Commission irons out details in half-day meeting

November 18, 2011
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

This post is by reporter Jenny Montgomery.

The Legislature’s Criminal Code Evaluation Commission met Thursday. If you missed the three-and-a-half hour meeting, here’s what happened:
The preliminary draft of the human trafficking bill passed.
The preliminary draft that would eliminate the crime of conversion failed.   

The probation improvement fund draft passed – just barely, by a vote of 9-5 – and only after a lot of niggling over fees and formulas. The commission members voted to pass the draft, but with the understanding that the language regarding formulas and diversion fees will be revised. One commission member wondered aloud why anyone would choose to pay a diversion fee on, say, a traffic ticket, and ultimately end up paying more than the cost of the ticket itself.

In the course of their rigorous debate, four different commission members used animal-related colloquialisms, proving that the state’s lawmakers are still in tune with their Hoosier constituents:
I think we have put the cart before the horse.
I think we killed the goose that laid the golden egg.
There’s a point when the cow is tipped.
Get all your ducks in a row.

Next meeting date to be determined.
 

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
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT