Commission irons out details in half-day meeting

November 18, 2011
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

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. vagueness cannot challenged, so let's write all laws vaguely and throw the constitution out the window.Even if the court is operating under a particular law, if they don't it they will change it to their liking. What a joke!!!

  2. Two convictions becomes one conviction with exactly the same sentence, only it is not clear wheter or not that sentence will be 18 months, 120 months or 138 months. Actually if the guns were in a home, whether or not they were his, he is protected under the 2nd amendment. Jurors need to learn the law and the constitution before judging others. The cour5ts need to do this as well.

  3. With all due respect, Rick, I think you probably would be making a mistake by going to law school. The job market for attorneys is so saturated, you may well find yourself unemployed and with a lot of debt. You mention law would be a good supplement to your skills. True. But employers unfortunately don't value that. You will find that a law degree may well pigeonhole you into an attorney slot and limit career options. If you have a good job now I would hold onto that. As an attorney, you may well end up making less with the aforementioned debt.

  4. Jack, I was only responding to bill's comment of tying everybody in government together. I agree with you though, it takes one bad apple to ruin the bunch.. As in any profession. What's truly unfair is when somebody violates someone's trust and takes complete advantage of someone

  5. John’s comment is unfair. The majority of attorneys can be trusted. Unfortunately, all it takes is one greedy, unscrupulous, immoral attorney to jade the public.

ADVERTISEMENT