INDIANA SENTENCING REFORM: TWO YEARS AND STILL NOT WORKING
In an article I published this past January (“State Sentencing Reform: Reducing Recidivism OR Costing Indiana Counties More Money?”), I argued that the new sentencing reform bill, which radically changes the way criminal courts sentence offenders, could actually cost local communities more money without doing much to prevent recidivism. Under the new guidelines, offenders sentenced to a year or less in criminal court would not see a state prison. Instead, they would carry out their sentences in the communities in which they were convicted. If offenders had to serve jail time, county lock-ups would serve as their prisons. This scheme, I argued, might simply transfer financial and care liabilities from the state to county and city budgets.
Saving money was Indiana’s intention all along. Rather than build new prisons, …show more content…
Brent Steele (R), Senate Judiciary Chairman, claims that the IDOC report is full of “phony-baloney numbers.” But local law enforcement officials have registered their displeasure. Sheriff Jerry Harbstreit, the former head of the Indiana Sheriffs' Association, called the report a “slap in the face.”
House Judiciary Committee Chairman, Greg Steuerwald (R), responded to the reports criticism by noting that this is a transitional period. He expects the numbers to be quite different next year. Local service providers, however, caution that the state must provide support to local governments; else, community treatment services for offenders—particularly drug and mental health programs--will suffer.
Steve McCaffrey is a supporter of sentencing reform and urged legislators to support community-based treatment for offenders. He is also the head of the Indiana chapter of Mental Health of America. If sentencing reform is going to be effective, he argues, community treatment programs for offenders must receive
In an article I published this past January (“State Sentencing Reform: Reducing Recidivism OR Costing Indiana Counties More Money?”), I argued that the new sentencing reform bill, which radically changes the way criminal courts sentence offenders, could actually cost local communities more money without doing much to prevent recidivism. Under the new guidelines, offenders sentenced to a year or less in criminal court would not see a state prison. Instead, they would carry out their sentences in the communities in which they were convicted. If offenders had to serve jail time, county lock-ups would serve as their prisons. This scheme, I argued, might simply transfer financial and care liabilities from the state to county and city budgets.
Saving money was Indiana’s intention all along. Rather than build new prisons, …show more content…
Brent Steele (R), Senate Judiciary Chairman, claims that the IDOC report is full of “phony-baloney numbers.” But local law enforcement officials have registered their displeasure. Sheriff Jerry Harbstreit, the former head of the Indiana Sheriffs' Association, called the report a “slap in the face.”
House Judiciary Committee Chairman, Greg Steuerwald (R), responded to the reports criticism by noting that this is a transitional period. He expects the numbers to be quite different next year. Local service providers, however, caution that the state must provide support to local governments; else, community treatment services for offenders—particularly drug and mental health programs--will suffer.
Steve McCaffrey is a supporter of sentencing reform and urged legislators to support community-based treatment for offenders. He is also the head of the Indiana chapter of Mental Health of America. If sentencing reform is going to be effective, he argues, community treatment programs for offenders must receive