ILNews

Hamilton County considers veterans court

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A problem-solving court that could offer diversion programs for veterans charged with minor offenses is under consideration in Noblesville.

Hamilton Superior Division 3 Judge William Hughes is proposing development of a court that would use existing resources plus the addition of a part-time administrator at a cost of $38,500. Fees collected by the program are expected to exceed the cost.

Hughes said he pursued the veterans court proposal after seeing a presentation from Floyd Superior Judge Maria Granger, who developed one of the state’s first such courts.

“I have lots of veterans in my life who I’ve watched come back from Iraq and Afghanistan with issues left over,” Hughes said. “If they have time to do that, I can find time to help veterans get through the process. … It’s something for which I have a passion.”

Veterans courts stress treatment as an alternative to incarceration. Participants check in with the courts occasionally for accountability sessions Hughes called “pro-social” appearances where achievements are celebrated and setbacks have consequences. “That’s the key ingredient for making the program successful,” he said. Upon successful completion of the programs, charges are diverted.

Hughes said that in 2012, 444 cases involved veterans incarcerated in the Hamilton County Jail.

According to Indiana Supreme Court spokeswoman Kathryn Dolan, the Indiana Judicial Center since 2011 has certified veterans courts in Floyd, Grant, Porter and Vanderburgh counties and Greenwood City Court. Courts seeking certification are in Dearborn, Delaware and St. Joseph counties.
 

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. 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