ILNews

IBA: Volunteer Judges Needed for Teen Court

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Reach for Youth is seeking local attorneys to serve as volunteer judges at Teen Court, a program designed to reduce recidivism for first-time juvenile offenders by giving them a second chance to repair the harm they’ve caused without experiencing formal court prosecution.

Teen Court also helps teens and pre-teens, aged 11 to 17, to be accountable by providing constructive consequences for their actions while providing leadership opportunities and resolution training for young volunteers as participants in the peer-sentencing court. When teens successfully complete Teen Court, the original charges are dismissed by the court and their record stays “clean.”

The Teen Court program is held three times a week, with each court night beginning at 6 p.m. and concluding around 7:30 p.m. Attorney volunteers serving as volunteer judges preside over three cases scheduled each night. Volunteers are asked to commit to at least one court night per quarter, though greater involvement is welcomed and encouraged. Training is provided to all volunteers. Volunteer schedules are flexible and are typically distributed four to six months in advance.

An Open House will be held at 6 p.m. on Thursday, October 18, where prospective volunteers will be able to view a mock Teen Court session to learn more about the program.

Interested in volunteering? Contact Chris Ponti at chrisp@reachforyouth.org, or visit the Reach for Youth website at www.reachforyouth.org to learn more about the program.•

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