ILNews

Support strong for treatment instead of incarceration in the DOC

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

David Powell, former Greene County prosecutor, recalled the construction worker who explained his attraction to methamphetamine.

He could stay up for five or six days at a time, go to work, come home and do every chore his wife wanted, stay up all night partying, and then go back to work the next day. He felt like he owned the world.

Eventually, the good times ended and the construction worker got tangled with the law. His story is not unusual and the repetition across Indiana of addiction leading to jail is fueling the push to provide these kinds of offenders treatment rather than a trip to prison.
 

powell-davidbp-1col.jpg David Powell, executive director of the Indiana Prosecuting Attorneys Council, wants legislators to postpone changes in the criminal code until new programs can be evaluated. (IL Photo/ Eric Learned)

Powell, now executive director of the Indiana Prosecuting Attorneys Council, is part of that effort. He strongly believes that addressing drug dependency and mental health issues can reduce the state’s recidivism rate and, in turn, lower the crime rate.

Indiana is set to implement a new criminal code for the first time since 1977, and a key idea behind the revamped law is keeping low-level offenders in their communities to provide them with treatment. The consensus among various groups that this is a better approach to deterring crime has amazed even those who have long advocated that programs and services be available for inmates.

However, Powell tempered the expectations that much will be accomplished by bolstering treatment.

“I don’t think we should see this as we’re going to save 50 percent of the people,” he said. “If we save 5 to 10 percent that don’t recidivate because of treatment, that would more than pay for the program.”

Treating recidivism

Money was the primary motivator to update the criminal code in House Enrolled Act 1006. Currently, the Indiana Department of Correction has a population of 29,500 which has been predicted will surge to 34,120 in the next decade. With the state’s penitentiary system able to house roughly 30,000, an increase in inmates could send the Legislature looking for hundreds of millions of dollars to build a new prison.

Conversely, by reducing the number of offenders who commit crimes and repeatedly return to prison, Indiana could reap significant savings. The Re-Entry Policy Study Commission Report, released in July 2013, looked at the Marion County incarceration rate and found that lowering recidivism by as little as 1 percent resulted in a cost savings of $1.55 million.

Like Powell, former Knox County Sheriff Steve Luce said not every offender can be reformed, estimating only a third of inmates really want to stay out of prison. But the programs he started cut in half the number of fights, arguments and rule violations in his jail. The improved jail situation decreased the amount of litigation arising from disgruntled or hurt inmates, saving the county money.

Although support for treatment programs is strong, such services are not available in every county. Powell said at present offenders can only get help with their addictions or mental health condition if they pay for the treatment themselves.

He voted against recommending the General Assembly adopt the new code because he saw a lack of provisions – namely funding – for counties to establish such programs.

“My concern was what were we doing to local communities when we lower penalties for those drug dealing crimes, especially, and place these people with drug problems back in the communities where there’s no place to help with their addiction and mental health issues,” he said.

Prosecutors, Powell said, get frustrated when they deal with the same defendant multiple times for the same offense. He fears with the new code’s reduced penalties for some lower-level crimes, the lawbreakers who do not get help will still end up in the DOC after being incarcerated in their local jails longer.

Today, low-level offenders are overrunning the DOC. In 2012, the state system admitted 9,867 individuals who had committed either a Class C or Class D felony, more than double the 4,368 who were incarcerated for murder, Class A and Class B felonies combined.

In a presentation before the Criminal Law and Sentencing Policy Study Committee, the interim legislative group charged with reviewing HEA 1006, Powell offered statistics that illustrate curbing recidivism requires addressing several interrelated issues. Along with their addiction, which is often complicated by mental health issues, 61 percent did not complete high school, 57 percent have no job and 73 percent are poor.

The new code lowers sentences for some offenses which could exacerbate the problems for communities, Powell said. The defendants either won’t be incarcerated long enough to complete a treatment program or, if they are given a choice, they will opt to serve time because they will be released sooner than if they enter treatment.

Henry County is an example of a small, rural county with only limited treatment options available. Circuit Judge Mary Willis sees people who struggle with mental illness which causes them to commit infractions. With medication and therapy they get better, but without sustained help, they regress and fill the jail.

She was hesitant to say how treatment, in general, would impact recidivism, but she called the push for more services a step in the right direction.

Oversight and money

Using treatment programs to reduce recidivism is the most important part of the new criminal code, Powell said. In fact, he argued that if reforms are instituted for dealing with reoffenders, the current criminal code could remain in place and the rate of incarceration, as well as the rate of crime, would still decline.

He recommended Indiana take one or two years to get programs up and running and evaluate how they are working before introducing the changes in the criminal statute.

That proposal drew support from Larry Landis, executive director of the Indiana Public Defender Council. He echoed Powell by saying the focus should be on treating drug addiction and mental health, providing supervision and offering re-entry programs that help former inmates get jobs, housing and treatment.

Services that change behavior, he said, will reduce recidivism, which will decrease the DOC population as well as the crime rate.

Allen Superior Judge John Surbeck pointed to his community’s re-entry project as proving programs can be successful at keeping offenders from returning to jail.

“The penitentiary environment doesn’t help people. When you put good people with bad people, the bad people don’t get better, the good people get worse. So that’s why it works so much better in the community. If you can do community-based sanctions, they’re far more effective,” he said.

The Working Group on Recidivism, appointed by the Criminal Law and Sentencing Policy Study Committee and chaired by Rep. Greg Steuerwald, R-Avon, has recommended that communities be allowed to develop their own programs to meet their unique needs. Oversight and accountability measures should be part of any new treatment service.

Also, the group advised that funding be granted only to programs certified through the Indiana Department of Mental Health. In addition, a statewide system for measuring the success of these projects should be established.

The working group is proposing redistributing a larger portion of the more than $41 million collected in alcohol tax each year into addiction programs. In addition, the body recommended the state consider raising the alcohol tax.

Having sat across from grandmothers and parents pleading for their children to be given treatment, Powell believes society may be accepting of something other than a “lock-them-up-and-throw-away-the-key” approach to punishment.

Still, he reiterated, the assistance needs to be provided or communities will be saddled with the burden of more offenders and less resources.

“We should not pass criminal code reform for the sake of it,” Powell said. “The real problem we have in Indiana is recidivism and lack of treatment for an addiction and mental health issues. These (issues) are very expensive, they drive crime at a high level. We need to address these issues whether or not (HEA) 1006 ever goes into effect.”•

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Is recidivism really the goal?
    Is reducing recidivism truly the goal? Or it is rather to enrich social workers and mental health agents via offering their secularist services that do not affect recidivism much? If recidivism was truly the goal then privatized religious programs would be advanced, mostly Christian, since study after study reveals such to be the most successful at cutting recidivism. But success has its limitations -- and success always takes a back seat when it bucks up against political correctness. Here are stories telling the truth about reducing the rate of return: http://www.cpjustice.org/stories/storyReader$545 ..... http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/november/36.70.html

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. Applause, applause, applause ..... but, is this duty to serve the constitutional order not much more incumbent upon the State, whose only aim is to be pure and unadulterated justice, than defense counsel, who is also charged with gaining a result for a client? I agree both are responsible, but it seems to me that the government attorneys bear a burden much heavier than defense counsel .... "“I note, much as we did in Mechling v. State, 16 N.E.3d 1015 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied, that the attorneys representing the State and the defendant are both officers of the court and have a responsibility to correct any obvious errors at the time they are committed."

  2. Do I have to hire an attorney to get co-guardianship of my brother? My father has guardianship and my older sister was his co-guardian until this Dec 2014 when she passed and my father was me to go on as the co-guardian, but funds are limit and we need to get this process taken care of quickly as our fathers health isn't the greatest. So please advise me if there is anyway to do this our self or if it requires a lawyer? Thank you

  3. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  4. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  5. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

ADVERTISEMENT