« Ind. Courts - "711 St. Joseph County residents who ignored jury questionnaires ordered to court" | Main | Ind. Gov't. - "Down on luck Democrats must nurture next generation" »

Sunday, February 20, 2011

Ind. Gov't. - "In a legislative session seemingly overflowing with important and emotional issues – education, redistricting, guns, gay marriage and more – the sentencing proposal is emerging as one of the most contentious and significant"

To understand HB 561 and sentencing reform, begin with Fort Wayne Journal Gazette editorial page editor Tracy Warner's lengthy analysis piece today. It begins:

The controversial measure has support from Gov. Mitch Daniels and other key players but strikes fear into the hearts of lawmakers who don’t want to appear soft on crime.

While some of the debate revolves around rehabilitation versus punishment, the bigger issue is money. The proposal would shift hundreds of criminals each year from the state Department of Correction – the prison system – to county-level courts, probation and Community Corrections programs. The state would send more money to the counties – starting at a total of $5 million annually – but county officials worry the amounts will be insufficient, perhaps woefully so.

The idea that fewer criminals should go to prison comes not from a progressive advocacy group but from an independent, data-driven study of Indiana sentencing practices. Those who support the study’s findings include Daniels, Indiana Chief Justice Randall Shepard and Attorney General Greg Zoeller, not exactly wild-eyed liberals.

Released just two months ago, the study is the chief piece of evidence supporting the legislative proposal.

Advocates say the plan will save the state hundreds of millions of dollars while improving public safety with a better emphasis on rehabilitation that is less costly and more likely to turn lower-level, non-violent offenders away from crime. In turn, the state prison system would focus its resources on the more violent offenders who should be locked up.

Opponents argue that some measures are too soft on certain crimes and would merely transfer a financial burden from state government to cash-strapped counties. They worry about many of the details and question the rush to put controversial, little-debated policies into law.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on February 20, 2011 05:45 PM
Posted to Indiana Government