ILNews

Proposed changes would make convicted felons serve at least 75 percent of sentence

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The worst-of-the-worst criminal offenders will be facing more time while low-level offenders will be given intensive probation under the new sentencing provisions included in the rewrite of the Indiana Criminal Code.

Rep. Greg Steuerwald, R-Danville, is the author of House Bill 1006 which makes significant changes to the state’s criminal code. He and two co-authors on the House Courts and Criminal Code Committee - Rep. Matt Pierce, D-Bloomington, and Linda Lawson, D-Hammond - outlined the proposed revisions at a press conference Wednesday morning.

The basis for the bill comes from the report submitted by the Criminal Code Evaluation Commission. Formed in 2009, the commission reviewed the code and offered recommendations for changes.

“The goal of the commission was to institute a new criminal code bill that instituted proportionality in the code and certainty in sentencing,” Steuerwald said.

Most significant, the 2009 evaluation commission divided the four felony classes into six levels plus a separate level for murder. In committee, Steuerwald said he and Pierce worked closely with prosecutors and public defenders to develop the sentencing ranges.

A key change is that credit for good behavior has been adjusted so offenders will be serving at least 75 percent of their sentences. Currently, one day of good behavior gives an inmate one day off his or her sentence. That is being increased to three days of good behavior will equal one day credit.

Also, the worst-of-the-worst – murders, child molesters and rapists –  are going to serve more time. Their sentences will be enhanced so they will serve at least 85 percent of their time.

For the middle range, the House Courts and Criminal Code Committee looked at making the sentences proportional to the crime, Pierce said. Low-level, nonviolent offenders would receive intensive probation that uses proven evidence-based best practices to address the root cause of the crime and reduce recidivism.

Instead of having these offenders cycle through the Indiana Department of Correction for three to six months, these low level felons would be put under intense supervision, like that provided by drug courts, and given help in solving the problems that are driving them to commit crimes.

“So we’re adding a smart-on-crime element to our already tough on crime element we have in the code,” Pierce said.

HB 1006 was passed unanimously through both the Courts and Criminal Code Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee. If the Legislature passes the bill, it will take effect July 1, 2014.


 

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 wonder if the USSR had electronic voting machines that changed the ballot after it was cast? Oh well, at least we have a free media serving as vicious watchdog and exposing all of the rot in the system! (Insert rimshot)

  2. Jose, you are assuming those in power do not wish to be totalitarian. My experience has convinced me otherwise. Constitutionalists are nearly as rare as hens teeth among the powerbrokers "managing" us for The Glorious State. Oh, and your point is dead on, el correcta mundo. Keep the Founders’ (1791 & 1851) vision alive, my friend, even if most all others, and especially the ruling junta, chase only power and money (i.e. mammon)

  3. Hypocrisy in high places, absolute immunity handed out like Halloween treats (it is the stuff of which tyranny is made) and the belief that government agents are above the constitutions and cannot be held responsible for mere citizen is killing, perhaps has killed, The Republic. And yet those same power drunk statists just reel on down the hallway toward bureaucratic fascism.

  4. Well, I agree with you that the people need to wake up and see what our judges and politicians have done to our rights and freedoms. This DNA loophole in the statute of limitations is clearly unconstitutional. Why should dna evidence be treated different than video tape evidence for example. So if you commit a crime and they catch you on tape or if you confess or leave prints behind: they only have five years to bring their case. However, if dna identifies someone they can still bring a case even fifty-years later. where is the common sense and reason. Members of congress are corrupt fools. They should all be kicked out of office and replaced by people who respect the constitution.

  5. If the AG could pick and choose which state statutes he defended from Constitutional challenge, wouldn't that make him more powerful than the Guv and General Assembly? In other words, the AG should have no choice in defending laws. He should defend all of them. If its a bad law, blame the General Assembly who presumably passed it with a majority (not the government lawyer). Also, why has there been no write up on the actual legislators who passed the law defining marriage? For all the fuss Democrats have made, it would be interesting to know if some Democrats voted in favor of it (or if some Republican's voted against it). Have a nice day.

ADVERTISEMENT