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.



Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.