ILNews

Juvenile justice bill passes Senate

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A bill that incorporated suggestions from attendees and organizers of an Indiana State Bar Association-sponsored juvenile justice summit last summer passed the Indiana Senate 45-3 Feb. 18.

House Bill 1193 originally included two main parts: training for all police who regularly work with juveniles, particularly for school resource officers and others who work in school settings; and creating a work study group to consider best practices for handling juvenile offenses.

The two parts of the bill combined had the ultimate goal of decreasing detention time for low-level offenses, such as school fights, students who talk back to teachers, and students who use offensive language but don't physically harm anyone.

In some districts that have looked at this issue and adjusted their disciplinary actions, graduation rates have increased, and parole officers and others in the system have had more time to spend with the felony-level offenders, such as those who bring drugs or weapons to school.

The Senate Judiciary Committee approved a version of the House bill Feb. 11 that didn't include language about training, but it kept the language about the study group. Committee members agreed to the amendment to remove the part about training for officers because of the estimated $40,000 cost of training.

The change disappointed HB 1193's author, Rep. Linda Lawson, D-Hammond, a former police officer who said the training part of the bill was important.

At Indiana Lawyer deadline, the bill had been returned to the House. Concurrences or dissents couldn't be filed until after IL deadline, according to Paje Felts, legislative counsel at ISBA.

 

Original story " School-focused bill moves to Senate" IL Feb. 17-March 2, 2010

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. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT