Alaska lawmakers are pushing for stricter reporting requirements on violent crimes, seeking to close loopholes that allow individuals with knowledge of serious offenses to walk free. Named after Kathleen Jo Henry, a victim of convicted murderer Brian Steven Smith, the proposed Kathleen’s Law would mandate the reporting of violent crimes such as murder and kidnapping or face criminal penalties.
Current Law Fails to Hold Witnesses Accountable
Alaska’s current statute, Alaska Statutes 11.56.767, is widely criticized as inadequate. The law treats failure to report a violent crime as a mere violation, carrying a maximum penalty of a $500 fine. That’s hardly a deterrent when lives are at stake.
Critics argue that the statute lacks meaningful accountability, allowing individuals to turn a blind eye to crimes without facing consequences. The absence of a mandatory reporting obligation enables people to remain silent even when they have direct knowledge of violent offenses. This legislative gap undermines justice and puts the safety of Alaskans at risk.
Key Provisions of Kathleen’s Law
The proposed law would introduce several significant changes:
- Individuals who witness or have knowledge of violent crimes, such as murder or kidnapping, would be legally required to report them.
- A tiered penalty system would be implemented, assigning misdemeanor charges based on the severity of the unreported crime.
- Affirmative defenses would be included to protect individuals from retaliation if reporting posed a serious safety risk.
Supporters of the legislation argue that these measures will help law enforcement track individuals with knowledge of violent crimes, preventing future offenses and increasing public safety.
A Response to the Brian Steven Smith Case
The push for Kathleen’s Law gained momentum following the case of Brian Steven Smith, a South African national convicted of multiple violent crimes in Alaska. Smith’s crimes, including the brutal murders of Indigenous women Veronica Abouchuk and Kathleen Jo Henry, shocked the nation when a memory card containing graphic evidence was discovered and turned over to Anchorage police.
Smith was arrested in 2019, found guilty in February 2024, and sentenced to 236 years in prison. The case brought renewed attention to the vulnerabilities of sex workers and Indigenous women in Alaska, a state with one of the highest rates of violence against Native women in the country.
The Role of Ian Calhoun and the Loophole in Current Law
A key figure in the Smith case was Ian Calhoun, who had direct communication with Smith during the murder of Kathleen Jo Henry. Prosecutors revealed that Calhoun was aware of the crime and even warned Smith when Henry’s body was found. Despite this, no charges have been filed against him.
Under existing Alaska law, a person can only be held accountable if they actively aid or abet a crime. Deputy Attorney General John Skidmore explained in a recent commentary that there is no general duty for citizens to report crimes or assist law enforcement. Without proof that Calhoun provided assistance to Smith, authorities were unable to charge him.
More than 5,000 people have signed a petition demanding Calhoun’s arrest, but legal experts argue that without a stronger reporting statute, there is no legal basis for prosecution. Kathleen’s Law aims to fix that.
Potential Impact and Challenges Ahead
If passed, Kathleen’s Law could have a profound impact on Alaska’s legal landscape. By introducing mandatory reporting requirements and meaningful penalties, the law seeks to prevent individuals from turning a blind eye to violent crimes.
However, opponents worry about unintended consequences. Some legal analysts caution that the law could place vulnerable witnesses at risk, particularly those who fear retaliation. Others question how enforcement will work in practice, emphasizing the need for clear guidelines and protections.
For now, Kathleen’s Law has sparked a statewide debate over personal responsibility and the legal duty to report crimes. With growing public pressure, lawmakers will soon decide whether Alaska should hold bystanders accountable—or continue allowing silence to shield those who look the other way.
Comments