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. Yes diversity is so very important. With justice Rucker off ... the court is too white. Still too male. No Hispanic justice. No LGBT justice. And there are other checkboxes missing as well. This will not do. I say hold the seat until a physically handicapped Black Lesbian of Hispanic heritage and eastern religious creed with bipolar issues can be located. Perhaps an international search, with a preference for third world candidates, is indicated. A non English speaker would surely increase our diversity quotient!!!

  2. First, I want to thank Justice Rucker for his many years of public service, not just at the appellate court level for over 25 years, but also when he served the people of Lake County as a Deputy Prosecutor, City Attorney for Gary, IN, and in private practice in a smaller, highly diverse community with a history of serious economic challenges, ethnic tensions, and recently publicized but apparently long-standing environmental health risks to some of its poorest residents. Congratulations for having the dedication & courage to practice law in areas many in our state might have considered too dangerous or too poor at different points in time. It was also courageous to step into a prominent and highly visible position of public service & respect in the early 1990's, remaining in a position that left you open to state-wide public scrutiny (without any glitches) for over 25 years. Yes, Hoosiers of all backgrounds can take pride in your many years of public service. But people of color who watched your ascent to the highest levels of state government no doubt felt even more as you transcended some real & perhaps some perceived social, economic, academic and professional barriers. You were living proof that, with hard work, dedication & a spirit of public service, a person who shared their same skin tone or came from the same county they grew up in could achieve great success. At the same time, perhaps unknowingly, you helped fellow members of the judiciary, court staff, litigants and the public better understand that differences that are only skin-deep neither define nor limit a person's character, abilities or prospects in life. You also helped others appreciate that people of different races & backgrounds can live and work together peacefully & productively for the greater good of all. Those are truths that didn't have to be written down in court opinions. Anyone paying attention could see that truth lived out every day you devoted to public service. I believe you have been a "trailblazer" in Indiana's legal community and its judiciary. I also embrace your belief that society's needs can be better served when people in positions of governmental power reflect the many complexions of the population that they serve. Whether through greater understanding across the existing racial spectrum or through the removal of some real and some perceived color-based, hope-crushing barriers to life opportunities & success, movement toward a more reflective representation of the population being governed will lead to greater and uninterrupted respect for laws designed to protect all peoples' rights to life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness. Thanks again for a job well-done & for the inevitable positive impact your service has had - and will continue to have - on countless Hoosiers of all backgrounds & colors.

  3. Diversity is important, but with some limitations. For instance, diversity of experience is a great thing that can be very helpful in certain jobs or roles. Diversity of skin color is never important, ever, under any circumstance. To think that skin color changes one single thing about a person is patently racist and offensive. Likewise, diversity of values is useless. Some values are better than others. In the case of a supreme court justice, I actually think diversity is unimportant. The justices are not to impose their own beliefs on rulings, but need to apply the law to the facts in an objective manner.

  4. Have been seeing this wonderful physician for a few years and was one of his patients who told him about what we were being told at CVS. Multiple ones. This was a witch hunt and they shold be ashamed of how patients were treated. Most of all, CVS should be ashamed for what they put this physician through. So thankful he fought back. His office is no "pill mill'. He does drug testing multiple times a year and sees patients a minimum of four times a year.

  5. Brian W, I fear I have not been sufficiently entertaining to bring you back. Here is a real laugh track that just might do it. When one is grabbed by the scruff of his worldview and made to choose between his Confession and his profession ... it is a not a hard choice, given the Confession affects eternity. But then comes the hardship in this world. Imagine how often I hear taunts like yours ... "what, you could not even pass character and fitness after they let you sit and pass their bar exam ... dude, there must really be something wrong with you!" Even one of the Bishop's foremost courtiers said that, when explaining why the RCC refused to stand with me. You want entertaining? How about watching your personal economy crash while you have a wife and five kids to clothe and feed. And you can't because you cannot work, because those demanding you cast off your Confession to be allowed into "their" profession have all the control. And you know that they are wrong, dead wrong, and that even the professional code itself allows your Faithful stand, to wit: "A lawyer may refuse to comply with an obligation imposed by law upon a good faith belief that no valid obligation exists. The provisions of Rule 1.2(d) concerning a good faith challenge to the validity, scope, meaning or application of the law apply to challenges of legal regulation of the practice of law." YET YOU ARE A NONPERSON before the BLE, and will not be heard on your rights or their duties to the law -- you are under tyranny, not law. And so they win in this world, you lose, and you lose even your belief in the rule of law, and demoralization joins poverty, and very troubling thoughts impeaching self worth rush in to fill the void where your career once lived. Thoughts you did not think possible. You find yourself a failure ... in your profession, in your support of your family, in the mirror. And there is little to keep hope alive, because tyranny rules so firmly and none, not the church, not the NGO's, none truly give a damn. Not even a new court, who pay such lip service to justice and ancient role models. You want entertainment? Well if you are on the side of the courtiers running the system that has crushed me, as I suspect you are, then Orwell must be a real riot: "There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always — do not forget this, Winston — always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever." I never thought they would win, I always thought that at the end of the day the rule of law would prevail. Yes, the rule of man's law. Instead power prevailed, so many rules broken by the system to break me. It took years, but, finally, the end that Dr Bowman predicted is upon me, the end that she advised the BLE to take to break me. Ironically, that is the one thing in her far left of center report that the BLE (after stamping, in red ink, on Jan 22) is uninterested in, as that the BLE and ADA office that used the federal statute as a sword now refuses to even dialogue on her dire prediction as to my fate. "C'est la vie" Entertaining enough for you, status quo defender?

ADVERTISEMENT