Legislators to look at sex offenses, reporting laws in wake of Anthony trial

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Criminal Code Evaluation Commission is meeting Thursday morning to discuss sex crimes and sex offenders, and other issues, according to its revised meeting agenda. Later that day, the Criminal Law and Sentencing Policy Study Committee is going to take a look at Indiana’s laws regarding reporting a dead body or missing child.

The focus of the criminal code meeting is on sex crimes. Dr. Adam Deming will give a presentation on sex crimes and sex offenders, the Office of the Indiana Attorney General will give a presentation on sex trafficking; and Deborah Daniels, former U.S. Attorney and now a partner at Krieg DeVault in Indianapolis, will speak on penalties for sex offenses. Rep. Ralph Foley, R-Martinsville, and Sen. Randall Head, R-Logansport, will also give presentations at the meeting, according to the posted agenda.

Members will also discuss Indiana Code 35-43-4-3(d), conversion for failure to return a rental car. The meeting begins at 10:30 a.m. in Room 431 of the Statehouse.

At 1:30 p.m. in Room 431, the Criminal Law and Sentencing Policy Study Committee will review Indiana’s laws on reporting dead bodies. Chair Sen. Brent Steele, R-Bedford, said the discussion was spurred by the outcome of the Casey Anthony trial in Florida.

Anthony never reported her daughter missing and was later charged with first-degree murder after her daughter’s remains were discovered. She was acquitted of murder.

Currently, statute requires someone who discovers a dead body to report it within three hours or face a Class A misdemeanor charge with a possible prison sentence of up to a year and a fine that could be as much as $5,000.

Committee members will also look at possibly creating a law that parents or guardians must report a missing child immediately or within a certain time frame. The committee will also talk about implementing a new centralized child protection registry.

The proceedings will also be webcast live.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.