IBJNews

Daniels' plan on sentencing changes appears dead

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A plan pushed by Gov. Mitch Daniels aimed at reducing Indiana's prison crowding by easing penalties for low-level offenders appears dead in the Legislature after running into stiff opposition from county prosecutors.

Daniels, a Republican, had made revamping of the criminal sentencing laws one of his top priorities for this year's legislative session, but lawmakers handling the bill said Tuesday they hadn't been able to reach a compromise and didn't expect more action before the General Assembly's April 29 adjournment deadline.

Senate Corrections Committee Chairman Brent Steele, R-Bedford, said that opposition from prosecutors, police chiefs and sheriffs doomed the proposal from Daniels.

"Without those groups buying into it, it wasn't going to pass," Steele said. "That's the political reality."

Daniels had threatened to veto the bill after the Senate added provisions to require those convicted of the most serious crimes to serve at least 85 percent of the sentence ordered by a judge. The governor said he was concerned about increased costs from changing current law that allows most inmates to be released after serving half their sentence if they don't get into trouble while in prison.

Daniels spokeswoman Jane Jankowski said the original plan "was very well thought out and researched" but dealt mainly with low-level offenders, and once lawmakers broadened that concept, more research was needed to gauge the financial impact.

"Ultimately, the decision has been made that it's more important to get it right," she said. "We've got to get those numbers right so we can fold it all together and come back next year with a more comprehensive approach."

The bill — based on recommendations from the Pew Center on the States and the Council of State Governments Justice Center — originally envisioned reducing the time many low-level offenders like thieves and drug dealers would spend in prison and shifting many into alternative programs like probation. State officials estimated it could save $1.2 billion in new prison construction over the next seven years.

But prosecutors said the bill was too soft on crime, and pushed for the tougher sentencing provisions approved by the Senate.

Ohio-Dearborn County Prosecutor Aaron Negangard, chairman of the Indiana Prosecuting Attorneys Council, said he was glad the sentencing changes would be considered by a state commission conducting a full review of the criminal laws.

"We were in favor of the more balanced approach that came out of the Senate but thought the bill still had a lot more work that needed to be done with it," Negangard said.

Bill sponsor Rep. Ralph Foley, R-Martinsville, had tried to reach a compromise on the plan, but gave up that effort without a House committee even taking a vote.

He said he hoped the criminal code review commission could come up with an acceptable plan for legislators to consider next year.

"Taxpayers aren't in favor of building new prisons and raising taxes for them — even if they are in favor of throwing prisoners in jail and throwing the key away," Foley said.

The failure to reach agreement on a plan disappointed Larry Landis, executive director of the Indiana Public Defenders Council.

"It means prison growth will continue unabated, spiraling costs which means down the road we have to build more prisons," Landis said. "If we do, that means either a tax increase or you have to significantly cut other services the state provides."

Steele, the Senate committee chairman, said he hoped more time studying possible sentencing changes would give lawmakers better information on the impact to prison population and costs to the state.

"What we've gotten so far has just been pitiful as far as getting a clear picture of where we stand," Steele said.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Who monitors the probies?
    I'm just curious... how many new probation officers is Daniels going to hire to monitor all the new probationed criminals? This to me is short-term effect that creates a long-term problem. I hope the next round of suggestions is a little bit more insightful.
  • drugs
    doesn't he have charges that he needs dropped from his college days?

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. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT