Louisiana House Bill HR34

Louisiana 2016 2nd Special Session

• Introduced: 6/23/16
• Passed: 6/23/16

Caption

Requests the continued funding of reentry courts in Louisiana

Impact

The resolution asserts that reentry courts contribute to lowering the average rates of recidivism among participants compared to the general population, which in turn leads to potential savings for the criminal justice system and a subsequent decline in crime rates across the state. The financial backing of these courts is seen as essential given the state's current fiscal conditions, as proper funding can facilitate the further development of successful reentry programs that empower former offenders to become productive members of their communities.

Summary

House Resolution 34 urges and requests the continued funding of reentry courts in Louisiana aimed at reducing recidivism and improving outcomes for offenders reintegrating into society. The resolution highlights the significant role that reentry courts play in enhancing public safety through judicial oversight and the provision of vital services, including skills training, education, and counseling for incarcerated individuals. With the establishment of thirteen reentry courts, the Louisiana legislative body acknowledges their success in aiding offenders to transition back into society effectively.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HR34 is largely supportive, underscoring a collective recognition of the importance of rehabilitation in the criminal justice system. Advocates for reentry courts argue that sustained funding is crucial for maintaining the progress made in reducing recidivism rates and improving offender outcomes. While there may not be significant opposition noted in the discussions available, there exists a constant need for vigilance around issues of funding and resource allocation in the state budget to ensure these programs can continue their beneficial operations.

Contention

Notable points of contention may arise from budgetary concerns, particularly in discussions regarding state expenditures and priorities. Opponents of increased funding for reentry courts might argue for alternative uses of limited fiscal resources, potentially leading to debates over the effectiveness and efficiency of such programs compared to other areas of funding within the state. Nonetheless, the current data supporting the reentry courts' success in reducing recidivism appears to strengthen the case for their continued financial backing.