Louisiana House Bill HB123

Louisiana 2012 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/12/12
• Refer: 3/12/12
• Report Pass: 3/21/12
• Engrossed: 4/2/12
• Refer: 4/3/12
• Report Pass: 4/17/12
• Enrolled: 5/10/12
• Chaptered: 5/14/12
• Passed: 5/14/12

Caption

Provides for restitution for expenses incurred from an escape or attempted escape from any place where an offender is legally confined (EN SEE FISC NOTE SG RV See Note)

Impact

The bill expands the scope of restitution applicable to offenders, making it clear that restitution laws extend to all types of facilities where offenders may be confined. This change is designed to enhance accountability for offenders, as they would be liable for the costs associated with their escape. Consequently, this could lead to a reduction in the financial impact on state resources when managing escape incidents, as offenders would be required to reimburse some of those costs.

Summary

House Bill 123 aims to amend existing laws regarding the imposition of restitution owed by offenders who escape or attempt to escape from custody or confinement. The legislation stipulates that corrections services can seek restitution for expenses incurred during such escape events. This includes expenses from law enforcement agencies involved in apprehending the escaping offenders, ensuring that the financial burden of escape attempts does not fall solely on the state or local governments.

Sentiment

The general sentiment surrounding HB 123 appears to be supportive among lawmakers, as indicated by the unanimous vote in favor of the bill with no dissenting opinions. Supporters argue that the bill fosters a sense of accountability among offenders and acts as a deterrent against future escape attempts. However, some critics might express concerns about the implications of financial restitution, particularly for indigent offenders who may already face significant economic challenges.

Contention

While there were no notable points of contention highlighted in the voting history, the legislation introduces the potential for debates around the fairness of imposing restitution on offenders, especially in cases where the costs incurred by law enforcement might be deemed excessive. Additionally, enforcement of this restitution could raise questions about ability to pay and fairness in its application across different socioeconomic statuses among offenders.