IBJNews

Criminal code update pleases some, worries others

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana House passed an update Wednesday to last year’s massive criminal code reform, a measure Rep. Greg Steuerwald, R-Avon, called a “culmination of one of the largest collaborations on one bill in Indiana history.”

The Senate voted unanimously for the measure Thursday morning, the last day legislators are scheduled to work this session.

Aaron Negangard, the Dearborn and Ohio County prosecutor and chairman of the Indiana Prosecuting Attorneys Legislative Committee, said he is pleased to be at the end of the “long and difficult process.”

“Passage of this bill is critical for the public safety of the citizens of Indiana,” he said.

Last year’s reform decreased penalties for some drug crimes but increased the percentage of the sentence inmates are required to serve. All felony offenders will be required to serve 75 percent of their sentences, instead of the 50 percent when the law goes into effect on July 1.

The legislation also moves Indiana’s system of four felony classes to one that has six felony levels.

House Bill 1006 – which is expected to pass the House and Senate on Thursday – would increase the penalties for violent and habitual offenders while remaining “fiscally responsible,” Negangard said.

But Rep. Jud McMillin said the penalties would still be less than in current law.

For years, the inmates have received one day of credit time for every one day in prison, meaning they only serve 50 percent of their original sentences. Last year’s reform bill changed that to 75 percent for all convicted felons.

HB 1006 reverts Class 6 felonies to the original 50-percent standard.

Approximately 10 percent of inmates are Class D/Level 6 felony offenders.

Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard said the bill “has been a long time coming” and will provide “sentencing reform that really has been sorely needed.”

“This bill has been described as fair to the people that have disappointed us, and harsh to the people who scare us,” Ballard said.  “I couldn’t have said that better myself.”

In addition to the substantive changes, HB 1006 contains many technical corrections of the criminal code reform passed last year. There is “a lot of clean-up,” Negangard said.

The bill also includes a “savings clause” which would prevent criminal cases from being retried under the old code.

“It would have been a disaster if that hadn’t passed,” Negangard said.

Ballard said the revisions are a “multi-faceted, more holistic approach to reduce the violence, reduce recidivism and make our neighborhoods safer.”

“As prosecutors, we believe the most important thing is public policy, and having the right policy in place,” Negangard said. “And we think this is good policy.”

The legislature hired an independent group over the summer to study the potential effect of the updated code. Negangard said the study indicated the prison population will decrease more under this package than last year’s proposal or current law.

But Larry Landis, executive director for the Indiana Public Defender Council, said his organization wants to keep the state Department of Correction population at less than 30,000 inmates and that he doesn’t think that is a reality under the new proposal.

There were slightly more than 28,000 inmates in state prisons at the end of 2013 calendar year.

McMillin said he thinks there will still be more revisions to the criminal code next session.

“One of the things I think everyone is still committed to doing is making sure that we allow local communities to devise community corrections programs that will help reduce recidivism and help reduce prison populations,” he said. “Doing that also requires making sure that those local units of government get funding so that they can enact quality community corrections programs.”

Landis said he also favors a system in which more offenders are transferred to individual counties for community corrections programs.

Last year’s reform also tried to create sentencing ranges that are proportionate to the crimes.

Ballard said there is a need “to match sentencing to the severity of the crime.”

Penalties for certain crimes often increase or decrease over time, as the legislature passes individual laws. That results in a complex criminal code where a child molester may get off with a lesser sentence than a minor drug offender.

But Landis said HB 1006 does not reduce sentences as much as he had hoped.

He said he liked the reductions included in last year’s reform – but that they were still not enough.

Landis supported HB 1006’s authorization of opportunities for more treatment programs for mentally ill and substance abuse offenders.

“But the critical issue is next year,” Landis said.

The 2015 session is a budget year, so the legislature will have to decide if – and how much – to support those programs.

“Will they put the money in place?” Landis said.

He said treatment programs reduce recidivism, which reduces crime.

The new changes will go into effect on July 1.

“There’s more work to do, but what has happened here, on this particular bill, has been amazing,” Ballard said.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • yes...you were sleeping
    Yes Kent you must have been sleeping...this had been going on for about 5 years. And someone can get arrested for any amount of marijuana. It's a felony if over 30 grams. Quit tokin and get it right.
  • first we've heard about this
    Unless I slept through it, this is the first we have heard regarding this bill this year. Did they increase the ridiculous amount of marijuana one could get arrested over? Last year they took it down to 3 gms, but was proposed at 30 gms or more. An even ounce is 28 gms if one wondered. Hope they changed that since over 50% of the population polled last year supports decriminalization or legalization.
  • About Time
    I'm glad to see these bills moving forward. I was very frustrated when the "man" that killed my daughter and then fled the scene of the accident served less than 2 years behind bars.
  • Wow....
    Nuggets, really?! Racist drivel.

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. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

  2. If you only knew....

  3. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.

  4. The facts contained in your post make your position so much more credible than those based on sheer emotion. Thanks for enlightening us.

  5. Please consider a couple of economic realities: First, retail is more consolidated now than it was when malls like this were built. There used to be many department stores. Now, in essence, there is one--Macy's. Right off, you've eliminated the need for multiple anchor stores in malls. And in-line retailers have consolidated or folded or have stopped building new stores because so much of their business is now online. The Limited, for example, Next, malls are closing all over the country, even some of the former gems are now derelict.Times change. And finally, as the income level of any particular area declines, so do the retail offerings. Sad, but true.

ADVERTISEMENT