ILNews

Committees discuss trafficking, sex crimes, child protection

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A tougher state law for human and child trafficking was a key topic on this week’s legislative interim study committees agendas. With the Super Bowl less than six months away, the Indiana attorney general’s office is pushing for prompt action.

Legislative study committee members explored other issues during meetings on Thursday, talking about child protection, sex offenders, and if any change in Indiana law is needed in response to concerns that surfaced following the Casey Anthony trial in Florida. But it was the AG’s push on trafficking that seemed to be the most time-sensitive item.

Deputy Attorneys General David Miller and Abby Kuzma told members of the Code Evaluation Commission that the human trafficking issue is a top priority this year for Indiana AG Greg Zoeller and the National Association of Attorneys General.

Providing statistics that trafficking is a $32 billion global industry impacting more than 12 million children and adults who are shipped from the U.S. across international borders, the Hoosier attorneys said this is already a federal crime but that states need to beef up their protections to deal with it.

Specifically, they contend that big-draw events such as the Super Bowl, coming to Indianapolis in early February, make this a priority for Indiana. Other past Super Bowl locations have experienced trafficking during their events, they explained. Kuzma is part of a task force to address this issue in Indiana that includes the U.S. attorney.

The General Assembly added Indiana Code 35-42-3.5-1 addressing human trafficking years ago, but the statute is too weak, according to Miller. He said lawmakers should consider eliminating the “threat or force” elements of the statute because sometimes that doesn’t apply to these situations, and the law should be broadened to include more generalized criminal activity that may occur during trafficking. The Legislature should also consider adding a specific child trafficking provision for victims younger than 18, he said.

With the next legislative session starting in January 2012, lawmakers discussed the possibility of addressing this measure either on Organization Day in November or possibly with an early filing of a bill to allow the issue to be addressed promptly once the session begins in January.

Committee members didn’t vote on that item. They spent the remainder of the meeting discussing sex offenders and recidivism trends. They discussed re-evaluating housing restrictions as well as layered sentencing options that would enable courts to make sure certain sex offenders receive sufficient supervision and behavioral treatment services after their incarceration periods. Members examined a proposal from Sen. Randy Head, R-Logansport, about expanding criminal code to apply to Internet sex predators that can be difficult to prosecute.

No votes were taken on these or other proposals discussed.

Members of the Criminal Law and Sentencing Committee also met and discussed creation of a new child protection registry that would mirror Indiana’s existing Do Not Call lists and give parents the ability to submit email addresses that children have access to in order to prevent certain age-sensitive marketing materials from being sent. Michigan and Utah have established these registries in the past decade, and the company offering those tools is trying to bring its services to Indiana.

The committee also briefly addressed the need for a Casey Anthony-inspired law in Indiana and whether the state statute on penalties for failing to report a dead body or missing child needed to be strengthened. No one seemed eager to make changes or discuss the idea and no one appeared at the hearing to discuss it, leaving the committee to decide existing statutes may be adequate. Failing to report a dead body within three hours is currently a misdemeanor in Indiana.

Next week, the Commission on Courts meets to discuss new court and judicial officer requests. The Indiana Legislative Council’s subcommittee studying the Indiana Supreme Court’s Barnes v. State is also scheduled to meet.
 

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  2. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  3. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  4. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  5. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

ADVERTISEMENT