IBJNews

Indiana chief justice says court can help economy

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Chief Justice Randall Shepard used his final speech to the Legislature on Wednesday to chart how far the state's judicial system has come during his 25 years heading the state's highest court.

Shepard, who announced his retirement in December, delivered his annual State of the Judiciary speech to a crowd of legislators and black-robed judges.

Shepard said the "graciousness" of lawmakers and judges he has worked with over the years "will allow me to leave the stage with full confidence that we will succeed in building Indiana as a safe and prosperous and decent place."

He praised judges around the state for their work in developing special purpose courts such as drug and family courts, and boasted about the state's child advocate program, in which volunteers represent children's interests in court.

Shepard also outlined improvements in court technology, such as an online docket system and a feature that gives women's shelters direct access to the statewide Protective Order Registry so they can better protect victims. He said a new system that sends emails or text messages to victims when a protective order is served on their abusers sent notices to 9,300 victims last year.

"In the cases involving the worst threats, we have more tools than ever for combating domestic violence," he said.

He also said improvements in the state's legal system have helped courts become an aid — or at least not a hindrance — to Indiana's economic development.

Shepard said businesses shy away from some states because of the legal climate, but Indiana isn't one of them. He cited work done by judges and lawyers to simplify rules for juries and evidence, saying legal complexity could be a barrier to new business.

He also said the courts were delivering direct economic assistance to people by using revamped practices designed to make it easier for homeowners to rewrite their mortgages and avoid foreclosure. He said the new practices, which have been deployed in 20 counties that account for 2/3 of the state's foreclosures, increased the chance of a homeowner keeping his or her home by six times.

"Could there be a better cause, a more worthwhile way to 'spend and be spent' in life than working toward greater justice?" he said.

Hundreds of union members protesting right-to-work legislation were kept away from the House chambers during the speech. The group was generally quiet while Shepard spoke, but resumed booing a shortly thereafter.

Attorney General Greg Zoeller issued a statement in which he credited the protesters with showing respect for the state's top judge.

"It has been a privilege for me to serve as an officer of the court during Randy Shepard's watch, and our judicial system has benefited significantly from the innovations he implemented," Zoeller said.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Shepard
    Shepard is of middling intellect, typical of Indiana state level politicians, which is what he was. His greatest accomplishment was to add levels of bureaucracy creating additional cost to support the judicial system. What he really put his heart into was campaigning year after year to raise the salaries of judges. Of course, his help in adding layers of law & bureaucracy did help one small sector of the economy -- big law firms.
  • Lets look at the failures also

    We must also note the great failures that hurt Indiana under Mr Shepard.

    The concept of equal treatment in divorce was not addressed. The chief justice rejected appeals from men who felt the need for equal treatment. He also made Indiana a very high child support rate payment for the low earners and very low support rate for the high earners. Shepard's child support guidelines gives the rich a large break over other states while leaving the low income father nothing but the title of deadbeat. Beating fathers is perhaps politically correct, but far from being justice. Review of the support tables clearly shows they are not fit.

    He did not open up records for judges. A complaint against a judge, or one hundred complaints against a judge are still "confidential for the integrity of the courts"! I believe the courts would be better with open and honest records.

    He allows special rules for judges to not actually write decisions, but accept attorney presented decisions to sign. Does anyone other than lazy judges believe that signing a presented order results in fair and honest treatment for the parties? These presented orders have grants not even presented in court! Some lazy judges have even signed the presented settlements from opposing attorneys!

    Shepard did nothing to stop prosecutors from being able to select the judges for cases. When a prosecutor wants to illegally submit "evidence" he can select and present in front of a judge he knows will not be fair and honest. Assignments should be random or at the selection of the defending party.

    Lets us remember, judges are a combination of lawyer and politician....they often lack honesty, fairness, and all concepts of justice. I do not accept the claims of achievement for Mr. Shepard......

    Dupree

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 IBJ 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
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. Those of you yelling to deport them all should at least understand that the law allows minors (if not from a bordering country) to argue for asylum. If you don't like the law, you can petition Congress to change it. But you can't blindly scream that they all need to be deported now, unless you want your government to just decide which laws to follow and which to ignore.

  2. 52,000 children in a country with a population of nearly 300 million is decimal dust or a nano-amount of people that can be easily absorbed. In addition, the flow of children from central American countries is decreasing. BL - the country can easily absorb these children while at the same time trying to discourage more children from coming. There is tension between economic concerns and the values of Judeo-Christian believers. But, I cannot see how the economic argument can stand up against the values of the believers, which most people in this country espouse (but perhaps don't practice). The Governor, who is an alleged religious man and a family man, seems to favor the economic argument; I do not see how his position is tenable under the circumstances. Yes, this is a complicated situation made worse by politics but....these are helpless children without parents and many want to simply "ship" them back to who knows where. Where are our Hoosier hearts? I thought the term Hoosier was synonymous with hospitable.

  3. Illegal aliens. Not undocumented workers (too young anyway). I note that this article never uses the word illegal and calls them immigrants. Being married to a naturalized citizen, these people are criminals and need to be deported as soon as humanly possible. The border needs to be closed NOW.

  4. Send them back NOW.

  5. deport now

ADVERTISEMENT