ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Monday, October 7, 1996 TAG: 9610070132
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-5 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: MARTIN E. KRAVARIK
JUDGES ARE very much in the news these days. Politicians and the public increasingly criticize individual rulings, to the point of calling for jurists' impeachment. And while many commentators defend the bench, what is lost in the dialogue is the ever-expanding role of judges in society.
More cases flow onto our dockets each year, and the cases are becoming more serious and complex.
But sufficient resources, both for the courts and for the agencies needed to implement the courts' directives, have not been allocated to get the job done.
As a judge for more than 25 years - in municipal, civil, criminal and family courts - I've had a bench-eye view of these enormous changes.
There was a time when our courts were relatively straightforward venues for dispute resolution. Now they are like hospitals whose mission is to cure all of society's ills.
It has become all too obvious that our other institutions - the family, the educational system, the church, our social and civil groups - have broken down and that the public expects the courts to pick up the pieces.
Judges don't just dispense justice anymore, they move people into drug treatment, social services, even job counseling.
This is partly the result of our creativity in dealing with the brave new world we find ourselves in. It often doesn't make sense to throw a petty thief in jail when the real problem is drug addiction.
The huge number of cases only complicates the situation. The National Center for State Courts reports that state courts handle 98 percent of all cases filed, and the number of new cases is growing four times faster than the population.
Between 1984 and 1994 our caseloads exploded: civil by 24 percent, criminal by 35 percent, juvenile by 59 percent and domestic relations by 65 percent. In 1994, the state criminal courts averaged 979 new filings per judge.
Part of the reason for these massive increases is that legislatures are asking the courts to deal with so many new problems. Now the courts deal with stalking laws, domestic-violence laws, even laws to disclose the whereabouts of ex-con child molesters.
Many of these statutes are essential. But enforcement resources are needed, too.
Judges are not enforcers. We exist in the middle between the legislative branch, which creates the laws, and the executive branch, which executes the courts' rulings.
A judge neither produces miracles nor solves all of society's problems.
What happens after a judge issues an order? In criminal cases, the executive branch must enforce it.
In civil cases, the parties must adhere to the court's decision. Every time a child gets dropped off, a judge can't be there to ensure that a visitation order is obeyed.
We need the resources to implement the order, to rehabilitate, repair or heal whatever it is a judge's order is attempting to address.
Even though the courts are called upon to do more, the financial commitment has not kept pace. The percentage of the states' budgets dedicated to courts decreased drastically in the early 1990s, according to a National Conference of State Legislatures report, and the fallout has been frighteningly apparent.
Courts around the country have had to cut down to the bare bones of their operations.
A survey of state court administrators revealed that courts have taken such drastic steps as not filling vacant judgeships, reducing scheduled court time, cutting staffs and eliminating court divisions.
Some states have even eliminated or curtailed civil jury trials.
At a time when the need is greater than ever, resources are not being committed to allow the courts and related services to keep pace.
For example, in my four years in family court, countless kids complained to me that they never saw their probation officers.
We need personnel to actually supervise probation - and not just over the phone (as is often done because the probation officer has more people to supervise than is humanly possible).
We should either do this or we should shut down the probation system and build another prison. But the jails are already filling up faster than we can build them, and parole boards feel pressure to release inmates to make room.
We have to decide if we are merely going to provide room and board for juvenile offenders or if we are going to address their underlying social and educational problems.
The courts are usually too far downstream to solve most of these problems. By the time most problem children get into the court system, they are in their teens and have already mugged someone.
But their parents or families may have already come to court facing abuse, neglect or drug charges - or for a divorce, custody or paternity hearing.
The courts have an opportunity to intervene at that time. But of course, this requires resources for more psychologists and social workers, and more options for judges in dealing with families in the courts.
Without sufficient resources, judges must rely on their own creativity and must hope for the best when they encounter a situation involving an abused, neglected or troubled young child.
Because when these cases do land in our courts, we must make enormously difficult decisions in a very short period of time.
And we sometimes make mistakes. We're human.
But as society increasingly criticizes us for those mistakes, it fails to recognize that more often than not - in fact, thousands of times a day across the country - judges make the right decisions.
Judges are educated, trained and experienced human beings who can do only what is humanly possible. We cannot make up for all the failures of society, just some. And we cannot make up for a failure of resources.
Quite simply, we're doing the best we can. But our hands are often tied by lack of funds, both for the courts and for the programs that are supposed to monitor our decisions after the parties leave the courthouse.
This situation must be remedied.
Until it is, judges will work as hard as we can to deal with these difficult issues, fairly and impartially, with the resources that are available, and with the hope that we can achieve some good both for the individuals who appear before us and for their communities.
Martin E. Kravarik is president of the 3,000-member American Judges Association, which is based in Williamsburg, Va., and has been a Superior Court judge in New Jersey's Middlesex County since 1982.
- Knight-Ridder/Tribune
LENGTH: Long : 118 lines ILLUSTRATION: GRAPHIC: Catherine Kanner/LATimesby CNB