ILNews

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.•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. One can only wonder whether Mr. Kimmel was paid for his work by Mr. Burgh ... or whether that bill fell to the citizens of Indiana, many of whom cannot afford attorneys for important matters. It really doesn't take a judge(s) to know that "pavement" can be considered a deadly weapon. It only takes a brain and some education or thought. I'm glad to see the conviction was upheld although sorry to see that the asphalt could even be considered "an issue".

  2. In response to bryanjbrown: thank you for your comment. I am familiar with Paul Ogden (and applaud his assistance to Shirley Justice) and have read of Gary Welsh's (strange) death (and have visited his blog on many occasions). I am not familiar with you (yet). I lived in Kosciusko county, where the sheriff was just removed after pleading in what seems a very "sweetheart" deal. Unfortunately, something NEEDS to change since the attorneys won't (en masse) stand up for ethics (rather making a show to please the "rules" and apparently the judges). I read that many attorneys are underemployed. Seems wisdom would be to cull the herd and get rid of the rotting apples in practice and on the bench, for everyone's sake as well as justice. I'd like to file an attorney complaint, but I have little faith in anything (other than the most flagrant and obvious) resulting in action. My own belief is that if this was medicine, there'd be maimed and injured all over and the carnage caused by "the profession" would be difficult to hide. One can dream ... meanwhile, back to figuring out to file a pro se "motion to dismiss" as well as another court required paper that Indiana is so fond of providing NO resources for (unlike many other states, who don't automatically assume that citizens involved in the court process are scumbags) so that maybe I can get the family law attorney - whose work left me with no settlement, no possessions and resulted in the death of two pets (etc ad nauseum) - to stop abusing the proceedings supplemental and small claims rules and using it as a vehicle for harassment and apparently, amusement.

  3. Been on social security sense sept 2011 2massive strokes open heart surgery and serious ovarian cancer and a blood clot in my lung all in 14 months. Got a letter in may saying that i didn't qualify and it was in form like i just applied ,called social security she said it don't make sense and you are still geting a check in june and i did ,now i get a check from my part D asking for payment for july because there will be no money for my membership, call my prescription coverage part D and confirmed no check will be there.went to social security they didn't want to answer whats going on just said i should of never been on it .no one knows where this letter came from was California im in virginia and been here sense my strokes and vcu filed for my disability i was in the hospital when they did it .It's like it was a error . My ,mothers social security was being handled in that office in California my sister was dealing with it and it had my social security number because she died last year and this letter came out of the same office and it came at the same time i got the letter for my mother benefits for death and they had the same date of being typed just one was on the mail Saturday and one on Monday. . I think it's a mistake and it should been fixed instead there just getting rid of me .i never got a formal letter saying when i was being tsken off.

  4. Employers should not have racially discriminating mind set. It has huge impact on the society what the big players do or don't do in the industry. Background check is conducted just to verify whether information provided by the prospective employee is correct or not. It doesn't have any direct combination with the rejection of the employees. If there is rejection, there should be something effective and full-proof things on the table that may keep the company or the people associated with it in jeopardy.

  5. Unlike the federal judge who refused to protect me, the Virginia State Bar gave me a hearing. After the hearing, the Virginia State Bar refused to discipline me. VSB said that attacking me with the court ADA coordinator had, " all the grace and charm of a drive-by shooting." One does wonder why the VSB was able to have a hearing and come to that conclusion, but the federal judge in Indiana slammed the door of the courthouse in my face.

ADVERTISEMENT