Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Dui Victim Impact Panel topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill would require online victim-impact panels for DUI defendants; sponsors and chiefs back measure
Summary
Representative Nancy Murphy and law enforcement supporters told the committee HB 602 would add court-ordered completion of a defined online victim-impact panel program for DUI offenders; witnesses said the program is low-cost to the state and may reduce recidivism.
A proposed law that would allow courts to require drivers convicted of DUI to complete an online victim-impact panel drew support from law enforcement and program operators Thursday. Representative Nancy Murphy, sponsor of House Bill 602, told the Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee the measure would add an online victim-impact panel as a court-ordered option for impaired-driving sentences.
"If we have the ability to positively impact outcomes for both DUI offenders and potential victims, and this comes at no cost to the state or county, I hope you'll agree that we should at least be willing to try," Murphy said. The sponsor said the measure does not name a specific vendor; any program that meets the statutory definition would be eligible.
Former Merrimack Police Chief Denise Roy and current officers described their experience with victim-impact panels and the U Impact program cited in testimony. Roy said she attended both live and online panels and found the online format allowed participants to absorb stories about consequences of impaired driving without the shame or distraction that can arise in a crowded live setting. "An effective victim impact panel should aim to influence participants on an emotional level, changing their attitudes towards impaired driving and reducing likelihood of reoffending," Roy testified.
Tara Diamond, an employee of U Impact, described the program's origin and said the organization has registered about 55,000 participants nationwide. She said the program's founder turned her own loss into a curriculum and that post-course feedback frequently reports a change in participants’ attitudes.
Law-enforcement witnesses, including Brian Lavec and other chiefs, described local experience and support. Lavec said he personally took the online course and found it impactful; he urged lawmakers to consider the bill as another tool for reducing impaired-driving recidivism.
The bill would allow a $100 charge to the offender for the program; Murphy said indigent defendants can be accommodated through program waivers. Some committee members asked about evidence tying program participation to reduced recidivism; Roy cited U Impact analyses showing lower repeat-offense rates in two Florida counties relative to national baselines, and she provided written testimonials and a company study referenced in testimony.
Erin Cregan, general counsel for the Judicial Branch, said the sponsor had consulted broadly and that implementation concerns could be addressed if the legislature chooses a policy direction.
Witnesses urged the committee to advance the bill; no committee vote was recorded at the hearing.
