ILNews

Long expects Criminal Code revision will get Senate approval

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana’s first major rewrite of the state’s Criminal Code in more than 30 years is now in the hands of the Senate where the Senate leader believes it will ultimately be approved.

Senate President Pro Tem David Long, R-Fort Wayne, noted despite questions about the fiscal impact of the House Bill 1006, he expects a majority of Senate members to vote for the measure.

The bill calls for a balance on proportionality and sentencing. For offenders convicted and sent to prison, the legislation mandates they serve at least 75 percent of their sentences. Low-level offenders will have options that address the cause of the criminal behavior as a means of reducing recidivism.

According to Long, the Legislative Services Agency has calculated the costs associated with the bill based on the offenders serving the maximum sentence. He believes those costs may be inflated since many serve the average amount of time, rather than the complete term, for their convictions.

Incarcerating individuals for longer periods of time raises questions about whether that will be cost prohibitive, Long explained. Still he does not anticipate the financial questions will derail the bill.

“I think if we look at the average instead of the maximum sentence as the fiscal, I think it’s not going to be a problem at all and I suspect that’s where we’ll end up,” Long said. “I expect it to pass. That’s the only hang up I can see, and I think we’ll deal with it.”

HB 1006 passed on an 80 to 13 vote in the House of Representatives will all the nays coming from Democrats.

House Democratic Leader Rep. Scott Pelath, D-Michigan City, attributed the "no" votes to worries over the issue getting politicized.

“Many of them are newer members,” he said. “They’re not responsible for the Criminal Code that was created and they may not yet embrace all the changes the more senior members have deemed are necessary. But people often wonder how their votes are going to be misconstrued and misreported to their constituents.”

 

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT