Should bomb scares carry tougher penalties? Lawmakers are considering it, as Bill 162 recently went through a public hearing—drawing support from GovGuam agencies and strong suggestions from those who testified.

They say a threat is just an empty promise—but under a new bill, anyone behind bomb scares could face tougher consequences, with stricter penalties both criminally and financially.

Vice Speaker Tony Ada stated, “Bomb scares, we've all been through them. They force the evacuation of government buildings, shopping malls, and even regular office buildings. Additionally, they divert public resources–such as fire trucks, ambulances, and police cruisers away from our community. This bill, if enacted into law, does several things: one, it expands the location definition of the places where the crime applies. Two, it raises the fines to a maximum of $25,000.

"Three, it places the fines into the criminal injuries compensation fund, and four, it clears the way for civil lawsuits against offenders by businesses that were interrupted by the crime.”

Ada introduced Bill 162, explaining that it also requires the payment of fines rather than work hours from service credits. “Most people on Guam consider a bomb scare as acts of stupidity–they’re costly to the victims, and offenders should be held both criminally and financially responsible. It is my hope that a tougher law will discourage these types of acts of stupidity," the senator added.

The island’s attorney general, Doug Moylan, also weighed-in at the bill’s public hearing Friday, recommending additional provisions. “I recommended that any minor 16 years or older be automatically charged as an adult if charged with a violation of this Section 19.50," Moylan said. "Guam law provides charging 16-year-olds as an adult for first or second-degree crimes, and for those under that age, the attorney general may apply to the family to charge the minor as an adult. All too often, high school students think it’s a joke when they communicate a bomb threat.

"A discussion also about parental consequences for more minors engaging in terroristic conduct should begin.”

Moylan questioned the legislative appetite for holding parents criminally or civilly liable if their children are caught engaging in such behavior. He also urged that, if passed, the law should include an education component. He added, “That GDOE make as part of its civics or government of curriculum, education techniques and awareness as to why this behavior is wrong, and the consequences.”

GDOE superintendent Dr. Kenneth Swanson testifying in support of the measure. While he noted that terroristic conduct isn’t among the most common behavioral issues in schools, its impact is severe when it does occur.

He presented a 5-year data trend involving students responsible for terroristic conduct, including bomb threats, adding, “Table one shows that the total cases have reduced by approximately 53%. Table 2 shows the same data disaggregated by school and grade level. Logically, most of the offenses are committed in secondary school, with only one reported case in elementary. Table 3 further breaks down the data by gender, showing that males constitute 87% of the offenders.”

Swanson also calling for clearer language in the bill to spell out how minors would be affected.

Guam Education Board member Peter Alexcis Ada echoed support but suggested stricter consequences—such as requiring parents to shadow their children for 30 days. He said suspension alone isn’t effective, noting, “suspension doesn’t work; they need to feel it.” The GEB member also offered this take: " “If they are under public assistance, I haven’t yet figured out how we’re going to address this if they aren’t on public assistance–but, we must inform public assistance be it GHURA or public health of the offense that the indiviual or the housed participant has done–and there are two options to this: warning, or dismissal of the public’s assistance.”

Meanwhile, the Guam Police Department, Guam Fire Department, and Guam Homeland Security/Office of Civil Defense all testified in support of the bill—with Guam Homeland suggesting only one amendment.