Before the United States Supreme Court this year is a case involving a
Vermont man who sat in jail (without bail) for three years through six
public defenders without being tried for assault. The Vermont court
threw out his case saying his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial
had been violated.
Now this case is before the U.S. Supreme Court, which will decide
whether delays caused by public defenders can deprive a criminal
defendant of the right to a timely trial. It begs the issue of whether
governments can be held accountable for such delays since it is
government that provides public defenders.
It's a pennywise and pound foolish way to attempt to save money. Public
defenders will do no less work for their clients -- they will just do
it later in the year than originally scheduled.
Court buildings won't be shut down on "furlough days," so they won't be
achieving savings in heat, electricity, phones, plowing, etc.
Judges are salaried. Court clerks are union employees. Where is the
huge savings in this proposal? Nonunion members of the judiciary who
make more than $60,000 a year will work five days less.
How many of those employees are there? What's the back-end cost of
delaying them from doing their jobs five days a year? Their jobs and
the tasks they must perform don't disappear. They are just prolonged
and delayed.
Where is the logic in this?
{loadnavigation}
