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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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/

  5. What form or who do I talk to about a d felony which I hear is classified as a 6 now? Who do I talk to. About to get my degree and I need this to go away it's been over 7 years if that helps.

ADVERTISEMENT