ILNews

Marion County prosecutor candidates face off

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The two candidates for Marion County prosecutor faced each other at their alma mater, Indiana University School of Law – Indianapolis, Sept. 29, in a debate sponsored by the Republican Law Coalition, the Democratic Law Society, and the Criminal Law Association of the law school.

The two answered questions from professor Andy Klein; students submitted the questions prior to the debate.

Other than their political parties, the two seemed more similar than different on their stances. Both candidates have also publicly denounced the current Marion County prosecutor, Carl Brizzi, and during the debate the men spoke about a loss of public confidence and trust in the office. Many question whether Brizzi’s personal business and even some professional dealings are at odds with his public responsibilities.
 

Mark Massa Massa

Mark Massa, the Republican candidate, was a part-time night student at the law school in the late 1980s and said he had wanted to be a prosecutor early on. He served as an intern in the Marion County Prosecutor’s Office as a 3L, and has spent 13 of the last 20 years in a prosecutor’s office, including work as an assistant U.S. attorney. He also served as general counsel to Gov. Mitch Daniels, who has endorsed him for the office.


Terry Curry Curry

Terry Curry, the Democratic candidate, graduated from the law school in the late 1970s. Before law school, he served in the U.S. Army and worked for The Indianapolis News. Like Massa, Curry has worked in the Marion County Prosecutor’s Office. He also worked for the firm now known as Taft Stettinius & Hollister and as a sole practitioner.

Massa mentioned in his opening statement that because “we’re in the midst of a crisis in public confidence” in the prosecutor’s office, “like one we’ve never seen,” he said one of his priorities would be to address that.

He also mentioned the incident this summer that involved Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department officer David Bisard, whose blood alcohol test revealed him to be well above the legal limit when he hit and killed a motorcyclist, only to have those test results thrown out because the test was administered improperly. That has diminished the public’s confidence in the police department, which Massa said he would also address as prosecutor. This issue then leads to a less likely chance the public will cooperate with police or speak truthfully when they do interact with police; they may even refuse summons for jury duty because they don’t trust the police and/or the prosecutor’s office.

Curry echoed much of what Massa said about lower public confidence and that as prosecutor he also would address this issue. One thing that differentiated him from Massa, he said, is he was never elected to office nor has he received a political appointment.

“We need a clear break from political allegiances,” he said.

To restore public confidence, Curry said he would focus some of his energy on the deputy prosecutors who work with community organizations on what their needs are to have safer neighborhoods for residents.

He added this would allow for a greater exchange of information and more transparency between neighborhoods, police, and the prosecutor’s office. This would also be a way for the neighborhood organizations to learn about the successes they may not hear about in the news.

Massa said there are a series of steps he would take in the first 100 days after his election, which would include appointing experienced deputy prosecutors. He also mentioned he would work to implement an ethics plan that would allow no gifts to employees of the prosecutor’s office and would not allow employees to serve on boards of for-profit companies.

Beyond public confidence, both Massa and Curry said attacking violent crime in Marion County was a top priority.

Both mentioned there needs to be a greater use of grand jury investigations.

Massa also said there would be more efforts to go after recidivists, for the office to keep an eye on those who commit seemingly small crimes who could eventually commit violent crimes, and to keep an eye on gang activity.

Curry also said violent crime was one of his top priorities, including the issue of gangs in Marion County that came to light following the shooting at Black Expo this summer, which led to the arrest of a suspect who had claimed ties to a local gang.

He added the office should also pay attention to white-collar crime, because if not, there was a double standard.

Later in the debate, Curry also mentioned more attention could be paid to underreported crimes, such as domestic violence, relatively minor property crimes, and crimes against the Latino community, which has long distrusted the police.

When asked about the role of the office, both candidates said they saw the prosecutor as an administrator, but they would also try cases depending on their level of expertise on certain matters. Both men have had extensive trial experience on a variety of civil and criminal cases.

As far as who they’d like to have working in the office that has about 300 employees including 125 deputy prosecutors, Massa said he wanted to hire attorneys with a faithfulness to the mission of the office. “There needs to be camaraderie, and they need to feel inspired.”

Curry said he would actively recruit energetic young women and men who wanted to work in public service “with the knowledge they would not be making as much money” as their classmates who went into large firms or other legal jobs.

“When you’ve been doing this long enough, it’s easy to identify those who are excited about trying cases,” he said.

Because the audience was mostly made up of law students, both attorneys also encouraged them to consider careers in public service, whether in the prosecutor’s office or in the public defenders office.•

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) End of Year Report 2014. (page 13) Under the current system many local registering agencies are challenged just keeping up with registration paperwork. It takes an hour or more to process each registrant, the majority of whom are low risk offenders. As a result law enforcement cannot monitor higher risk offenders more intensively in the community due to the sheer numbers on the registry. Some of the consequences of lengthy and unnecessary registration requirements actually destabilize the life’s of registrants and those -such as families- whose lives are often substantially impacted. Such consequences are thought to raise levels of known risk factors while providing no discernible benefit in terms of community safety. The full report is available online at. http://www.casomb.org/index.cfm?pid=231 National Institute of Justice (NIJ) US Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs United States of America. The overall conclusion is that Megan’s law has had no demonstrated effect on sexual offenses in New Jersey, calling into question the justification for start-up and operational costs. Megan’s Law has had no effect on time to first rearrest for known sex offenders and has not reduced sexual reoffending. Neither has it had an impact on the type of sexual reoffense or first-time sexual offense. The study also found that the law had not reduced the number of victims of sexual offenses. The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/app/publications/abstract.aspx? ID=247350 The University of Chicago Press for The Booth School of Business of the University of Chicago and The University of Chicago Law School Article DOI: 10.1086/658483 Conclusion. The data in these three data sets do not strongly support the effectiveness of sex offender registries. The national panel data do not show a significant decrease in the rate of rape or the arrest rate for sexual abuse after implementation of a registry via the Internet. The BJS data that tracked individual sex offenders after their release in 1994 did not show that registration had a significantly negative effect on recidivism. And the D.C. crime data do not show that knowing the location of sex offenders by census block can help protect the locations of sexual abuse. This pattern of noneffectiveness across the data sets does not support the conclusion that sex offender registries are successful in meeting their objectives of increasing public safety and lowering recidivism rates. The full report is available online at. http://www.jstor.org/stable/full/10.1086/658483 These are not isolated conclusions but are the same outcomes in the majority of conclusions and reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community. People, including the media and other organizations should not rely on and reiterate the statements and opinions of the legislators or other people as to the need for these laws because of the high recidivism rates and the high risk offenders pose to the public which simply is not true and is pure hyperbole and fiction. They should rely on facts and data collected and submitted in reports from the leading authorities and credible experts in the fields such as the following. California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) Sex offender recidivism rate for a new sex offense is 0.8% (page 30) The full report is available online at http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Adult_Research_Branch/Research_Documents/2014_Outcome_Evaluation_Report_7-6-2015.pdf California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) (page 38) Sex offender recidivism rate for a new sex offense is 1.8% The full report is available online at. http://www.google.com/url?sa= t&source=web&cd=1&ved= 0CCEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F% 2Fwww.cdcr.ca.gov%2FAdult_ Research_Branch%2FResearch_ documents%2FOutcome_ evaluation_Report_2013.pdf&ei= C9dSVePNF8HfoATX-IBo&usg=AFQjCNE9I6ueHz-o2mZUnuxLPTyiRdjDsQ Bureau of Justice Statistics 5 PERCENT OF SEX OFFENDERS REARRESTED FOR ANOTHER SEX CRIME WITHIN 3 YEARS OF PRISON RELEASE WASHINGTON, D.C. Within 3 years following their 1994 state prison release, 5.3 percent of sex offenders (men who had committed rape or sexual assault) were rearrested for another sex crime, the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) announced today. The full report is available online at. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/rsorp94pr.cfm Document title; A Model of Static and Dynamic Sex Offender Risk Assessment Author: Robert J. McGrath, Michael P. Lasher, Georgia F. Cumming Document No.: 236217 Date Received: October 2011 Award Number: 2008-DD-BX-0013 Findings: Study of 759 adult male offenders under community supervision Re-arrest rate: 4.6% after 3-year follow-up The sexual re-offense rates for the 746 released in 2005 are much lower than what many in the public have been led to expect or believe. These low re-offense rates appear to contradict a conventional wisdom that sex offenders have very high sexual re-offense rates. The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/236217.pdf Document Title: SEX OFFENDER SENTENCING IN WASHINGTON STATE: RECIDIVISM RATES BY: Washington State Institute For Public Policy. A study of 4,091 sex offenders either released from prison or community supervision form 1994 to 1998 and examined for 5 years Findings: Sex Crime Recidivism Rate: 2.7% Link to Report: http://www.oncefallen.com/files/Washington_SO_Recid_2005.pdf Document Title: Indiana’s Recidivism Rates Decline for Third Consecutive Year BY: Indiana Department of Correction 2009. The recidivism rate for sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05%, one of the lowest in the nation. In a time when sex offenders continue to face additional post-release requirements that often result in their return to prison for violating technical rules such as registration and residency restrictions, the instances of sex offenders returning to prison due to the commitment of a new sex crime is extremely low. Findings: sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05% Link to Report: http://www.in.gov/idoc/files/RecidivismRelease.pdf Once again, These are not isolated conclusions but are the same outcomes in the majority of reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community. No one can doubt that child sexual abuse is traumatic and devastating. The question is not whether the state has an interest in preventing such harm, but whether current laws are effective in doing so. Megan’s law is a failure and is destroying families and their children’s lives and is costing tax payers millions upon millions of dollars. The following is just one example of the estimated cost just to implement SORNA which many states refused to do. From Justice Policy Institute. Estimated cost to implement SORNA Here are some of the estimates made in 2009 expressed in 2014 current dollars: California, $66M; Florida, $34M; Illinois, $24M; New York, $35M; Pennsylvania, $22M; Texas, $44M. In 2014 dollars, Virginia’s estimate for implementation was $14M, and the annual operating cost after that would be $10M. For the US, the total is $547M. That’s over half a billion dollars – every year – for something that doesn’t work. http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/08-08_FAC_SORNACosts_JJ.pdf. Attempting to use under-reporting to justify the existence of the registry is another myth, or a lie. This is another form of misinformation perpetrated by those who either have a fiduciary interest in continuing the unconstitutional treatment of a disfavored group or are seeking to justify their need for punishment for people who have already paid for their crime by loss of their freedom through incarceration and are now attempting to reenter society as honest citizens. When this information is placed into the public’s attention by naive media then you have to wonder if the media also falls into one of these two groups that are not truly interested in reporting the truth. Both of these groups of people that have that type of mentality can be classified as vigilantes, bullies, or sociopaths, and are responsible for the destruction of our constitutional values and the erosion of personal freedoms in this country. I think the media or other organizations need to do a in depth investigation into the false assumptions and false data that has been used to further these laws and to research all the collateral damages being caused by these laws and the unconstitutional injustices that are occurring across the country. They should include these injustices in their report so the public can be better informed on what is truly happening in this country on this subject. Thank you for your time.

  2. Freedom as granted in the Constitution cannot be summarily disallowed without Due Process. Unable to to to the gym, church, bowling alley? What is this 1984 level nonsense? Congrats to Brian for having the courage to say that this was enough! and Congrats to the ACLU on the win!

  3. America's hyper-phobia about convicted sex offenders must end! Politicians must stop pandering to knee-jerk public hysteria. And the public needs to learn the facts. Research by the California Sex Offender Management Board as shown a recidivism rate for convicted sex offenders of less than 1%. Less than 1%! Furthermore, research shows that by year 17 after their conviction, a convicted sex offender is no more likely to commit a new sex offense than any other member of the public. Put away your torches and pitchforks. Get the facts. Stop hysteria.

  4. He was convicted 23 years ago. How old was he then? He probably was a juvenile. People do stupid things, especially before their brain is fully developed. Why are we continuing to punish him in 2016? If he hasn't re-offended by now, it's very, very unlikely he ever will. He paid for his mistake sufficiently. Let him live his life in peace.

  5. This year, Notre Dame actually enrolled an equal amount of male and female students.

ADVERTISEMENT