Report says sentencing reforms can save cash, lower crime rates

August 10, 2011
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Is it possible to reduce crime rates and save money? Yes it is, according to the just-released American Civil Liberties Union report “Smart Reform is Possible: States Reducing Incarceration Rates and Costs While Protecting Communities.” The report studied six states that have historically been “tough on crime” – Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Ohio, South Carolina, and Texas – all of which have passed significant bipartisan reforms that promote alternatives to incarceration.

For example, in Kansas, new laws mandating drug treatment instead of prison for certain nonviolent drug offenses, rewarding counties for reducing parole and probation revocations, and expanding earned credits for education and treatment programs have led to an 18 percent drop in crime rates between 2003 and 2009. The number of people incarcerated dropped 15 percent and the state is projected to save more than $100 million by the end of 2012.

Even Texas is seeing lower crime rates and more than $2 billion in savings as a result of its sentencing reforms, according to the report.

Some in Indiana – including Gov. Mitch Daniels – hoped we’d become one of those states that could make sentencing reforms and see results. But the bill introduced in the 2011 legislative session actually ended up being amended to increase prison times and cost the state more money because of the need to build new prisons. The bill died, and the hope is to try again in the 2012 session.

The report dedicates about a page to Indiana’s attempts, and it says “Indiana remains a state at a crossroads: if state officials are serious about closing the deficit and reducing unnecessary incar¬ceration, they will pass legislation in 2012 that models the Governor’s original vision.”

Do you think next year sentencing reforms will pass here?

ADVERTISEMENT

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 Indiana Lawyer 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
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT