The sentencing reform package reported on last month is under attack by a group of Indiana prosecutors. The Association of Indiana Prosecuting Attorneys has voted to oppose the progressive changes that would save the state over $1 billion in coming years, this despite support for the legislation coming from both sides of the political fence and the public at large.
So, why the opposition? Well, prosecutors state the legislation stands to put the public at risk, they have used the dreaded term “soft on crime”. In particular, they are worried about the recommendations that stand to lessen penalties for some drug and low level theft charges, promoting treatment and community supervision instead of prison time.
Incidentally, these changes would also increase judicial discretion, putting more power on the bench and thereby removing some from the prosecutor’s office. Perhaps this is where some of the animosity lies.
Indiana is the only state in the country where every theft charge is considered a felony theft charge. One of the proposed changes would lessen the classification of low level thefts, differentiating between someone who steals a shirt, for instance, and someone who steals a car, both currently Class D felonies.
The legislation would also promote treatment for low level drug offenders, something that’s repeatedly been shown to be more fiscally responsible and lead to less recidivism.
Finally, the legislation would tighten regulations for the highest risk offenders on probation. Yes, it would essentially make the public safer by controlling those considered high-risk to a greater degree than those who pose little to no risk.
It seems the prosecutors’ organization would like to see the public push back on the proposed legislation. By calling it a “soft on crime” measure, they are instigating an old fight, one in which officials push for expensive and counterproductive measures by playing on the community’s fear of crime.
Fortunately, prosecutors don’t have a say in the final approval of this bill. They do, however, hold some power—perhaps scaring some lawmakers away from looking easy on criminals or uncaring in regards to public safety. If successful, the organization would like to see the bill die, because the aspects they oppose are crucial in getting funding for the community supervision aspects they say they aren’t opposed to.
Time will only tell if Indiana will see these progressive changes take place. It seems that the potential financial savings and increased judicial discretion is a smart move. But voting on the measure could be a long ways off, and many edits could take place in the meantime.