What Is Wrong With Our Justice System?

Indianapolis has had one of the bloodiest months of January and February for several years. As of this writing, the first two months of the year have resulted in 31 homicides.

Why is this happening?

There's a lot of talk about community involvement and problems with society and guns and stuff. I think those issues, if they are problems, are not going to be solved in a day. They're far more complex and are not cut and dry.

But there is something that we can fix in the near future.

Our system of justice is broken.

Before I go on, let me say: I am a supporter of rehabilitation offenders. I want them to serve their sentence and be appropriately punished, but I also want them to be able to walk out those doors and live as peaceful, productive members of society.

But I also believe that those who commit crimes need to serve the time.

And those charged with crimes, particularly those that involve violent acts on other people, should be handled appropriately so the victims aren't living in fear during the trial.

So why is an attempted murder suspect, who is very much a flight risk, able to waltz out of the Marion County Jail after only posting $2,500?

Or why is a guy who fired shots into a downtown crowd later able to walk away from prison in less than three years of an eight year sentence? Oh, also, he was arrested shortly after being released and is still pending trial on several forgery charges. And part of the reason his sentence was only eight years long was because of an incredibly lenient plea deal that the Marion County Prosecutor's Office agreed to.

The piece of garbage who shot IMPD Officer Bradway, again, had a rap sheet.

I'm not saying the judge and the justice system are completely to blame. Maybe our corrections department aren't doing much corrections and we need to take a look at what we're doing to rehabilitate offenders.

But having a halfway decent sentence for violent offenders seems to make sense to me.

But maybe that's just me

If Someone Could Get Me to Vote Republican, It'd Be Dr. Frank Lloyd

The Marion County Democratic Party will hold its "slating" convention this coming Saturday. Slating is where elected and appointed officials at the precinct level will meet and cast votes to decide who the county party will endorse for the May primary for various races. In the case of the county party, eight judge slots and all of the non-mayoral county offices are up for election.

The county wide offices looked like there could be open season in several of the races but most of that has settled down. Now, the only real question is Marion County Clerk. One of the candidates that is seeking the party's slating is Dr. Frank Lloyd, the current Marion County Coroner.

Early on in Dr. Lloyd's administration, his staff fumbled the removal of an obese woman who died on the northeast side. After pleading immunity, a Court of Appeals said the Coroner's office was not immune because they were operating under internal regulations rather than state code. Two years ago, RTV6 received a video from a whistle blower showing abysmal conditions in the Coroner's office.

I've been impressed with Clerk Beth White's management of the Clerk's office and most of the elections she has run. But if this is Dr. Lloyd's record, I don't know if I'd want to hand over the office of Clerk to him.

Would you?

Sometimes, We Win

Many of you are involved, at some level or another, in the political process. You probably know that, at times, it can be a really draining occupation, especially when you're working on an issue that you feel strongly about.

I've done a few phone bankings with Freedom Indiana on defeating HJR-3. And without getting too specific, we used a system that would target people in specific Republicans in House districts, call them up, and tell them to contact their legislators to oppose HJR-3. We'd only work on general assembly members who were uncommitted.

One of those was Jerry Torr, a Republican from Noblesville.

I attended one of the phone bankings that targeted Torr's district.

I remember it really well because I felt like I was hitting road blocks the entire time I was calling in his district.

One person responded, after I gave my introduction, "Is this about Obamacare? Because if so, I'm against it".

A few just hung up.

One person quoted the Bible and then hung up.

One guy asked a lot of great questions such as what committee it was assigned to (at the time, it was still HJR-6 and it had no committee assignment) and even though he was on our side, he refused to do the transfer until he did more research.

I don't know if the handful of transfers helped Mr. Torr decide or not. But I'd like to believe it helped in a small way.

That's change. Even if HJR-3 passes, that is how you get people to change. You make phone calls, you talk, you get your voice heard.

It isn't always the sexiest process out there. It doesn't mean everything will be resolved the next day, the next month, or the next election cycle.

But sometimes, those small victories mean a lot. And I'd like to thank  Rep. Torr and his constituents for giving me this small victory.

Proponents of #HJR3 Should Think of Long-Term Impact

HJR-3, the proposed constitutional amendment that would super-duper ban same-sex marriage, civil unions, etc..., has passed a committee vote in the Indiana House of Representatives. The proponents of HJR-3 were excited for a victory that, a few days ago, may not have happened since the original committee was likely to vote it down.

It is evident that, due to the support of much of the evangelical and Tea Party groups, that proponents of this amendment largely take a stance based on their Christian faith. This is not to say there aren't proponents of HJR-3 who take their stance based on other reasons, but the vast majority of them are based on faith.

And I want to speak to those people.

Let's first off point out that there is no push for additional legislation for marriage regulations and laws based on Christian faiths. In some Christian faiths, it is forbidden to re-marry. Even if you divorce that person in a civil court, the Church may still see you as a married couple. In the Roman Catholic Church, there is a process known as annulment, but it is a difficult, long, and costly process, and not all annulments are granted.

Why is that?

Some of the major proponents, both within the legislature and the movers and shakers of the evangelical activist groups, have been married and divorced multiple times. State House gossip suggests a lot more than passing laws goes in when the legislature is in session. Yet the evangelical groups, the Moral Majority crowd, welcome these people into their fundraisers with open arms.

Why is that?

And finally, let's think of the long-term impact of HJR-3, the possibility that a religious belief will be enshrined in our state constitution.

What happens in 50, 100, or 200 years, if Christianity is no longer are the majority religion? What if another religion is the majority, or atheism and agnosticism is wide spread? Is it now okay to impose religious believes, either by statute or by the constitution, just because one has the power to do so?

I think freedom means freedom for everybody. And I hope my fellow Christians will stand up for everyone's freedom. Maybe then, they'll stand up when your freedom could be put to a vote.

Some Pondering on #INLegis and Marriage

The views and opinions expressed in this blog are from a non-legally trained, and may very well be illegally trained, mind.

The amendment to define marriage and something-something-something and place it in the Indiana Constitution has been HJR-6 for quite some time. Bills and resolutions get their numbers based on when they're filed, and this one has been HRJ-6 for several years, both when it received hearings in committee and when it hasn't. So it is quite interesting that now, in the 2014 legislative session that may very well pass it and put it on a ballot in November, it has changed from HJR-6 to HJR-3.

Opponents of the amendment have already produced yard signs and other merchandise using "HJR-6" or "Nix 6". I predict the Freedom Indiana folks will be ordering a massive amount of "3" stickers soon.

HJR-3 in and of itself is only two sentences long. But it is accompanied by HB 1153. At first glance, HB 1153 is fairly innocent. It sets up the ballot measure if HJR-3 passes, establishing the wording that would be used if and when HJR-3 is put to a public vote, and that sort of stuff. But HB 1153 also attempts to establish legislative intent and interpret what HJR-3 means legally. 

To my non-legally trained mind, that sounds kind of illegal. Legislative statute shouldn't define or interpret a constitutional provision. In fact, it is a constitution that defines what a  legislature's powers are, not the other way around. And even if it could, the companion bill could be struck down by a court or repealed by a later legislature.

This Saturday, Mark Small and I will be hosting Civil Discourse Now and discussing the HJR-3 issue. I'm sure we'll also be addressing the more broad issues of marriage equality and other issues concerning the LGBT community.

Joining us on the show will be a couple of good folks from Freedom Indiana. Campaign manager Megan Robertson and deputy campaign manager Peter Hanscom will be calling in during the broadcast. Regular readers of the blog will remember Megan running Mayor Greg Ballard's re-election campaign in 2011. She has worked a long time in Republican electoral politics and has been an interesting choice to run this very different campaign.

Also joining us will be LGBT activist Tanya Domi. She was on the show last September when we last discussed marriage equality.

We are working on getting a guest who are for the passage on HJR-3. While Mark and I both have our views, we are eager to get all views out as part of our discussion. All guests will be treated fairly with respect.

We will air this show live, Saturday, at 11am-1pm. You can tune in via Indiana Talks' website, or download the "Tunein Radio" app on your smartphone or tablet and point it to "Indiana Talks".

Hogsett Speaks Out at Knights of Columbus

I had the privilege of attending a Knights of Columbus event where Joe Hogsett, the U.S. attorney for the southern district of Indiana, was the featured speaker. Hogsett spoke for about 15 minutes about his background, the role of a US attorney, and then took a few questions from the audience. 

Hogsett mentioned that he had a past life in electoral politics, but seemed to downplay it during the speech. He jokingly said that the school all U.S. district attorneys attend encourages anyone who wants to make policy to resign and run for office. He then reflected he had done that and it didn't work out (he lost a U.S. Senate race to Dan Coats)so he's encouraged to stick with the job he had. 

Hogsett mentioned that when he first got the job, friends and family would mistakenly congratulate him on becoming the Attorney General or a federal judge. So he set out to define what a U.S. district attorney actually does.

Hogsett had a long and impressive list of successful prosecutions at his disposal, ranging from prosecuting foreign nationals living and working within the United States to those involved in human trafficking and public corruption. Most reading this blog are probably aware of most of these cases. But he also mentioned knowing when not to take a case to trial is a decision that he struggles with, but is something all prosecuting attorneys face at one time or another.

What I found most interesting was the first prosecution he mentioned. He said there was a successful drug bust of marijuana early on in his time in charge of the southern district. The drug bust was nicknamed "Operation Five Dollar Foot Long" because the drugs were concealed in Subway packaging. He said 8,000 pounds of marijuana was ceased valued at $5,000,000. I found it interesting that Hogsett highlighted this case first even as the War on Drugs wanes in popularity.

Hogsett emphasized that while much of the major crime noted by mainstream media outlets occurs in the central Indiana area, the district covers 60 counties and some of the deadliest cases happen outside of the Indianapolis area. He said that in the town of Laurel, a shooting ended in five deaths because of a prescription drug deal that went south. He emphasized that a random act of violence can happen anywhere and that it isn't simply an urban or a rural issue.

Hogsett took several questions from the audience, many concerning the topic of violence and how situations too often escalate to physical violence or gun violence too quickly. But the best question was saved for last, where an attendee questioned Hogsett on the effectiveness of the War on Drugs and where he sees how the War might evolve over the next 10 years. Hogsett said that, as a US district attorney, his role isn't to make policy but to enforce the law. Hogsett spoke in generalities, saying that he doesn't believe the legalization argument that taxation and regulation will solve the problems that drug use has on society. He pointed specifically to prescription drugs, which are taxed and regulated, as a growing concern for prosecutors across the country. He did say he'd like to see more rehabilitation so that those who have served their time and can be placed back into society and become productive citizens have the ability to do so.

Hogsett stuck around for a few minutes after the speech and I got a chance to ask him about gun violence, specifically about the involvement of underage youth. I mentioned a story of a 17 year old kid who was picked up with a loaded pistol that had an altered serial number. He said that, unfortunately, the Department of Justice's country-wide policy is that the prosecution of juveniles are left to local authorities but that his office can deal with these situations in more general terms, such as how they obtained a firearm. I also asked him that, with the recent counterfeit currency bust, what should people do if they encounter any on the street. He said to either call the IMPD or the local Secret Service office (317-635-6420).

While I was talking with Hogsett, another attendee came up to him and said he'd support him if he ran for Mayor and Hogsett just grinned. The attendee mentioned Ed DeLaney is also considering and Hogsett said "Ed is a good guy."

Indy Council Should Proceed Cautiously on Panhandling

The Indianapolis-Marion County City-County Council is poised to consider a revision to the city's panhandling ordinance. If passed, it would expand the definition of a panhandler and eliminate or severely restrict where panhandling can take within downtown Indianapolis. In recent days, a group of musicians have raised concerns that street performers would be classified as panhandlers and essentially banished from performing within downtown Indianapolis. Angela Mansfield, the chairwoman of the committee where the panhandling proposal originated, voted against it and specifically cited her concerns about how street performers would be classified within the new ordinance.

I've spent a lot of time downtown throughout the years. And I think panhandling is a legitimate issue to be concerned about and that needs to be addressed. What I haven't been convinced of, however, is that this proposal is the answer.

Back in 2009, we were told that a revised panhandling ordinance would solve all the world's problems, that this is something Mayor Ballard wanted to cross off his agenda in his first term. This blog covered it at the time. This blog raised questions, a year later, that panhandling seems to have gotten worse, even in places that the new ordinance specifically regulates (stop signs and traffic lights).

Throughout the entire conversation on panhandling, the ACLU affiliate in Indiana has consistently said they'd likely file a lawsuit over how broad the panhandling ordinance can be if it is revised. No comments have been given publicly that the position of the ACLU has changed, and it seems like both the council backers of this ordinance as well as the Mayor's office could care less what the ACLU has to say.

If you can make it, please join me on December 9th at the full council meeting to publicly oppose this proposal. It starts at 7pm at the City-County Building in downtown Indianapolis.