- Joined
- Mar 29, 2016
- Messages
- 2,671
- Reaction score
- 65,466
I agree that the reviewer should not be from a law enforcement agency for the exact reasons you stated.I like your idea better than a set time period, actually. It would definitely give the family more opportunities to see the case file(s) than having to wait 50, 25, etc. years.
One caveat -- and I preface this by noting that Indiana law has been molded by a strong Jacksonian Democracy spirit -- is that I
would want the reviewer or panel to be (a) separate from the agency that is investigating the case and (b) be an officeholder directly elected by county citizens. Obviously, an internal reviewer/panel could be subject to internal pressure by the agency to not release the file(s). Having a directly elected officeholder (i.e. circuit court judge) further inoculates the reviewer from internal pressure while -- at the same time -- makes him/her responsive to voters in a situation where the public really wants the file(s) released.
However, your last sentence, RBBM, “makes him/her responsive to voters in a situation where the public really wants the file(s) released,” makes me pause a bit. I think that whoever appeals for the files should have a “compelling reason” to see them. This would allow a family member of a victim greater latitude rather than a lookie loo who is just plain nosey. For this reason, I also think there should be a set minimum of years before a person could plea for the file realease. Some crimes are solved quickly while others drag on for years, but there could be very active investigations taking place. We need to be fair to the public, but we also need to give LE time to do their jobs.