ILNews

Independent analysis finds DOC’s population will grow under new criminal code

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A report released Dec. 10 predicts that Indiana’s new criminal code will increase the number of individuals incarcerated in state prisons to the point where a new facility may have to be built.

Applied Research Services detailed its analysis of the new criminal code contained in HEA 1006 to the members of the Criminal Law and Sentencing Policy Committee. The Atlanta-based company projected that with judges continuing to hand down sentences similar in duration to the ones they hand down now, the prison population will balloon to 35,504 by 2024.

Although the belief is that the Indiana Department of Correction will reach capacity at 30,000 inmates, John Speir of ARS cautioned the committee from interpreting the number as a “construction issue.” The predicted population, he said, does not mean the DOC is facing a crucial mass.

The new criminal code is the first major overhaul of the state’s criminal statute since 1977. It changed felonies from the current four levels to six and revised the penalties to make the punishment proportional to the offense. It also calls for low-level offenders to be kept in the local communities for mental health and addiction treatment rather than being sent to the DOC.

Advocates for the new code say putting nonviolent defendants into programs within their own communities will reduce the number of repeat offenders.

“The goal is to deal with low-level nonviolent offenders in a different manner,” said Rep. Greg Steuerwald, R-Avon. “As a result of this goal, we believe the DOC population should go down.”

Passed during the 2013 legislative session, the criminal code is not scheduled to take effect until July 1, 2014. The Indiana General Assembly purposefully built in the delay to give an interim study committee the opportunity to review the bill and suggest changes.  

As part of the work on HEA 1006, the Legislative Services Agency and the Indiana Department of Correction did their own analysis of the impact on the prison population.

The two entities projected opposition outcomes.

Current law is expected to increase the number of inmates at the DOC from the current 29,500 to just over 31,000 by 2024. The DOC predicted under the new criminal code, the population will exceed the current law projections by 2,000 inmates between 2014 and 2024. The model by the LSA has the population decreasing by 1,200 to 1,600 inmates by 2025.

During the later part of the recession, Indiana’s prison population was actually flat, a trend mirrored by other states, Speir said. However, in 2013, the number of inmates jumped 9 percent.

Speir said he considers that an anomaly and expects Indiana will return to an average growth rate of 1 to 2 percent.

He also made two other key assumptions when developing his predictions.

Speir said he expected judges would not suspend more sentences although HEA 1006 gives them greater discretion to do so. Also, he assumed that even though the new criminal code will have new advisory sentences, judges will likely continue to sentence as they do under the current law then gradually crawl to the new advisories.

Allen Superior Court Judge John Surbeck dispelled the last assumption, explaining sentencing is a process which begins with the advisory sentence. Then the aggravators and mitigators are weighed to arrive at the punishment that is appropriate.

Steuerwald said Surbeck’s testimony made an impression on the committee. The thought, previously, was that judges work toward a number. Surbeck clarified that the point of the process is not to arrive at a prison term but at a sentence that fits the crime.

The committee, chaired by Sen. R. Michael Young, R-Indianapolis, will meet for the last time Dec. 19.

A special committee workgroup of Steuerwald and Reps. Jud McMillion and Matt Pierce along with Sen. Brent Steele, will give its recommendations for tweaks to the code’s sentencing grid based on Speir’s projections. In addition, the recidivism working group, led by Steuerwald, will present its findings.    
 

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT