Indiana is a Racist State. A Lawyer Told Me That.

A man killed his wife in front of their children in late June in the county in which I work. It was a really awful crime, for a number of reasons beyond the fact that a woman lost her life. He was sentenced to 55 years in prison yesterday, as was reported in the news in, among others, this article:

http://www.theindychannel.com/news/21250084/detail.html

As I read the article, a few things bothered me. They are things that bother me in just about every article I read involving the judicial system.

First, the article reports that the man received a 55-year sentence in prison. That leads a normal person to believe that he won't be eligible to walk out of prison until October 9, 2064, right? And since the man is currently 41 years old, that's almost assuredly a "life-in-prison" sentence, right? He'll be in his late 90's before he gets out. Right?

Wrong.

What the article fails to mention is that in Indiana, for every day a person serves in jail, that person gets an additional day of credit time, commonly referred to as "good time credit." You can read about it in Indiana Code 35-50-6-3. So this man will actually only serve half of his time. That's 27.5 years, not 55 years. So now we're talking a release date of somewhere in April of 2037, right? He'll still be in his late 60's when he gets out of prison, right?

Wrong.

Read the next section in that chapter of the Indiana Code (35-50-6-3.3) and learn about all the ways he can reduce his sentence. He has the potential to knock another 4 years off his sentence while he's in prison through a variety of programs designed to better a person while they are incarcerated. I'm not commenting on these programs and their associated time cuts. I'm simply pointing out another way that the man can cut time off his sentence. Something that was not reported in the article.

Then, at the very beginning of that chapter of the Indiana Code (35-50-6-1), you can read about parole. Whether this man has the possibility of parole or not isn't mentioned in this article, but it's another way that he might be released from prison earlier than many people expect.

Finally, the article makes no mention that the man receives credit for all the time he has been in jail while his case has been pending. He was caught by the police several hours after the murder occurred, so he's been in jail since late June. He has a little over 3 months of credit time already, plus 3 months of good time credit.

Again, I'm not commenting on the way Indiana state law reads. My irritation is a result of the media reporting that the man got 55 years in prison, leaving the public to believe that he will exit the prison doors 55 years from yesterday, assuming he's still alive, when that isn't even close to the truth.

Another big gripe I have with this article and with most other on-line media is the ability given to the public to add its comments, usually in complete anonymity. I understand the First Amendment and the right to free speech and all of that, but what constructive purpose does comments from the public serve? Many of these comments are posted by people who lack any knowledge of the situation, who are hiding under the cloak of anonymity, and who are simply trying to post the most inflammatory comment that they can come up with for reasons known only to them.

Let's look at some of the comments on this article together, shall we?

Our first (anonymous, of course) commenter laments about "killings in indy getting such light punishments." Aside from the fact that the killing did not take place in Indianapolis, but in one of its suburbs instead, Indiana Code 35-50-2-3 outlines the possible punishment for Murder. Murderers can get 45-65 years in prison, with the advisory sentence being 55 years. Murderers can also get life in prison without parole or the death penalty if certain circumstances are in place in that particular case. Once again, I'm not commenting on the Hendricks County Prosecutor's choice to offer this particular man the advisory sentence in exchange for not requiring the time, anguish, and money of a trial, and for wrapping up a murder case in under four months. I'm simply saying "such light punishments" are right down the middle of the plate, as far as what Indiana law allows a Court to sentence someone to for Murder.

The very next comment comes from a person (anonymous, of course) who blames the "light punishments" on "old brizzie", referring to Marion County Prosecutor Carl Brizzi. This person, in addition to misspelling Brizzi's name, failed to notice that the crime occurred and was prosecuted in Hendricks County, not Marion County. Mr. Brizzi had no jurisdiction or involvement in this case. Thank you for that educated, well thought-out comment.

Fortunately, the next commenter (once again, anonymous) pointed that out, throwing in an inflammatory "idiot" reference. That's constructive.

Then we get to the next (anonymous, naturally) commenter who somehow feels the need to tie a local domestic violence-related murder to President Obama being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize earlier in the day. Huh?

Then we have a few more people (all anonymous) calling each other dumb, followed by later comments further down the page predictably throwing out the racial argument. * Yawn. *

Moving to page 2, we have some anonymous person spouting off that sentences are too short because prosecutors are overcoming budget constraints. (Once again, this man got the advisory sentence for Murder, according to Indiana law.) This person also suggests raising taxes in Marion County to help better fund the Prosecutor's Office. (The Marion County Prosecutor's Office was not involved in this case at all. It was a Hendricks County case.) Perhaps this is the same person who incorrectly blames "light punishments" on "old brizzie."

From there, it just degenerates into page after page after page of absolute hogwash, comprised of racism (one of the funniest comments: "Indiana is a racist state. A lawyer told me that." Not funny at all: "It is a noted fact that most murders are committed by blacks."), incorrect information about Indiana law ("in Indiana they use the 3 strikes law"), calls for public hangings and this man's murder in prison by other inmates and/or his suicide and/or the removal of his penis, and a return to Hammurabi's Code.

What is the point of this? Why does nearly every on-line news service allow uncensored, anonymous comments by the public? I cannot come up with a single constructive reason for allowing people to post such inflammatory things on the news service's website for everyone--regardless of age--to read, without any repercussions whatsoever. Pre-Internet, opinion letters could be sent to the editor of a newspaper, but the newspaper weeded out the letters from morons that contained racist comments, incorrect information, and other absurdity. And each letter contained the writer's name and town in which the writer lives. If someone wrote something asinine or inflammatory, everyone knew who wrote it.

Sure, sure. There's the option to not read said comments. But explain that to a child who is reading the news for a school project or for their own education. As my girls get older, I want them to be informed of current events. What I don't want them exposed to is page after page of the ramblings of the underbelly of society.

Do you want your kids perpetually exposed to that?

So my first suggestion to Internet news services, such as Channel 6's website, is to accurately report a person's sentence. Don't leave the public thinking a man is going to do 55 actual years in prison for killing his wife in front of his kids, when that's not even close to what he's going to serve. It's not hard to mention good time credit, educational credits, and parole.

Second, just eliminate the ability of the public to comment on stories.

The world will be a better place for it.