
not
going
to.
Let
you
do
it
they're
not
going
to.
Let
you
go
to
work,
release
they're
not
going
to
let
you
participate
in
many
in
a
minimum
restrict
facility.
In
fact,
you
can't
even
get
to
a
minimum
restricted
facility
depending
on
what
your
offenses
are.
So
that's
really
a
smaller
portion
of
the
prison
population
and
the
larger
portion
of
the
population.
I
C
Representative
hawk
and
thank
you,
mr
chair,
I've
got
a
lot
of
ideas
swimming
in
my
head
right
now,
I'm
going
to
I'm
going
to
pause
and
allow
you
to
go
on
to
the
others
potentially
come
back
to
me,
but
I
want
to
think
on
that
for
a
little
bit.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
Thank
you
so
much
for
your
your.
B
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
so
my
question
is,
and
I
just
want
to
be
clear,
are
you
saying
if
we
pass
this
and
take
away
those
credits,
do
you
think
violent
crime
or
violent
occurrences
within
the
prison
aren't
going
to
increase
as
a
result
of
taking
away
these
sentencing
credits?
Do
you
think
that
more
bad
behavior
is
going
to
happen
within
the
prisons?
Yes,.
H
Thank
you.
If
I
understand
it
right
all
you're
doing
is
saying
before
you
were
told
you're
going
to
serve
eight
years,
but
you
really
served
three
and
a
half.
So
what
we're
doing
is
for
eight
years
we're
calling
it
three
and
a
half.
So
this
bill
says
since
three
and
a
half
is
what
you've
been
serving.
That's.
What
you're
going
to
serve
now
you're
just
going
to
serve
100
of
the
three
and
a
half.
E
This
and
to
the
presenter's
comments,
and
again
thank
you
for
being
here
and
deeply
appreciate
you
stepping
up
and
testifying.
As
I
told
you
in
the
office,
your
perspective
is
very
important.
It's
just
like
lots
of
other
folks.
The
good
time
is
not
taken
away
in
this.
I
can't
emphasize
that
enough.
Now
I
understand
the
way
you
have
experienced
good
time
would
change
the
three
and
a
half
years.
Absolutely
that's
what
you
would
serve
with
the
year
of
supervised
release
where
the
good
time
is
automatic.
E
You
get
the
good
time
we
are
going
to
assume
folks
are
going
to
be
good.
If
they're
not
they
could
have
sentences,
they
could
have
time
added
on
up
to
the
year
and
taken
back
down
again
if
they
got
back
into
programs.
That
year
is
there,
as
that
variable
that
tdoc
can
utilize
as
not
only
good
time,
but
something
that
flows
up
and
down
depending
upon
whether
they're
doing
the
programs,
whether
or
not
they're
actually
doing
what
they
should
within
the
prison
walls,
the
good
times
automatic.
E
It's
not
taken
away,
it's
just
structured
in
a
way
that
it's
clear
to
everybody
every
single
month
you
were
serving.
You
had
no
idea
whether
or
not
you
were
going
to
get
your
good
time
that
month
or
not,
and
your
out
date
shifted
probably
hundreds
of
times
in
the
time
that
you
were
in
for
yours.
Actually,
I
should
say
that
different
you
had
100,
or
so
it
may
not
have
for
yours
in
most
sentences.
E
It
will
because
it
just
varies
per
month
on
what
that
good
time
is.
This
builds
that
good
time
in
where
it's
one
year
of
automatic
good
time,
that's
one
year
supervised
release
at
the
end
that
can
fluctuate
up
and
down
whether
or
not
you
are
actually
doing
the
programming
that
you
should
be
doing
in
prison
and
behaving
yourself.
I
mean,
if
you're
doing
what
you're
supposed
to
be
doing.
You
automatically
get
it.
You
don't
have
to
go
before
parole
board.
E
A
All
right
members,
I
don't
want
to
remind
everybody,
we're
out
of
session,
so
these
questions
should
be
directed
at
the
at
our
testimony
here
at
our
witness
representative
hawk,
you
mentioned
to
come
back.
Okay,
he
passes
members
that
exhausts
our
list
for
questions
for
the
witness.
Does
anybody
else
have
any
seeing
none?
Mr
white?
A
Thank
you,
you
and
I
know
each
other
and
I've
always
enjoyed
getting
to
talk
with
you,
and
I
think
what
you
had
to
share
with
this
committee
is
invaluable,
and
I
know
everyone
here
is
thinking
about
it
and
it
is
certainly
influencing
what
will
be
the
ultimate
and
final
product
of
this
legislative
process.
So,
as
as
representative
hawk
stated
earlier,
you
know
today
is
not
the
final.
You
know
chapter
in
this
book.
I
mean
this
there's
a
lot
of
work
that
has
to
happen
here.
A
B
A
E
E
However,
it
would
help
them,
and
so
yes,
if
someone
is
incarcerated,
or
especially
if
they're,
if
their
case
is
pending
now
and
we
pass
something
that
potentially
could
benefit
them,
then
they
then
it
can
benefit
them
if
it
would
harm
them
in
any
way
or
extend
their
sentence
in
any
way
from
what
the
current
structure
is,
then
it
absolutely
would
not
negatively
affect
them.
That's
spokes
facto.
We
are
not
allowed
to
do
that.
So
if,
in
some
way
this
would
benefit
them,
they
are
able
to
take
advantage
of
it.
B
B
E
E
They
get
credit
for
that,
and
I
will
tell
you-
and
you
know
this-
I
mean
you-
don't
start
a
crew
in
your
good
time
until
you've
been
sentenced
and
so
right
now,
when
somebody
in
someone
and
you
this
may
be
exactly
what
you're
referencing,
if
someone's
in
a
county
jail
awaiting
trial,
they're
gaining
one
day
for
one
day
but
they're
not
gaining
two
for
ones
or
good
time
or
anything
else.
It's
just
that
one
day
for
one
day
until
after
they
are
sentenced,
this
bill
definitely
remedies
that
and
they
will.
D
This
is
my
question
for
the
sponsor
and
it
didn't
dawn
on
me
until
mr
white
was
talking
it's
the
one
year.
Is
it's
across
the
board
right,
so
it
doesn't
matter
the
offense
or
the
time
served.
I
think
that
maybe
it's
what
he
was
saying.
I
think
that
maybe
we
can
take
into
consideration,
because
if
someone
has
five
years
and
they
get
a
year
off,
okay,
that's
20!
D
That's
a
that's
a
pretty
large
deal
and
I
think
that
what
he
was
saying
he
had
25
and
he
shaved
off
three
years
and
that
made
a
difference
for
him
rather
than
those
three
years,
so
maybe
there's
some
kind
of
when
he
was
talking
about
balance.
Maybe
there's
a
way
that
we
can
look
at
that.
I'm
just
curious
of
your
thoughts.
E
Obviously
we
look
at
sentencing
every
single
year
and,
as
I
indicated
earlier,
I
think
this
highlights
where
the
sentences
are.
You
know
where
they
have
been
served
this.
This
makes
an
attempt
to
put
them
at
an
average
where
they
are.
I
tried
in
this
not
to
greatly
decrease
or
increase
sentences
to
get
to
where
that
suggestion
would
be.
You
would
probably
need
to
add
on
a
couple
of
years.
E
I
will
tell
you
this
also
alleviates
the
problem
of
someone
getting
a
20-year
sentence
at
30
percent
getting
out
in
three
or
four
years
and
then
literally
having
you
know,
16
17
years
on
parole
afterwards,
which
is
just
almost
impossible.
Like
you,
I
mean
someone
can
then
make
a
minor
error.
We've
talked
about
that
and
debated
that
in
this
committee
and
wound
up
going
back
to
prison
for
a
much
longer
sentence
than
they
ever
really
should
have
served.
E
So
this
brings
those
sentences
within
reason,
but
I
tried
not
to
purposely
I
mean
I
tried
purposely
not
to
extend
the
sentences
beyond
by
attacking
additional
years.
The
one
year
there's
also
some
really
good
data
out
there
on
a
lot
of
the
studies
that
if,
within
one
year,
you
are
not
able
to
reacclimate
someone
into
society
within
a
year
to
18
months,
ordinarily,
that's
kind
of
the
time
period
that
they're
going
to
violate
or
mess
up
after
that
time
period.
E
It
it
it's
a
graph
that
just
almost
plummets
and
with
kind
of
small
spikes
after
that.
So
if
someone's
going
to
be
rehabilitated,
usually
within
that
year
or
so
afterwards,
is
when
they're
going
to
be
able
to
take
advantage
of
that.
If
they're
not,
then
the
same
is
true
so
that
year
afterwards
is
purposeful
and
really
based
on
all
of
the
data
and
studies
that
have
been
out
there,
that
a
shorter
time
period,
for
that
is
better
than
having
someone
on
parole
for
like
20
years.
D
And
I
wholeheartedly
agree:
I've
seen
people
be
on.
I
know
a
person
right
now,
that's
on
probation
for
18
years,
the
likelihood
of
making
that
is
probably
zero
to
two
percent.
But
I
just
wanted
to
just
kind
of
reiterate
that
when
you
reduce
that
one
year
good
time
on
a
percentage-wise
when
you
take
it
across
the
board,
may
not
be
an
incentive
for
other
people
when
they
have
longer
periods.
And
that's
all
I'm
saying-
maybe
it's
going
to
be
something
that's
more
proportionate.
D
So
if
someone
does
get
five
years
in
that
well,
like
I
said
earlier,
that
one
year
represents
20
reduction
in
their
sentence
and
maybe
there's
a
percentage
where
it's
10
percent
or
whatever
it
is.
But
then
they
can
be
applied
across
the
board
and
then
I
think
that'll
be
have
a
little
more
balance
in
the
build
fair
to
anyone,
as
opposed
to
one
year,
and
I
understand
what
you're
saying
about
the
one-year
rehabilitation
or
getting
re-acclimated
to
the
to
the
to
the
to
the
outside
world.
So
to
speak,
but
also.
E
E
So
we
allowed
a
judge
to
put
someone
on
probation
for
up
to
eight
years,
but
if
they
violate
during
that
eight
years,
they're
only
serving
the
amount
of
time.
That
is
the
average
range
now.
So
you
would
get
an
eight
year
sentence
on
probation
suspended
to
two
years
to
serve
if
you
violated,
so
that
during
that
eight
year
time
period
and
just
like
we
passed
last
year,
you
could
you
could
work
that
probationary
time
period
off
earlier
too.
E
So
we
tried
to
keep
all
of
that
in
there
to
just
avoid
the
type
of
circumstance
you're
talking
about,
or
somebody
be
on
probation
for
18
years,
the
one
year
again,
just
having
spent
an
enormous
amount
of
time
with
this.
I
really
think
that
one
year
is
going
to
work
well,
and
I
my
heart
goes
out
to
jeremy
and
everybody
else
that
has
had
to
serve
through
the
sentencing
structure
we
have
now,
because
that
literally
is
the
only
thing
they've
got
going
for
them
is
the
good
time.
E
This
can
be
better
and
more
I
mean
it
can
give
them
something
where
the
day
they
walk
in
everybody
is
the
whole
system's
built
around
we're
not
going
to
just
be
shocked.
If
you
do
something
good
we're
going
to
structure
it
so
that
it's
on
us,
because
right
now
y'all
we
count
on
the
parole
board
to
make
these
decisions.
We
get
to
sidestep
it
as
the
legislature.
E
The
executive
branch
does
as
well.
I
mean
this
puts
it
in
tdoc's
hands
which
we
fund.
We
have
the
oversight
on
and
we
will
be
responsible
for
making
sure
that
they
have
the
program
available,
because
you
also
heard
jeremy
say
that
many
times
he
didn't
have
the
programs
available
that
he
needed
that's
unacceptable.
E
We've
got
to
have
those
programs
available
and
if
they
get
out
without
that
programming,
I
want
to
be
crystal
clear.
It's
our
fault,
not
theirs.
So
right
now,
there's
that
there's
that
release
valve
so
to
speak,
where
the
parole
board
can
look
at
it
and
say:
well,
you
didn't
do
your
programming,
that's
gone
with
this.
The
assumption
is
you
have
to
have
the
programs
available
for
these
folks
and
to
simply
do
your
time
will
no
longer
be
an
option
you're
going
to
have
to
do
programs.
E
Leader,
lambert,
sorry,
when
you
ask
about
probation
and
parole
that's
under
tdoc.
Currently
that
would
still
remain
there
and
that's
who
would
manage
that
if
you're
asking
about
what
the
parole
board's
responsibility
would
be,
there
would
be
legacy
prisoners
that
that
they
would
still
be
having
parole
here
in
zone,
quite
frankly
for
many
years
to
come
that
are
under
the
current
sentencing
structure.
So
I
mean
it-
I
mean
they're
going
to
have
a
job
that
they
need
to
do
and
again
I
cannot
highlight
enough
how
they
do
an
extraordinarily
good
job.
E
I
have
multiple
friends
that
serve
on
the
parole
board.
We
have
asked
them
to
do
almost
an
impossible
task
to
look
in
a
crystal
ball
and
figure
out.
You
know
who's
safe
to
release
and
who's.
Not
we
should
be
making
that
decision
on
these
sentences,
but
they
do
a
good
job
and
for
many
years,
will
still
be
needed,
also
commutations
and
pardons
and
other.
As
I'm
saying,
there
are
multiple
types
of
hearings
that
they
are
utilized
for
and
and
will
continue
to
be
utilized
for
representative
hardaway.
B
E
Lamar,
yes,
so
probation
is
built
into
every
one
of
these
sentences
and
again
more
individuals
will
be
eligible
for
probation.
That's
a
determination.
A
judge
has
to
make
at
the
time
of
sentencing
is
whether
or
not
someone
gets
probation
or
a
sentence
to
serve
or
some
combination
thereof.
So
that's
that
will
work
similarly
to
the
way
it
does
now.
E
The
judge
has
full
discretion
on
that,
under
the
statutes
that
we
have
the
one
year
supervised
release
is
what
would
take
the
place
of
parole
as
we
see
it
now
that
can
only
be
granted
by
the
parole
board.
This
is
when
your
supervisor
released,
that
is
automatic,
so
they
are
guaranteed
that
that
one
year,
unless
again
they
do
not
do
their
programming
or
you
know,
commit
additional
crime
within
the
t
within
tdoc
I
mean
it
would
be.
E
B
E
There
will
always
be
even
under
this
bill,
a
need
for
prison
beds.
They
may
look
a
little
different
than
they
do
now,
but,
yes,
there
is
additional
need
for
programming
dollars.
You
know
this
is
an
unusual
year.
Tdoc
reverted
back
about
300
million
dollars
because
of
some
federal
funds
that
came
in,
but
it
is
not
unusual
for
them
to
revert
back
several
million,
and
so
we
we
have
provided
some
funding
there.
We
probably
should
provide
some
more
whether
this
bill
passes
or
not.
E
B
A
Any
more
discussion
seeing
none
we're
ready
to
vote
all
those
in
favor
of
sending
house
bill
1025
as
amended
to
finance,
please
signify
by
saying
aye
aye
those
opposed,
sir.
You
had
to
finance
famous
chairman
members
of
the
committee.
Thank
you,
sir.
Next,
on
my
list
item
number
five
house
bill
2098
also
by
leader
lamberth,
sir.
You
have
a
motion
and
a
second
you're
recognized.
E
Thank
you
chairman.
It
is
a
very
simple
and
straightforward
bill
that
has
been
filed
many
times,
but
this
makes
it
a
felony
to
assault
a
law
enforcement
officer
and
cause
any
injury
or
excuse
me
yes
to
cause
a
law
enforcement
officer,
assault
and
cause
any
bodily
injury.
So
I'm
bringing
it
up
a
couple
of
times
because
you
can
assault
someone
without
causing
bodily
injury.
E
We're
trying
to
focus
on
the
point
where
someone
has
not
resisted
arrest,
but
I
mean
literally,
has
assaulted
an
officer,
so
I
mean
walked
up
and
punched
an
officer
in
the
face
something
like
that
causing
bodily
injuries.
So
many
other
states
around
us.
It
is
already
a
felony
to
assault
an
officer.
It's
a
misdemeanor
here
it
quite
frankly,
an
assault
on
officer
is
just
like
two
people
get
in
a
fight
and
neither
of
them
are
in
uniform
or
on
duty.
So
that's
what
the
bill
does.
A
E
B
A
B
A
Members
you've
heard
the
explanation,
any
discussion,
seeing
none
were
ready
to
vote
all
those
in
favor
of
attaching
amendment
code
4278
to
house
bill
563,
please
signify
saying
aye
those
opposed
you
adopt
we're
back
on
the
bill
as
it
amended.
The
amendment
made
the
bill
any
further
questions
for
the
sponsor,
seeing
none
all
those
in
favor
of
sending
house
bill.
563
has
amended
the
calendar
and
rules
please
signify
by
saying
aye
aye
those
opposed
ma'am
you
head
to
calendar
and
rules.
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
ma'am.
A
B
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
members
of
the
committee.
What
this
bill
does
right
here
is
it
currently,
the
tbi
maintains
a
drug
offender
registry.
This
bill
would
remove
those
names
of
the
registry
that
have
deceased,
and
it
also
requires
the
the
tbi
to
verify
that
through
death
records
or
other
other
means.