ILNews

Indiana Senate to hold hearings on crime bills

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Two crime bills moving through the Indiana General Assembly are on the agenda for Senate hearings next week.

House Bill 1006 which rewrites Indiana’s Criminal Code will be reviewed by the Senate Corrections & Criminal Law Committee at 10 a.m. March 26. Also House Bill 1482, which allows for expungement of criminal records, will go before the Senate Judiciary Committee at 9 a.m. March 27.

Senators will be discussing HB 1006 days after Gov. Mike Pence raised concerns over the measure’s approach to low-level offenders. The bill provides intensive probation – particularly for minor drug offenses – rather than incarceration. For higher-level crimes, offenders will have to serve at least 75 percent of their sentences while the so-called “worst of the worst,” like murders and child molesters, will be required to serve 85 percent of their time.  

Supporters of the legislation say the approach will reduce recidivism and save the state money. However, the governor has said he is not in favor of reducing penalties.

HB 1006, authored by Danville Republican Rep. Greg Steuerwald, incorporates the sweeping changes recommended by the Criminal Code Evaluation Commission. The commission did an exhaustive examination of the state’s criminal code and offered several suggestions to address inconsistencies which had appeared over the years.

The bill passed through the House of Representatives on an 80 to 13 vote. It is being sponsored in the Senate by Republican Sens. Brent Steele and Michael Young, and Democratic Sen. Lindel Hume.

House Bill 1482, authored by Rep. Jud McMillian, R-Brookville, requires the courts to expunge nonviolent Class D felony and misdemeanor convictions from criminal records and gives courts the option of expunging other felony convictions.

Eighty-two representatives voted for the measure and 17 voted against it. Sens. Steele and Young are also sponsoring this bill along with Democratic Sen. Earline Rogers.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • expungement
    Does this Bill, 1482, only apply to non-violent offenses? I am a concerned citizen as well as a constituent of someone who was convicted of a sexual offense and he is concerned as to whether his offense may be expunged, after a certain amount of time, of course, due to his particular offense not being of any violent nature. I have briefly read the Bill and it is unclear as to which certain offenses, other than misdemeanors and lower class offenses are eligible. He was convicted of a class C felony offense. Does this constitute expungement under this enactment? I believe it is under advisement of,as well as the discretion of the courts as to whether he may be entitled to be removed from registry after a period of ten (10) years of law-abiding conduct so as not to pose a threat to society, but how will this affect the registry requirement? He is a well respected member of the community, a father of three (3), a grandfather of three (3)as well as a law major who cannot acquire gainful employment with criminal history. He is diligently attempting to obtain needed credits for J.D. so that he may partake in A.B.A. exam and possibly practice law perhaps in another state if applicable. Please advise of direction or suitable alternative. Thank you.

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  2. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  3. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

  4. I am one of Steele's victims and was taken for $6,000. I want my money back due to him doing nothing for me. I filed for divorce after a 16 year marriage and lost everything. My kids, my home, cars, money, pension. Every attorney I have talked to is not willing to help me. What can I do? I was told i can file a civil suit but you have to have all of Steelers info that I don't have. Of someone can please help me or tell me what info I need would be great.

  5. It would appear that news breaking on Drudge from the Hoosier state (link below) ties back to this Hoosier story from the beginning of the recent police disrespect period .... MCBA president Cassandra Bentley McNair issued the statement on behalf of the association Dec. 1. The association said it was “saddened and disappointed” by the decision not to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson for shooting Michael Brown. “The MCBA does not believe this was a just outcome to this process, and is disheartened that the system we as lawyers are intended to uphold failed the African-American community in such a way,” the association stated. “This situation is not just about the death of Michael Brown, but the thousands of other African-Americans who are disproportionately targeted and killed by police officers.” http://www.thestarpress.com/story/news/local/2016/07/18/hate-cops-sign-prompts-controversy/87242664/

ADVERTISEMENT