Wednesday, February 10, 2010
"STOP PUNISHING TAXPAYERS FOR CRIMINALS' ACTIONS"
We think "Stop punishing taxpayers for criminals' actions" sums it up pretty well. Unfortunately, we doubt that the South Carolina Legislature will ever make the recommended changes to the State prison system. There appear to be too many Law and Order panderers in the General Assembly who fail to see the big picture for real reform to occur. They are focused more on getting re-elected than on solving problems. They do not appear to understand that they are spending the State into poverty by jailing people who do not belong in jail.
We think "Stop punishing taxpayers for criminals' actions" sums it up pretty well. Unfortunately, we doubt that the South Carolina Legislature will ever make the recommended changes to the State prison system. There appear to be too many Law and Order panderers in the General Assembly who fail to see the big picture for real reform to occur. They are focused more on getting re-elected than on solving problems. They do not appear to understand that they are spending the State into poverty by jailing people who do not belong in jail.
We would like to be more hopeful on this topic. However, rather than creative problem solving, we anticipate the enactment of more Law and Order Legislation "designed to take criminals off the streets" and "stop the moral decay in America."
We are about to give up--throw in the towel. So we are hereby suggesting some new legislation to prevent more killings and violence. As The New York Times revealed, recent events in the Philippines clearly establish the need to outlaw the deadly combination of Karaoke and Sinatra before the epidemic of violence spreads to the United States.
Labels: Jail Overcrowding, Judicial Reform, Silly Laws
Tuesday, February 09, 2010
SEVERAL CHARLESTON AREA JUDGES ELECTED TO NEW TERMS
According to "Several Charleston area judges were elected to new terms Wednesday by the Legislature," "Lawmakers re-elected 9th Circuit Family Court judges Judy L. McMahon of Charleston and Jack A. Landis of Moncks Corner, while 1st Circuit Judge Diane Goodstein and 1st Circuit Family Court judges William J. Wylie Jr. and Nancy McLin, all of Summerville, also won new six-year terms."
Previously, State Senate President Pro Tem Glenn McConnell, R-Charleston, had proposed delaying the elections because a lawsuit filed on behalf of Judge "Charlie" F. P. Andrews questioned the legality of the state's judicial screening process. However, "McConnell said legal research found there was 'minimal risk' in moving ahead with the elections."
Labels: Election of Judges, Judicial Reform
Thursday, January 21, 2010
SOUTH CAROLINA MAY MAKE SOME REASONABLE COST- SAVING PRISON REFORMS
Although Laura Hudson, Executive Director of the South Carolina Victim's Council objects, it appears that South Carolina may decide to follow the example of Michigan rather than follow the example of Florida.
According to "Legislative report to call for changes":
A legislative committee will release a report by Feb. 1 that will call for changes in the punishments for dozens of crimes and will suggest using more alternative sentences for non-violent criminals.
The state's overcrowded prisons are a driving force behind the report, which is the result of more than a year of study by the S.C. Sentencing Reform Commission.
"I wouldn't say it's the number one reason, but it's an issue," said Sen. Gerald Malloy, D-Darlington, the commission chairman. "In order to continue on the path we're headed, we're going to have to build more prisons, and we don't have the funds to do that."
The commission hopes its recommendations ensure public safety by sending high-risk, violent offenders to jail for longer terms, Malloy said. At the same time, the state will need to reduce the prison time for other crimes.
The commission also will recommend that the state beef up its Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services to better supervise criminals once they are released from prison.
The commission will present draft legislation based on the report, Malloy said. The challenge will be finding money in a strapped state budget to implement some of the recommendations.
"The real answer to this is to build a new prison," said Laura Hudson, S.C. Crime Victims Council executive director.
Now, if the counties can just figure out which of those who are behind on their child support payments really deserve to be incarcerated for willful contempt. If they do that, maybe they will not have to either continue to increase the size of county jails or build new jails. Or, they will at least be able to determine whether the tax payers are benefiting from the incarceration of "Deadbeats."
Labels: "Deadbeat Dads", Civil Contempt, Jail Overcrowding, Judicial Reform
Saturday, January 09, 2010
JUDICIAL REFORM EFFORTS IN NEW YORK ARE FAILING
According to Reform of New York’s Small-Town Courts Stalls, a "modest compromise bill" pending before the Legislature to revamp the state’s network of inferior courts is failing. The article goes on to say:
The most ambitious efforts in decades to reform New York State’s vast network of small-town courts — where sessions can be held in a garage, and where more than 1,450 judges who are not lawyers conduct trials —have stalled in Albany. Even a seemingly modest compromise, one that would allow a defendant to request that the judge be a lawyer, seems doomed, its sponsor says...After a series of articles in The New York Times in 2006 showed extensive failings in the courts — including town and village justices who mishandled money, made racist remarks, released friends without bail, denied some defendants lawyers and jailed some of them without trials — state court officials appointed that commission, which concluded by proposing the measure that Mr. O’Donnell later introduced (emphasis added).
Sadly, the problems revealed in New York sound all too familiar.
Labels: Institutional Mismanagement, Judicial Reform, Sixth Amendment
Monday, January 04, 2010
SPENDING OURSELVES INTO POVERTY BY JAILING PEOPLE WHO DON'T BELONG THERE
The New York Times article, "Prisons and Budgets" raises some interesting issues:
The last sentence reminds us of what we have been saying and bears repeating: "in the current hard economic times, strapped states are beginning to realize that they do not have the money to keep people in prison who do not need to be there." So the question is whether states want to be like Michigan with its innovative cost-saving approach or be like Florida with its budget-busting mandate that all prisoners serve a high percentage of their sentences.The United States, which has less than 5 percent of the world’s population, has about one-quarter of its prisoners. But the relentless rise in the nation’s prison population has suddenly slowed as many states discover that it is simply too expensive to over incarcerate.
Between 1987 and 2007 the prison population nearly tripled, from 585,000 to almost 1.6 million. Much of that increase occurred in states — many with falling crime rates — that had adopted overly harsh punishment policies, such as the “three strikes and you’re out” rule and drug laws requiring that nonviolent drug offenders be locked away.
These policies have been hugely costly. According to the Pew Center on the States, state spending from general funds on corrections increased from $10.6 billion in 1987 to more than $44 billion in 2007, a 127 percent increase in inflation-adjusted dollars. In the same period, adjusted spending on higher education increased only 21 percent.
In 2008, the explosion of the prison population ground to a near halt, according to data released last month by the Bureau of Justice Statistics. About 739,000 inmates were admitted to federal and state facilities, only about 3,500 more than were released.
One factor seems to be tight budgets as states decide to release nonviolent offenders early. This can not only save money. If done correctly, it can also be very sound social policy. Many nonviolent offenders can be dealt with more effectively and more cheaply through treatment and jobs programs.
Michigan, which has been hard hit by the recession, has done a particularly good job of releasing people who do not need to be in prison. As the American Civil Liberties Union’s National Prison Project details in a new report, Michigan reduced its prison population by about 8 percent between March 2007 and November 2009 by taking smart steps, notably doing more to get nonviolent drug offenders out, while helping in their transition to a productive, and crime-free, life.
Not every state has gotten the message. Florida, for example, has a state law mandating that all prisoners serve a high percentage of their sentence, which is both dubious corrections policy and terrible fiscal policy.
For many years, driving up prison populations has been an easy thing for elected officials to do, popular with voters and powerful corrections officer unions. The new incarceration figures suggest, however, that in the current hard economic times, strapped states are beginning to realize that they do not have the money to keep people in prison who do not need to be there.
Labels: Jail Overcrowding, Judicial Reform, Silly Laws
Friday, January 01, 2010
RE-EVALUATING THE JUDICIAL SELECTION PROCESS IN SOUTH CAROLINA
Barbara S. Williams writes in "Important constitutional issues are raised by judge's lawsuit," "It's taken more than a decade, but there's now a serious challenge to the legality of the 10-member Judicial Merit Selection Commission that decides who is qualified to serve as judges in this state." She goes on to write:
It's no secret that the Legislature passes numerous pieces of legislation that have major constitutional issues, even ignoring opinions from the attorney general's office. For the most part, the time and expense involved allows these laws to stand unchallenged, with the efforts of Greenville's citizen-watchdog, Edward Sloan, a major exception. This time, more than 10 years after the fact, it took a highly controversial decision to rouse members of the legal community to look critically at the composition of the commission (emphasis added).
We agree that there is a need for reform in South Carolina regarding the manner in which judges are selected. And we also agree that there are serious constitutional questions about the present process. What we are interested in knowing is why, if the present method is so obviously flawed, it was not challenged earlier by those who are challenging it now.
Labels: Election of Judges, Judicial Reform
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
OPEN SEASON ON JUDICIAL CANDIDATES IN SOUTH CAROLINA
As FITSNEWS predicted would happen, Judge Segars-Andrews has filed suit in the South Carolina Supreme Court. Moreover, for those who are interested, you can read the lawsuit and supporting material here.
As FITSNEWS predicted would happen, Judge Segars-Andrews has filed suit in the South Carolina Supreme Court. Moreover, for those who are interested, you can read the lawsuit and supporting material here.
It is interesting to note that The Post and Courier article reports "[The Judicial Merit Selection Commission's] 52-page decision also noted that the judge was sending instant messages and signed a Valentine's Day card while hearing arguments about her possible conflict of interest in the case. She replied that she was paying close attention and took detailed notes." This raises the question of whether she habitually multitasks while sitting on the Bench and whether she is often distracted.
People are not supposed to text while driving. And maybe texting while judging will prove to be Judge Segars-Andrews downfall. Still, whatever the outcome of this case, it is open season on judicial candidates of all stripes and persuasions in South Carolina. And only time will tell whether the Segars-Andrews case will stimulate needed reform and improve the pool of judicial candidates or whether it will only serve to discourage qualified candidates from offering for office.
Labels: Judicial Reform
BRAZILIAN COURT ORDERS RELEASE OF BOY TO U. S. FATHER
The Associated Press has reported that "Brazil's chief justice ruled in favor of a U.S. man who has waged a five-year legal battle for his son, ordering Brazilian relatives on Tuesday to turn over the 9-year-old boy."
According to the article, "Both the U.S. and Brazilian governments have said the matter clearly fell under the Hague Convention, which seeks to ensure that custody decisions are made by the courts in the country where a child originally lived — in this case, the United States."
Also according to The Associated Press, "A lawyer specializing in the Hague Convention said Tuesday's decision by Mendes was the only right one to make. 'It would be virtually impossible to reconcile international law with a ruling in favor of the Brazilian family,' said Greg Lewen of the Miami-based law firm Fowler White Burnett."
According to the article, "Both the U.S. and Brazilian governments have said the matter clearly fell under the Hague Convention, which seeks to ensure that custody decisions are made by the courts in the country where a child originally lived — in this case, the United States."
Also according to The Associated Press, "A lawyer specializing in the Hague Convention said Tuesday's decision by Mendes was the only right one to make. 'It would be virtually impossible to reconcile international law with a ruling in favor of the Brazilian family,' said Greg Lewen of the Miami-based law firm Fowler White Burnett."
One has to wonder why, when the case was so clear cut, it took so long to resolve. After all, "Justice Delayed is Justice Denied."
Still, Merry Christmas David and Sean Goldman!
Labels: Judicial Reform
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
TRANSCRIPTS AND EXHIBITS FROM HEARINGS FOR JUDGE SEGARS-ANDREWS
Click TRANSCRIPTS AND EXHIBITS FROM HEARINGS FOR JUDGE SEGARS-ANDREWS to access the applicable transcripts and exhibits. Click Judge Segars-Andrews Testimony in Public Hearing on November 4, 2009, Day 3 (December 18, 2009) (Word format) to access her public testimony.
Labels: Judicial Reform
Sunday, December 20, 2009
EDITORIAL IN THE STATE--"REJECTION OF JUDGE HIGHLIGHTS FLAWS IN SELECTION SYSTEM"
The editorial "Rejection of judge highlights flaws in selection system" was published in The State:
JUDGES HAVE AN astounding degree of power over the lives of people who come before them, so we expect them to demonstrate excellent judgment.
The Legislature's Judicial Merit Selection Commission has an astounding degree of control over the careers of those judges, and so we expect the commissioners to demonstrate excellent judgment.
Unfortunately, in voting to end the career of a well-respected judge for what it considered a terrible error in judgment on a single occasion, the screening commission committed a terrible error in judgment.
Family Court Judge Charlie Segars-Andrews should apply again for her job, the rest of the Legislature should let commission members know how wrong this decision was, and the panel should reverse itself. Meantime, the Legislature should get to work on a better system of electing judges.
Unlike the commission, we don't make this recommendation based on a single case, but rather on a growing list of concerns over its nominations and rejections and on systemic flaws in the way the process works. And unlike the panel's most vocal critics, we're not advocating a return to the no-holds-barred system of selecting judges, which saw rampant vote-trading that too often resulted in the best candidates refusing even to run and the least-qualified candidates winning.
Our system of justice, and by extension our entire government, depends on the ability of judges to make decisions based on the facts and the law and not on what's popular with the public or on what powerful politicians or special interests want; that means they need to be apolitical and independent. But too much independence can breed arrogance, corruption and tyranny; that means there needs to be some serious vetting of would-be judges, and it can be argued that there needs to be some sort of oversight - which of course can impinge on the necessary independence.
South Carolina's judicial selection system has always provided oversight, by requiring judges to seek re-election every six to 10 years. But independence has never been its hallmark, and in fact the courts have, through most of our history, acted as a handmaiden to the Legislature whose members appoint and either reappoint or reject judges, who traditionally came from among its own ranks. That system was reformed in 1997 when the Legislature barred itself from electing candidates not nominated by the new selection commission or reelecting judges not found qualified by the panel. But while that was an improvement, it contained a fundamental flaw: It continued to make a joke of the idea of checks and balances, by giving the Legislature absolute control - and the executive no control - over the third "co-equal" branch of government. That not only undermines checks and balances but also invites raw political calculation in a way that gubernatorial involvement would not.
The least bad system of judicial selection allows the governor to appoint or re-appoint judges, subject to legislative confirmation, from a list of candidates nominated by a truly independent selection commission, perhaps appointed by (but not including members of) the Legislature. This would give both of the political branches of government roughly equal say over the judiciary while giving the public a chance to hold someone (the governor) accountable if clearly unqualified judges are appointed or reappointed.
But if that's too close to actual checking and balancing for our Legislature to stomach, and if lawmakers are determined that they must select judges, then they at least need to let the governor select the nominating commission. In addition to the theoretical superiority of a balanced system, this has the practical advantage of giving voters someone to blame when a talented, respected judge is kicked off the bench because she made one call that the commission didn't agree with.
Labels: Judicial Reform
Saturday, December 19, 2009
SOUTH CAROLINA JUDICIAL MERIT SELECTION COMMISSION REPORT ON THE HONORABLE F. P. "CHARLIE" SEGARS-ANDREWS
Click here to access the Final South Carolina Judicial Merit Selection Report on Judge Segars-Andrews. We have read it in its entirety and still do not understand the basis of the Commission's ruling. It is obvious that Judge Segars-Andrews exhibited both (much regretted) poor judgment and an unnecessary disdain for Steven S. McKenzie, Esquire. However, the manner in which Judge Segars-Andrews conducted herself in the one case that the Commission cited in its ruling does not appear to be so egregious as to disqualify her from serving as a judge for all time and to effectively destroy her reputation. In our opinion, in reaching the conclusion that it reached based on the evidence before it, the Commission abrogated its responsibilities both to the general public and Judge Segars-Andrews and made a mockery of a system that is supposed to be designed to operate in an objective and impartial manner.
The long and the short of this case is that the publicly accessible evidence does not demonstrate that Judge Segars-Andrews is unqualified to serve as a Family-Court Judge, but only serves to demonstrate that she is human and, therefore, capable of exhibiting both lapses in judgment and errors in reasoning.
Labels: Election of Judges, Family Court Reform, Judicial Reform
Wednesday, December 09, 2009
FITSNEWS ON THE SEGARS-ANDREWS CONTROVERSY
Good judge who offended powerful people or corrupt judge who is getting what she deserves? Maybe the public will never know the whole truth. But, one thing is certain--the whole judge-selection process is a shambles and needs to be rethought.
Labels: Family Court Reform, Judicial Reform
Thursday, December 03, 2009
DID SOUTH CAROLINA JUDGE GET TREATED FAIRLY?
The Post and Courier has reported that Judge Segars-Andrews' "rating remains the same" and that she will not be eligible for re-election to the bench. This seems like a high price to pay for exercising a discretionary decision that, in hindsight, may have been a bad decision. After all, the lawyer who failed to report the conflict to Judge Segars-Andrews at the outset of the proceedings has apparently escaped unscathed.
Labels: Family Court Reform, Judicial Reform
Thursday, January 17, 2008
A DEFEAT FOR JUDICIAL REFORM IN NEW YORK
The United States Supreme Court, in a sort of lukewarm endorsement of the lowest common denominator kind of mentality, upheld the legality of New York's judicial selection process. The New York Times noted in A Defeat for Judicial Reform:
Four justices, in concurring opinions, cast doubt on the wisdom of New York’s method of choosing judges. Justices Anthony Kennedy and Stephen Breyer noted that if the rules “do not produce both the perception and the reality of a system committed to the highest ideals of the law, they ought to be changed and to be changed now.” Justices John Paul Stevens and David Souter quoted Thurgood Marshall: “The Constitution does not prohibit legislatures from enacting stupid laws.”
Somehow, we do not think this is what the Founding Fathers had in mind.
Labels: Election of Judges, Judicial Reform, Silly Laws
