 Good morning and welcome to Vermont House Judiciary Committee, and we are considering testimony on two bills regarding criminal threatening H203 and H302. And we're going to start with our Washington County State Security. Good morning. Welcome. Good morning for the record. I'm Roy Keebo, Washington County State Attorney. I appreciate the opportunity to speak with the committee this morning. As Washington County State's attorney, unfortunately, I'm often called upon to review cases that involve threats to either state government employees or to legislators, particularly when you are collected in person, at least in Montpelier. With that said, I think Brenda did an excellent job outlining the true threats doctrine and some of the impediments that exist to proving a criminal threatening case and why there can be frustration. In context, a lot of things that are disturbing to the recipient of a message or what appears to be a threat doesn't constitute illegal or cognizable criminal action for threat. So for example, in recent history, we've had threats made against state government employees, including very senior members of the state government that are ambiguous, something like I hope you die or I hope you rot in hell. In other context or the other portions of the message that can be incredibly disturbing and really create fear, however, under current, not just Vermont law, but really the Supreme Court law about what true threats entail that is still within the realm of constitutionally protected speech. So there's the difficulty and I don't subscribe to the notion that just because someone's in public service, they have to have a higher tolerance for these invasions into one's peace and security. I think Representative Burt it made an excellent point which is in asking is criminal threatening criminal threatening I think the short answer to that is, is yes, the standard is the same whether someone is in public service, or not presently. That said, there, the impact of those type of threats or actions directed towards someone or no less terrifying for one of our friends or neighbors who's not in elected service. But I think Representative Rachel since correct that there comes a point in time where these threats directed towards elected officials do deter free thinking and decision making and can actually bully people from expressing their true views or even lead to departure from from public service which is not a good thing. A few things I want to talk about structurally when I think the conversation today was outstanding in terms of identifying the pros and cons of identifying additional classes of people. I want to just highlight for the committee some other areas where there are already definitions that outline elected officials for cross reference. So first 13 BSA 3006 deals with neglect by public officials and it's a pretty comprehensive definition, I think to the point of representative not would cover even those at a local level. So section 3006 covers state county town village fire district school district officers. So really that's all focused on the executive branch but that is one definition that goes a little bit beyond just elected officials itself. Additionally, 13 BSA 1028 as many of you may be familiar with enhances punishment for simple assault and some other crimes with respect to the term perfect protected professionals, protected professionals law enforcement officers firefighters healthcare workers DCF employees and EMS personnel. So really your line of first responders along with DCF from a structural standpoint I also want to note that we have not we've discussed this in the context of criminal and it's also important to recognize that 13 BSA 1027 also outlines disturbing the peace by electronic means or disturbing the peace by phone. Frequently the threats or items received by legislators or others with right and come by text message social media phone calls and are not just are not a face to face threat threshold for disturbing the peace by electronic means is a little bit lower than criminal threatening it doesn't require the state to demonstrate that the individual was actually a reasonable individual would suffer fear of substantial bodily injury. Also another distinction as well disturbing the peace by electronic means right now does include I would read this for you. It does not currently include threats to a family member, however, it does include threats of injury or physical harm to the person or the property of any person so it goes broader than just protecting the person criminal threatening right now is limited to the person. I agree with. I'm not dancing into the discussion three or two, but I agree with bring here is discussion that the definition of family member should be this title 15 definition of family or household members that's much more relevant I think applicable to circumstances where there's not a direct blood lineage or marriage. Yet, it's still someone who's part of that individuals household. I think it's worth at the threshold just talking about the responses and so I was very pleased last year to be part of a conversation with coach Christie and the social equity caucus. I'm also able to talk about hate crime enhancement and some of the impediments to proving a crime. The truth that's factoring, I overlap stairs well and some of the same limitations or frustrations that are faced by law enforcement prosecutors are applicable here. With that in mind, the structure of the two offenses we deal with without enhancement right now disturbing the peace by electronic means is punishable by maximum of three months of incarceration criminal threatening is can be punished by up to one year of incarceration. Both are offenses that qualify for presumptive diversion under three vsa section 163 both are non listed and neither carries any sort of Brady disqualification as non listed misdemeanors. There are other type of cases where, you know, in, for our native, our neighbors who are not in this type of position. They are typically considered for diversion or the tamarack program and sent that way sometimes that conditions of release being imposed seldom do these cases result in a flash citation or emergency arrest of someone coming in. Likewise, there, there are offenses that qualify for a maximum under current law of $200 bail, and then the conditions release of course would be fairly minimal typically tailored towards protecting an individual or restricting movement of the person to a place or or household. And that sense. It's important to note that an enhancement builds upon relatively low threshold of offenses and I'm not here today to propose that there should be some sort of radical increase of these two to cover those but I want to give away the land of what the actual consequence can be. I know this committee has spent a great deal of time talking and considering and I'm sure Marshall from the defender general's office will have comments in this as well. There's been been a lot of I guess debate and discussion about the effectiveness of an enhancement as a means of deterring behavior. What I think is important to note is as I know, you know, the maximum punishments here are relatively well so if nothing else an enhancement provides a longer opportunity for supervision. I'd be hard pressed to find a circumstance where anyone has received a maximum incarcerated sentence or a straight to serve of one year and criminal threatening at this point. But that does come into play in terms of the Department of Corrections supervision. So with that, let's add the Department of State Strange and Sheriff my office is not going to take a position on whether or not there should be an enhancement or what groups should be protected. That is a question of policy for the legislature to decide. And I think that's one of the things that I think is important to note is that the Department of State Strange and Sheriff my office are not going to take a position on whether or not there should be an enhancement or what groups should be protected. That is a policy for the legislature to decide, and I think they've been valid points raised to both ends of, you know, there, there is the friction of when these threats are directed towards people just trying to do their jobs to make state government function whether executive or legislative or even judicial branch versus, you know, friends and neighbors who are just trying to go about their lives. The terror and impact is often the same from this. One thing I would recommend that the committee study further and I want to note is that when we look at both the executive branch and the judicial branch. We have offenses that are geared towards holding individuals criminally liable when their actions impact executive or judicial operations, specifically obstruction of justice under 13 BSA 30 15. One can be held liable up to five years as a felony offense for endeavoring to impede the new administration of justice. That's typically by trying to influence what witnesses say intimidated judicial officer. I'll allow all of you to, you know, catch up and read that in your spare time. But there are a number of specific circumstances where there can be a impact on the judicial system, and that has been noted. Likewise, section 3001 of Title 13 deals with hindering or term used a sort of interchangeably hindering or impeding a law enforcement officer so that's again a civil military or law enforcement officer executing the laws of the state of Vermont, who is interfered with in some manner by by a member of the public or another individual so the legislature has identified through existing statute areas in which we hold people criminally liable, not necessarily for directly threatening but rather conduct or combination of conduct and words that tends to impact the ability of executive or judicial officers to do their job or to accomplish their statutory missions. I was not able to find an analogous law dealing with that with respect to the legislature so as an alternative to enhancement the committee may want to consider whether there are. There is language or other options to take a look at those circumstances where words or actions are unduly impeding or intimidating a legislator from effectuating his or her duties. With respect to H 302. A few things that want to know right now under. I mentioned before under a to this is blind 19 of what's in front of you. I agree with with breeze comment that should reference family or household members, and that definition is found under Title 15 is also relied upon for our domestic assault. Turning to the more substantive changes on page two, starting on line seven. One concern, or guess one comment I had is, I do believe that there is a need to have enhanced protection for schools. The question though becomes as the language is written right now, it is limited to threaten easy firearm or explosive device in a school building on school grounds or an institution of higher education. It doesn't make credit or acknowledge against a population identified as part of one of those organizations. And if you go back to page one criminal threatening as it stands right now is threatened any person. There may be certain times where we are unable to identify a specific person rather the threat is generic towards I'm going to shoot up a classroom or, you know, the high school located at X or or something along those lines. And certainly, in recent history we've of course seen what happened in Fairhaven, and more recently, even then, Fairhaven, about just over two years ago now, the Harvard Union High School had a threat from a staff member. I think it's important to note and credit that this is a little bit different than typical criminal threatening because that threat caused mass fear and concern among a large group, both parents and students in speaking with at the time the superintendent of of the representative might be able to correct me I know it changed after act 46 I think it's the Washington West Unified Union supervisory district. Yeah, but yeah. I think that the superintendent indicated a just staggering increase in the number of students who called out and stayed out not just for one day but for in some cases up to a week. It also triggered a large scale from us a police and then share for spots providing security there so this did not come without impact on the lives of a broad group of people and also a fiscal impact on the school district having to retain security in that sense. So it's a good committee to consider whether there's some way to capture a group of people associated with the school, not just the building infrastructure or grounds itself. Finally, my last comment for this morning will be. I agree that the striking of the affirmative defense under some part F starting at line 18 on page to is appropriate. I think that the affirmative defense is something that's difficult for the state to deal with or disprove because we're appreciating at the time of charging, whether someone did or did not have the ability to effectuate this is difficult. Without more intrusive means of executing a search warrant looking for guns looking for other, you know, things that may not be feasible or practical given the time considerations or distance between the person making the threat and and the nature of the Generally speaking, Vermont law does not have many affirmative defenses in statute. That said, I'll defer and my general Marshall may have some comments on this. We had a great Sentencing Commission meeting on Monday where the idea of whether at basically discussing aggravating or mitigating factors embedded in statute and potentially unfavorable case law on that, but I think he'd be more eloquent in describing the risk factors associated with those mitigating with having a statutorily based mitigating factor. That said, it certainly is something that should be credited and I think even absent the statute would be something a court would consider when imposing sentence of you know something that's more fantastical. Last comment on that will be though that oftentimes a victim or recipient of a threat does not know whether it can or cannot be carried out and therefore the sense of trauma and terror imparted by such a threat doesn't change whether there was or was not the ability to carry it out so in that sense I think that the statute should be neutral on whether or not there's ability or not to carry out the threat. So with that, I thank you and I'm happy to answer any questions. Great. Thank you. Thank you very much. I see Kate and then Martin. Thanks. Having a lot of thoughts from earlier and now and I'll try to try to keep it focused on Rory what you were just talking about. Thinking about 203 and 302 together in my mind one thing that what keeps coming up for me and I think Rory you were speaking to it when you were talking about the impact on a school community when someone makes a threat of that magnitude is for me and I'll own this language and others can push back I feel like what we're talking about is terrorism to some degree you know I think we're talking about people taking action and making threats that impact our access to democracy that impacts our access to our social structures and society and I hope we'll have more conversation down the road on this issue I believe in Vermont we have a problem of white supremacist terrorism and I believe that we are struggling to address that in a comprehensive way. And all this to say I am getting a track a little bit maybe again we can come back to this later but all this to say I guess this is a question for you Rory and maybe Bryn or any other attorneys on here. Is that a word that is used in statute do we have laws within our state that address terrorism how is that defined where does that fit in here. And I'll just pause there for a moment but that's a question that comes to mind for me. And a great thank you Kate. Go ahead Rory. Yes the short answer is yes I'm going to pull it up right now so around several years after the criminal stat or criminal threatening statute was imposed and I think in response to the circumstances that have been the legislature passed what's called a domestic terrorism it's set forth at 13 vs a 1703. And to quote from a domestic terrorism means engaging in or taking a substantial step to commit a violation of the criminal laws of the state with the intent to a cause death or serious bodily injury to multiple persons or be threatened any civilian population with mass destruction killing were kidnapping. And then it goes on to further describe I'll skip serious bodily injury but it describes substantial step as conduct that is strongly corroborative of the actors intent to complete the commission of the offense. I believe in the past legislative biennium there was a bill that looked at an intermediate step between I guess criminal threatening and domestic terrorism. Colloquially other states have called that terroristic threats. For example, there are states that have that in between where there's a world amount of criminal threatening but directed towards a a distinct group whether that's a school body or a legislative, you know, area. Other states have specific prohibitions on bomb threats or other, you know, direct deaths on mass gatherings or stadiums. The distinction between domestic terrorism and its significant maximum punishment of up to 20 years is really that there's this requirement for a substantial step to be taken. So we're quite the extreme range right now between one year misdemeanor for criminal threatening all the way to a 20 year felony for taking a substantial step in terms of actually trying to cause one of these, you know, mass casualty or a mass terrorist terroristic events. So there, my opinion is that there is room within the statutory framework of the law to have some sort of intermediate offense where, again, a threat causes the same type of disruption be it an evacuation of a school building and evacuation of the legislature and evacuation of a state office building. These are all things that do cause significant disruption to government operations or life for community members. And I guess, thank you for that answer and I guess what comes to mind for me, you know, at the risk of getting too far away from the bills that are in front of us is what I just, you know, what I just heard you describe in terms of current statute related to terrorism. I didn't it might be in there but I didn't hear it reflected some sort of statutory acknowledgement of the psychic impact it has on society, you know, I'm saying so what I'm what I've heard you describe was like, you know, the acts themselves or what specifically threatened or what might be carried out. But I think again part of what we're talking about in the context of these bills that are in front of us is the terror that it instills in people and the impact that has on their behavior and so I don't know how we address that statutorily but in my mind I feel like we have to try to figure out how to take a stab at that component of it because it's such a massive piece of this issue. Right, thank you and let's hear from Martin and then worry if you could speak more about that with that, you know, intermediary step or, you know, or statute might look like that'd be great. Martin. I was going to jump to that first before the other question that I had. Isn't isn't what we're doing with this new subsection to kind of approaching this concept of the terroristic threats, you know that subsection to on page to starting at line seven. Isn't that where that could be, perhaps finesse that language there, or are you thinking of something. A separate provision, entirely right. So I think I think it is a step in the direction that's a correct assessment and I'm trying to go. I just found from, I believe it was last year, I pulled it up because I wrote a letter of support to represent a crowd. So this would be in the 2019 to 2020 biennium of H419 was the bill and I'll try to pull that up right now to see what the, what the particular language was if I can have a moment. Yeah, absolutely. Thank you. I know I just sent Renee a note asking I thought I did that or isn't this what I'm doing here. But yeah. Okay, so I was able to identify that. H419 from again, this is from the 2019 2020 session, it had proposed adding to subpart C2 of criminal threatening quote, a person who violates subsection a of this section with the intent to threaten any civilian population with mass destruction mass killings or kidnapping shall be imprisoned, not more than five years or find not more than $10,000 or both. So it's like fairly straightforward change. I'm not sure if there's other language and clarifying what that population meant, but that was, I think striking at that sort of intermediate range of recognizing this sort of trauma or impact on it on a community that doesn't rise to the level of actually being a consummated active domestic terrorism. Right. And it, but it uses the term mass or it uses the term mass destruction mass killings or kidnapping which I believe may be barred from the definition section of I'm sure Ledge Council be much faster find this than me but I think under section 1701 that covers extortion. Again, well, actually, it just borrows directly from section 1703. Some part a one B, which again, for purposes of domestic terrorism means threaten any civilian population with mass destruction mass killings or kidnapping so that's taken from its statutory cousin. All right, thank you. Martin keep going. Yeah, so it just, it seems that we could look at this language and perhaps capture a little closer to what we're after although we still have that, that barrier of the true threat doctrine which applies to all these things and that that's kind of been the frustration just to Kate's point I mean we have been trying to push against that for the last few years. And then we keep on running into that case law from the Supreme Court. But the other question I had, and it follows this actually is the disturbing the piece by use of telephone or other electronic communications I have a couple questions about that. One is how often is that actually used by prosecutors. I mean how often is that charged is that something that used very often right that you know of. It's fairly frequent. Yes, you know not necessarily sometimes in the context of threats against, you know, state government employees legislators others. It is frequently, I think we see it as a crime between citizens in the community fairly frequently, the proliferation of social media and some of the nastiness that has come with that means. We see a fair amount of it likewise disturbing the peace by electronic means is one of the offenses that subject to a hate crime enhancement and there have been one or two times in my recollection where we have charged that as a theory in Washington County. So, the other question I have with respect to this is it seems to be broader than just the true threats doctrine or I mean in how do we get around that in this particular provision, or is it just as applied and there just hasn't been a situation where this has been charged where it hasn't been a true threat. So, in one sense I think that you could look at it this way that the disturbing the peace by electronic means. Also, is someone analogies to a disorderly conduct statutes where it's what victim based it's also really a public order issue where it's disturbing the piece in some way. And it's not necessarily quantified on a threat itself. And another important distinction I think is this so the true threats doctrine applies to words itself. The analysis from a prosecutorial standpoint become somewhat different when words are accompanied by some form of conduct, and using words to infer intent or apply meaning to conduct is somewhat different and even in the criminal threatening statute we're dealing with the first part of it is important which is by words or conduct. Certainly there can be conduct that is directly threatening or places someone in reasonable fear of reasonable apprehension of death or serious bodily injury. There are a number of other again analogous or closely related offenses so, you know, brandishing a weapon, and then staying something threatening to someone that may not qualify as a true threat could probably satisfy criminal threatening pointing at someone that may also qualify as criminal threatening or reckless endangerment under the circumstances. All right, thank you. Okay. Thanks yeah I mean just. Again, to dig into it far off but just in response to Rory statements about the definition of terrorism I just want to have. I just want to name that it concerns me that the definition is bound around threats of quote unquote mass action. I just don't think that it fully reflects the insidious nature of terrorism particularly, you know, I'm going to go ahead and talk about white supremacist terrorism where threats against an individual a person of color for example, particularly in a public space has ripple it terrorizes a full community of people and so again if we're if we're going to be looking at this kind of thing. I don't know how that translates into law I'm sure there's all kinds of complexities and reasons why we haven't gotten this right. But I think we have to try to figure out some way of honoring that reality, but it's not just if we only define it around an action against a mass group of people we are missing a significant component of the problem. Yeah, thank you and worry I appreciate you speaking to that because I'm getting hung up on that as well. One of the other ideas that you could have to broaden that language would be, you know, against a off top my head some sort of, you know, an entity, a commission board governmental organization, or, you know, a cognizable group of individuals. And I think that comes to mind where you know just thinking of how other states have approached this or just conceptually, you know, we want to protect a church congregation just the same as we want to protect a school, I imagine. You know, group or organization of people who may have something in common that results in, you know, some sort of threat. And of course once we get to, you know, different groupings like that. It's not easy then to apply necessarily a hate crime enhancement, because it may be something that's neutral and may have membership from a, you know, of, you know, multiple people from very different backgrounds. So if you fall into his own where there isn't an existing statutory mechanism to then give a group or that collection of people some sort of, I guess protection to answer your concern which is the sort of collective trauma or terror that comes from a threat directed towards an entity for lack of a better term organization. Right. Thank you. Martin. I'm still kind of, I'm looking at the disturbing the peace I know it's not the bill before us but it's getting at some of the same behavior we're after here, but I'm curious, I'm not going to. I'm not sure if I remember the name of the case right and maybe it's shank, but the Ku Klux Klan distribution of flyers that was held to be protected speech and that was brought under the, not this disturbing the piece but it was a disturbing piece charge, and it was found that there still had to be a true threaten that situation. Is that affect how the disturbing the piece by use of telephone or other electronic communications, how that particular provision or can be used. So I don't believe so and so the shank matter was charged as a disorderly conduct. So that that explain, then go go ahead. I'm sorry. Yeah, that's okay so and just for reference disorderly conduct at right now has four different theories one is by engaging in fighting violent tumultuous or threatening behavior. One is the use of obscene or abusive language in a public place. Another one is disturbing a lawful assembly, and I feel like, I feel like Rick Scott at the presidential debate and forget one of the things I'm talking about, but the final the final prong is unreasonable noise. And the caveat is to all these disorderly conduct ideas is that it has to reason, either causes or recklessly creates a risk of public annoyance or public inconvenience. And that's I think the key distinction here is what is the impact. And so when you look at disturbing the piece by electronic means it can entail disturbing the peace and quiet right of privacy. Generally associated with the repeated calls or repeated messages of some nature, but also when reading that language it says to terrify intimidate harass or annoy so you're dealing with again a lower standard here where it falls more in the line of a public disorder versus it being a cognitive or direct threat against someone. And again, because this is sort of receiving a phone call or receiving some sort of directed electronic communication. It's, you know, behavior that's directly seeking someone out. So that I think that's where the art, Freddie, you know, doing an analysis on the fly but I think that's a big part of the intent element which is someone's purposely trying to reach into a private place presumably a home or someone sitting there with their phone to disturb them or harass or annoy them so. Thank you. Committee members, no apologies needed about. I think everybody's right on point in terms of, yeah, I think this is a really helpful discussion and so if we, if we stray from, from these two particular bills I'm, I don't see it as string I think it's, I think it's important so. So please keep, keep your thoughts and questions going. I'm not seeing any hands right now. Okay. All right, Rory. Anything. No, nothing for I really appreciate the the common discussion. This is always a interesting topic to talk about. And I look forward to seeing what the committee can come up with. Great. Thank you. Thank you so much. Okay, actually, why don't we get a Marshall now please. Can I just ask the quest before I forget the question that I had earlier on 302 and I'll probably forget it again if we keep on going right now. And I think it might be for Bryn as much as anybody but I guess Bryn's not here. Maybe I'll throw them let me throw this just so I, I'm just wondering on the 302. It's on page two line 16 and 17 access could be a question for Marshall now I'm thinking about let me just flag it for you now but and you can get to it later, where it says the under 18 years of age shall be adjudicated as a juvenile delinquent. Would that be changed consistent with what we're doing with juvenile justice and raising the age and that that's kind of a, you know, it's not what's really before us but if you could just flag that Marshall to hit on when you talk about this bill for us. Sure, I can do that. Hold on one moment. All right, thank you and good morning. I think has others have discussed I'm going to start by talking about really the idea of deterrence and enhanced penalties in the first place just as a starting point. And that is to say that both of these bills. But really are very clearly meant to deter behavior by enhancing penalties. And frankly that doesn't work. You know, even most recently, the United States Department of Justice has joined the sort of bandwagon of people who are coming around to the view based on years and years and years of studies and research that you're not, you're not actually adding any appreciable deterrent value by increasing penalties on crimes that there's really one thing that they have identified that the criminal justice person can do that actually does have a significant deterrent effect on crimes. And that's to increase the perception of certainty of that you will be caught and or punished. That's what has an effect on deterrence, increasing penalties, no, no effect on deterrence. So it's not, you know, there's no reason to pass these bills if the idea is to deter people from engaging in this conduct. Really the only reason to increase penalties on any offense is because you want people to spend more time in jail than they are currently spending. And I would even take it a step further than that which is that, you know, if you have people who are being sentenced under the current law and aren't being sentenced to the maximum, you know, to a very high sentence. Essentially where the judge is bouncing up against the maximum penalty, then increasing the maximum penalty isn't going to do anything. It isn't going to have any effect anyway. Judges already have some range of sentence and they are not sentencing up to the maximum. So unless the idea is that the committee is looking at the people who are being prosecuted for criminal threatening and thinking, man, some of these people are getting sentenced to what is essentially a maximum sentence. So that we think that they need to spend longer in a cell. That would be the reason to increase penalties because that's what happens when penalties are increased, people go to jail for longer. More people go to jail and the people who go to jail go to jail for longer. In the last years, I've brought in my copy of the 1972 version of Title 13. And I've also brought in the chart of showing the rates of incarceration on a per capita basis, and how that's increased over the years, and showing the comparison between my 1972 title 13, which is about three quarters of an inch thick. In 2020 Title 13, which is about four inches thick. You know, which I do sort of tongue in cheek to make the point, but the point is there, which is that as the legislature increases the number of offenses increases the scope of those offenses, and increases the penalties attached to those offenses. And when incarceration go up, that's what drives incarceration rates. You know they've done a lot of studies, especially recently, looking at what parts of the criminal justice system have the greatest effect on incarceration rates, is it prosecutorial discretion, is it, you know, quality of defense is does it have something to do with what you know, when people go to do see, and what they found is that the driving factor is legislation legislation drives incarceration, when there are enhanced penalties there will be a more incarceration. And so that gets me to sort of what the purpose of the bill is. And I think that in listening to the really very enlightening conversation about the bill. And so it doesn't strike me that most of the most of what I heard was not complaints that there's not high enough penalties. Most of what I heard was concerns and complaints that either true threats are not being prosecuted, or that there are just falls short of being a true threat that are nonetheless scary and dangerous and difficult, and in some cases sufficient to really affect the way that people carry out their business and go about their lives and represent the people in the Vermont. And that is true. That is undoubtedly true. I, you know, I speak as someone who quit being a member of my water board after receiving threats, which is actually kind of funny I was on the school board in the water board. And somehow on the water board I got threatened multiple times. Nobody seemed to care about me on the school board, but the water board was that stirred people up. And I quit doing the job because I just it wasn't worth it it was I wasn't getting paid for it it was you know totally volunteer, and it just wasn't worth having people show up at my house threatening me over water board politics and so I quit. That said, you know, none of that ever was anything that could be prosecuted. It was never true threats, it was the kind of threatening words and conduct that is scary and might change and in fact in my case, did drive me to do what I was doing and to quit a job or quit a role that just wasn't worth doing if I was going to be threatened doing it. And yet it wasn't prosecutable in any way. I think that some of the conversation around the use of, for example, the disturbing the peace by electronic means statute has been valuable I think one of the things that was a little lost in Attorney T. The explanation of that is, it's still hemmed in by true threats the, the ways that that statute can be used that don't have a true threats analysis to it are totally legitimate but it's totally taken out of the context of the content of that speech so just to give some examples. You know attorney Tebow is correct that a combination of speech and conduct can amount to a true threat, you know if somebody simply walks up to somebody's house with a gun that's not necessarily a true threat. And if somebody something that doesn't have a, an element of imminence to it, that wouldn't alone be a true threat because imminence is one of the requires requirements of a true threat but the fact that they, you know, their conduct put them differently in front of someone's house with a gun you know with the means to carry out that threat. That might satisfy the imminence portion so that might allow you to say, Okay, this is a true threat, but what it doesn't with that statute doesn't allow you to do is it would circumvent the true threats doctrine so for example, if somebody is calling up a house and making statements that are rude and I, you know, threatening but not yet a true threat. The only way that could be prosecuted is if the as something other than a true threat is if the conduct itself without any look at the content of the speech was alone enough to satisfy one of those other elements that it is annoying, intimidating, or harassing. That would be done only by looking at the conduct, not at the speech because the moment that you look at the speech, then you're into a content based restriction on speech. If you have to look at what the content is, then the restriction is content based. If it's content based then it has to fall into one of the categories of unprotected speech the obvious one. In this case would be a true threat. It has to satisfy the entire true threat doctrine so I say that only to just say that, you know that these are problems that pervade the entire system of, you know, our entire statutory scheme. We're not going to find a way to avoid the true threats doctrine and punish speech as speech that is not, you know, a imminent threat of intended to cause somebody fear that someone's going to do bodily injury to themselves or their family that's there's done that. And so all we're talking about here we're not talking about changing the scope of what's punished, or expanding the types of speech that can lead to punishment. All we are talking about is how much should people be punished. And it's our position that unless the legislature is sitting there saying, man, there's people who are going to jail for this but they are not going to jail for long enough and we want them to longer that this penalty enhancement scheme is not the way to go. Looking at the statute regarding schools. We also think that that's just unnecessary because because it's duplicative we already have the domestic terrorism statute which is kind of absurdly a 20 year felony for conduct that can amount to only a threat. If you read section a one, it says domestic terrorism means engaging in or taking a substantial step to commit a violation of the criminal laws of this state with the intent to and then subsection be is threaten any civilian population with mass destruction mass killings and that is that almost entirely encompasses the conduct that's described in the proposed school threatening enhancement. And it already, it doesn't require any sort of a completed act because engaging in a violation of the criminal laws of the state can include violating the criminal threatening law, such that making a criminal threat to a school or to any other place where you are threatening, you know, any population larger than just a single individual. You are running a foul domestic terrorism law and that already has a 20 year felony sentence associated with it. So, our position is that while I certainly agree that the type of speech and conduct that the committee is concerned about is incredibly concerning and really destructive and damaging. There's got to be a way to address it. That's not just by saying, we're going to lock more people up for more time, because that's not going to work it's not going to deter people from engaging in the conduct. We're going to spend time in jail. When it is not absolutely necessary for the protection of the public, typically come out of it with a greater risk of recidivism than when they went in. Meaning more likely to commit further crimes in the future than when they went in. So the real question here I think is just, what is this going to accomplish and I don't see it accomplishing anything that is really kind of reflecting the values that the values of the state of Vermont. Thank you, Marshall. I, I appreciate that. It's interesting having this conversation I was remembering what a few years ago we wanted a moratorium on no more crimes right. Barbara. So Marshall, I really appreciate you talking about the DOJ research and so I'm wondering again, if it's not making a new crime which I struggled with to when I introduced this bill, but how can we communicate the certain the certain message that you will be caught and punished. I mean that makes me again think it's the signs play mean it does seem like threatening knock on wood threatening child abuse. And the DCF workers as I've been heard about that in a few years and I'm feeling like that got better. I don't know about better or worse. I know that it still has been happening and happening with some frequency. So I wouldn't necessarily say that's, that's gotten better I do think, you know, that the sign I should have mentioned when I was testifying because that's a perfect example. You know, it's not about necessarily making, you know, increasing the actual certainty of detection and punishment. It's about increasing the perception of certainty of detection and punishment and a sign is a perfect example. It's a little reminder to people as they walk into the building saying, you know, this is this is the expectation this is what the law is. Keep that in mind as you walk into this building. You're certainly sending the message when you highlight that, you know, right, right front and center that you know if you do this, we will press charges you will be prosecuted do not do this. This is exactly the kind of thing that does have an effect on people's behavior. You know it's something totally anecdotally, we see it. We've changed some of it I don't remember all the details of, you know what our signs at our office say but we've changed signs in our office because we often get fairly upset people coming to our office with concerns and questions and problems and, you know, we've had some scary incidents and we've changed some of the ways that we address people as they come into our office building both right at our front door and up at our reception desk. And anecdotally that's changed people's behavior. And anecdotally I think that's any perfect that sign is a perfect example of the kinds of things that can be used to really have an effect on people's behavior. Hey, and then Tom. You know just before I jump away from that. One of the things that I think is a great example of that is, they've shown that the, you know, those speed limit signs on the road that register your speed limit and show you what it is. Those are one of the best. They have one of the greatest impacts on actually changing drivers behavior on the roads, and it's not changing the actual certainty that someone will be detected and prosecuted or ticketed for speeding. What it's doing is just giving people a reminder that saying essentially look, you're traveling too fast and look at how easy it is to catch you. This sign just got you. That has one of the most significant impacts on people's driving behavior of anything they've done. Yeah, thank you. Thank you for that point. Okay, Kate and then Tom. So, Marshall you were just describing that there currently exists sort of a pathway within the judicial system to address threats to schools. Through the domestic terrorism statue and I guess and I don't know if it's a question for you or maybe David or Rory but I guess I'm curious if that avenue you just described has been pursued within the state for folks who have made those kinds of threats or or how presently those kinds of threats are being addressed. I don't know the answer to that I certainly have not had a domestic terrorism case cross my desk. And I don't know whether any have been filed. I certainly don't see every charge that comes around, it would be something that's prosecuted rarely because, thankfully, these kinds of threats are in fact, pretty rare. So I'm, I have absolutely no idea whether one's been filed or not in a school case. I would say this I don't necessarily oppose the idea of some intermediate statute as attorney Tebow proposed that essentially removes the threats of domestic terrorism to a lesser penalty than actual committed acts of domestic terrorism. In terms of how it's been used, I really, you know, I, I don't have any information on that. I know that it is, you know, our domestic terrorism statute is actually very similar to domestic terrorism statutes in other states. I did a training not too long ago with the National Juvenile Defender Center, where we put up domestic terrorism statutes from all over the country. And just talking, talking about how they were used all over the country and it is certainly something that gets prosecuted regularly. If you start looking at it nationwide. And that's prosecuted regularly using statutes very similar to ours. I would say about it I mean to me it is a disproportionate response. I understand that, you know, times are different than they used to be, but a 20 year felony for people who are, you know, essentially calling in a bomb threat. I mean, when I was a kid, and I'm not saying that the response back when I was a kid was necessarily appropriate. But when I was a kid that was handled internally that was, you know, they, the kids called in bomb threats to avoid tests and honestly, you know, there would always be some sort of a, a, a suspension or a, or, what do you call it, detention, but the main penalty was that you got a zero on whatever tested is that you were calling it a bomb threat to avoid and we've come all the way in, you know, whatever it's been 30 years from high school to it being, you know, it's gone from something that was a school discipline matter to being something that's now a 20 year felony, right up there with, you know, murder and manslaughter, tired and manslaughter. So it's, to me, it's already a disproportionate response and I certainly would agree that moving it, whether it's done within the domestic terrorism statute or whether it's done by creating a terroristic threat statute but that in either event, essentially removing the threats of domestic terrorism to a lower penalty than actual committed acts of domestic terrorism I think would be a very appropriate move. I mean, I guess to add a quick comment to that, I mean, I think I appreciate everything that you're saying and it seems as though even if we technically have a statutory path that might allow us to hold someone accountable in the court of law, I think part of what you're speaking to is if it is, is perceived as a disproportionate response, it may not be an avenue that people pursue and we find our, and I feel like often in these situations that we're talking about related to schools. It's often young people and I think there's a real, I think good desire probably to not want to pursue a domestic terrorism charge against a young person, but it doesn't, that doesn't solve the problem that we're dealing with. You know, I would be shocked if there was any prosecutors who were not pursuing a legitimate domestic terrorism charge, simply because they felt that the penalty was too high. And I would, you know, if we're talking about a high school student, if they are under the age of 19, that would be prosecuted in juvenile court it would be. That would be a confidential matter, and the penalty would not really matter to the juvenile court because the juvenile court does not, you know they issue dispositions not sentences and they're not based on the maximum or minimum sentence that's in the statute. I don't think it would have an effect on it I think what it really is a reflection of is that, you know, in the school threats cases that I've been involved with since the domestic terrorism statute pasts. Those, and you know I'm not suggesting that I've seen a necessarily a representative sample of those. But frankly in a lot of those cases, either the threat was not actually a true threat and therefore not prosecutable as a true threat. Or it was a threat that was made by somebody who, you know, it shouldn't have been charged as domestic terrorism it shouldn't have even been charged as a criminal threat because that's not really the problem that we were dealing with you with the kids who had profound, very serious mental illness, and you know what they needed was not to be charged with a delinquency but instead to get treatment. And so, I mean, to me I, I don't think that there's some problem where domestic terrorism cases are out there and just not getting charged I frankly just can't imagine that from any of the prosecutors that I've worked with. So Tom and then Martin. Thank you. Like what you said about per perception. Marshall, I mean, there's, there's no organization anywhere that does a better job. As far as perception goes with convictions in the IRS. Your chances of getting audited or about as close to zero as you can get but the, but the perception with the IRS is that you are going to get audited and if you have made it. You know, it done something that you are going to jail I mean that's, I think that's pretty universal as far as the IRS goes but. And so it's just going through my mind is how to increase, how to increase the perception that you know that somebody could be could be charged with this and it is it. I guess is it the lack of resources that people aren't getting charged. Is it the lack of resources or is it that whatever they're doing doesn't rise to the, to the level of breaking the law. I never see cases that don't get charged I only see them when they do get charged. They're different, you know, I'm situated differently than attorney Tebow or attorney sure who are prosecutors and are, you know, they see things that I don't see because they see cases where the cops come to them and say what do we do with this, and they have to make the decision whether it gets charged or not if it's never charged. I never see it so I only see the ones that get charged and, frankly, you know, if you asked me to speculate, I would imagine that most of what you, what is concerning the committee is the cases that aren't chargeable. You know, all over the country, everybody has a perception of what is a threat that should be prosecuted that is very different from what the United States Supreme Court has said is a threat that can be prosecuted. It is not at all intuitive. If you think about like if you read the statutes on threatening. And if you think about what types of threats cause people fear cause people anxiety cause people, you know, real grave concern for their own health, and for the safety and for the safety of their families and you know that you would, you would imagine that that kind of everything that fits in that category would be prosecutable but it's not. You know the United States Supreme Court's lines on this have been drawn a long time ago and they've been upheld over and over again, and they are not in keeping with what most people think of when they think of a threat. But I imagine, you know, you're getting at is actually that there's a lot of cases out there that people look at and they say this is horrible behavior this is behavior that should be prosecuted and should be punished, but frankly it's constitutionally protected speech. Thank you. Thank you, Martin. I'd like to follow up a little bit on what you're just talking about with the the Supreme Court and the true threat doctrine and how that works with our criminal threatening law so I just want to make sure I understand so a person makes a threat to another person and the result of the threat places the person and reasonable apprehension of death or serious bodily injury is that those two elements is that following what generally what the Supreme Court is is or requiring with an additional element that it be. It's got to be a threat of imminent death or serious bodily injury. Okay, so how is this alright so serious bodily injury one of the definitions that we have in statute for serious bodily injury is substantial impairment of health. I mean as the Supreme Court or or cases following Supreme Court precedent, provided any further definition of what that means substantial impairment of health or more generally serious bodily injury that you know of. Not off the top of my head I can do a little research and get back to the committee on that. Yeah I'm just I'm just really curious as far as substantial impairment of health and this. This is kind of getting to new understandings and this is something I would look to Kate to probably chime in on that that the, the stresses that the PTSD the psychiatric harm that can occur. You know, does that ever amount to a substantial impairment of health is because I know there's been a lot of advances in understanding how that psychological harm can result in actual you know the physical harm. I can give you a bit of it now that I understand the question a little better I can give you a little bit of an answer which is the Supreme Court has never recognized anything besides physical harm. As the harm at issue in a true threats case. Does that mean that they won't in the future. I don't know it really depends on who winds up sitting on the Supreme Court in the future. I think it's pretty safe to say that the Supreme Court right now would not expand. And I think it's important for Dr into include by psychological harm in the true threats analysis. And I say that just because it's a, the, the, particularly the people who are described and I don't think it's necessarily an apt description, but are conservative members of the court have been very clear about not expanding exceptions to the First Amendment doctrine to First Amendment law, any further than they're already expanded, and they now make up a, you know, essentially a six to three majority on the court. And my point only is that cycle, it's not separate from from physical harm and that's kind of where my understanding of science is that that psychological harm definitely has physical harm impacts. And I guess, yeah, that's, but I have one other question. And that was back to that 18 year old question on the page two line 1617 if that's still accurate as far as where we're going with juvenile justice. No, that should be changed to 19 that was put in to essentially say that. So, you know, I think that as long as hold on I'm just trying to flip to make sure that I'm on the right statue here. So it may actually be something that can be deleted entirely I have to take a quick look at it because as long as criminal threatening. So if we were to put in the section that says that includes the enhanced penalty. We don't need the, that provision would need to remain there without the enhanced penalty than anyone under 19 already has to be adjudicated as juvenile delinquent. There's no way to transfer this one up. The enhanced penalty turns it into a felony which would mean it could be transferred up. So, so if it's, if we don't have the enhanced penalty we should strike that. But if we keep the, the, the enhancement and subsection two is what you're talking about right as far as the threatening use of firearm explosive device in the school building if that stays then this should change to 19 years. Yes. Okay, thanks. Otherwise it should go. Alright, thanks. Okay. Let's see any other hands any other questions for. Thank you. Thank you. Anything, anything else Marshall. Okay, it's great. Thank you. Thank you so much. Okay, go to the Attorney General's office. David share please. Thank you Madam chair and thanks to the committee for considering these issues. Attorney General's office for the record. These are profoundly important issues and they get to the heart of civil society how we live together how we govern ourselves, how we can have governance and debate in ways that are consonant with democratic norms and consonant with how we need to live civilly together and govern our communities. They're very tough issues. When our office thinks about adding penalties or enhanced penalties or adding new crimes. As a philosophical matter we generally look at it with a presumption against doing so. That doesn't mean of course that that presumption prevails in every case as the committee well knows we've supported enhancements. And that's to the hate crime statute this session and to the. And obviously we actually affirmatively requested an expansion on the child sexual abuse materials section on the flip side though you know when the legislation was being drafted directing the sentencing commission to recategorize offenses we've supported and I may be I think we may have even proposed the provision that carried strong presumption against enhancing penalties during the recategorization process. So that's the lens we look at these things through. You know when we look at these statutes, I think we've actually agree with points that attorney Paul made and that representable lawn made around the reality of deterrence and the sort of certainty of penalty enforcement if you will. It is the case and this is statistically very strong that increasing penalties does not really change behavior. The certainty of enforcement does change behavior or I should say the belief and the certainty of an enforcement changes the bit changes behavior. We have a real problem. There's there's two issues here that are sort of bumping up against each other and we think about these concepts one is that the truth that's doctrine and the Supreme Court jurisprudence do limit quite significantly, what the government can do to punish and in the modern era enforcement, even for those things that are enforceable is quite difficult and because of the nature of electronic communications and you know attorney or sorry representative not discussed the websites where it's very easy to mask where something's coming from and it does make enforcement very difficult even for those things that are prosecutable or perhaps sibling enforceable in certain cases. And I think that is resulting in extraordinary frustration and appropriate frustration around how we address these issues. I think that, you know, when we, I think there's a number of things we have to do better. One is we have to do enforcement better, and I don't I can't sit here right now and say to this committee that we have the answers on that but I think that is the case. And I think that we also have to approach these issues from multi pronged in a multi pronged manner, because the reality of First Amendment doctrine means that we cannot punish behavior that is reprehensible in many cases, and in cases that feel like it is deserving of punishment. Attorney Paul referenced that, you know, he, by the nature of his job doesn't see cases where, where charges have not been brought but I can say and I think it's, it's known to some degree that our office has confronted those issues where there's behavior that is reprehensible that is also not chargeable. And it's very difficult, and I think it leaves people feeling unprotected, very fairly so. I think that, you know, our approach on bills like this is, while we would not stand here and oppose them because I understand that there is at that, so maybe at best a message that's being sent. I agree with the testimony that says that it is unlikely that this will deter or change behavior, and that what is more likely in the long run to do that is sort of a multifaceted approach that it will include things like making sure that bias related incidents are being reported, you know, as quickly and comprehensively as they can to make sure that even non criminal responses are being brought to bear where appropriate. That also, but that also is going to mean things that are completely outside of the judicial responses that are completely outside the judicial system entirely and we've actually been talking about this with some communities about how this could work. That will mean things like community organizations where in which people may have may feel comfortable or already have relationships that bring restorative processes to bear. I know that that sounds strange in the context of offenders, and I use that term broadly not necessarily meaning criminal offenders but in the context of offenders who may be remorseless and their behavior or maybe unknown. That's also the case we found and we've discussed this with partners in other states that those types of responses where a community comes together around somebody can in fact be healing and make people feel safer. I also understand that that can feel to the broad public like an addict and inadequate response. That being said it's often the only real response it's available because there isn't a legal response given the restrictions of First Amendment doctrine. And I also will emphasize that we are believers in that type of response that that even even though that may feel inadequate from the public perception standpoint we know from having talked to individuals that that type of response can in fact deliver some real comfort and resolution for them, even when a perpetrator is not either unknown or not willing to engage. And just to say that these are profoundly difficult questions. I appreciate and I let me address the public officials issue as well you know I think, again, this goes to the heart of Democratic governance we should not have it be the case that people are prevented from serving, or stop serving or don't. Are fearful of serving in the first place because of threatening speech and threatening language and this is a problem that we need to tackle. And I think that being diligent where enforcement is possible is going to be something that we need to do you know I think that having a response that that feel serious to the people who have been threatened is important, even if the outcome of that response is that there cannot be a criminal sanction or a criminal charge brought people need to feel that government is listening to them and is responding. You know, in our office, our victims advocate Amy Ford is extraordinary work with people now making sure that they do have that feeling that there's a government there that is listening, almost regardless of what legal process may happen. And I think those types of responses those more that holistic approach is going to be necessary to deal with some of these broad issues because, in part because the limitations placed by the Constitution mean that criminal sanctions are not are simply not going to be available to a lot of the behavior that concerns us most. So I realized that that is a little bit rambling a little bit philosophical but it is where we're coming from on this stuff. I will also note for the record, you know, I, we were actually going to have one of our first amendment folks in our office testified today and they were unable to that they did review it and didn't feel that there was as drafted anyway that there were constitutional concerns with what's there. And we don't think that there are impositions on the first amendment, in terms of what's been proposed. So that want to state that for the record, the, the sort of way we're looking at this is really coming from more from a provincial standpoint and from the standpoint of an office that frankly has really grappled and at times struggled with how to be a government agency that is responsive on in territory that's very difficult. And I think we have to acknowledge you know I've heard even though these bills are not designed specifically with this in the language. I've heard this discussion today and I think it's important to acknowledge that BIPOC for governments have not felt protected by their government and that's also something that we've really grappled with through their in various ways through various entities and in various discussions that we've had. So again all this stuff I think is really profound it's really important that we talk about this and do what we can to address it in this moment in particular. And we don't object to these bills, and I think it's also the case that the testimony you've heard about deterrence and enforcement versus enforcement is true as we agree with those points. And I think some of the thinking that we need to do and some of the resources that need to be invested is around both the broader community responses that I talked about and also thinking about making sure that we have the abilities to the ability to bring enforcement where that is possible in order to sort of send that message and to to activate what is actually deterrent a deterrent effect. So I hope that that is a little bit helpful I apologize for being rather philosophical but that, you know when you're dealing with bills like this that are really profound and affect some really fundamental ways in which society operates which our democracy operates which people in which people may feel their identities threatened. It calls that forth. But I hope I've given you a little bit of a brief overview of the legal standpoint as well. Thank you. You have. Yeah, thank you. Thank you very much. C. Kate stand up. Thanks. Hi David thanks for the testimony and I appreciate that there's a desire within your office to bring some creative thinking to this issue. It's not a secret that your office has been at the center of some of some of these issues in terms of whether or not to move forward with with prosecuting certain certain situations and the whole conversation of like what matters most is whether the public believes that, you know, they will be held accountable or that the others will be held accountable. You know, whether or not someone is charged or whether or not we move forward with certain prosecution matters in those moments. And I, you know this isn't to be critical of your office, you know there I'm sure a million legal issues that are taking place behind the scenes in these moments but one point I just want to make first is you know you said it leaves people quote feeling unprotected and I would just push back a little and say I think it leaves people unprotected. And I think part of part of what we're trying to get it in this conversation is you know for all the good statute we do have on the book. People are being left unprotected in some of these situations and we're trying to figure out what steps need to be taken and maybe part of the nature of this conversation is that maybe you know looking to the court specifically for this answer isn't isn't it's certainly not the totality of the answer. But I guess I have a couple comment and then and then a bit of a question is, you know, it feels like as we're having this conversation there's this awareness that again there's limitations within the judicial system and that this is such a massive and complex issue that involves more than just the court. And there's part of me that feels inclined with this kind of issue to like, you know, strike it all and look at a task force that is looking at this as a broader you know how do we pull in like multiple entities and this is a far reaching systemic issue and for me I'm talking about again this issue of terrorism as we see it play out today. But that's sort of my comment is like how do we, how do we go outside of just trying to tackle this through like one bill at a time bringing enhancements or looking at specific populations or but like looking at this as a broader issue that impacts multiple areas of government. And I guess I would have is you know you're acknowledging that this is really complex and that you're having these conversations within your office and I guess I would. My question is, what have you guys come to if anything like in the midst of these conversations of how do we help people to be protected. Any answers, do you have any feedback about how you know we look at issues like Paula we look at issues like Morris like how, how do we build systems that leave people better protected. So, in a central question and a couple things one. We certainly haven't having these conversations and they have certainly not been limited to within our office we really are trying to reach out to community groups and individuals who work on these issues and thinking through what is going to be helpful and workable and also feel like a real response. And the answers are complex I think some of the answers that we've heard frankly are that sometimes government officials are not the people that that harmed individuals want to hear from our need to hear from, and that the best role that a government official can play is to maybe quietly maybe behind the scenes, connect a person with a pre existing community support that they may be familiar with or may not be familiar with but a community support where they are going to feel comfortable and not intimidated. And, you know, people who are not from you know Montpeliers far both geographically and psychologically for many people in the state, and not coming from, you know a distant central office but somebody who lives near where they live or people who live near where where they live, and can provide the sort of the response that feels like is in their, their community not just some distant office holders or bureaucrats but people in their community are responding are helping them get through what they need to get through and providing them the support that they need so that is one thing that we've heard really clearly is that some of the answer here is building a network of community supports. And there's a lot of groups like this around Vermont that do this sort of work provide services to people who belong to protected classes and we need to take advantage of those networks and do a better job of connecting government bureaucrats and officials with those networks to make sure that that type of response is there and that type of support can be tapped into. Another thing we've talked about is things like the Community Justice Centers which have a sort of broader purview in the sense that they serve a lot of different people that may not be sort of like a community organization and the way that I was just talking about is that they are also often very well connected within their communities they know the schools they know the the police departments they will they will know of incidents that may not even you know get to the point of a write up in something and making sure that they're a part of this network to is important as well so using sort of pre existing entities that are in that case they are government funded but are very community based. It's going to be a part of the answer to so that and that's all that is not to say and I want to be clear it's not to say we are throwing up our hands and saying you know the sort of official legal responses we can't do it that's certainly not the case I want to be clear on that we want to make sure we're hearing about everything in order to which is part of the incident response system we've tried we've been working on building out in order to be sure that when there is a government response available that we can bring that to bear whenever appropriate but whether that's criminal or civil but we also understand that a that will not be available in some cases and be even when it is available frankly feel alienating to people who we are trying to help which is again not to say that that's government action isn't going to happen but that there needs to be more in order to make people feel like they are being adequately adequately supported. So I think the answers here are going to be oftentimes very community oriented answers in ways that I think frankly government has not always acted before and we're sort of stretching ourselves a bit to try to make those contacts and build out programming that and again some some of this is not this is not going to be like headline stuff right it's going to be stuff that if we're doing it right people in some cases aren't going to know we were involved because that's not what the person needs or wants. But that's what we think is going to be necessary to really start to build out this type of response that hopefully will will help people where government where sort of official courtroom related action is not available so I don't know if that was helpful or not but just giving you a picture of the types of conversations we're having in our office but also around Vermont with community members and organizations. Thank you. I, I did find that helpful and I think it sort of echoes some of what my senses and experiences as well that this is, we have to find creative community based solutions, in addition to the judicial system so thank you. Thank you. Okay, time you get the last question or comment. Last word. David, the morning, but I don't know if this is for you or for Rory or maybe for both but from, you know, what Marshall was saying he only sees the cases that are going to be prosecuted. So what went through my mind with that is the cases that do align into criminal threatening. What's happening with them. I mean, I can probably guess that some of them are thrown out even though it crosses the line, probably some are pleaded down. Some are prosecuted, you know, people found guilty not guilty. And the reason I'm going there is the perception I guess. You know, if, if there is less, less thrown out at the beginning less pleaded down. I don't think it would take that many cases, you know, if, you know, if a big deal is made of them somehow, you know, to get the word out that this isn't being tolerated. There are so long ways but anyway, I would, I guess I mean if you do know you may not know off the top of your head what is happening to these to these cases but I'm just interested so thank you. Thank you representative it's a good question and, frankly, our office it's very unusual that there's publicly known exceptions but it's very unusual that our office investigate or investigates or considers charges for charges like criminal threatening. And they're doing things like homicides and sexual assault cases. So I think that I don't have as broad based perspective and I would throw your question if it's okay over to state attorney Tebow and attorney Paul who may have a bit of a better sort of broad based perspective on what's happening around the state and the in the county level. Um, very quickly because it's almost a noon hour and we get folks to break down so worry go ahead. Thank you. So we do see in any given year any number of criminal threatening convictions or certain that piece by electronic means convictions. Many of the world wants go to diversion. We often try to do a community or restorative approach with the Community Justice Center, although some offenders refuse to engage in that process because, while they may realize legal liability they still don't have the sort of moral clarity or accountability that we hope for from an outcome. I've also seen in many cases criminal threatening as a pled down offense from what's a assault with a threatening with a weapon or something like that where we're covering the same area but it's sort of a relief out for misdemeanor conviction as opposed to a felony so they certainly do occur at the and within the county court systems. Okay, Martin I know you have something quick and then we're going to. Very quick that both Marshall and Rory they had a couple citations that put in the chat and I've asked Evan to put those onto our website. So so they'll be available for for everybody. Thanks. Thank you I have to actually because I can't figure out how to do it so. Okay I'm going to stop us here I really want to thank everybody committee members witnesses I think it's been a really helpful discussion. I think they're a number of ways. Places we could go from here so let's keep keep thinking about it, but I do do appreciate it so. Okay, let's adjourn and.