.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Thursday, February 28, 2008

 
ATHLETES WITH ILLEGITIMATE KIDS

We do not mean to pick on anyone. But, this appears to be the height of irresponsibility. Something is terribly wrong with our society when these are the folks whom we emulate.

Labels: ,


Saturday, February 16, 2008

 
SOUTH CAROLINA SHOULD FOLLOW GEORGIA'S LEAD

As we noted last week, according to The Valdosda Daily Times, "The Georgia Senate recently approved an amendment to Senate Bill 360, which will increase the daily reimbursement counties receive from the state for housing state prisoners, an increase local law enforcement feels is very much needed." Read the entire Valdosta Daily Times article at Senate raises fees to house inmates.

If counties in South Carolina are having financial difficulties with their jails, maybe they should follow Georgia's lead and request increased funding from the State rather than accessing illegal fees against detainees. Or maybe they should figure out a way to decrease the prison population. Remember, not all of those who are incarcerated are convicts.

Thursday, February 14, 2008

 
RELIGION BECOMING MORE OF A CUSTODY ISSUE

The New York Times reports:

Across the country, child-custody disputes in which religion is the flash point are increasing, part of a broader rise in custody conflicts over the last 30 years, lawyers, judges and mediators say.

“There has definitely been an increase in conflict over religious issues,” said Ronald William Nelson, a Kansas family lawyer who is chairman of the custodycommittee of the American Bar Association's family law section.“Part of that is there has been an increase of conflicts between parents across the board, and with parents looking for reasons to justify their own actions.”
Read the entire article at Religion Joins Custody Cases, to Judges’ Unease.

Labels:


Sunday, February 10, 2008

 
LEGISLATURE NEEDS TO DEAL WITH FAMILY COURT BACKLOG

The following article appeared in SC Statehouse Report and can be downloaded at Legislature needs to deal with family court backlog:

FEB. 8, 2008 - - South Carolina lawmakers need to listen Wednesday when SC Supreme Court Chief Justice Jean Toal asks again for three extra family court judges.

Why? Because investing in justice will reduce backlogs and get cases through the system more quickly. In turn, more than 100,000 parents (voters) and children will be able to get on with their lives.

"It galls me to see the Legislature obsessing about the smokescreen issue of immigration reform as they shirk their responsibility to help state government provide services that their badly citizens need," said one man involved in a case in family court.

"They want us to love them for cutting property taxes. Mine have been reduced, but any savings I've realized have been offset by being forced, because of the court delays, to continue to provide support for my estranged wife. "

More than 30,000 cases currently are pending in the family court system. Last summer when three seasoned family court judges died, the state's large backlog of cases got even worse. Fortunately, the legislature provided some help over the past week by filling those vacancies, but Toal said more needed to be done.

Having three new additional family court judges would be "a huge impact for a very small investment," said the chief justice, who delivers a State of the Judiciary speech at the Statehouse Wednesday. The state could spend less than $2 million to fund three new family court positions, three new circuit court positions and staffs to support them, said Toal, who has been asking for more judges for the last three years.

But there's also more that lawmakers could do to improve the family court system. They could enact a proposed family court reform that has been stalled in the House since 2006. That year, the state Senate passed a measure to encourage the family court system to use mediation between parties before going to a judge and to allow family courts to use voluntary hearing officers to deal with administrative matters with which judges currently are saddled.

"We're [essentially] running a collection program for DSS and it sucks up a day out of every week of a family court judge," Toal said. Voluntary hearing officers could take some of the administrative pressure off judges in support matters that often are prescribed by the Department of Social Services.

House Judiciary Chairman Jim Harrison, R-Columbia, didn't return calls about why the House continues to hold up family court reform. He and other leaders should resurrect the bill and push reform through to help thousands of South Carolina families.

Labels:


 
GEORGIA SENATE RAISES FEES TO HOUSE STATE INMATES

The Valdosta Daily Times reports in Senate raises fees to house inmates:

The Georgia Senate recently approved an amendment to Senate Bill 360, which will increase the daily reimbursement counties receive from the state for housing state prisoners, an increase local law enforcement feels is very much needed.

According to the Georgia Department of Corrections, counties currently receive approximately $20 per day for each state prisoner they house in a county jail longer than 15 days, though the minimum subsidy is only $7.50. SB360, which is sponsored by Sen. Johnny Grant, will raise the reimbursement to $30 for each day local governments house inmates awaiting transfer to a state prison.

Lowndes County Sheriff Ashley Paulk and Lowndes County Sheriff Capt. J. D. Yeager claim that Georgia sheriffs have desired an increase in housing fees for years.

“It costs approximately $45 per day to house a state prisoner,” Yeager said. “On average, Lowndes County receives $22 a day. I feel that if the state will not decrease the amount of time it takes to transfer state inmates to prison, then we need to receive more money for housing them. By passing SB360, the burden of housing prison inmates is spread across all taxpayers and not just limited to the taxpayers in Lowndes County.”

Lanier County Sheriff Nick Norton also expressed support for the bill.

“It’s a good thing and the people supporting it are to be commended,” said Norton, who transfers inmates from Lanier County to the Lowndes County Jail.

Because of lack of prison space, sentenced prisoners accumulate in jails as they await transfers to state facilities. As a result, jails become overcrowded, which is a growing issue in Lowndes County.

“The Lowndes County Jail is built to house 635 people, yet we currently have 750 inmates,” Yeager said. “About 35 to 40 of the inmates are state-sentenced prisoners and we normally house them for 30 to 60 days before they enter the state system.”

Berrien County Sheriff Anthony Heath said that while the Berrien County Jail only has 67 inmates this month, the 72-bed facility was so overcrowded with prisoners last month, some jail inmates had to be sent to other jails.“We’ve been under-compensated for a long time,” Heath said. “It costs $60,000 monthly to run the jail before one even considers room, board and medical expenses for the inmates.”

With an increasing need for more funds, local law enforcement hopes that the bill, which now has to be approved by the House before making its way to Gov. Sonny Perdue’s desk, is passed.
We wonder what it really costs to house a prisoner on a per diem basis and whether these jails are running at a deficit or whether these sheriffs are receiving funds from other sources for which they do not account. We also suspect that these Sheriffs are benefiting in some measure by the inmate overcrowding or that they would have sought to end the financial bleeding by finding ways to reduce the prison population.

Labels:


Wednesday, February 06, 2008

 
CIVIL CONTEMPT EXPUNGEMENT ORDER

As the South Carolina Legislature grapples with the issue of creating a Uniform procedure for expunging Criminal Arrest records, it may want to consider the case of Dennis Fassuliotis. Mr. Fassuliotis was held in Contempt in Family Court and incarcerated until paying a disputed amount along with "Court Costs." Thereafter, the Trial Court's ruling was reversed on Appeal and the Family Court was directed to return the "Court Costs." Unfortunately, the Supreme Court's Ruling left Mr. Fassuliotis' finger prints. mug shots, and arrest records in "the system." And despite his continued requests that the Family Court rectify its error, he could obtain no relief. So what did Mr. Fassuliotis do? Why he drafted his own Order and submitted it to the Court. Although his ex-wife's attorney resisted his efforts to clear his name, eventually common sense prevailed and the Honorable Charlie Segars-Andrews executed an Order.

The body of the Order executed in Case No. 2000-DR-10-1085 is as follows:

Findings of Fact:

1. By Order of this Court dated September 18, 2002, Defendant was found to be in Willful Civil Contempt of a prior Order of this Court and sentenced to confinement in the County Jail for a period not to exceed One (1) year. He was allowed to purge himself of Contempt and to obtain his release upon payment of expenses related to the proceeding of Two Hundred & 00/100 ($200) Dollars and payment of Seven Hundred Eight Eighty Seven & 50/100 (787.50) Dollars to apply against arrearages;

2. That as a result of the issuance of the Order of Contempt, Defendant was immediately handcuffed and placed into a holding cell, and transported to the Charleston County Jail where he was fingerprinted, photographed, and confined for a period of approximately four (4) Hours until he was finally allowed to make a telephone call and obtain sufficient funds to purge himself;

3. That by Order of the Supreme Court dated May 18, 2005, the Trial Judge’s Ruling was reversed and the Charleston County Clerk of Court Family Court was ordered to return the $200 court cost to Defendant.

4. That Defendant is entitled to have his arrest records destroyed.

5. That this Court does not have the authority to cause transcripts of records or court files to be redacted.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED:

1. This Court has jurisdiction of the parties hereto and the subject matter hereof;

2. All arrest records relating to Defendant’s civil contempt charge of September 18, 2002 shall be immediately destroyed;

3. The Clerk of Court for Charleston County shall cause a certified copy of this Order to be served upon the Charleston County Jail, the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division and any other agencies that have copies of Defendant’s arrest records including, but not related to fingerprints and “mug shots.”

Labels:


Monday, February 04, 2008

 
POLITICS CREEPING INTO ELECTION OF JUDGES IN SOUTH CAROLINA

Over the last week a number of South Carolina newspapers, including The Post and Courier published the following Op-ed piece by Lanneau Wm. Lambert Jr., President of the South Carolina Bar:

The South Carolina General Assembly is about to hold judicial elections for a number of seats on our state courts. South Carolina has a system of legislative, merit-based elections in which legislators choose judges from a pool of up to three candidates deemed the best qualified for judicial office by the Judicial Merit Selection Commission.

The judiciary plays a vital role in the preservation of our freedoms and the protection of our rights as citizens. Our nation and state were founded on the principle of three separate but equal branches of government performing distinctly different functions.

The South Carolina Bar places the utmost importance upon a fair and impartial judicial election process, one in which partisan politics does not play a role. South Carolina's current system avoids the harsh politics found in other states, and the system ultimately allows the citizens of our state to appear before judges who are without bias. Other judicial selection methods, such as public elections, risk the erosion of public trust in the justice system due to campaign fundraising, inferences from pledging on issues during the campaign and negative campaigning among candidates.

In particular, these selection methods are susceptible to special interest groups who improperly inject themselves and their agendas into the election of those who need to serve on the courtroom bench impartially.

The Bar is disturbed by the creeping emergence of attempted external pressures and influences on South Carolina's judicial selection process. In order to dispense justice under the rule of law, the judicial branch must be independent of outside influences of any kind. It is crucial to the integrity of our state's justice system that judicial elections remain based on the candidates' qualifications alone and not subject to the coercion of special interests.

The introduction of political ideology into our state's justice system threatens the historical separation of powers and rule of law. Every judicial selection method contains an element of politics. However, South Carolina's system has historically been the least affected by partisan politics.

Let us preserve our nonpartisan and impartial courts. Anything less works against the best interests of South Carolinians.

The Bar is confident that members of the public on their day in court want to appear before unbiased judges elected because of their qualifications to serve that office, not because of their allegiances to special interest groups or campaign contributors.

South Carolinians have a fundamental right to have a fair and impartial judge hear and decide their disputes. Surely, this is a principle on which we can all agree.

Lanneau Wm. Lambert Jr.
President South Carolina Bar

We believe that, in principle, the Legislature should select judges because that is the best way to avoid partisan politics. However, the recent judicial selection process in which Anita Floyd and Linda Lombard were both determined to be unqualified by the South Carolina Bar gives us some concerns about the "non-partisan" nature of the process. Ms. Lombard has served as a Magistrate for over ten years, so one has to ask how it is that her temperament suddenly became an impediment to her ability to serve on the Bench. Ms. Floyd was determined by the South Carolina Bar to be highly qualified just over a year ago and now she is suddenly unqualified. This kind of flip-flopping causes the Bar's decisions to be suspect. Or, to put it another way, the flip-flopping is strong evidence that politics has already crept into the election of judges in South Carolina.

Labels:


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?