And I requested the addition of “access to justice” as one of the areas of the Democratic Platform. Without access to the courts to enforce rights, or be protected against state action, no citizen has any rights at all.
I note that John Adams must have been aware of this, in drafting the ringing “Open Courts Clause” included as “Article XI of the Declaration of Rights of the Inhabitants of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts”.
The vision for the government of our state involved three co-equal branches of government, which as a system of checks and balances would prevent tyranny.
Thus, the Judicial Branch cannot be treated as a mere agency – nor castrated by the appropriation power or the appointing power without harming democracy at its very core.
Therefore, “Access to Justice” must be a core value, and a topic in its own right.
The topics within “Access to Justice” include an independent judiciary, funding for the Judicial Branch sufficient to guarantee access to justice which is, as article XI in the Declaration of Rights requires:
“Every subject of the commonwealth ought to find a certain remedy, by having recourse to the laws, for all injuries or wrongs which he may receive in his person, property, or character. He ought to obtain right and justice freely, and without being obliged to purchase it; completely, and without any denial; promptly, and without delay; comforably to the laws.”
NOTE: Without sufficient funding to hold an adequate number of trials and motions, the requirement of “without delay” cannot be met by the judicial branch. Without adequate support for the provision of legal services to those who cannot afford counsel, Article XI is a mockery. It should be the Land Court that ensures justice for the tenant and property owner. It should be the Juvenile Court that ensures that juveniles – and families – are treated fairly by schools and the Department of Children and Families. And access to justice requires both access to courts, and to legal counsel for those of modest means, not only the wealthy if the “ought to obtain right and justice freely, without being obliged to purchase it” is not a mockery, and an empty promise.
But wondering where to put it and how to describe the population to be served.
<
p>We already have to fight hard to protect various programs with an exploding client list like the Committee on Public Counsel Services,, Massachusetts Legal Assistance Corp, Mental Health Legal Advisors, Correctional Legal Services. All found under the Judiciaryin the budget. None of their “constituencies” have very powerful supporters, except maybe the Constitution.
<
p>
AmberPaw, I agree.
<
p>I don’t know if you read about Chief Justice Marshall’s remarks yesterday. While I think many state court systems are facing worse problems than ours, it’s clear we’re in for a period of belt-tightening. We need to cut expenses in a way that minimizes the loss of access to justice.
<
p>Here is one idea for reducing the judiciary’s budget that occurred to me the other day while I was sitting in a Suffolk County Superior Court session. Each courtroom has a court officer, who sits at a little desk while court is in session. I think the court officer is there primarily to provide security. But judging from appearances, many of them aren’t, let’s say, in tip-top shape. Mostly they seem to do crossword puzzles or, in a few amusing cases I’ve seen, flirt with the court reporters or clerks before the judges enter the room. Also, court reporters seem to man every session, even where the only people in the room are lawyers arguing motions in run-of-the-mill civil cases.
<
p>It seems to me the courts could save some money–I have no idea how much–by using court officers only in sessions where there is an actual need for real security. I note that when I worked in the federal courts after law school, I never saw a security person in the courtroom except where there was a specific need for one, but in those cases, the U.S. Marshal’s office would send a hard, ex-military-looking officer rather than a portly civil servant waiting out his time until pension. We should get rid of these sinecures if we are serious about tightening the belt.
<
p>And to the extent the courts have a real concern about security, they could start by adopting cheap but effective measures, such as requiring attorneys to pass through the security screening at the entrances to the buildings. I’ve always been shocked that I can enter the court building without passing through a metal detector simply because I have a bar card.
<
p>TedF