Senate called to order at 11:13 a.m.
President Hammargren presiding.
Roll called.
All present.
Prayer by the Chaplain, The Reverend Richard H. Campbell.
Eternal and ever blessed God: You are known by many names throughout the world. Your goodness, might and power are felt by all Your children. We come before You this day with gratitude in our hearts for Your many blessings to us. We praise You for Your presence here and ask Your blessing upon this senate. Their tasks are enormous, give them strength; important, give them wisdom; humane, give them compassion. Grant them Your blessing and also bless our state and our nation now and in the future. We pray in Your Holy Name.

Amen.

Pledge of allegiance to the Flag.

Senator Raggio moved that further reading of the Journal be dispensed with, and the President and Secretary be authorized to make the necessary corrections and additions.
Motion carried.

Senator Raggio moved that the Senate recess subject to the call of the Chair.
Motion carried.

Senate in recess at 11:17 a.m..

At 11:19 a.m..
President pro Tempore Jacobsen presiding.
Quorum present.

Randolph J. Townsend,

Chairman

Mr. President pro Tempore:
Your Committee on Commerce and Labor, to which was referred Senate Bill No. 248, has had the same under consideration, and begs leave to report the same back with the recommendation: Amend, and do pass as amended.

Randolph J. Townsend,

Chairman

Mr. President pro Tempore:
Your Committee on Finance, to which was re-referred Senate Bill No. 285, has had the same under consideration, and begs leave to report the same back with the recommendation: Do pass, as amended.

William J. Raggio,

Chairman

Mr. President pro Tempore:
Your Committee on Finance, to which was referred Assembly Bill No. 408, has had the same under consideration, and begs leave to report the same back with the recommendation: Do pass.

William J. Raggio,

Chairman

Mr. President pro Tempore:
Your Committee on Finance, to which was referred Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 15, has had the same under consideration, and begs leave to report the same back with the recommendation: Be adopted.

William J. Raggio,

Chairman

Mr. President pro Tempore:
Your Committee on Human Resources and Facilities, to which was referred Senate Bill No. 316, has had the same under consideration, and begs leave to report the same back with the recommendation: Amend, and do pass as amended.

Raymond D. Rawson,

Chairman

Mr. President pro Tempore:
Your Committee on Judiciary, to which were referred Assembly Bills Nos. 110, 324, has had the same under consideration, and begs leave to report the same back with the recommendation: Do pass.

Mark A. James,

Chairman

Mr. President pro Tempore:
Your Committee on Taxation, to which were referred Senate Bills Nos. 353, 364, has had the same under consideration, and begs leave to report the same back with the recommendation: Do pass.

Mike McGinness,

Chairman

Assembly Chamber, Carson City, May 15, 1997

To the Honorable the Senate:
I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the Assembly on this day passed Senate Bills Nos. 51, 54, 68, 98, 176.
Also, I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the Assembly on this day adopted Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 37.
Also, I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the Assembly on this day passed, as amended, Senate Bill No. 77, and respectfully requests your honorable body to concur in said amendment.
Also, I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the Assembly on this day concurred in the Senate amendment to Assembly Bill No. 32.
Also, I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the Assembly on this day passed, as amended, Assembly Bills Nos. 115, 136.
Also, I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the Assembly on this day passed Assembly Bill No. 400.
Also, I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the Assembly on this day concurred in Senate amendment No. 227 and respectfully refused to concur in Senate amendment No. 307 to Assembly Bill No. 29.
Also, I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the Assembly on this day passed Assembly Joint Resolution No. 11.
Jacqueline Sneddon

Assistant Chief Clerk of the Assembly

Assembly Chamber, Carson City, May 16, 1997

To the Honorable the Senate:
I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the Assembly on this day passed Senate Bills Nos. 178, 202, 232, 249.

Also, I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the Assembly on this day amended, and on this day passed, as amended, Senate Bill No. 27, and respectfully requests your honorable body to concur in said amendment.
Also, I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the Assembly on this day adopted Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 38.
Also, I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the Assembly on this day passed, as amended, Assembly Bills Nos. 128, 156, 291, 309.
Also, I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the Assembly on this day adopted Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 26.
Jacqueline Sneddon

Assistant Chief Clerk of the Assembly

Assembly Chamber, Carson City, May 19, 1997

To the Honorable the Senate:
I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the Assembly on this day adopted Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 27.
Jacqueline Sneddon

Assistant Chief Clerk of the Assembly

Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 26.
Senator Rawson moved the adoption of the resolution.
Remarks by Senator Rawson.
Resolution adopted.

Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 27.
Senator Washington moved the adoption of the resolution.
Remarks by Senator Washington.
Resolution adopted.

By Senator Titus:
Senate Bill No. 402--An Act relating to the criminal justice system; revising certain provisions concerning admitting a person to bail; revising the penalties imposed for committing a battery which constitutes domestic violence; authorizing the state board of parole commissioners to impose certain conditions on a parolee; providing for the formation of a multidisciplinary team to review and investigate the death of a victim of domestic violence; requiring the appointment of a committee to certify certain programs related to domestic violence; expanding the authority of courts and certain public agencies to protect a child exposed to domestic violence; providing a penalty; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator Titus moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Motion carried.

By Senator Rawson:
Senate Bill No. 403--An Act relating to taxation; requiring the state treasurer to establish a program for the issuance of allodial titles for certain property; creating the allodial title trust fund; providing that property for which allodial title has been established is entitled to an exemption from execution for certain debts and judgments; authorizing a waiver of the exemption under certain circumstances; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator Rawson moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Taxation.
Motion carried.

By the Committee on Government Affairs:
Senate Bill No. 404--An Act relating to county government; expanding the purposes for which an area or zone for the preservation of a habitat may be created in larger counties; decreasing the amount of the fee per acre of affected land authorized for the support of such an area or zone; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator O'Connell moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Government Affairs.
Motion carried.

By the Committee on Government Affairs:
Senate Bill No. 405--An Act relating to the fund for insurance premiums; making various changes concerning deposits to and expenditures from the fund; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator O'Connell moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Government Affairs.
Motion carried.

By the Committee on Judiciary:
Senate Bill No. 406--An Act relating to the criminal justice system; requiring the attorney general, a district attorney and an agency of criminal justice in this state to respond promptly to a request from the department of prisons for information regarding pending charges against an offender; making various other changes concerning the procedure for requesting that an offender be released to an agency of criminal justice upon release from the custody of the department of prisons; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator Washington moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Motion carried.

By the Committee on Judiciary:
Senate Bill No. 407--An Act relating to securities exchanges; extending the scope of regulation; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator James moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Motion carried.

By the Committee on Judiciary:
Senate Bill No. 408--An Act relating to securities; defining "commission" for the purpose of determining exemptions from the requirements for licensure and registration; providing a waiver from the examination for licensure as a sales representative or broker-dealer for certain officers and directors of persons who issue securities; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator James moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Motion carried.

By the Committee on Judiciary:
Senate Bill No. 409--An Act relating to eminent domain; limiting the exercise of the power of eminent domain for byroads to public agencies; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator James moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Motion carried.

Assembly Bill No. 115.
Senator Rawson moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Commerce and Labor.
Motion carried.

Assembly Bill No. 128.
Senator Rawson moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Human Resources and Facilities.
Motion carried.

Assembly Bill No. 136.
Senator Rawson moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Commerce and Labor.
Motion carried.

Assembly Bill No. 156.
Senator Rawson moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Human Resources and Facilities.
Motion carried.
Senator Rawson moved that the action whereby Assembly Bill No. 156 was referred to the Committee on Human Resources and Facilities be rescinded.
Remarks by Senator Rawson.
Motion carried.
Senator Rawson moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Commerce and Labor.
Motion carried.

Assembly Bill No. 291.
Senator Rawson moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Taxation.
Motion carried.

Assembly Bill No. 309.
Senator Rawson moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Commerce and Labor.
Motion carried.

Assembly Bill No. 400.
Senator Rawson moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Motion carried.
Senator Rawson moved that the motion whereby Assembly Bill No. 400 was referred to the Committee on Judiciary be rescinded.
Remarks by Senator Rawson.
Motion carried.
Senator Rawson moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Commerce and Labor.
Motion carried.

Senate Bill No. 337.
Bill read second time.
The following amendment was proposed by the Committee on Finance:
Amendment No. 349.
Amend section 1, page 1, line 3, by deleting "$55,000" and inserting "$40,000".
Senator Raggio moved the adoption of the amendment.
Remarks by Senator Raggio.
Amendment adopted.
Bill ordered reprinted, engrossed and to third reading.

Senate Bill No. 5.
Bill read third time.
Remarks by Senator James.
Roll call on Senate Bill No. 5:
Yeas--21.
Nays--None.
Senate Bill No. 5 having received a constitutional majority, Mr. President pro Tempore declared it passed, as amended.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.

Senate Bill No. 6.
Bill read third time.
Roll call on Senate Bill No. 6:
Yeas--21.
Nays--None.
Senate Bill No. 6 having received a constitutional majority, Mr. President pro Tempore declared it passed, as amended.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.

Senate Bill No. 99.
Bill read third time.
Remarks by Senator James.
Roll call on Senate Bill No. 99:
Yeas--21.
Nays--None.
Senate Bill No. 99 having received a constitutional majority, Mr. President pro Tempore declared it passed, as amended.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.

Senate Bill No. 101.
Bill read third time.
Remarks by Senators James and Neal.
Senator Neal requested that the following remarks be entered in the Journal.
Senator James:
Thank you, Mr. President pro Tempore. I would like to make a few remarks concerning Senate Bill No. 101 and the justification for the bill which has been heard by the Interim Committee, by the Senate Judiciary Committee and by the Senate Finance Committee. Fourteen members of this body have heard this bill and voted for it unanimously.
This bill does make a revolutionary and landmark change in the laws of the State of Nevada because it provides, for the first time, for court imposed treatment of a sex offender. It imposes this on a particular kind of sex offender and is limited to sex offenders who commit their crimes against the weakest and least able to protect themselves - our children.
First, I would like to tell you about the statistics so that you can better understand the predicate for this piece of legislation. We are not merely processing a bill because it sounds like a good thing to do. This measure is meant to address a very acute problem that is not only existing throughout this country, but particularly in our own state. There was a quiz published in a corrections magazine which asked the reader, at the beginning of the article, to decide which of the four multiple choice answers was correct. The question asks what portion of the prison population in the United States is serving time for committing a sexual offense. The choice of answers were: (a) 1 in 200; (b) 1 in 100; (c ) 1 in 50 and (d) 1 in 7. The answer is (d) 1 in 7. That is exactly the ratio in the prison population of our state. Over 10 percent of all people incarcerated in Nevada are there because of sexual offenses. A great number of those sexual offenses are sexual offenses which have been committed against children. In 1995, persons aged 12 or under reported experiencing an estimated 260,300 attempted or completed rapes and nearly 95,000 threatened or completed sexual assaults. Those are statistics that come reported from children under the age of 12 years. As all of the literature will tell you, probably the least reported crimes of any crimes against the person are those committed against children. Often, children do not even know that a crime has been committed. In many cases involving pedophiles, they are led to believe that this is appropriate behavior and that they should consent to it. In all such cases, this behavior constitutes a crime. Recent testimony given in Washington, D.C. , Kenneth Fuller, a leading authority on this subject, said that an individual child molester or pedophile may commit hundreds of sexual acts on a staggering number of victims. One recent study involving confidential, self-reporting of crimes by molesters showed that 377 pedophiles claimed responsibility for nearly 50,000 sex acts on 27,000 victims. These victims, Mr. President, are the children of this country. Among them are the children of our very own state for which we bear primary and principal responsibility for their safety.
Again, of those who are incarcerated, more than half of the inmates having had child victims and who had been convicted of violence, approximately 10 percent of all violent offenders in state prisons reported that their victims had been aged 12 or under. Those inmates who had attacked children aged 12 or under accounted for almost 90 percent of state prisoners serving time for child abuse and more than 50 percent of those serving time for forcible rape. Six out of 10 offenders who victimized children had previously served sentences to probation or incarceration. One in four had a prior history of violence. These are people who are extremely familiar with the criminal justice system.
The question is, what do we do with these individuals? Our current philosophy of criminal justice, in this country and in Nevada, is that we take people who commit serious crimes, give them long prison sentences, make them spend their time behind bars and then release them back into society. We know that type of punishment does not work in many cases. A drug offender enters prison, comes out and is many times a better drug offender. The burglar or property felon goes into prison, comes out and has many times done nothing to rehabilitate himself and goes back to committing those very same types of crime. For these complex individuals who commit sexual offense against children, not only do we do nothing to attempt to rehabilitate them, we do not even attempt to understand what is motivating their conduct. We warehouse them in prison and then release them back into society untreated. They continue on with the type of crime they knew; the terrorizing life of crimes against children.
What we currently do with sex offenders, especially those who offend children, is like playing a game of Russian roulette. You stand at the door, release them after their sentence of imprisonment is completed and it is like putting a gun to our head, pulling the trigger and hoping that there is not a bullet in the chamber. Under our current system for dealing with these offenders, we do not even spin the chamber or even look in the chamber. We do nothing. There is the very good possibility that the person released will re-offend. It is not ever like the traditional game of Russian roulette, but more like five out of the six chambers are full instead of five out of six being empty.
Let me tell you about the provisions contained in Senate Bill No. 101. This measure would provide, for the first time, for treatment with chemical compounds for offenders who commit crimes against children. We have extensive legislative findings at the beginning of the bill which reflect those things found by the committee such as the dangerousness of these offenders and the failings of our current system to do anything about them. It provides, when an offender is going to be released, for the district attorney to get a date in court. A hearing will be held during which a number of things are determined. First, it must be determined that the person is one who committed these prior acts, one of which has to be against a child, and I'll tell you about the reason behind that requirement which was amended into the bill. Next, and the important thing, is that the judge has to find by clear and convincing evidence, not only were there prior offenses, but that the person suffers from a mental disorder which is causing those crimes to occur. Also, because of prior history and his mental disorder, that person is likely to re-offend and presents a danger to society. Finally, for the protection of the individual who is the subject of the petition, it must be determined that this kind of treatment is appropriate given the physical health of that person at that time. Because the measure is drafted in that way, it protects the rights of the accused. If they are indigent, they are appointed a defense counsel. They also have the right to obtain their own counsel. The legislature has clearly articulated the reasons for this in both the findings at the beginning of the bill and in the predicates for a person receiving this kind of treatment. All of those were the reasons why we were able to obtain a letter, dated April 26, 1997 from the Legislative Counsel opining that under the provisions of Senate Bill No. 101 the ex post facto clause, the double jeopardy clause, the cruel and unusual punishment clause and the due process clause of the Constitution of the United States do not pose constitutional problems. The opinion is that once this bill is enacted, it will withstand constitutional scrutiny on all of those grounds.
What about the medical indications of this treatment? Is this an appropriate treatment? I presented the two committees with a number of studies from those who are experts in medical issues to those who were experts in treatments within the criminal justice system. Let me give you some information on those studies. The drug prescribed in this bill is essentially the drug depo-provera, but is actually medroxyprogesterone acetate. I'll refer to it as MPA as do the professionals in the industry. One article states that a recent study revealed that the re-offense rate for sex offenders undergoing MPA treatment was 18 percent compared to 58 percent of the same kind of sex offenders who did not undergo treatment. Clearly there is evidence of success in the places where this has been tried. This treatment has been used in Texas, California and overseas, particularly in the Scandinavian countries. They have had great success in utilizing this kind of treatment, but it is not a treatment for all kinds of sex offenders. It is the treatment for a particular kind of sex offender, those who are known as paraphiliacs. Sex offenders can be broken down into four types: (1) Those who deny the commission of any crimes or the nature of the act; (2) Those who confess to the commission of the crime, but place the blame on non-sexual or non-personal forces; (3) There is the violent criminal who is motivated by non-sexual gains such as anger, power or violence; (4) This type is the paraphiliac who exhibits a pattern of sexual arousal based upon the criminal conduct. The fourth type is the one who is targeted in this bill. A paraphiliac is a pedophile, a child molester; one who commits a crime against children. In those cases, it is definitely a sexual disorder and is motivated by the mental disorder of the person. It is a way in which they are stimulated and is why they commit these types of crimes. For those kinds of people, using a chemical to reduce that stimulation and tendency does have sound effects. It means, in real terms, protecting the lives of innocent children. There are numerous studies which indicate that the paraphiliac offender undergoing treatment with MPA is no longer motivated to commit sex offenses and is thus more amenable to psychotherapy, which can enable him to adjust to a new lifestyle. We are talking about that. We are talking about people who are released from prison. Presently, we are doing nothing with them. With enactment of this bill, we would begin to do something which is recognized in medical journals as being an effective way of dealing with these offenders.
Simply put, it says in one article, MPA provides the most effective treatment for the rehabilitation of a paraphiliac offender. It concludes by saying that MPA should be offered as a treatment both as an option and as a required treatment under the appropriate circumstances. This is exactly what S.B. 101 does. In another article, it says that depo-provera is really no panacea. The drug is wholly inappropriate for a significant number of sex offenders. These we have excised out of the bill. Nonetheless, for some sex offenders, particularly paraphiliacs, a treatment including depo-provera and counseling appears to reduce markedly the risk of recidivism, thereby allowing such offenders to be safely released into the community. We are not talking about releasing anyone, under the bill, who would not be released anyway. They would still have to serve the long sentences of imprisonment we imposed last session and the session before with the truth-in-sentencing bills and the other bills which have enhanced punishment for violent offenders. We are talking about doing something which will clearly make them less of a risk to society when they are released.
Let me also indicate that this bill does also require the department who is going to be giving these injections to also provide counseling. We are giving both those types of treatment with this bill.
Lastly, in terms of support for this bill, I would like to read some of the letters I have received regarding this bill. These are letters from sex offenders themselves, believe it or not. One of the things they talk about is incarcerated sex offenders against children who are forced to come to grips with their crimes. That is one of the problems with the present criminal justice system, they are not forced to come to grips with their crimes. They are allowed to plead down to non-sexual offenses. In fact, the recidivism statistics get out of whack because, in many cases, people who are sex offenders have pleaded to a non-sexual offense. They really do have a criminal past disguised by the way the law currently works. The Judiciary Committee will shortly be bringing forth a bill to deal with that issue.
When a similar bill came before the California Legislature, and was criticized by some, it was the reading of a letter by a sex offender incarcerated in Texas which changed the minds of many legislators in that body and resulted in overwhelming approval and its adoption into law in the State of California. This letter is too graphic and too shocking to read in its entirety, but a few portions will help you to understand what is going on in the minds of these individuals. The letter goes on to say that he wishes that chemical castration would be an option for him. He says "We horrible monster men really do exist prowling the dark avenues of peaceful family communities, stalking and then pouncing on our vulnerable prey forcing thousands of innocent children to endure these disgusting and horrible nightmarish acts of sexual violence every day. What murderous monsters, demons and bogeymen terrorize your children and give them nightmares. Are they haunted by child molesters such as I? . The child molester monster could be wearing the image of my face as I have been masked as a brother, a cousin, a step-father, a school bus driver, a neighbor, a family friend and a total stranger that has molested hundreds of unsuspecting boys and girls of all ages, most of them under the age of 10." Those statistics I read you earlier about 260,300 sexual offenses against children in 1995 show that this individual is not the only one out there who could make these statements. The letter continues and states that the governors of Texas and California should support passage of bills to make this treatment possible for people who can no longer control their own conduct. There are individuals who are released from prison many times who tell the prison officials and the releasing authorities "don't let me out because I am going to do it again." They are let out anyway. We have heard these stories from surrounding states told over and over again. Hopefully, with passage of this piece of legislation it will prevent them from being told in Nevada.
Finally, a letter that I received from our own state prison in Ely, Nevada dated April 21, 1997. He says "I am taking a risk in writing to you and would request only that you read it through. I am a 34-year-old man serving a life sentence in Ely for molesting a child. I have seen some of the recent legislation you have introduced and endorsed, and I agree with your direction. I am writing to you because you are a champion of the children. Society needs you. I am also writing to others, both in the Senate and the Assembly, because so much needs to be done. I have lived as a child victim, as a man afflicted with pedophilia and as a molester ultimately. Nobody despises the man I am, or what I have done in my life, more than I do. Chemical castration, offender tracking, etc. are all necessary as long as men like me walk and breathe in society." There have been other letters expressing similar support for this measure. One of our Assemblymen who has been working on a bill dealing with sex offenses had a roundtable discussion about this issue with a number of sex offenders who are undergoing what treatment is now available in our prison system. He indicated to me that support for having the option of chemical treatment of this kind was unanimous among the members of that group.
Finally, Mr. President, I would say that I mentioned before this body last session and this session, that we couldn't have a greater purpose, as state legislators, than to deal with problems in the criminal justice system in order to ensure safety for our population. For the children of the statistics of which I read; if we don't do something, nothing will be done. Nothing that can be done in Congress will profoundly affect their lives. Ninety-five percent of all crimes committed are prosecuted and the persons are incarcerated under state law. We have a problem with our current justice system in Nevada. We do not have a problem with long sentences. We do not have a problem with truth-in-sentencing. We do not have a problem with prosecuting individuals and coming after people who commit violent crimes. We have a problem with what happens after they are sentenced. After they are sentenced, they go into a warehouse. It is much like taking a broken car and sticking it into the garage and hoping that, when you drive it out after five years of doing nothing with it, the car will be fixed. Well, the car won't be fixed. It is much worse with a sex offender. In the one letter of which I did not read the whole text, it goes on to say that while they are incarcerated a progression goes on in their minds. They become angry at society. The fantasies become worse as they are incarcerated away from their victims without any kind of treatment. When they are released, they are likely to commit more serious crimes. Unlike the car, which sits there broken, the sex offender sits in prison and gets worse and worse and worse. When he is released, he is not only broken as he was when he was incarcerated, he is probably one of the most dangerous kinds of individuals you could ever encounter. They are out there in society. My own family has encountered one of them in our daily activities at a movie theater.
I think that is testimony to the fact that the problem is not going away despite those who would say that statistics argue otherwise. The problem is on the rise. We have to do something. This is one measure, and I would urge all members of the Senate to support passage of this bill.
Senator Neal:
Thank you, Mr. President pro Tempore. I read this bill last night and was scanning it again this morning. I find some facets of this proposal somewhat troubling to me. One of these is that the bill seems to suggest that this procedure could be administered to an individual who has already served his time in prison. Also, this bill seems to suggest that, if the district attorney who is the initiator of this procedure files a petition in court, the court is then required to appoint a psychiatrist for a psychological evaluation. The psychiatrist is not supposed to perform the evaluation based upon his or her experience and training, but is to perform the evaluation according to standards which the legislature has set out in Senate Bill No. 101. Those standards go back to what is called a "recidivist sexual offender." I assume this is supposed to be one of the due process clauses put into this bill to allow the court to appoint a psychiatrist to perform this evaluation, but I think it would be better if the psychiatrist was left to his or her knowledge of psychiatry in order to perform this act rather than be geared to the standard set out in this particular bill.
The other portion which seems somewhat troubling to me is that, if an individual comes to this state and has committed a crime in another state and that state's law does not require the person to undergo chemical castration, once he lands in the State of Nevada, if this becomes law, that individual is then subject to a petition being filed by the district attorney and that person may have to undergo chemical castration. It seems to me, Mr. President pro Tempore, that our reaction is to these incidents after the fact. If we are concerned that repeated sexual offense should require the action outlined in this particular piece of legislation, then why not have a collateral action and go for something that would be preventative in nature? Why not have some type of training for these offenders? Since I have not studied this issue, I do not know what type of training is available, but I do know that once we allow actions to be taken against individuals, no matter how heinous the acts they committed may be, then we are traveling down that road where we tried to exclude the act by measures that Hitler used in the 1930s against those whom he defiled. The fact that we start with the criminal population does not seem in my mind that this may be the proper course of action to take. Even though I realize that the motivating factor, which has been ably presented by the young Senator from Clark County, is that we are attempting to protect the children. This is a group that no one in his right mind should be against. We have to protect the children because, as has been said in many circles, children are our greatest resource. Let's not use that to create mechanisms in the law that will become somewhat threatening, not only to that behavior in which the sexual predator engages, but somehow in the future might find it to be used to correct other types of behavior. Once we allow the gates to be open, anything the legislature feels is necessary to correct and eradicate criminal behavior can go through that gate. We have to be mindful of the fact that when we engage these types of laws and not tread upon that sacred doctrine in our constitution which we refer to as "cruel and unusual punishment." We have to be careful because the accolades, the pat on the back we might receive for passing such legislation might have the tendency to lead us to do damage to other rights. Even though, as heinous as the crime may be, we must also think about not only the letter of the law, but also the spirit of that law now and into the future.
When I look at this bill, even though the object at which it is aimed seems to be a valid one, I think the method contained in this measure is a devastating one to humankind. A lot of us would cringe at the thought of these acts occurring in and about our families and friends. As legislators we are charged not only with responding to these particular incidents, but responding in a way that we can put the best law possible on the books. A law which would not necessarily do damage to our constitutional rights.
I heard, when the young Senator read the opinion, that this would be constitutional. I must tell you that the constitutionality of this measure has not yet been tested. So far, in reading this act, my opinion is just as good as his. I think this is unconstitutional. Even though I know he means well and wants to correct something he has read of or heard about; I do too. But, I do not think this is the way to go.
Senator James:
Thank you, Mr. President pro Tempore. I'll be brief, but I want to answer some of the issues that were raised. First of all, with respect to the psychological standard, and whether or not we are handcuffing those who would perform these evaluations. These psychological standards articulated on page 2, section 7, beginning with line 20 define what a mental disorder is. That is clearly a psychological standard and I would assure the members of this body that the Mental Health and Mental Retardation Division testified in committee and assisted us with these standards. They even added the part about offering counseling as an adjunct to this chemical treatment. I think it appropriate from a psychological professional standpoint. That is what the psychologists have to find; that there is mental disorder and that you find this every time these crimes are committed. We are going a little beyond and that is where the due process comes in to protect the rights of the convicted under these circumstances.
The second issue was concerning those offenders who come into Nevada from another state. I have not received much response to that condition. I guess the answer to that is that to say to those child molesters coming in from another state and who would not like to be subjected to this--don't come.
The third issue is the question that we should be more preventative. That is exactly what this would do. With the high recidivism rate among these offenders, they are the ones who are cycling in and out of the criminal justice system and continually committing these types of crimes. This is a preventative measure which will, in fact, have the affect of reducing the chance of that category of sex offenders from re-offending. It is a preventative bill.
Fourth, there is no way to liken the scope, the intent, the current effect or the potential future effect of enacting this bill with anything that occurred in Nazi Germany. We have ensured that these procedures will not be misused. We very carefully deliberated about utilizing this procedure with the most dangerous convicted felons who exist in the world. We are not going to extend this procedure to anyone beyond that, but only to those who will benefit from this treatment. This kind of treatment is medically indicated and is indicated by a number of other factors which I have already described as being a means of treatment, not punishment, of these individuals. This bill would ensure that it is treatment.
This provides an apt segue into the final point of whether this is humane or whether it is cruel and unusual. I believe that you have to think about cruel and unusual in many terms. It is certainly cruel and unusual to society and the potential victims to release people from prison who say they are going to commit the same crime again. We have done nothing to prevent them from doing just that. In a larger way, it is probably cruel to that individual to allow them to be released when they say they are going to commit these crimes again. This would cause them to come back into the prison system again. Some of them have written letters asking to be given this option for treatments since it is the only thing that will stop them from committing these crimes against children and society. In that sense, it is probably much more humane to utilize an effective, known medical treatment on these individuals than to not use it. This is a very humane bill which withstands all of these challenges.
I would ask this body to support passage of Senate Bill No. 101. I would like to see it enacted and begin saving lives of children in the future. I have every confidence that those members who drafted this bill, supported it, and those who vote for it today can all think about a child playing in a school yard right now somewhere in this state who will live, who will grow into adulthood, because we enacted this bill. At least one, and I know there will be many, many more, but one is enough.
Senator Neal:
Thank you, Mr. President pro Tempore. I will make my comments brief to voice my skepticism of this measure. I only have to cite a couple of things. The President apologized to the people of Tuskegee, Alabama, who suffered through the syphilis experience. They were being tested for syphilis and denied treatment. The LSD experience which the service engaged in. Recently, the spreading of germ warfare over certain cities to find out how it affects. We don't know what is going to happen.
Roll call on Senate Bill No. 101:
Yeas--20.
Nays--Neal.
Senate Bill No. 101 having received a constitutional majority, Mr. President pro Tempore declared it passed, as amended.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.

Senate Bill No. 103.
Bill read third time.
Roll call on Senate Bill No. 103:
Yeas--21.
Nays--None.
Senate Bill No. 103 having received a constitutional majority, Mr. President pro Tempore declared it passed.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.

Senate Bill No. 156.
Bill read third time.
Remarks by Senators Neal, Adler, Raggio, Augustine and O'Donnell.
Senator O'Donnell moved that Senate Bill No. 156 be taken from the General File and placed on General File for the next legislative day.
Remarks by Senator O'Donnell.
Motion carried.

Senate Bill No. 247.
Bill read third time.
Roll call on Senate Bill No. 247:
Yeas--20.
Nays--James.
Senate Bill No. 247 having received a constitutional majority, Mr. President pro Tempore declared it passed, as amended.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.

Senate Bill No. 265.
Bill read third time.
Roll call on Senate Bill No. 265:
Yeas--21.
Nays--None.
Senate Bill No. 265 having received a constitutional majority, Mr. President pro Tempore declared it passed, as amended.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.

Senate Bill No. 330.
Bill read third time.
Remarks by Senator Neal.
Roll call on Senate Bill No. 330:
Yeas--21.
Nays--None.
Senate Bill No. 330 having received a constitutional majority, Mr. President pro Tempore declared it passed.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.

Senate Bill No. 359.
Bill read third time.
Remarks by Senators Neal and James.
Roll call on Senate Bill No. 359:
Yeas--21.
Nays--None.
Senate Bill No. 359 having received a constitutional majority, Mr. President pro Tempore declared it passed.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.

Senate Joint Resolution No. 18.
Bill read third time.
Roll call on Senate Joint Resolution No. 18:
Yeas--21.
Nays--None.
Senate Joint Resolution No. 18 having received a constitutional majority, Mr. President pro Tempore declared it passed.
Resolution ordered transmitted to the Assembly.

Assembly Bill No. 258.
Bill read third time.
The following amendment was proposed by the Committee on Commerce and Labor:
Amendment No. 345.
Amend sec. 10, page 4, line 39, by deleting "for a" and inserting:
"and proof of compliance with all of the requirements established by the board for continuing education for the".
Amend sec. 10, page 4, line 41, by deleting "fee," and inserting:
"fee and proof satisfactory to the board of compliance with all of the requirements established by the board for continuing education,".
Amend the bill as a whole by adding a new section designated sec. 18, following sec. 17, to read as follows:
"Sec. 18. Section 1 of Assembly Bill No. 105 of this session is hereby amended to read as follows:
Section 1. The board may, by regulation, require each architect, registered interior designer or residential designer who holds a certificate of registration pursuant to the provisions of this chapter to complete not more than 12 hours of continuing education as a condition to the renewal of his certificate."
Senator Townsend moved the adoption of the amendment.
Remarks by Senator Townsend.
Amendment adopted.
Bill ordered reprinted, engrossed and to third reading.

On request of Senator Augustine, the privilege of the floor of the Senate Chamber for this day was extended to Dr. Leah Kochman Najima.

On request of Senator Raggio, the privilege of the floor of the Senate Chamber for this day was extended to the following members of the Reno/Sparks Newcomers: Sally Normington, Anna Art, Sylvia Case, Sherrie Clark, Betty Curtis, Kathy Parker, Rebecca Pennell, Betty Plant, Doris Prentice, Maureen Rovig, Beverly Jean Sheneman, Evelyn Tannehill, Rosemary Volpp and Terry Volpp.

On request of Senator Washington, the privilege of the floor of the Senate Chamber for this day was extended to Diane McCollum, Ray McCollum and Margie McCollum and the following students from the Robert Mitchell Elementary School: Yesenia Diaz, Gloria Emnas, Frederico Estorga, Tara Johnston, Lance Lopes, Nancy Lopez, Ryan Mafield, Jasmine Moreland, Ryan Paradis, Athena Schneider, Ian Sorensen, Sarah Taylor, Julie Altura, Brianna Balch, Erika Barajas, Eric Bloom, Navi Cuellar, Jolene Duthie, Dallas Hixon, Zachary Holt, Brittney Hughes, Travis Kinney, Paul Laxamana, Jenny Rosales, Cirila Sandoval, Samantha Swanson, Jeanette Ventura, Karina Barrera, Joshua Berry, Christian Chaidez, Shawn Dow, Michael Eastwood, Michelle Elgin, Paul Garcia, Michael Locker, Lynn Martin, Brook Petuya, Justin Roach, Diana Ruvalcaba, Roberto Sanchez and Amanda Wilson; teachers: Mrs. Rains, Mrs. Dailey and Mrs. Casci; chaperones: Ellen Sorensen, Brenda Estorga, Rick Wilson and Nancy Pachuik.

Senator Raggio moved that the Senate adjourn until Wednesday, May 21, 1997 at 11 a.m.
Motion carried.

Senate adjourned at 1:09 p.m.

Approved:

Lawrence E. Jacobsen

President pro Tempore of the Senate
Attest: Janice L. Thomas
Secretary of the Senate