ILNews

High court welcomes Australian, Ukraine jurists

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Supreme Court is welcoming some of its colleagues from other countries this month, first an Australian justice and then a group of jurists from the Ukraine.

Justice Marcia Neave of the Australian Supreme Court of Victoria, Court of Appeals division, is visiting Indiana this week as part of a lecture at Valparaiso Law School. She was slated to meet today with Indiana Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard and Justices Ted Boehm and Robert Rucker; they were to take an afternoon tea break in the high court's law library.

Justice Neave spoke Tuesday about sex-offender law reform, a topic on which she is internationally recognized as an expert. An aspect of reform she advocates involves a controversial approach called "restorative justice," which involves perpetrators meeting with victims or victim representatives, admitting to a crime, and providing reparation.

Appointed to the Australian appellate court in 2006, Justice Neave is recognized throughout the world. Her accomplishments and awards include co-writing the first Australian casebook about property law and being one of the first three women in Australia to be appointed to a chair in law. She has held leadership positions at various law schools in Australia and is a past chair of the Victorian Law Reform Commission. For her contributions to law reform, she was named an officer in the Order of Australia, the country's pre-eminent way to recognize citizens and others for achievement and meritorious service.

Next week, a group of Ukraine judges will visit with Indiana's justices as part of an ongoing cultural exchange that Chief Justice Shepard created; this is the fourth consecutive year that Ukraine judges have come to Indiana.
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. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  2. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  3. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  4. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

  5. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

ADVERTISEMENT