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. The is an unsigned editorial masquerading as a news story. Almost everyone quoted was biased in favor of letting all illegal immigrants remain in the U.S. (Ignoring that Obama deported 3.5 million in 8 years). For some reason Obama enforcing part of the immigration laws was O.K. but Trump enforcing additional parts is terrible. I have listed to press conferences and explanations of the Homeland Security memos and I gather from them that less than 1 million will be targeted for deportation, the "dreamers" will be left alone and illegals arriving in the last two years -- especially those arriving very recently -- will be subject to deportation but after the criminals. This will not substantially affect the GDP negatively, especially as it will take place over a number of years. I personally think this is a rational approach to the illegal immigration problem. It may cause Congress to finally pass new immigration laws rationalizing the whole immigration situation.

  2. Mr. Straw, I hope you prevail in the fight. Please show us fellow American's that there is a way to fight the corrupted justice system and make them an example that you and others will not be treated unfairly. I hope you the best and good luck....

  3. @ President Snow - Nah, why try to fix something that ain't broken??? You do make an excellent point. I am sure some Mickey or Minnie Mouse will take Ruckers seat, I wonder how his retirement planning is coming along???

  4. Can someone please explain why Judge Barnes, Judge Mathias and Chief Judge Vaidik thought it was OK to re weigh the evidence blatantly knowing that by doing so was against the rules and went ahead and voted in favor of the father? I would love to ask them WHY??? I would also like to ask the three Supreme Justices why they thought it was OK too.

  5. How nice, on the day of my car accident on the way to work at the Indiana Supreme Court. Unlike the others, I did not steal any money or do ANYTHING unethical whatsoever. I am suing the Indiana Supreme Court and appealed the failure of the district court in SDIN to protect me. I am suing the federal judge because she failed to protect me and her abandonment of jurisdiction leaves her open to lawsuits because she stripped herself of immunity. I am a candidate for Indiana Supreme Court justice, and they imposed just enough sanction so that I am made ineligible. I am asking the 7th Circuit to remove all of them and appoint me as the new Chief Justice of Indiana. That's what they get for dishonoring my sacrifice and and violating the ADA in about 50 different ways.

ADVERTISEMENT