Abrams: Unjust Criticism of the Judicial System

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

jeff abrams ibaAs many of you know, one of the state court judges has recently been under attack by members of the public relating to a sentence issued for an individual convicted of rape by a jury as well as a comment made to the woman who had suffered the attacks. The Indianapolis Star published several articles regarding the case and, in relatively no time, national media sources picked up on the story and provided additional commentary regarding the matter.

The Indianapolis Bar Association has had a long-time policy on addressing unjust criticism of the judicial system. While we have not needed to review very many cases, the recent case provided an unusual twist on the review of the judicial system. I want to emphasize that the IndyBar Committee did not extensively review the merits of the case and our statement is not in any way reflective of any comment on the substance of the judge’s sentencing decision. Nobody on the Committee was in the courtroom, so the underlying facts of the case and the trial were not personally observed.

On the merits, we note only that Indiana law does not require judges to sentence persons convicted of Class B felony rape to incarceration. This was pointed out by several legal commentators. We also recognize that the public, including some of our IndyBar members, have expressed concerns about the sentence issued in the case and about certain parts of the judge’s sentencing statement. Further, we respect the rights of those who disagree with the decision to express their opinions publicly. A strong legal system should be able to tolerate public scrutiny and should benefit from citizens actively engaged in discussions about judicial decisions.

The IndyBar’s adopted policy on unjust criticism of the judiciary requires IndyBar to:

1. Respond if the judicial system is subject to unjust attack;

2. Foster and maintain confidence in the orderly processes of our courts among the citizens of the state and the nation;

3. Explain the difference between valid, constructive criticism of the decisions of our courts and baseless charges;

4. Assist the public in understanding the difficult burden of the courts to strike a proper balance between individual constitutional rights and the rights of society;

5. Assist the public in understanding the operation of courts, judicial procedures and the administration of justice; and

6. Bring to the attention of proper authorities fair and well-founded criticism of the operation of the judicial system.

It would seem that one issue presented here is the magnitude of social media and how it can lead to social awareness. The Committee reviewed all of the foregoing in light of the recent case and made the following conclusions. There have been some articles that have provided a fair balance between strong criticism and understanding the constraints that the system creates through the sentencing statutes established by our Legislature. However, some commentators have made statements that can only be characterized as insulting, attacking the integrity of the judge and, in some instances, communicating physical threats. We do not believe that any of such conduct is appropriate no matter how strongly one’s opinion is of this matter.

We believe that the public should understand three key elements for the judicial system. First, judges should and do expect to be criticized in our system for their decisions. Secondly, judges who stand for election to their offices should and do expect their decisions to be made issues in their campaigns. Lastly, judges should not be subjected to baseless challenges to their integrity or violent threats about their decisions.

The public enjoys the freedom to express their disagreements, but it should be done in a much more constructive manner. Social media has made it easy to send mean-spirited and threatening comments regarding all aspects of life, including judicial decisions. We see it in our offices, with our children and in our everyday lives. The time when people would pick up the phone to talk to somebody about a problem has almost become archaic. This is a sad statement of how our community has evolved. The better approach to effect change would be by providing well thought out and constructive comments to all appropriate parties. Our membership, consisting of attorneys, paralegals and judges, should know that the IndyBar will respond appropriately to unjust criticism of the judicial system and continue to support the efforts of all of our colleagues in promoting justice for all involved.•


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  2. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  3. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.

  4. rensselaer imdiana is doing same thing to children from the judge to attorney and dfs staff they need to be investigated as well

  5. Sex offenders are victims twice, once when they are molested as kids, and again when they repeat the behavior, you never see money spent on helping them do you. That's why this circle continues