The Indiana General Assembly killed a good bill to reform Indiana’s criminal-sentencing laws but preserved and adopted one of its worst elements.
In a law that takes effect July 1, criminals convicted of certain crimes have a way to make records of those crimes go away if they have a clean record for eight years after the conviction.
House Enrolled Act 1211 applies to people convicted of misdemeanors and the lowest level of felonies, provided the crimes were non-violent and were not sex crimes.
“If a court orders a person’s records to be restricted under this chapter, the person may legally state on an application for employment or any other document that the person has not been arrested for or convicted of the felony or misdemeanor,” the law states.
The convicted person must ask a court to act, but as long as the petitioner has met the requirements, the law states, “the court shall grant” the petition (emphasis mine).
The goal of reducing the stigma of an old criminal conviction may be admirable, but it changes history and seals what have long been public records. Under this law, for example, political researchers looking into the 2008 conviction of former mayoral candidate Matt Kelty could well be denied access to those records after fall 2016. And Kelty – who now cannot seek local office because of his felony conviction – could presumably run for office after 2016 because, if he were to seek such a court order, he could legally state he had never been convicted of a felony.
To his credit, State Rep. Win Moses – who has a 24-year-old misdemeanor conviction for campaign finance violations – was one of just 14 House members who voted against this new law.
Perhaps his fellow legislators should read some George Orwell, particularly “Animal Farm” or “1984,” where the ruling party’s slogan is “He who controls the past, controls the future.”
Or maybe they already have.
Henry victory
Despite the criticism of two City Council members, Mayor Tom Henry got what he wanted last week when City Council approved a plan to streamline the process for businesses to get land use and building permits.
The two critics, Mitch Harper and Liz Brown, kept their options open by playing it both ways – voting in favor of the plan even while attacking its shortcomings.
Harper, who gushed about all the citizen reaction he received when he held up the ordinance two weeks ago, didn’t brag so much at last week’s joint City Council-County Council meeting about all the calls he reportedly received from the business community supporting the proposal.
Expect more criticism from the usual suspects in coming weeks, when the Henry administration asks the council to appropriate $700,000 to finance the plan. And the council will have to vote again in the future for changes in city code necessary to coincide with the quicker turnaround for permits.
