IBJNews

Indiana House panel backs sentencing-laws overhaul

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A sweeping plan to overhaul Indiana's criminal sentencing laws cleared its first hurdle in the Legislature on Wednesday with the support of law-enforcement groups that had scuttled similar efforts the past two years.

The Indiana House Courts and Criminal Committee voted 13-0 to approve the bill and send it to the full House for consideration.

Supporters of the plan say it aims to direct more people convicted of low-level felonies to work release and other local programs rather than sending them to prison. It would also require those convicted of the most-serious crimes to spend more time in prison.

Leaders of prosecutor and police groups spoke in favor of the proposal, which they helped develop with a legislative commission that reviewed the criminal code over the past few years.

Provisions of the plan include dropping the state's current four-tier system of felonies, which range from class A, the most-serious felonies with the longest sentences, to class D. It would be replaced by a six-tier system, with class 1 being most serious and ranging down to class 6.

Supporters say the changes will allow the punishment ranges to be more refined and appropriate for the severity of the crime.

"We've tried to separate the people we're mad at from the people we're afraid of — and the people we're afraid of, we're hitting hard," said the legislation's sponsor, Rep. Greg Steuerwald, R-Avon. "The people we're just mad at, the lower-level class 6 felons, we're trying to set up in community corrections programs."

Then-Gov. Mitch Daniels pushed during the 2011 legislative session for a sentencing overhaul aimed at reducing the state's prison population. But that plan failed after prosecutors maintained it was too soft on crime and pushed for tougher sentencing provisions.

Another provision of the new proposal would require that felons serve at least 75 percent of their sentences, up from the 50 percent or less that prisoners might now serve if they earn good-time and education credits while behind bars.

The sentencing ranges for the current class A felonies would remain the same for class 1 felonies, 20 years to 50 years in prison.

The sentence range for class B felonies is currently six years to 20 years. Under the new plan, class 2 felonies would carry sentences of between 10 years and 30 years, and class 3 crimes would carry three-year to 20-year sentences.

However, Larry Landis, executive director of the Indiana Public Defender Council, said he worried the changes would leave the state Department of Correction with too many longtime inmates and not meet the original goal of reducing prison costs.

"My concern is we've got the sentences now too high, that we're not going see that savings to reinvest," Landis said. "There's really very little in this bill that's going to reinvest money in the communities to take care of those low-level offenders who are going to be taken out of the DOC and stay in the counties."

Democratic Rep. Linda Lawson of Hammond, a former police officer, voted in favor of the bill in the committee. She said she didn't share concerns about the plan possibly increasing the prison population.

"We need to put the very worst away and throw away the key," Lawson said. "But we don't need to house people who are viable citizens who aren't committing violent crimes, crimes against people."

The sentencing changes wouldn't take effect until July 2014, which would give legislators time next year to make changes to how specific crimes are classified, said Republican Sen. Brent Steele of Bedford, who helped develop the proposal.

"It is important we at least get this skeleton through before we start tightening the nuts and bolts down," Steele said. "This thing needs to just get through and then we'll leave next year for however people want to fight it out."

ADVERTISEMENT

  • We'll See
    Time for the conservative crowd to put up. My life is surrounded by perfectly legal things that "I'm mad at". The sooner we can exclude people from the web of the criminal-industrial justice complex, the sooner we can address real crime problems. We need to keep real violent offenders in prison for meaningful terms, and keep those we "don't like" out of our incredibly expensive court system.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. From the story: "The city of Indianapolis also will consider tax incentives and funding for infrastructure required for the project, according to IEDC." Why would the City need to consider additional tax incentives when Lowe's has already bought the land and reached an agreement with IEDC to bring the jobs? What that tells me is that the City has already pledged the incentives, unofficially, and they just haven't had time to push it through the MDC yet. Either way, subsidizing $10/hour jobs is going to do nothing toward furthering the Mayor's stated goal of attracting middle and upper-middle class residents to Marion County.

  2. Ron Spencer and the entire staff of Theater on the Square embraced IndyFringe when it came to Mass Ave in 2005. TOTS was not only a venue but Ron and his friends created, presented and appeared in shows which embraced the 'spirit of the fringe'. He's weathered all the storms and kept smiling ... bon voyage and thank you.

  3. Not sure how many sushi restaurants are enough, but there are three that I know of in various parts of downtown proper and all are pretty good.

  4. First off, it's "moron," not "moran." 2nd, YOU don't get to vote on someone else's rights and freedoms that are guaranteed by the US Constitution. That's why this is not a state's rights issue...putting something like this to vote by, well, people like you who are quite clearly intellectually challenged isn't necessary since the 14th amendment has already decided the issue. Which is why Indiana's effort is a wasted one and a waste of money...and will be overturned just like this has in every other state.

  5. Rick, how does granting theright to marry to people choosing to marry same-sex partners harm the lives of those who choose not to? I cannot for the life of me see any harm to people who choose not to marry someone of the same sex. We understand your choice to take the parts of the bible literally in your life. That is fine but why force your religious beliefs on others? I'm hoping the judges do the right thing and declare the ban unconstitutional so all citizens of Wisconsin and Indiana have the same marriage rights and that those who chose someone of the same sex do not have less rights than others.

ADVERTISEMENT