ILNews

Overhaul of Criminal Code approved by House

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The bill rewriting Indiana’s Criminal Code gained approval of the House of Representatives Monday by an 80 to 13 vote. The measure now moves to the Senate.

Based on the recommendation of the Criminal Code Evaluation Commission, House Bill 1006 divides the current four classes of felonies into six levels and requires offenders to serve at least 75 percent of their sentences.

Author Rep. Greg Steuerwald, R-Avon, is not surprised by the bipartisan support the measure has received. The basis of the bill, he said, has been studied and debated for three years. Members of the CCEC went through the current criminal code line by line and made suggestions for updates and improvements.

The legislation has received a thorough study, Steuerwald said, and it’s based on best practices that worked in other states.

HB 1006 will now be considered by the Senate, and Steuerwald remains optimistic. He said the Senate’s lead sponsor, Sen. Brent Steele, R-Bedford, is pleased with the legislation.

 “I do not anticipate any major revisions in the Senate,” Steuerwald said.

HB 1006 includes a need for additional funding. The bill calls for offering options like intensive probation instead of prison time for low-level offenders. The goal is to reduce recidivism by addressing the reasons why theses individuals are committing crimes.

The bill also calls for the state to take over funding of the chief and deputy chief probation officers in each county and put resources into a probation improvement fund. The bill would require $1.9 million for the probation improvement fund and $13 million for the probation officers’ salaries.


 

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