The Senate agreed to the title of the bill.
Protest
Senator Runestad, under his constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the passage of Senate Bill No. 683.
Senator Runestad’s statement is as follows:
The bill I think addresses some great issues related to those who commit crimes who are 17 years old which is what this bill addresses. I know individuals in my life who have had situations where they committed crimes at 17 years old and I certainly have a lot of understanding about the type of latitude we want to give the courts to give them a second chance, and so many of these nonviolent type of offenses, but my concern was the violent and the habitual. That was not removed out of the bill.
I was assured that, Don’t worry about it because the prosecutors are going to waive these 17-year-olds who have up to life offenses, capital offenses, these are the worst offenders—rape, murder, torture—don’t worry, they will be waived up into adult court. When I called Kent County, they said they get about 50 of these cases per year and they waive up between one and zero. The most violent individuals, they waive up between one and zero. Oakland County said they get about 55 cases; on average, they waive up between one and five. Macomb County didn’t have the statistics—or wouldn’t give them to me. Wayne County’s numbers were kind of nebulous—I couldn’t get an exact feed on that. With these numbers in some of the biggest counties in the state of Michigan where they are not waiving up these violent offenders which at that point was 16 and below, raising it to 17 still for these violent offenders which makes them eligible for release at 21 and hide them which expunges the record I think is a real concern here in the state of Michigan. These 17-year-olds, for example, when the bill was being heard, there was a Detroit News article that talked about two 17-year-olds who broke into a home and raped a child under the age of 13. Now that child—what was it, five years old, we don’t know—under the age of 13, that child’s life is forever altered and those two 17-year-olds then would be eligible to be released at 21 and have that record expunged .
The reason I voted “no” was simply not being able to get language in the bill that prevented the violent and the habitual. The overall goal, I believe, was good. It’s just I could not get that achieved.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 569, entitled
A bill to amend 1939 PA 280, entitled “The social welfare act,” by amending sections 14, 45, 55, and 58 (MCL 400.14, 400.45, 400.55, and 400.58), section 14 as amended by 1987 PA 266, section 45 as amended by 1995 PA 223, section 55 as amended by 2015 PA 90, and section 58 as amended by 2006 PA 200.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows: