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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT