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. A high ranking Indiana supreme Court operative caught red handed leading a group using the uber offensive N word! She must denounce or be denounced! (Or not since she is an insider ... rules do not apply to them). Evidence here: http://m.indianacompanies.us/friends-educational-fund-for-negroes.364110.company.v2#top_info

  2. A high ranking bureaucrat with Ind sup court is heading up an organization celebrating the formal N word!!! She must resign and denounce! http://m.indianacompanies.us/friends-educational-fund-for-negroes.364110.company.v2#top_info

  3. ND2019, don't try to confuse the Left with facts. Their ideologies trump facts, trump due process, trump court rules, even trump federal statutes. I hold the proof if interested. Facts matter only to those who are not on an agenda-first mission.

  4. OK so I'll make this as short as I can. I got a call that my daughter was smoking in the bathroom only her and one other girl was questioned mind you four others left before them anyways they proceeded to interrogate my daughter about smoking and all this time I nor my parents got a phone call,they proceeded to go through her belongings and also pretty much striped searched my daughter including from what my mother said they looked at her Brest without my consent. I am furious also a couple months ago my son hurt his foot and I was never called and it got worse during the day but the way some of the teachers have been treating my kids they are not comfortable going to them because they feel like they are mean or don't care. This is unacceptable in my mind i should be able to send my kids to school without worry but now I worry how the adults there are treating them. I have a lot more but I wanted to know do I have any attempt at a lawsuit because like I said there is more that's just some of what my kids are going through. Please respond. Sincerely concerned single parent

  5. California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) End of Year Report 2014. (page 13) Under the current system many local registering agencies are challenged just keeping up with registration paperwork. It takes an hour or more to process each registrant, the majority of whom are low risk offenders. As a result law enforcement cannot monitor higher risk offenders more intensively in the community due to the sheer numbers on the registry. Some of the consequences of lengthy and unnecessary registration requirements actually destabilize the life’s of registrants and those -such as families- whose lives are often substantially impacted. Such consequences are thought to raise levels of known risk factors while providing no discernible benefit in terms of community safety. The full report is available online at. http://www.casomb.org/index.cfm?pid=231 National Institute of Justice (NIJ) US Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs United States of America. The overall conclusion is that Megan’s law has had no demonstrated effect on sexual offenses in New Jersey, calling into question the justification for start-up and operational costs. Megan’s Law has had no effect on time to first rearrest for known sex offenders and has not reduced sexual reoffending. Neither has it had an impact on the type of sexual reoffense or first-time sexual offense. The study also found that the law had not reduced the number of victims of sexual offenses. The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/app/publications/abstract.aspx? ID=247350 The University of Chicago Press for The Booth School of Business of the University of Chicago and The University of Chicago Law School Article DOI: 10.1086/658483 Conclusion. The data in these three data sets do not strongly support the effectiveness of sex offender registries. The national panel data do not show a significant decrease in the rate of rape or the arrest rate for sexual abuse after implementation of a registry via the Internet. The BJS data that tracked individual sex offenders after their release in 1994 did not show that registration had a significantly negative effect on recidivism. And the D.C. crime data do not show that knowing the location of sex offenders by census block can help protect the locations of sexual abuse. This pattern of noneffectiveness across the data sets does not support the conclusion that sex offender registries are successful in meeting their objectives of increasing public safety and lowering recidivism rates. The full report is available online at. http://www.jstor.org/stable/full/10.1086/658483 These are not isolated conclusions but are the same outcomes in the majority of conclusions and reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community. People, including the media and other organizations should not rely on and reiterate the statements and opinions of the legislators or other people as to the need for these laws because of the high recidivism rates and the high risk offenders pose to the public which simply is not true and is pure hyperbole and fiction. They should rely on facts and data collected and submitted in reports from the leading authorities and credible experts in the fields such as the following. California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) Sex offender recidivism rate for a new sex offense is 0.8% (page 30) The full report is available online at http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Adult_Research_Branch/Research_Documents/2014_Outcome_Evaluation_Report_7-6-2015.pdf California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) (page 38) Sex offender recidivism rate for a new sex offense is 1.8% The full report is available online at. http://www.google.com/url?sa= t&source=web&cd=1&ved= 0CCEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F% 2Fwww.cdcr.ca.gov%2FAdult_ Research_Branch%2FResearch_ documents%2FOutcome_ evaluation_Report_2013.pdf&ei= C9dSVePNF8HfoATX-IBo&usg=AFQjCNE9I6ueHz-o2mZUnuxLPTyiRdjDsQ Bureau of Justice Statistics 5 PERCENT OF SEX OFFENDERS REARRESTED FOR ANOTHER SEX CRIME WITHIN 3 YEARS OF PRISON RELEASE WASHINGTON, D.C. Within 3 years following their 1994 state prison release, 5.3 percent of sex offenders (men who had committed rape or sexual assault) were rearrested for another sex crime, the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) announced today. The full report is available online at. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/rsorp94pr.cfm Document title; A Model of Static and Dynamic Sex Offender Risk Assessment Author: Robert J. McGrath, Michael P. Lasher, Georgia F. Cumming Document No.: 236217 Date Received: October 2011 Award Number: 2008-DD-BX-0013 Findings: Study of 759 adult male offenders under community supervision Re-arrest rate: 4.6% after 3-year follow-up The sexual re-offense rates for the 746 released in 2005 are much lower than what many in the public have been led to expect or believe. These low re-offense rates appear to contradict a conventional wisdom that sex offenders have very high sexual re-offense rates. The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/236217.pdf Document Title: SEX OFFENDER SENTENCING IN WASHINGTON STATE: RECIDIVISM RATES BY: Washington State Institute For Public Policy. A study of 4,091 sex offenders either released from prison or community supervision form 1994 to 1998 and examined for 5 years Findings: Sex Crime Recidivism Rate: 2.7% Link to Report: http://www.oncefallen.com/files/Washington_SO_Recid_2005.pdf Document Title: Indiana’s Recidivism Rates Decline for Third Consecutive Year BY: Indiana Department of Correction 2009. The recidivism rate for sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05%, one of the lowest in the nation. In a time when sex offenders continue to face additional post-release requirements that often result in their return to prison for violating technical rules such as registration and residency restrictions, the instances of sex offenders returning to prison due to the commitment of a new sex crime is extremely low. Findings: sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05% Link to Report: http://www.in.gov/idoc/files/RecidivismRelease.pdf Once again, These are not isolated conclusions but are the same outcomes in the majority of reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community. No one can doubt that child sexual abuse is traumatic and devastating. The question is not whether the state has an interest in preventing such harm, but whether current laws are effective in doing so. Megan’s law is a failure and is destroying families and their children’s lives and is costing tax payers millions upon millions of dollars. The following is just one example of the estimated cost just to implement SORNA which many states refused to do. From Justice Policy Institute. Estimated cost to implement SORNA Here are some of the estimates made in 2009 expressed in 2014 current dollars: California, $66M; Florida, $34M; Illinois, $24M; New York, $35M; Pennsylvania, $22M; Texas, $44M. In 2014 dollars, Virginia’s estimate for implementation was $14M, and the annual operating cost after that would be $10M. For the US, the total is $547M. That’s over half a billion dollars – every year – for something that doesn’t work. http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/08-08_FAC_SORNACosts_JJ.pdf. Attempting to use under-reporting to justify the existence of the registry is another myth, or a lie. This is another form of misinformation perpetrated by those who either have a fiduciary interest in continuing the unconstitutional treatment of a disfavored group or are seeking to justify their need for punishment for people who have already paid for their crime by loss of their freedom through incarceration and are now attempting to reenter society as honest citizens. When this information is placed into the public’s attention by naive media then you have to wonder if the media also falls into one of these two groups that are not truly interested in reporting the truth. Both of these groups of people that have that type of mentality can be classified as vigilantes, bullies, or sociopaths, and are responsible for the destruction of our constitutional values and the erosion of personal freedoms in this country. I think the media or other organizations need to do a in depth investigation into the false assumptions and false data that has been used to further these laws and to research all the collateral damages being caused by these laws and the unconstitutional injustices that are occurring across the country. They should include these injustices in their report so the public can be better informed on what is truly happening in this country on this subject. Thank you for your time.

ADVERTISEMENT