ILNews

Indiana juvenile justice bill first in nation

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share


In what started at a summit hosted by the Indiana State Bar Association in August, House Enrolled Act 1193, which authorizes a work study commission to consider various juvenile justice issues in Indiana, was signed by the governor March 17.

The commission will be made up of representatives of various people who oversee the juvenile justice system, as well as stakeholders who regularly work with children in and out of the classroom. Starting in July, the yet-to-be appointed commission members will begin meeting on a monthly basis to discuss best practices for handling juvenile justice matters, including what is happening in Indiana and in other states.

Rep. Linda Lawson, D-Hammond, who authored the bill, said she was pleased even though original language about mandatory training for police officers who deal with juveniles on a regular basis was deleted before it passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee. That committee stated fiscal reasons for cutting the training portion from the bill.

Lawson, herself a retired police officer, said training could still be implemented at a later date, or the commission could recommend training based on their findings.

She added that according to a recent study by the Pew Center on the States, released March 17, Indiana had the highest percentage increase of people in prison from 2008 to 2009. She said the study by a non-partisan group affirmed what the bill was all about, which is the need for the various stakeholders in Indiana's justice system to think about what these statistics mean. That includes how those statistics relate to the juvenile justice system's statistics, which the Pew Center included in its research.

"Without being nudged or told, we already knew we needed to do something about kids being detained and arrested for unnecessary reasons," Lawson said. "I look forward to seeing the work group get started, and I'm anxious to see the end result."

JauNae Hanger, a civil rights attorney in Indianapolis who helped organize the summit, and Judge Steven Teske, a juvenile judge in Clayton County, Ga., who spoke at the ISBA's conference and testified before the Senate and House judiciary committees in support of the bill, agreed.

"Just because training was cut out for economic reasons, remember this is a commission to study and make recommendations," Judge Teske said. "As revenues come back and increase, the group can make the recommendation to have training."

Hanger added that the commission will also be inclusive to "a broad, diverse group of stakeholders" including mental health professionals, social workers, educators, police officers, judges, and attorneys who will all be able to voice their opinions.

"Given the fact the issue of zero tolerance has hit the national scene in the news and has been getting a lot of attention, and with this type of statewide legislation studying zero tolerance in order to make statewide changes, it is my opinion that Indiana will become a trendsetter," he said.

He added it has already happened in Georgia.

On March 18, the Georgia State Senate unanimously passed a bill regarding zero tolerance. Sen. Emanuel Jones, who authored that legislation, is a Democrat in a state where both houses have Republican majorities.

However, Judge Teske said Republican senators were among those who asked if that bill went far enough when discussing it before the Senate Education and Youth Committee.

As a result of those questions, Judge Teske told the committee he and Jones would work together over the summer on more comprehensive legislation to draw up and submit for the 2011 session.

"These senators are familiar with what Indiana is doing and that was the impetus to start looking at this one piece of legislation to say, 'Is this enough? Should we not be doing more, like Indiana?'" he said.

Russell Skiba, who testified on behalf of the bill as a national expert on zero tolerance policies and professor in counseling and educational psychology at Indiana University - Bloomington, also praised the bill.

"Schools and school districts and states around the country are looking for guidance on how to get a handle on some of these issues," he said. "This bill puts Indiana at the forefront of defining these issues."

Matthew C. Aalsma, professor of pediatrics and psychology at Indiana University School of Medicine, who testified on behalf of the bill, said via e-mail, "The goal of these efforts, from my perspective, is to divert more low-risk/mentally ill youth away from the juvenile justice and detention setting to allow for treatment and other protective factors to develop. Diversion is more possible when school police officials receive training in de-escalation of youth with mental illness/special education needs."

Dr. Margaret J. Blythe, who works with Aalsma at the medical school and at the Marion County Juvenile Detention Center, added via e-mail that she was pleased the bill promoted the commission, but added she was "disappointed" the bill didn't include training requirements. However, because "virtually all law enforcement agencies had representatives that testified in favor of the bill" she said this was a sign of "a community awareness and need to address these issues."

Judge Teske said he was impressed with the involvement of the ISBA on the conference and resulting legislation.

"I don't know that I know of too many state bars that have gotten this active in addressing something as significant and comprehensive as this," he said.

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT