I’m surprised that someone hasn’t started a thread on this subject. Recently the husband and mother were murdered in Chicago and Georgia Superior Judge Rowland Barnes was killed in his Atlanta court room Friday morning.

Just the Atlanta question raises several questions for debate. We could debate whether Brian Nichols should receive the death penalty. We could ask what made someone snap and allegedly murder four people. If others want to start such threads, that can be a different matter.



I have provided a quote from Chris Matthews and a link to Friday night’s Hardball for background.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7183232/

An Article from the Fort Worth Star Telegram revealed the following:



http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/11119482.htm

July 1, 1992

Fort Worth



Here’s a link to courthouse shootings, including the one above from 13 years ago in Fort Worth.

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/spec...20?OpenDocument

The questions I’d like to debate, and I would like to limit debate to them, are as follows:

1. Are our judges, court officers, jurors and witnesses safe? If so, how safe?

2. If they are not safe, what needs to be done to protect these people?

3. Given budget restraints, would you be willing to invest more tax dollars in judicial security?

1. Are our judges, court officers, jurors and witnesses safe? If so, how safe?

No one can ever be completely safe. A more approriate question is whether all reasonable precautions are being taken to keep them safe. I think that, in most cases, they are. In the case of Judge Lefkow in Chicago, officials knew the suspect was a threat, but apparently didn't keep a close enough watch on him after learning that he wrote threatening letters to state and federal officials. And, in the Atlanta case, security was obviously derelict -- you can't put a small, 51-year-old woman on a large male with a propensity for violence and expect her to handle the situation. In either case, I think a little more common sense would have helped.

2. If they are not safe, what needs to be done to protect these people?
More competence. I know, I know... easier said than done.

3. Given budget restraints, would you be willing to invest more tax dollars in judicial security?

I would. But I would not be willing to increase taxes to do it. Instead, I would drastically reduce or eliminate entitlement programs and divert the funds to law enforcement and security matters. But, that's another debate for another thread.

QUOTE

From all accounts coming out of Atlanta, and from other sites around Georgia, the Fulton County Courthouse is secure.
CNN Report on Security at Fulton County Courthouse
Unfortunately, the safety of the Judges and Jury in a courtroom must be a bit lax due to the "rights" of a defendant.

An excerpt from the CNN Report.....


There is also the fact that most criminal defendants wear street clothes, instead of the jail jumpsuits, when facing a jury, also stated in the CNN Report. So, in a quite unusual situation like last week in Atlanta, once Nichols escaped, he had a huge advantage in the manhunt by being somewhat incognito.

So, to answer the question of whether or not the courtroom is a safe place, the answer is probably yes, but could be much safer. We do not take the most basic measures, in the fact that most criminal defendants are not handcuffed or in jail jumpsuits.

This, of course, says nothing about the protection of the people in the courtroom from any outsiders that could possibly carry a weapon into the courtroom. I have read nothing in regard to metal detectors for anyone that could have entered the courtroom in Atlanta. This situation could have easily began by someone else entering the courtroom with a gun. Larger counties, such as Fulton, could probably afford metal detectors, just one safety measure, but many small, rural counties easily may not be able to afford them.

QUOTE

2. If they are not safe, what needs to be done to protect these people?

What I have stated above might imply that I feel that all criminal defendants should be handcuffed and in jumpsuits, but I really don't feel that way. I do, however, feel that judges should be give the authority to demand that the defendants be placed, at least, in handcuffs, but I am sure that gets into a Constitutional debate with much precedent that I have not researched. This is a friendly debate, though, and I am only stating my opinion.

It is easy at this point, too, to say that Nichols should have been shackled on transport to the courtroom, and then possibly unshackled before the jury entered the courtroom, but hindsight is always 20/20. We could learn from the instance, though.

That said, there are probably measures that we could take, especially with visitors to the courtroom, to protect the members of the court and other visitors, such as the metal detectors and routine pat-downs upon entrance to the court.

QUOTE

3. Given budget restraints, would you be willing to invest more tax dollars in judicial security?

As I stated above, this will be an especially difficult situation for many smaller, rural courtrooms, but also for many larger courts across the country. I do believe, though, that we should invest more money in judicial security, because I believe that the problem will worsen in the very near future.

1. Are our judges, court officers, jurors and witnesses safe? If so, how safe?

I tend to agree with cwadley that no one can be guaranteed absolute "safety". Granted, those in the law profession may be slightly more at risk than others, but I also agree that, in most cases, reasonable precautions are taken. Let's bear in mind that, in Chicago, the family members of the judge were killed in her home. Are we to have around the clock law enforcement officers watching the homes of every judge and lawyer in the country? What else would have prevented that slaying?

I suspect this question is only arising because there were two cases in close proximity. Had there been two shootings at emergency rooms, we might now be asking "Are our hospitals safe?" Or, as we were asking a few years ago, "Are our schools safe?" And let's not forget that, in the Atlanta case, the first victim was a bailiff - a law enforcement officer. To me, this question is like asking "Are our police stations safe? Do they maybe need more, um... police?"

2. If they are not safe, what needs to be done to protect these people?

As has been suggested, due diligence and the reasonable precautions already in place should be enough to keep them as safe as they generally tend to be. By and large, our coutrooms tend to far safer than, say, your average convenience store.

3. Given budget restraints, would you be willing to invest more tax dollars in judicial security?

No.

1. Not when a motivated and unrestrained former linebacker realizes that the only thing standing between himself and freedom is someones grandmother.

I am curious to know how many armed public safety officers and court officials were in the court room. I do not feel that I have the right to be critical of the courts action because I was not there. It is easy but unfair to spend days picking apart an event that lasted seconds.

I think we can however, be critical of policies and events leading up to the incident.

2. It is my opinion that complacency contributed to this event. Please throw affirmative action and political correctness out the window when hiring public safety officials. Hire people who are most qualified and suited for the job. If I were facing a lengthy sentence and were bent on escape, I might change my tune when I saw that the person assigned to guard me was young, large, and physically fit.

The decision not to keep the prisoner shackled after he showed intent to commit a violent act in the court room seems to violate common sense. This is in reference to the shanks found in Nichol's shoes. Juror's already know that a defendant is in custody. Give them some credit. I do not think that a defendant in restraints looks more guilty than one without restraints.

I will also go out on a limb and say that the deputy assigned to be in close proximity to the defendant should be armed with less-lethal weapons and not a firearm.

3. Is a tax hike necessary? Maybe so but perhaps funds could be rebudgeted to provide assigned security personnel to judges and prosecutors. On the other hand, are they really entitled to any more protection at taxpayer expense than the rest of us?

The disaster in Atlanta is attributable, in large measure, to America's fascination and infatuation with guns. Right after it happened, interviews with participants in the the system seemed to indicate they thought guns and armed guards played an important part in the security process. I think that's been proven wrong. The shooter took a gun from a guard and used it to kill three persons. A better idea, would be to keep violent offenders under complete control so that they can't get the means to do more damage. Keep them shackled and caged if necessary.

1. Are our judges, court officers, jurors and witnesses safe? If so, how safe?

We cannot keep everyone completely safe. That being said, I think these incidents demonstrate that we give defendants a bit too much of the benefit of the doubt.

Since Nichols was not proven guilty of a violent crime (this time...) he was entitled to appear to the jury as an innocent, non-violent person. He obviously abused this benefit, to the detriment of those involved in the tragedy.

2. If they are not safe, what needs to be done to protect these people?
Reasonable precautions need to be taken. I think fitting people a bit better to their job requirements might help, although maybe not. Should a smallish middle aged woman be a bailiff in a court that regularly sees violent offenders passing through? It may not be politically correct to say that this woman was not able to perform her duties, but the fact remains that she was not fit.

3. Given budget restraints, would you be willing to invest more tax dollars in judicial security?
I think the proper measures are achievable right now with the funds we are using. Court bailiffs should probably have tasers and stun guns rather than firearms. Giving felons easy access (in the Atlanta case, much too easy) to guns is simply a violation of common sense. Most federal court rooms (maybe all) have metal detectors already. The resources are there, we just need to be smart in how we use them.