Courtesy, AP and Lincoln Bookstore
You know, it is almost Lincoln’s Birthday. I don’t think he would find a lot to be pleased with as to how our courts are managed and run in this state. I like this photo, it is almost like he is looking right at me, figured that made it worth sharing. Besides, Lincoln practiced in all the courts of his state – from the equivalent of our district courts, to appeals. He wrote wills, deeds, and was involved in the day-to-day practice of law and earning a living meeting the needs of his fellow citizens. We cannot say this of any recent president or governor. Here is a diagram of the circuit he followed, for at least 20 years.
Part of Lincoln’s ability to govern is that he understood how the real world worked. I am not sure those who are underfunding the courts, and steering us away from the rule of law understand what Lincoln knew so intimately.
Abraham Lincoln spoke about the court system, which he knew intimately, on the ground, as a litigator, as critical to the functioning of the United States. The Title quote is from former Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, harkening back to her youth in South Africa. She warns that in underfunding the Judicial Branch, and treating it like an agency, Massachusetts puts democracy at risk. She is the best part of this video, though the last few seconds of it: http://youtu.be/dDYDLW-OAdI
In 2002, the budget of the Judicial Branch in this case was cut severely, by about 20% and a system called “retained revenue” was instituted under then-Governor Romney. That system has about as much to do with “revenue” as the “Patriot Act” has to do with patriotism. In fact, the Courts were transformed from arbiters of justice to bill collectors, and forced to squeeze the poor to stay open. That program demanded that courts collect more fees each year, no matter how, no matter from who or for what to stay open; only by collecting more each year would the courts keep any of the money they collected. The vast amount of these fees, more than 80% go into the general fund, not to the courts at all. See an earlier post on this topic http://archive.bluemassgroup.com/tag/retained%20revenue See also http://www.allbusiness.com/government/government-bodies-offices-heads-state/14754089-1.html
The impact of under funding the judicial branch has been dire – impacting the most vulnerable in the worst way. A task force report from the MBA spells oout and lists those hurt in detail: http://www.massbar.org/media/750271/courtsincrisis0510_web.pdf
If we take away the ability to peaceful and speedy resolve disputes between husband and wife, neighbor and neighbor, and customer and business owner we lose the rule of law.
Like oxygen, you do not notice the rule of law when you have it. Lose it? You will notice and quickly.
The deterioration all across the court system is very evident to me, and yes, people are getting hurt. Courts are not people – unlike you and I and per super PACS and the USSCT – corporations. Courts need you and I to defend their funding and the rule of law itself.
Is this “retained revenue” thing the source of the current presumption-of-guilt system of traffic fines, where you have to pay to get a hearing, effectively eliminating due process?
One of the “shell games” is to say “no new taxes” and then to squeeze the powerless one penny at a time.
But, yes, this effective denial of due process, and game of “balance the budget on the backs of the poor”, make judges into money grubbers, not adjudicators is all a part of that. So, the fee for filing complaints, the fees paid by those on probation or parole, the so-called counsel fee which goes neither to the attorney NOR to the courts – all a part of that and all goes except for a pittance into the general fund – all the carping about the 2% or so of the budget that funds the Judicial branch, while being willing to throw away $150 million on movie credits so legislators and their buddies can have photo ops with the stars – disgusting.
How is this handled at the federal level? Certainly the federal courts need funding, and I imagine like at the state level do not have their own armies of lobbyists to advocate for them.
No retained revenue, with revenue for the Federal Judicial Branch on only being “passed on” as a percentage of collections. No. Doesn’t happen. I have to wonder, too, if this scheme in Massachusetts (thank you Daniel Winslow) is even constitutional per the Open Court Clause, Article XI of the Declaration of rights.
If I choose to go to “court” to challenge a traffic violation, first I pay a substantial fee and then see a magistrate.
If I don’t like what they have to say I pay another, larger fee go to an actual court, to see an actual judge and have the officer that wrote the ticket appear.
At this stage my fees are higher than the fine, and even if I’m innocent (or rather not guilty) I still have to pay the fees. If guilty I pay the fees and this fine.
This just doesn’t seem right.
n/t
…the assumption is that you will go to court, so the citation has on it a court date rather than a fine. You have to call to find out how much you owe. On paper they divide it into the fine itself and court fees, but you have to pay the whole amount regardless. I contested primarily because of how much it was, but was unfortunately not sucessful.
As someone who’s earned speeding tickets in New York, Virginia, Tennessee, Mississippi and Arkansas, MA is the only one I’ve seen where the assumption is that you’ll pay the fine and not go to court. As someone who’s challenged tickets in MS, NY and AR, MA is the only one where you have to pay a fine to be able to challenge the ticket itself.
The court system is filled with professional and competent judges, clerks and staff who come to work each day to do their jobs and do it well. When funding is constantly cut, judges salaries remain stagnant, clerk magistrates are fired and entire courts are closed down all while the caseloads remain high and ever more complex (such as the increase in non-english speaking defendants), that professionalism, competence and ability are threatened.
Yes – it is not “right” and it is the result of the attitude that courts are mere agencies that serve as one more feeder stream into the great and secret trough that is the general fund.
And the general fund is distributed remember with ZERO open meeting laws, legislation delivered “put up and shut up” behind closed doors, with the perception that only paid lobbyists can get you in to talk to leadership.
No FOIA.
No “fair procurement laws”, really.
God save the Commonwealth, indeed, as a colleague says.
The general fund n
Unless you are involved in it you don’t know.
I was involved in a protracted court proceeding in NH and it just dragged on and on because of scheduling issues due to budget cuts. Apparently they have cut further and I’m sure it’s even more awful.
It’s a total drag on business, not to mention the impact on people in places like family court.
I listened to an NPR show one day that featured a PD in Detroit. He had basically 15 min per case- told them all to plead because it made no sense to go to court, even if the evidence was shaky or they weren’t guilty. Without bail they would sit awating trial, and then probably get no defense, so just count yourself as unlucky and plead.
Our court system is one of the things that makes us a better place to live than many other countries. It would be sad if we lost that too.