ILNews

IndyBar votes conditional support for Justice Center proposal

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indianapolis Bar Association on Wednesday voted to give encouraging yet conditional support to Mayor Greg Ballard’s recent proposal to construct a new criminal justice center complex, according to a statement issued Thursday.  

The 29-member IndyBar board of directors applauded city efforts to prioritize creation of safe and adequate justice facilities. The IndyBar has been working for more than a decade to focus attention on the need to overhaul the existing judicial resources, noting safety concerns and other inadequacies.  For years, IndyBar has spearheaded efforts to make a new justice center a reality, touting the long-term benefits that would be realized by not only the people involved in the legal system but also the community as a whole.
 
Although the IndyBar’s governing body fully endorsed the concept of a new justice center, the board qualified its support, noting several plan details had yet to be finalized. The IndyBar favors a centrally located downtown site. The mayor’s announced preferred location of the former GM Stamping Plant is a good option if other downtown sites are unworkable, the association said.
 
However, the board also indicated that some of the other proposed locations that had originally been mentioned, including a property near Indianapolis International Airport, would not be supported by the association for a variety of reasons. The board suggested that any plan would need to include a comprehensive vision for the future of the civil courts.

The board stated it would need to review more detail concerning the overall project, including facility design and functionality, before it could unconditionally endorse the project in its entirety.

“The Indianapolis Bar Association looks forward to working with the mayor’s office, the judiciary, the City-County Council and all other stakeholders in developing a first class judicial facility,” the statement said.

More from IndyBar concerning the topic can be found at  www.indyjusticecenter.org.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Do we need it?
    700,000 to 800,000 Americans are arrested for marijuana possession each year in the US. Do we need a new justice center if we decriminalize marijuana by having the City Council enact a $100 fine for marijuana possession and have the money go towards road repair?

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT