MONTGOMERY — The House ground to a halt on Tuesday over legislation by State Rep. Phillip Pettus (R-Killen) that would prohibit judges from offering youthful offender status to those over 16 years of age who are charged with intentional murder or capital murder.
Under current state law, a judge can use his discretion to grant youthful offender status to a defendant under the age of 19. House Bill 146 (HB146) would remove that discretionary authority, dropping the minimum age of consideration to 16.
The bill ultimately passed with an amendment to more narrowly tailor the bill to target those committing intentional homicide, but not without significant pushback from primarily Democratic lawmakers. House members who spoke against the legislation seemed to all take umbrage with the prospect of taking away judicial discretion from judges to determine on a case-by-case basis.
The only Republican to speak against the bill was retired judge and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Hill (R-Moody), who, in addition to objecting to removing judicial discretion, seemingly took issue with the bill being passed out of the Public Safety Committee rather than his own.
"You know folks, I'm going to tell you, we do things, and we are removing judicial discretion; we do it over and over again," Hill said. "I hear from legislators comments like this: 'We don't want judges making law from the bench. We don't want them legislating from the bench.' And they're absolutely correct. Judges should never ever legislate from the bench. However, the court handles cases and controversies that come before it. The court does not handle policy decisions. It handles cases and controversies on an individual basis that comes before it. And to remove the discretion of the judge who knows the facts of the particular case that is coming before that judge, you are eroding the ability of the court to make the decisions that it needs to make as it deals with that particular case or that particular controversy."
State Rep. Pebblin Warren (D-Tuskegee) spoke against the bill, suggesting it was too harsh on juveniles.
"I can't help but think about some juveniles I've worked with [and] I've counseled," Warren said. "And in dealing with these kids, most of their actions are done with ego and at the moment. They don't even think about what they're doing. And to say that we need to not give them a second chance, at least when they're convicted as juveniles, they're not set free. They got to serve some time. And I think during that time, not only age-wise, but I think growth-wise, experience-wise, mental-wise, they have an opportunity to go back and rethink what they've done. To be here today and vote so freely, not allowing that child —because that's what we're dealing with now— we are not letting that child have a second chance."
State Rep. Prince Chestnut (D-Selma), a lawyer, accused Pettus of "forum shopping," a legal term used when lawyers seek out a judicial venue they believe will be more favorable to their case. Chestnut said Pettus forum shopped his bill through another committee, knowing the Judiciary Committee would not view it favorably.
When Pettus rejected the accusation, stating he did not determine which bills went to which committees, Chestnut responded, "So you had nothing to do with it? It just happened to appear in a very soft committee?" Chestnut's comments earned groans from the rest of the House.
State Rep. Allen Treadaway (R-Morris), the chairman of the Public Safety and Homeland Security Committee, took the podium and expressed apparent displeasure at his committee being referred to as "soft."
"Unfortunately, you have to bring bills like this because, in Public Safety and Homeland Security, which is made up predominately of law enforcement officers that know something about crime and know something about going before judges. Some of these judges that use this discretion in a manner that's not really safe for the public."
He continued, "Maybe it was steered that way because folks are starting to view Judiciary as a soft-on-crime committee."
Despite the protests, the bill passed 67-33, with five "no" votes from Republican lawmakers. It now goes to the Senate for deliberation.
To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email [email protected].
Don't miss out! Subscribe to our newsletter and get our top stories every weekday morning.
