ILNews

Editorial: Concerns about budget cuts warranted

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Editorial

It’s no secret that the state of Indiana is trying to be smarter with its money during this roller-coaster ride sometimes called the great recession. It’s behaving just like every other state in the union and every citizen of the republic.

Lawyers are no exception; the practice of law ultimately is a business. So you’ll doubtless be familiar with the phrase “trimming the budget to the bone.”

Well, we believe the state of Indiana has hit bone with a budget cut instituted earlier this month. You can read about the change regarding victim notification in a story that starts on Page 3 of this issue of the newspaper.

Spending only $375,000 annually on something that the state had spent $1 million a year on sounds like a smart fiscal decision on paper.

In reality, victims and their lawyers are worried. While it is too early to determine the effectiveness of the Department of Correction's move to bring victim notifications in house rather than utilizing the previous system, it doesn’t appear to be off to a smooth start.

Previously, the state had contracted with a company called Appriss, which operated the Indiana Sex and Violent Offender Registry and Alert Notification Services. The company handled 10,000 monthly automated phone calls to victims who had asked to be notified of changes in their perpetrator’s status, and processed 2,500 new registrants per month. The former service also could make automated phone calls and send e-mails in multiple languages.

Now this service is being performed by the DOC through Microsoft’s Information Strategies. Phone calls are being made by three DOC employees during regular business hours, with support on nights and weekends by other DOC staffers. The DOC stresses that the service has the potential to be more personal as victims will be able to talk with a real person and ask questions, which would be a big improvement over an automated call or an e-mail. The DOC can make the phone calls in Spanish and has access to a translation service for other languages.

But the experiences of lawyers for victims who have registered with the system seeking notification about offenders tell another story.

One advocate called the DOC after receiving notice of the system change, only to get a message that the line was busy and to try calling later. The advocate did that and talked to a DOC employee who was “nice and polite” but lacked information to answer the advocate’s questions.

This lawyer also told our reporter that she has registered against seven offenders in Marion County. She had not received an immediate notification of their release, even though she was able to confirm on her own they had been released. Another lawyer who had also registered against an offender got an e-mail notification of the offender’s release, but didn’t get the requested phone call until three hours later.

This may sound like merely a bumpy start over something that has the potential to save the state $625,000, and that is a great deal of money, particularly when viewed through the lens of our current economic condition.

But this is truly a life and death situation, and the state is putting a price tag on the lives of victims with this move. In domestic violence and domestic battery cases, the potential for more bloodshed that could escalate into a lethal situation is at its highest when the perpetrator is released from jail.

The state must prove right now, not a month or six months from now, that this move will not only result in cost savings, but in a victim notification system that some of its most vulnerable citizens can depend upon.•
 

ADVERTISEMENT

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. I like the concept. Seems like a good idea and really inexpensive to manage.

  2. I don't agree that this is an extreme case. There are more of these people than you realize - people that are vindictive and/or with psychological issues have clogged the system with baseless suits that are costly to the defendant and to taxpayers. Restricting repeat offenders from further abusing the system is not akin to restricting their freedon, but to protecting their victims, and the court system, from allowing them unfettered access. From the Supreme Court opinion "he has burdened the opposing party and the courts of this state at every level with massive, confusing, disorganized, defective, repetitive, and often meritless filings."

  3. So, if you cry wolf one too many times courts may "restrict" your ability to pursue legal action? Also, why is document production equated with wealth? Anyone can "produce probably tens of thousands of pages of filings" if they have a public library card. I understand this is an extreme case, but our Supreme Court really got this one wrong.

  4. He called our nation a nation of cowards because we didn't want to talk about race. That was a cheap shot coming from the top cop. The man who decides who gets the federal government indicts. Wow. Not a gentleman if that is the measure. More importantly, this insult delivered as we all understand, to white people-- without him or anybody needing to explain that is precisely what he meant-- but this is an insult to timid white persons who fear the government and don't want to say anything about race for fear of being accused a racist. With all the legal heat that can come down on somebody if they say something which can be construed by a prosecutor like Mr Holder as racist, is it any wonder white people-- that's who he meant obviously-- is there any surprise that white people don't want to talk about race? And as lawyers we have even less freedom lest our remarks be considered violations of the rules. Mr Holder also demonstrated his bias by publically visiting with the family of the young man who was killed by a police offering in the line of duty, which was a very strong indicator of bias agains the offer who is under investigation, and was a failure to lead properly by letting his investigators do their job without him predetermining the proper outcome. He also has potentially biased the jury pool. All in all this worsens race relations by feeding into the perception shared by whites as well as blacks that justice will not be impartial. I will say this much, I do not blame Obama for all of HOlder's missteps. Obama has done a lot of things to stay above the fray and try and be a leader for all Americans. Maybe he should have reigned Holder in some but Obama's got his hands full with other problelms. Oh did I mention HOlder is a bank crony who will probably get a job in a silkstocking law firm working for millions of bucks a year defending bankers whom he didn't have the integrity or courage to hold to account for their acts of fraud on the United States, other financial institutions, and the people. His tenure will be regarded by history as a failure of leadership at one of the most important jobs in our nation. Finally and most importantly besides him insulting the public and letting off the big financial cheats, he has been at the forefront of over-prosecuting the secrecy laws to punish whistleblowers and chill free speech. What has Holder done to vindicate the rights of privacy of the American public against the illegal snooping of the NSA? He could have charged NSA personnel with violations of law for their warrantless wiretapping which has been done millions of times and instead he did not persecute a single soul. That is a defalcation of historical proportions and it signals to the public that the government DOJ under him was not willing to do a damn thing to protect the public against the rapid growth of the illegal surveillance state. Who else could have done this? Nobody. And for that omission Obama deserves the blame too. Here were are sliding into a police state and Eric Holder made it go all the faster.

  5. JOE CLAYPOOL candidate for Superior Court in Harrison County - Indiana This candidate is misleading voters to think he is a Judge by putting Elect Judge Joe Claypool on his campaign literature. paragraphs 2 and 9 below clearly indicate this injustice to voting public to gain employment. What can we do? Indiana Code - Section 35-43-5-3: Deception (a) A person who: (1) being an officer, manager, or other person participating in the direction of a credit institution, knowingly or intentionally receives or permits the receipt of a deposit or other investment, knowing that the institution is insolvent; (2) knowingly or intentionally makes a false or misleading written statement with intent to obtain property, employment, or an educational opportunity; (3) misapplies entrusted property, property of a governmental entity, or property of a credit institution in a manner that the person knows is unlawful or that the person knows involves substantial risk of loss or detriment to either the owner of the property or to a person for whose benefit the property was entrusted; (4) knowingly or intentionally, in the regular course of business, either: (A) uses or possesses for use a false weight or measure or other device for falsely determining or recording the quality or quantity of any commodity; or (B) sells, offers, or displays for sale or delivers less than the represented quality or quantity of any commodity; (5) with intent to defraud another person furnishing electricity, gas, water, telecommunication, or any other utility service, avoids a lawful charge for that service by scheme or device or by tampering with facilities or equipment of the person furnishing the service; (6) with intent to defraud, misrepresents the identity of the person or another person or the identity or quality of property; (7) with intent to defraud an owner of a coin machine, deposits a slug in that machine; (8) with intent to enable the person or another person to deposit a slug in a coin machine, makes, possesses, or disposes of a slug; (9) disseminates to the public an advertisement that the person knows is false, misleading, or deceptive, with intent to promote the purchase or sale of property or the acceptance of employment;

ADVERTISEMENT