"Right to Know How Safe We Are Act"; create to require District Attorneys to report certain information with the Governor and Attorney General.
Summary
House Bill 1465 would create the “Right to Know How Safe We Are Act of 2025” and impose new annual reporting requirements on each district attorney’s office in Mississippi. By March 1 of each year, every district attorney would have to submit a report to the Governor and Attorney General and make it available to the public upon request. The report must contain aggregate, non-personally identifying data for the prior year on case intake, prosecution decisions, diversion referrals, dismissals, trial outcomes, and sentencing outcomes, broken down by offense category.
The bill also directs the Attorney General to compile the district attorneys’ submissions into a single statewide report that is uniform, sortable by crime and jurisdiction, and made public. That statewide report must also be submitted to the Governor, the Speaker of the House, and the President of the Senate for distribution to committees of jurisdiction. The act would take effect July 1, 2025.
Impact
HB1465 would add a new layer of statewide transparency and reporting to the criminal justice system by requiring district attorneys to track and disclose standardized case-disposition data. It would not change criminal penalties or prosecutorial authority directly, but it would create new administrative duties for district attorneys and the Attorney General, and it would likely require offices to maintain more detailed internal data systems to comply. The bill affects district attorneys, the Attorney General, the Governor, legislative committees, and the public by making prosecutorial decision-making more visible and comparable across jurisdictions.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and available context, the measure appears to be framed positively as an accountability and public-safety bill, with no recorded committee debate or votes showing opposition or support. The caption and stated purpose emphasize transparency, safety, and public access to information, suggesting the sponsor’s intent is to increase confidence in prosecutorial decision-making through reporting. Because there is no transcript or voting history provided, there is no documented broader sentiment beyond the bill’s pro-transparency framing.
Contention
The main potential points of contention are likely to be the administrative burden on district attorneys’ offices, the cost and feasibility of producing detailed annual reports, and whether the required data collection could be standardized across jurisdictions. Some may also question whether public reporting of dismissal and disposition categories could be misinterpreted without context, or whether it could pressure prosecutorial discretion. No specific objections or supporters are identified in the available materials, so these concerns are inferred from the bill’s requirements rather than from recorded debate.