Death penalty debate in Indiana.

State leaders discuss child care priorities and are tax abatements, helping Hoosier communities.

From the television studios at WFYI Public Media, it's Indiana Week in Review for the week ending October 16th, 2026.

Indiana Week in Review is produced by WFYI in association with Indiana Public Broadcasting stations.

Additional support is provided by ParrRichey.

Indiana Governor Mike Braun says he expects Indiana to follow through on plans to execute a death row prisoner next month, despite concerns over the lethal injection drug.

As George Hale reports, Indiana uses the same drug Tennessee administered last month in a botched botched execution.

Governor Braun says he's aware of what happened in Tennessee on September 30th, when two doses of pentobarbital failed to kill death row inmate Christa Pike.

Pike regained consciousness days later in a Nashville hospital.

That does make you kind of think about the process in general.

And of course, there have been a lot that bring that up as a broader discussion on capital punishment in general.

But he still expects Indiana's planned execution of Jeffrey Weisheit to move forward, as long as state officials can obtain a supply of that drug, pentobarbital.

Weisheits death sentence for the murders of two children in 2010, and Evansville is set to be carried out November 5th at the Indiana State Prison.

Should Indiana carry out this latest execution?

It's the first question for our Indiana Week in Review panel.

Democrat Kip Tew Republican Joey Fox.

Jon Schwantes, host of Indiana Lawmakers.

And Camike Jones, editor in chief at Indianapolis Recorder.

I'm Jill Sheridan, managing editor at WFYI.

So, Kip, do you think there's any chance the governor would commute this man's sentence?

Well, doesn't sound like it.

From what he said, but I think prudence would suggest that he ought to take a really hard look at it.

What happened in Tennessee?

should be, you know, a big warning shot, about this procedure.

And, you know, the U.S.

Constitution says cruel and unusual punishment.

It seems to me that in Tennessee, it was both cruel and unusual.

And certainly this drug, pentobarbital, is something that lawmakers have discussed in the past and discussed other ways that, you know, we may administer executions because this drug is very expensive and it is questionable in its use sometimes.

Do you think that, you know, the state should consider other methods?

Sure.

as long as it's the law in the state that you can be put to death for your crimes, and the crime that this person is accused of is pretty heinous.

where it's going to go.

We don't know exactly what happened yet in Tennessee.

we have, executed, I think, three individuals in more recent times with this same cocktail of drugs.

the governor, to this point, has always followed the advice of the parole board and Supreme Court process.

I don't expect him to to waiver from that.

But you saw last legislative session, I mean, there were, bills filed to allow for death by firing squad, for, for example, like, this is, it's a conversation that's got it got to keep going.

But I do anticipate that this person will die.

Yeah.

I mean, the firing squad issue that they discussed last year during this session was a little bit alarming.

And this week we also heard that, a public firing squad execution will not be televised.

you know, when we are talking about ways to kill people for their crimes, it's a very delicate situation.

It's a very delicate situation.

And let's not forget that there's a growing, group within the General Assembly on both sides of the aisle that would just as soon do away with capital punishment in Indiana, and would prefer to see sentences such as life without the possibility of parole for any number of reasons.

I mean, we could litigate the death penalty here and talk about whether it's a deterrent, whether it's more affordable for taxpayers to keep somebody incarcerated than go through the extremely long, typically appellate process, etc., etc., the chance of getting it wrong.

the problems with execution protocol is, regardless of what method is is chosen.

There are a lot of things a cross currents here, just as there are with this particular case.

I think Joey is right.

The governor has tended to agree with the parole board.

I'm not sure we we have all of the the information we need to know yet because of hearings that are ongoing.

the defense team, is pushing or the condemned man's attorneys are pushing for new brain scans and so forth, that a federal judge has said would be paid for.

now there's, efforts, to get make sure that those scans are conducted and see if there are some brain trauma, injuries that might have contributed to this, that, issues that, about earlier trauma and injury in his is, life that didn't necessarily get, brought up in a, in a manner that might have been appropriate during the sentencing phase.

So that might weigh.

And we also have this week the emergence of the father of the victims, the two children who said, I forgive you.

I don't want to see somebody else die and another family suffer the same pain I have suffered.

I would rather see you spend your life in behind bars.

And that was a formal affidavit sent to submitted to the parole board.

So, I mean, there are a lot of crosscurrents here.

I think that that make this maybe a trickier call to predict than the three other executions that have taken place under Mike Braun's administration thus far.

Do you think, Camike, that we are seeing, you know, he mentioned the father has forgiven this man who set fire, and his children were then killed by a fire in this house.

do you think that we are seeing a bit of a trend in Indiana that, people are maybe, have less appetite for the death sentence?

Well, I think it's a very complicated issue.

Obviously, if you're a person who has been affected by, violence, their their various feelings on that, some people do want to have some kind of, recompense and then other people are taking the path of forgiveness.

But I do think the points about whether or not this is a humane, form of, punishment, is necessary to further discuss and further take into and also whether or not it's a deterrent for crime.

Like, Jon mentioned earlier, most times, and especially in the capital, in cases of homicides, it's like the spur of the moment type decision.

So I don't necessarily know that the death penalty would stop someone from making that decision in the moment, because it is such a spontaneous choice in 23 states do not allow the death penalty.

Do you think Indiana or whatever, doing cap?

I think there's a growing, movement inside the Indiana legislature.

I think, both these guys, mentioned it, of conservatives.

who, are pro-life, who think it's inconsistent with a pro-life position.

And I think that, they're they're gathering some momentum.

whether they get to enough votes to do it, I don't know.

but I do think people and I think the Tennessee situation certainly, adds momentum to that.

I don't know that to me, it's just like it's so ghoulish, that I don't see how anyone can sit there and and look at that situation and what happened and say, yeah, we got a really good system of of, capital punishment in the United States.

Well, it's time now for viewer feedback.

Every week we pose an unscientific online poll question.

This week's question, should Indiana get rid of the death penalty vote?

Yes or no?

But last question posed to viewers should Indiana end straight ticket voting?

61% answering yes and 39% say no.

If you would like to take part in the poll, go to wfyi.org/iwir and look for the poll.

How to fund child care is an ongoing debate among Indiana lawmakers as legislators prepare to head into the 2027 session.

Caroline Beck has more on the latest policy discussions around the issue.

During a recent committee hearing, Republican lawmakers, including Senator Chris Garten, says the state should continue deregulating the child care statutory code.

We can't have a regulatory burden that sets the threshold so high that it chokes off demand, and we wonder why the costs are up.

But Democrats like Representative Ed Delaney pushed back, saying cutting regulations doesn't provide the needed funding for things like child care vouchers.

It doesn't fund anything.

It increases risk, but it doesn't fund the cost.

Governor Mike Braun has said child care funding and policy will be a priority next session.

Joey, do you think we can expect meaningful investment in child care?

I do, I think you've already seen some meaningful investment?

Right.

What, $200 million in the last in the last year?

Going toward this?

I think the conversation that we're having right now is about the economics of this model.

Right.

what can we do to make sure that there are as many slots available for as many kids as possible, that their staff is there to actually be able to take care of these children?

And how do you make sure the money is actually getting as close to the kid as possible?

If you've got some crazy regulatory structure that's set up around it, where these child care centers are having to spend all their money on these 16 other things over here, versus paying the staff and taking care of the kids.

I think that's part of the conversation that we're that we're having and making sure that the regulatory environment matches the supply and demand problem that we have right now.

I mean, my question, though, camp, is, does this deregulation, you know, method, will that really, you know, decrease costs, in a meaningful way.

Child care is so expensive.

Yeah.

I think it's cheaper to send your kid to IU or Purdue than it is today to do day care in Indiana.

And and a lot of it is a supply problem.

But when you start talking about deregulation, like Joey did, I think you have to be very, very worried and concerned about the safety of children.

Every regulation that was put in place, so you're going to assume was done to increase safety.

And so when you start taking them away, you better have a hard nosed look at what that what the consequences could possibly be.

and, and having background checks, making sure these people that are providing the care, aren't pedophiles, aren't, you know, aren't involved in any, any of the other kind of activities you don't want.

So you have it is a very difficult problem to solve.

you do have an incredible supply problem.

I think part of the problem has been we've gone like this with funding.

And so you.

So you have had caregivers who can't stay in business because of funding dries up.

And so then it takes a long time lead time for new places to open.

I think we need to think about being innovative, in our approach, potentially, giving incentives to businesses to who have large employees, give them economic incentives to open them up, maybe use public schools.

We trust those folks to do this right.

Most of the time.

Maybe we are innovative in that way, but we need to look at some other options other than just deregulation.

Most of the regulations in place, I think, are there for a very good reason, which is keeping the kids safe.

Yeah.

I mean, we have seen, you know, the number of people that are waiting for a voucher on this list in Indiana dropped significantly with the 200 million that Joey mentioned was invested.

And we've heard the governor say that, you know, this is a top priority for him, that he does want more money to go to child care in Indiana.

Is that the right move?

Yes.

More money.

I think we can all agree.

I think everybody knows there are not enough options for child care, and the options that we do have are very expensive.

Sometimes, even for families who receive a voucher, you still have to pay some some portion of that.

And I don't know that there are any families who would feel comfortable.

I'm not sure that would say I would like less oversight when my child is involved, because we already have evidence of issues where children have been either intentionally or unintentionally harmed.

because maybe someone wasn't trained properly or there wasn't enough regulation within that facility.

So I don't really know that people would want to necessarily, like, sacrifice their child's potential safety and security in that way.

I don't think anybody is suggesting that we sacrifice children's, safety and security.

I think a clear eyed look at what regulations make sense and what don't.

I mean, this is the most, you know, standard business case that you do on any problem that you're trying to solve.

Like, are there extra costs here that don't make sense?

I think that's what this small piece of the process is about.

But maybe creative ideas, as you know, Joey meant, as Kip mentioned, are a better investment.

We do have incentives for businesses to, you know, start their own programs and maybe do you know, childcare cooperatives or something outside the box because, as you've mentioned as well, you know, it has been a lot of this up and down and, just throwing money at the problem.

Of course, this is a problem that didn't just spring up.

This is destined to be a priority for the 2027 session.

But let's not be naive.

This was billed as a top priority for the 2026 session, for the 2025 General Assembly, for the 2024 General Assembly, at least, if not further, this has been looked at.

People have been pushing the envelope, looking outside the box solutions, and we have seen reductions in regulation in previous sessions.

and we kind of thought that that was been there, done that.

But apparently now, it's the time to further adjust the number of kids who can be entrusted to a given individual or the type of education that person needs, or the age of the person that's providing the care.

And all of the deregulation is great from a business perspective until something goes wrong.

And then who's going to step forward and say, I was the one who advocated for putting more kids, in the in the care of one individual, you know, instead of having X number is going to be Y or if somebody, heaven forbid, does slip through the cracks through the screening process in process.

And it shouldn't be around children, who then says, gee, that was a great idea to reduce regulation.

So I it is a balance.

And but it is a tough balance.

And it is whether it's incentives for the private sector.

But again, keep in mind we have had tax incentives, not a new issue two sessions ago.

And then nobody was not a lot of nobody was nibbling at it.

So guess what.

They they changed the structure.

And I don't know we haven't seen the new numbers.

Whether businesses are actually taking advantage of the tax incentives out there.

But I don't think they really are.

But if you look at a state, I'll end on this, that that's that has taken the plunge.

New Mexico with universal free health care, no means testing childcare, free childcare.

Yes.

Early health care.

The earliest, the earliest, earliest health care, which a lot of people around the country are watching now, it hasn't been.

It's a bumpy road, because of turnover and churn.

A lot of it has to do until you pay people the kinds of salaries that you would pay K through 12, you're probably not going to get the right people at zero through kindergarten age, at what they describe as early childhood, as opposed to childcare is how they build it down there.

it also is 10% of the state budget down there.

I don't think that's going to happen here or anytime soon.

Well, Indiana lawmakers are also divided over the question of whether to give tax breaks to large corporations and data centers.

And an interim study committee this week met and became heated as lawmakers sparred over the effectiveness of tax abatements.

Ben Thorp has more.

Indiana's Office of Fiscal and Management analysis presented a report which found little evidence that abatements incentivize businesses to move to an area on their own.

Senator Fady Qaddoura pivoted to ask why Indiana is giving out so many abatements to data centers.

I'm completely perplexed by the idea that Mark Zuckerberg and Jeff Bezos need tax incentives from Hoosiers.

Senator Chris Garten immediately pushed back.

Those decisions are made at the local level.

If we want to make changes, that has to be done during session, which would be in January of 2027.

The question of abatements and their efficacy could come up during the next legislative session.

Camike do you think the state would make changes that would possibly impact local governments in this area?

Well, I think the state why are you laughing?

I think the state has a responsibility to step in if necessary.

And I think, local governments and the state have a responsibility as well to look at what the return on investment is.

If we do provide these abatements, are people really getting the jobs?

Are people is there an investment really in that community that's going to actually be beneficial?

And then what are the potential costs to the people that live in that community that are kind of put off by these abatements?

I think that's something to definitely look into further.

And then, in the report that was published said there's like limited statewide compliance, like oversight and compliance.

So, or to be able to know exactly what's happening statewide, there's not as much, there's not as many eyes on the issue.

So I think that we would also need to increase that in order to know what is the correct path forward.

I mean, Indiana has billed itself as a, you know, business friendly environment for so long.

I think a lot of the debate, though, was on the, but if question, you know, are these companies going to come anyway and invest in Indiana without the incentives?

Well, it does seem that across the country, more and more states, more jurisdictions, more municipalities, counties have said, enough's enough.

We're going to pause no data center construction for X period of time.

So anymore, I'm wondering if the only incentive one needs is a local government is to say you can build it here.

I mean, that's that's all the incentive I need because I can't build it there anymore.

I can't build it there anymore.

I can't build it there.

The other problem is, you know, in the past when the state has been given out, incentives and this is what we've been doing as a state since the 70s and 80s on all sorts of sectors of the economy.

usually you can point to a lot of job growth.

This I think the jury's still out on, yes, there's construction, job growth.

Yes, there is a staff, both working in the facility and security and supplemental sorts of ancillary jobs, but it's they're not necessarily as job rich as certain other, facilities that have received incentives in the past.

Now, I'm not a hater of data centers.

I, you know, as long as we have A.I.

and the demands on them, they've got to go somewhere.

But it seems increasingly just the the green light to build here is about the incentive.

The only incentive.

Increasingly, it seems that people need.

I mean, Joey, this was based on a report and we did hear, you know, some of the lawmakers really push back, not even believing, like a lot of the information that was in this report showing that, maybe these abatements are not the best benefit for the state.

do you think, again, we heard a lot on the local level as well.

You know, we see governments doing, you know, TIF funding and stuff.

But a lot of these projects sometimes don't come through.

So a couple things.

One is data centers done the right way can be absolutely transformational for certainly for rural Indiana, for many places in Indiana, you've seen this around the country where a data center has an assessed valuation that's larger than the value of the whole town.

we go back and look at places along the Ohio River and how they have transformed since riverboat gaming.

right.

You've got streets paved with gold and very nice hired departments down on the right, down, down on the river right now.

so very similar options exist.

I think what Senator Garten was pointing out, though, in the hearing, was that of everything we're talking about has been local decisions.

These are mayors and economic development councils, redevelopment commissions, those types of folks that are doing this because they're like, well, I want it here and not in the next town over, because then I get the value of that tax growth over, over time.

The local communities need to take a look, look at it and make sure it's the right thing for them.

Yeah, but, would seem to me that that's what they've been doing, and they've chosen to bring data centers to their communities.

Well, the state has been involved as well.

I'm thinking of the Leap Project just north of Indianapolis.

And that is a gigantic data center project and a very popular poll this week showing that 69% of people polled do not want data centers.

So is the data center issue really going to be kind of a, hinge for the tax abatement, discussion going into the session?

I think that debate is certainly going to occur.

And, data centers are not popular, in the state of Indiana.

They're not popular anywhere in the United States.

But I believe it or not, I think what Joey said makes it makes a lot of sense.

And that and Chris Garten I mean, it is a local decision, and we ought to largely leave it at a local decision, but I hope that the locals look long term.

And and, you know, Jon made a very good point.

If if you can get these folks here, if you want them there and you can get them here, and you don't have to give them tax abatement, that's a bigger win.

Right.

And so, if you know they're going, they're going to come anyway.

I don't understand why you would give them tax abatement, but, because you're going to make more money, as a, as a local community, not doing it.

But, you know, the bigger question is, are they appropriate?

Where are they appropriate?

I do think the legislature needs to tackle some of that.

And the reason I laughed at the beginning is because you ask the question of, well, would the state get involved in local?

They they're practically a super, city council for the city of Indianapolis.

they, they and they, they infringe on us all the time here.

So, yeah, they'll they'll look at it.

And I think they do need to look at what's the best, what's the goals for the state of Indiana when it comes to this.

We certainly don't want to give up all of our farmland.

As an example.

so we can get get the taxes from.

So we have to have a smart process.

Also this week, a lawsuit aims to push the Indiana Election Commission to meet and consider campaign contribution questions.

Independent Secretary of State candidate Greg Ballard wants the commission to convene before the November 3rd election.

In a letter to the four member election commission, Ballard urges the group to, quote, do its job and get to work on behalf of Hoosiers.

The commission is not required to meet, but Ballard points to a series of financial complaints that he says must be addressed.

Two of the contributions in question are to Democrat Beau Bayh and two to Republican Max Englings campaign.

Ballard is calling for a bipartisan commission and says its current make up split between two parties does not function for Indiana voters.

A spokesperson for Bayh's campaign responded, saying they agree the commission should meet.

Englings campaign responded by accusing Ballard of, quote, trying to grandstand on campaign complaints law.

The Indiana Election Commission has not met since July.

Ballard says he will drop the lawsuit if they agree to meet before October 26th.

So, Jon, do you think this just another campaign move for fairness?

He says it's about principle that the law says that this commission should decide these questions.

There are questions he has formally asked for answers to.

And there's an election underway right now.

So he wants answers.

The Senate could say, there's polling that suggests, he's a distant third or fourth right now.

and so anything he can do to get in front of the voters, and raise his profile with earned media, which he has done this week, a lot of attention as he as he represented himself and filed this this a request, I guess that's working as well.

So it's I don't know if it's the first camp or the second, or it could be a little of both.

I mean, this has been the Indiana's most interesting race, you know, headed into the November election.

This is this is the big race.

And we have seen very close polling, between the Democrat and the Republican candidates, Max Engling and Beau Bayh.

Ballard has pushed out a number of, interesting, issues that that do center around the Secretary of State office.

What are you seeing in this race?

Yeah.

So, I mean, he is pushing out interesting issues.

he's forgetting, though, that despite his best wishes, this is still a partisan office.

in one of the two major political parties will hold that office.

I believe this is a Republican state, Max Engling will take this in November.

I mean, it is going to be maybe closer than we know.

I think Beau Bayh is going to win the race.

And I think every poll showing him him in the lead, including the latest one done by Republican pollster.

So I think that, we're in really good shape going into it.

And, yes, the Election Commission should meet.

Yeah.

I it seems like that's an easy question to answer.

And it's something that has been brought up a lot.

You know, the bipartisan, if we had an election commission that was, maybe not, completely divided between Democrats and Republicans, that they might have a little more, fairness.

Yeah.

And if it's even if it is a political or a campaign move, there's still the matter of trust and transparency for the voter.

And I do think that Hoosier voters want to have confidence in the people that they're potentially voting for.

And it's going to be interesting that it is.

Indiana Week in Review for this week.

Our panel has been Democrat Kip Tew Republican Joey Fox, Jon Schwantes, host of Indiana, lawmaker and Camike Jones, editor in chief at Indianapolis Recorder.

You can find Indiana Week in Review's podcast and episodes at wfyi.org/IWIR or on the PBS app.

I'm Jill Sheridan, managing editor at WFYI.

Join us next time because a lot can happen in Indiana week.

The views expressed are solely those of the panelists.

Indiana Week in Review is produced by WFYI in association with Indiana Public Broadcasting stations.

Additional support is provided by ParrRichey.