← Return to search results
Back to Prindle Institute

indiana

Posted on

The Fight to Raise Indiana’s Cigarette Tax

For the second year in a row, Indiana legislators have introduced and advanced a bill that aims to raise the consumer taxes on cigarettes. In the nation, Indiana ranks 37th for the price of a pack of cigarettes, with the tax on a pack of cigarettes at less than $1. Though during the 2016 General Assembly a bill that targeted cigarettes and gasoline did not pass, H.B. 1578 is on track to make it to the governor’s table. Not only does H.B. 1578 raise cigarette taxes by $1.50, but it also aims to raise the minimum smoking age from 18 to 21. Though nobody advocates for the harmful side effects that cigarettes cause to personal and community health, what are the ethics of increasing taxes on a consumer product that is used more heavily by the poor?

Continue reading “The Fight to Raise Indiana’s Cigarette Tax”

Posted on

The Complexities of Reforming Indiana’s Bail System

This article has a set of discussion questions tailored for classroom use. Click here to download them. To see a full list of articles with discussion questions and other resources, visit our “Educational Resources” page.

Every year, thousands of bills are written and proposed during Indiana’s legislative session. The Indiana General Assembly takes place during the first few months of the year, and is a chance for state representatives to advance their agenda. Many Americans pay more attention to what happens at the federal level, but state and local government also has a large influence on the lives of citizens. The 2017 session, Jan 3 through April 29, is taking place during a budget year, and in the wake of an extremely contentious and important state and national election. Legislation authored this session ranges from bills that deregulate environmental protection to resolutions aimed at honoring professional athletes. One bill that has not gained much attention, however, raises numerous ethical concerns in regards to criminal justice and the prison system.

Senate Bill 228, authored by Senator Michael Young, aims to reform Indiana’s approach to bail and release after arrest. This bill involves the rules regarding pretrial risk assessment system which assist courts in assessing an arrestee’s likelihood of: (1) committing a new criminal offense; or (2) failing to appear.

At first glance this bill doesn’t seem particularly unusual. After all, using risk assessment in the criminal justice system doesn’t sound particularly radical or unethical. However, a closer examination of the bill reveals a large ethical dilemma. According to S.B. 228, the Indiana Supreme Court will revolutionize the standards for bail and release. Instead of basing bail and release off of a standard punishment for crime, it will rely upon risk assessment “based on empirical data derived through validated criminal justice scientific research” regarding individuals and the groups to which they might belong.

Proponents of the bill would argue that this not only humanizes those arrested on bail but also saves taxpayers money. Ideally, fewer people would be stuck waiting for their bail to be posted or for their trial, and therefore less taxpayer money would be dedicated to detaining those arrested. It is estimated that at any given time, there are nearly half a million Americans detained in local jails awaiting their trial, which costs approximately $17 billion every year. Many also argue that the notion of bail is outdated, and inherently favors wealthy individuals over poorer ones, further reinforcing societal inequalities surrounding income. Evidence-based risk assessment has been implemented in Kentucky, and supporters point to the fact that the average arrest rate for released defendants has declined. Additionally, many legislators are aiming to improve the reputation of the United States, which has one of the highest prison populations in the world, based on the fact that this bill would most likely result in less pretrial prisoners.

But will abolishing bail and relying upon risk assessment truly improve the stark inequalities present in the criminal justice system? Risk assessment aims to allow those who are detained for non-violent crimes and are not repeat offenders out of jail before their trial. But what are the complications of individualizing criminal offenses? Though fewer people would ideally be sitting in jail awaiting pretrial, those who are detained may be treated differently than those who committed the same crimes, or even more serious ones. If two people are arrested for the same crime, shouldn’t they be treated the same regardless of differences in criminal record and history?  

Factors such as race, criminal arrest record, or even gender could influence how risk assessment is measured and change how two people who commit the same crime are treated. A report on bail and pretrial risk assessment admits that “researchers have documented that racial bias can influence how juvenile offenses are described in post-arrest narrative reports, which could influence pretrial release decisions.” Though one could argue that educating law enforcement officials about implicit bias could eliminate this problem, S.B. 228 does not encourage or mandate doing so. Additionally, there has been increased debate about whether or not crime statistics can stand alone if they do not take into account racial and socioeconomic inequalities.

Though controversial, S.B. 228 passed its Senate Committee vote 8-1, passing an amendment on February 19. Though it is too early to tell if S.B. 228 will make it through the legislative process and become law, it should be considered seriously. The ethical implications of transforming pretrial requirements to individual considerations as opposed to a standard should not be taken lightly.

Posted on

Absent Perpetrator and Action-Less Bystander in East Chicago

This article has a set of discussion questions tailored for classroom use. Click here to download them. To see a full list of articles with discussion questions and other resources, visit our “Educational Resources” page.

The small Indiana town of East Chicago sits roughly 25 miles southeast of downtown Chicago. In late July, East Chicago’s mayor and the Environmental Protection Agency began informing residents that their soil had been contaminated with lead since at least 2014. But it was only a few weeks ago that the city began the process of evacuating nearly 1200 residents out of their housing complexes. The reason for this evacuation coincides with the rich industrial history of East Chicago: the smelting of lead.

Like many cities near the northernmost Indiana-Illinois border, East Chicago was at the heart of the Industrial Revolution. Known for not only its steel production but also its large population of immigrants, East Chicago was once hailed as “The Arsenal of America,” and proof that America was truly a melting pot. East Chicago’s present, however, looks very different than its past.The median household income of East Chicago is over $20,000 less than the Indiana average. On top of economic hardship, East Chicago residents are facing an environmental health crisis.  

Lead is one of the most heavily regulated pollutants in the United States, with 7 major environmental policies monitoring its presence in air, water, soil and buildings. Despite the definite confidence that lead is toxic to humans and other animals, many industrial processes once used it heavily. In fact, between 1920 and 1985, East Chicago was home to two different lead refineries, U.S.S. Lead and Anaconda Lead. Though Anaconda Lead shut down in 1936, and U.S.S. Lead in 1985, an inspection by the EPA found the area around each factory to be toxic enough to potentially qualify as a Superfund Site. At this point, U.S.S. Lead’s parent company, Sharon Steel Corp, declared bankruptcy and the EPA did not receive the permission to deem the 72 acre area as a Superfund Site. The EPA finally declared the area a Superfund Site 17 years later, in 2009.

Since the discovery of lead contamination, the EPA has sued U.S.S. Lead twice, once in 1991 and again in 2012, though the ownership of U.S.S. Lead fell under the title of the Atlantic Richfield Company and E.I. Du Pont de Nemours and Co. During both of these lawsuits, and the time in between, residents of a 346-unit housing complex built in the 1970’s were actually living on the contaminated soil, with no knowledge of their proximity to toxic levels of lead. To put that in perspective, two entire generations of people were exposed to high levels of lead – in some areas, 228 times the EPA’s maximum level of safe exposure.

The situation in East Chicago is a crisis that demands justice, but who is at fault? The EPA states its mission “is to protect human health and the environment.” The EPA has been aware of dangerous levels of lead in East Chicago’s soil for over two decades, but has failed to begin cleaning up the site at all. Some may point out that this stems from the complicated process of declaring an area as a Superfund priority. However, it appears as though the EPA simply gave up or forgot about the area for nearly 20 years, despite the immediate threat it posed to human health.  In addition, between 1992 and 2009, the EPA declared four additional areas as Superfund Sites in Indiana, 3 of which were less toxic than the U.S.S. Site. Every one of these sites –  Terre Haute, Elkhart, Evansville, and Westfield – has a higher median household income and percentage of white citizens than East Chicago. Is it fair to say that the EPA not only ignored this public health crisis, but did so because of institutional racism and classism?

On the other hand, some might blame the very companies that are responsible for contaminating the area as most responsible. After all, if it wasn’t for U.S.S. Lead and Anaconda Lead, wouldn’t the area be safe for habitation? Even though lead was not heavily regulated until 1992, lead has been known to be a toxic substance since the 19th century. Mishandling a known toxic substance might be reason enough to blame only the lead refineries. Additionally, it took U.S.S. Lead’s subsidiaries two years to respond and settle the 2012 lawsuit with the EPA. Some might point out that neither company that polluted the area still exists, and it is nearly impossible to pin blame when U.S.S. Lead has changed ownership so many times. However, isn’t the same argument valid with the EPA as well? Since 1992, the EPA has had 14 different head administrators.

Thankfully, the EPA’s 2012 lawsuit against Atlantic Richfield Company and E.I. Du Pont de Nemours and Co. resulted in a $26 million settlement to begin cleaning up the area. Unfortunately, irreversible damage has already been done to citizens of East Chicago. Who is more morally corrupt: the perpetrator or the action-less bystander? How can we hold entities responsible for causing or allowing environmental damage and human health crises to occur? Is it possible or right to seek justice when the perpetrators of such acts are not still in power or even alive?

Perhaps the problem lies in attempting to hold people accountable for their actions, and lack thereof, of multiple entities over decades. The longevity of a crime should not determine its likelihood of meeting justice, but that seems to be the problem.The perpetrator is absent from the crime and there are too many action-less bystanders to blame. Ironically, the people of East Chicago have been blindly suffering for too long to find peace in holding anyone accountable.

Posted on

On Morally Supporting Abstinence-Based Sex Ed

The Atlantic published an article titled “Sex Ed Without the Sex” this past week by writer Olga Khazen. In that article, Khazen traced current sexual education practices in the city of Odessa, Texas. Odessa represents the widely used ideology of current sex ed courses throughout the United States, which is laden with conservative, Phyllis Schlafly-esque teachings. At this time, only 13 states require sex ed lessons to include medically accurate facts, while less than half actually require sex ed to be taught in school.

Continue reading “On Morally Supporting Abstinence-Based Sex Ed”

Posted on

Indiana’s New Abortion Law: An Ethical, Medical, or Legal Concern?

Republican Gov. Mike Pence signed a new bill that “[p]rohibits a person from performing an abortion if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because of: (1) the race, color, national origin, ancestry, or sex of the fetus; or (2) a diagnosis or potential diagnosis of the fetus having Down syndrome or any other disability.” After discovering through genetic testing that their unborn child may have a “disability,” women will be unable to receive an abortion legally. Pence referred to the law as “a comprehensive pro-life measure that affirms the value of all human life.” Continue reading “Indiana’s New Abortion Law: An Ethical, Medical, or Legal Concern?”

Posted on

Communion of a Different Kind

When the authors of Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) passed it into law, marijuana churches were probably the last things on their mind. Yet, only a few months after the act’s passing, Indiana’s First Church of Cannabis has been established. Existing under the freedoms established by RFRA, the church operates on principles of “love, respect, equality and compassion,” with marijuana as its official sacrament. While many have cast it as a joke or a political statement against RFRA, the church also raises a number of questions about how the government can and should interact with organized religion.

Continue reading “Communion of a Different Kind”

Posted on

Indiana Controversies Continue: New Developments in the Abortion Debate

As if the Religious Freedom Restoration Act wasn’t controversial enough, Indiana is the setting for another story that hits right at the heart of social policy debates that have come to grip American politics. Purvi Patel,  from Mishawaka, IN, has just been charged with feticide and neglect of a dependent. She is the first person to be convicted and sentenced for feticide.

Her conviction could have a major role in shaping the future of abortion policy in the state of Indiana. Patel used abortion drugs she purchased online to terminate her pregnancy it its 24th week. She claims that soon after she delivered a stillborn fetus at home, and after which she sought treatment at a hospital for loss of blood. Questioned and detained at the hospital, prosecutors were ruthless in setting an example of Patel, asking for a 40-year sentence of which Patel would ultimately get 20.

This case presents a number of ethical questions that we must confront, and represents a new direction in the abortion debate. As pointed out in an article by Jessica Glenza at The Guardian, this is an entirely novel application of the feticide laws than were originally intended for the prosecution of a third party in harming an unborn child. As stated by attorney Katherine Jack, “If it’s appealed and upheld, [the conviction] basically sets a precedent that anything a pregnant woman does that could be interpreted as an attempt to terminate her pregnancy could result in criminal liability.” Also, medical experts warn that prosecuting mothers that seek medical care after these sorts of incidents could scare away others that need help because they may be afraid they will also be prosecuted.

On the other hand, Indiana prosecutors argue that Patel was guilty of murder, as a medical examiner testified that the infant was alive at the time of birth, in direct contention with a medical witness from the defense. You can read the full summary of the case from the investigating detective here.

When looking at this case we must ask ourselves, was justice served? How should these sorts of desperation abortions be handled? Should this case be viewed as murder, or woman’s choice?