ILNews

Senate passes civil immunity, sentencing alternatives for young offenders bills

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Senate approved several pieces of legislation from the House this week, including a bill that would establish sentencing alternatives for certain offenders under the age of 18.

Senators passed House Bill 1108 Tuesday 97-0 and returned it to the House with amendments. Among other things, the legislation requires the sentencing court to hold a review hearing concerning an offender when he or she turns 18 and before the offender turns 19. It allows the sentencing court to continue the offender’s placement in a juvenile facility if certain objectives have been met.

Also on Tuesday, the Senate passed HB 1376 addressing various privacy issues; HB 1392 restricting criminal background checks; and HB 1458 on Department of Toxicology fees. Only HB 1458 is ready for enrollment.

The House passed Senate Bill 125 on Tuesday by a vote of 99-0. The legislation establishes the commission on improving the status of children to study issues concerning vulnerable youth and take actions relating to children. The introduced version of the bill was prepared by the Department of Child Services Interim Study Committee. The bill returns to the Senate with amendments.

On Monday, Senators passed HB 1519, which adds agricultural products and livestock to the list of items for which a person can’t be held liable for civil damages if the item is donated in good faith; HB 1159, which limits the liability of a public school or accredited nonpublic school that provides community-use physical fitness activities to the public; and HB 1027 on providing civil immunity to a registered architect, land surveyor or professional engineer who provides without compensation professional services related to a declared emergency.

The Senate also adopted Monday Simple Resolution 44 asking the Legislative Council to assign an interim study committee to look at the feasibility of creating a judicial center in Indiana that would house the Indiana Supreme Court, Court of Appeals and Tax Court.

The last day for third reading of House bills in the Senate is April 10, as well as the last day for Senate adoption of conference committee reports without Rules Committee approval. April 15 is the last day for third reading of Senate bills in the House and the last day for House adoption of conference committee reports without Rules Committee approval.

The session is scheduled to end April 29.  

 

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. 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?

  2. 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.

  3. 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?

  4. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  5. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

ADVERTISEMENT