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

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. 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!!!

  2. 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?

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT