We have previously discussed the lack of priority in this country as Congress has spent trillions on wars and corruption in Iraq and Afghanistan while our most basic state and federal public programs and services are cut. Indeed, we spend billions on increasingly hostile countries like Pakistan or affluent countries like Israel while our educational system and infrastructure collapses. There is no greater example of that lack of priority than the decline of our court systems which are woefully underfunded and facing a growing crisis in dealing with civil and criminal cases. I often speak to judges and they all complain that they are overwhelmed and unable to meet the most basic demands of the legal system. In California, one court had to resort of a garage sale while another is imposing a $1 a page charge for people to get copies of needed court records. Our legal system is one of the most basic governmental functions — the very definition of a nation committed to the rule of law. However, California alone shows how dire the situation has become.
California has closed more than 50 courthouses and eliminated 3,900 full-time positions. The court estimates that it is short $266 million for minimal operations and $612 million to be fully functional. It also says that it would need $1.2 billion over three years to return services from past cuts.
The wait times for hearings is growing and the state is beginning to resemble India where people simply have little hope of a ruling on disputes — resulting in their avoidance of the courts or abandonment of cases. The Kings County Superior Court was faced with staff cuts and inadequate budgets and had to hold an actual garage sale to raise money.
The state is about to announce a new round of court closings to save money — increasing the barrier for judicial review and case resolution. Lines now stretch out the door and courts report increasing tension and even violence as people lose their tempers in waiting for hours.
In the meantime, Alameda County courts are now going to charge $1 per page to simply download documents — creating a financial barrier for many seeking to address legal issues. This is consistent with the increased use of toll roads and taxes for highways. What was once viewed as a basic function of the government (supported by general taxes) is now being treated as a privilege with a surcharge.
The federal system charges for PACER documents online, which I have always found objectionable as a court access issue, but they only charge 10 cents a page. With a cap of $3. The Alameda courts would cap it at $40.
I remain mystified by the short-sightedness of our budget decisions. Cutting educational, judicial, and other basic programs have collateral impacts and displaced costs that are simply ignored. The long-term impacts are particularly worrisome as we produce less competitive students for the new job market, reduce the availability of the courts for conflict resolution, and make add delays in transportation and other basic services. We are de-evolving as country as we spend wildly on foreign wars and aid while reducing our own level of public support and investment.
Source: LA Times
What kind of psychopath would like to see the most populous state in the United States get destroyed?
An alien psychopath.
Dredd – you like to toss the same words around a lot. You need a new dictionary.
Yeah, let’s make sure we tax those who use solar power, and oh those poor birds and those bad wind turbines. In the meantime we burn fossil fuels and use nuclear power.
Annie – hear, hear. I could not agree more.
The nuclear power plant near Pendleton has been evacuated.
My daughter is stationed at Camp Pendleton, which is on fire as we speak. They were evacuated from Pendleton, now she and husband are waiting to see if they have to evacuate their home, which is near the fires. Global warming at its deadliest.
What happens in California doesn’t stay in California.
This will spread if the warmongers continue to babel in jingoistic doublespeak.
Meanwhile, the California drought is exacerbating the water table problem which is putting pressures on the San Andreas Fault.
If California slips into the ocean I personally will not be sad. I do hope Annie’s daughter and son-in-law stay safe though.
Nick, thank you for your response. Is it a culture change or a change in law that has created such a big civil law industry? Why were judges in the past able to toss out frivolous lawsuits and not so now? Are legal systems now obliged to take all cases? Who are the kinds of folks taking advantage of and benefiting from these services? I apologize if I’m asking for info that most people on this site are well aware of.
SchulerC, Too many are frivolous. The more attorneys churned out by law schools means more lawsuits. There was a time when frivolous lawsuits were tossed out by judges and the offending attorney reamed a new a-hole. Those days, are for the most part, gone. I am a PI who worked civil cases for over 30 years. My early years there were those common sense judges, now there are very few. Civil litigation is a big industry. The plaintiff attorneys are the sales force, and like most salespeople, work on commission. The defense attorneys are the support staff of this industry, they get paid by the hour.
Nick – if it makes you feel any better law school enrollments are down.
Nick, do you think the majority of civil cases are frivolous, brought on by folks with time and money, or are they legitimate? I always imagine it’s rich folks with time on their hands and money to spend that tie up our courts with frivolous civil matters. But I don’t work in the legal world or court system.
If it’s mostly rich folks using the system to their benefit, then I am extra against the raising of fees for things like photocopies of documents. The poor need access to justice even more than ever these days and after decades of stagnant wages, poorer Americans cannot afford any increases in this regard.
Nick S. In our local courts, approximately 55% of the courtrooms are dedicated to criminal matters, 18% to general civil, and 27% to family/juvenile dependency and delinquency.
SchulerC, Good point on the War on Drugs jamming our courts, but the worst offenders are civil cases.
Darren, Good point. I have seen the volume of cases grow exponentially in my county over 30 years. In that time they have added only 2 judges.
I remain mystified by the short-sightedness of our budget decisions.
Your mystification is the result of attempting to rationalize the actions of an irrational and criminal government run amok.
Coincidently, I was discussing this yesterday with a friend. In WA the number of Superior Court Judges is set by the legislature, which is very slow to respond to this. I think it is likely due to priorities of state senators & representatives being with their pet projects and those others having political advantage to address.
The shortage of superior court judges, is one of the large reasons for the terrible slowness of the system. More LEOs are added, but not judges and this is the bottleneck. The system is very vulnerable to falling apart for putting serious felons behind bars and them otherwise having to wait years or months for their day in court.
For example, if everyone charged with a felony crime elected to exercise their right to a speedy trial and their right to a jury the system would crash and we would see the dropping of charges on nearly all of these cases. It is not unusual in the county I worked in to have ten felony cases ready for trial but only two courtrooms to hold them. So, for months the cases are bounced around until someone pleads out. Usually, it is not until 4:30 the day before trials are held that someone draws the lucky two straws to have their case heard. And, if one is a long trial, there is only one courtroom available for sometimes weeks. If it wasn’t for plea bargains, the system would collapse.
I suppose the failed and humongous War on Drugs has contributed to the overload in our justice systems?
I don’t think any kind of austerity or “belt-tightening” measures help anything; in fact, I think they contribute to an overall contraction of our economy when what we really need is to expand spending and increase revenues. More money needs to flow through the hands of working- and middle-class Americans, not less. Less money will lead to even further constriction of spending and more suffering.
Increase spending here at home, and not abroad killing people and creating lots of new enemies (survivors of those we killed), thus perpetuating the military misadventures. I’m afraid the rest of the world will reject our military approaches, and the military gaze may end up being turned against us here in the U.S.
It’s all so wrong. And so expensive.
Great! Now we can right-size justice. Trial and decision time limits. Adjudication by In And Out Burger. No more convoluted tracts of incoherence; an economy of words. No more meta-jurisprudence and over-intellectualizing the difference between right and wrong. The sole criterion: maximally minimal budgeting with the mandate of reduction of tax and size of government. Perfection is unattainable and nobody gets out alive. Let’s have the Yugo version of justice, not the Cadillac – practical yet sensible!
The Founders established the national context in a paragraph. The Preamble says it all in a very few sentences – paraphrased, “Government is limited to security and infrastructure (omitting individual welfare) and private endeavors and businesses (blessings of liberty) are to be conducted in free and open markets without governmental interference,” and the Constitution precluded redistribution through private property rights.
How many reams was the O.J. trial?
Where’d we go wrong?
In California, the responsibility for funding the court was transferred from the Counties to the State by legislation in the late 90s. However, Counties were required to continue to contribute the amount they previously paid to the state to provide court facilities. Basically, it ensured that the County’s contribution would remain generally static (with increases for inflation), while the state absorbed future increases in the cost of running the courts. One of the reasons many of the courthouses were closed is that many of the buildings were old enough that there were real safety concerns. Their age also made them much more expensive to operate and secure. The idea was that some would be replaced, though the reduction in court construction funds has put many of those plans on hold.
I do think it simplistic to simply argue that federal, not state or county, funds go to the military, so court funding is not affected by a misuse of federal funds. Many essential state and local government responsibilities involve significant funding from the federal government. When funding from the federal government is reduced in any area, the entity has to determine how that loss in funding will be absorbed so the cut may indirectly have a significant impact on completely state or locally funded programs. In addition, many voters respond to these issues as if tax revenue was all one big pot. If they perceive that some of those funds are being misused or wasted, they are less willing to put money in the pot–even if the funds would be used by a different public entity.
California court system escaped Gov. Jerry Brown’s operational cuts, but:
Instead the governor proposed cutting $200 million from court construction projects. Also, because the court operations budget remained flat, the trial courts will be forced to move forward
with planned courtroom closures and other reductions in service.
It’s a thorny issue that’s confounded the judiciary for “15 years” – a formula to ensure equal access to the courts throughout the state.
State Bar Executive Director Joseph Dunn said state lawmakers first called for those metrics “15 years ago”, when it transferred funding of the judicial branch from the counties to the state.
But despite years of trying, no one has been able to devise metrics on which everyone can agree.
On Wall Street, that’s called being a savvy businessman. Everywhere else, it’s called a conflict of interest.
Wouldn’t this situation result in a spate of expensive lawsuits against the State for the denial of the right to a speedy trial set forth in the Sixth Amendment?
Kraaken, Wise words. However, as you know, govt. only changes when they are forced to change.