IBJNews

Compromise elusive on Indiana sentencing changes

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
An Indiana legislator trying to find a compromise on a plan that Gov. Mitch Daniels originally pushed to help stem the state's prison costs seems to still have work ahead.

The proposal from Rep. Ralph Foley, R-Martinsville, would allow longer prison terms for those convicted of the most serious crimes while eliminating a provision to require many of those inmates to serve at least 85 percent of the sentence ordered by a judge.

Daniels has threatened to veto the bill, partly because of cost concerns over a change approved by the Senate from current law that allows most inmates to be released after serving half their sentence if they don't get into trouble while in prison.

The original bill endorsed by Daniels and drafted by a state panel sought to lessen prison time for nonviolent drug offenders and save money by avoiding the need to build more prisons. But after county prosecutors assailed it as soft on crime, senators gutted the bill and even lengthened sentences for some offenders.

Foley, who is sponsoring the bill in the House, said he was talking with many law-enforcement groups and the Daniels administration to come up with acceptable changes.

He said he was trying to direct more money to counties for community corrections programs, probation departments and substance abuse counseling to help deal with low-level offenders and keep them out of the state prison system.

Foley also is proposing to extend by 10 years the maximum sentence that judges can impose for murder to 75 years and for other top-level felonies to 60 years.

"Mainly, I'm concentrating on two things. One is to make sure that it won't be vetoed. And the second is to get as much money to the counties as humanly possible for programming," Foley said.

Steve Johnson, executive director of the Indiana Prosecuting Attorneys Association, told the House Courts and Criminal Code Committee on Wednesday that the group pushed for the tougher sentencing rules because inmates have been given many ways to shorten their prison time, such as completing college degrees.

Johnson said after the hearing that most county prosecutors didn't think adding 10 years to the maximum sentences would do much good. He also said he didn't believe there would be as much budget impact as Daniels has suggested.

"Any increased costs by keeping the worst of the worst in longer is far down the line," Johnson said.

The committee could consider Foley's proposed amendment next week.

Department of Correction officials told the House committee that they projected the Senate-passed version would force the state into building another prison within six years at a cost of more than $200 million.

Republican Sen. Brent Steele of Bedford, chairman of the Senate Corrections Committee, said he didn't agree with that projection. He said he didn't believe a sentencing change package could clear the Senate without the 85 percent of prison time requirement, which would cover those convicted of murder, voluntary manslaughter and top-level felonies such as rape, child molesting, kidnapping and neglect of a dependent.

"They aren't serving what people think they should serve," Steele said. "With all the credit times and education times that have been enacted in the last few years, they just aren't serving enough years."
ADVERTISEMENT

  • Never Satisfied
    The next step is to give the death sentence for all crimes classified as a felony. Who cares if some innocent gets caught in the trap. An in the mean time, to reduce state costs, lets put them in prision with only one meal a day every two days. Then eliminate appeals, but in the mean time, they might die of starvation and that satisfies everyone right?
  • Please stop politicizing this issue and do the right thing!
    The back and forth communication taking place over this bill is quickly becoming tiresome and foolish. The bottom line here is this...Government exists for only one legitimate purpose and that is to protect the public from lawless behavior. If this means other prisons need to be built in this state, then so be it...I do not want government to abdicate its sole responsibilities. Further, there is an extreme need for people in this state to rethink the issue of substance abuse and decriminalization. This war on drugs is costing us big time and prohibition just leads to further violence and bloodshed...do you not think the very smart and intelligent people within our government do not know this?

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. The deductible is entirely paid by the POWER account. No one ever has to contribute more than $25/month into the POWER account and it is often less. The only cost not paid out of the POWER account is the ER copay ($8-25) for non-emergent use of the ER. And under HIP 2.0, if a member calls the toll-free, 24 hour nurse line, and the nurse tells them to go to the ER, the copay is waived. It's also waived if the member is admitted to the hospital. Honestly, although it is certainly not "free" - I think Indiana has created a decent plan for the currently uninsured. Also consider that if a member obtains preventive care, she can lower her monthly contribution for the next year. Non-profits may pay up to 75% of the contribution on behalf of the member, and the member's employer may pay up to 50% of the contribution.

  2. I wonder if the governor could multi-task and talk to CMS about helping Indiana get our state based exchange going so Hoosiers don't lose subsidy if the court decision holds. One option I've seen is for states to contract with healthcare.gov. Or maybe Indiana isn't really interested in healthcare insurance coverage for Hoosiers.

  3. So, how much did either of YOU contribute? HGH Thank you Mr. Ozdemir for your investments in this city and your contribution to the arts.

  4. So heres brilliant planning for you...build a $30 M sports complex with tax dollars, yet send all the hotel tax revenue to Carmel and Fishers. Westfield will unlikely never see a payback but the hotel "centers" of Carmel and Fishers will get rich. Lousy strategy Andy Cook!

  5. AlanB, this is how it works...A corporate welfare queen makes a tiny contribution to the arts and gets tons of positive media from outlets like the IBJ. In turn, they are more easily to get their 10s of millions of dollars of corporate welfare (ironically from the same people who are against welfare for humans).

ADVERTISEMENT