Courts seem to ignore the voters’ will
The following is a counterpoint
Your recent article concerning what appeared to be an exceptionally small bail requirement for a defendant in a pending Guilford County murder trial (“Lower bond angers some kin of victim,” June 22) raises several related and relevant issues.
Since the judge in the case could not be reached for comment, we can only speculate as to the validity of his reasoning in arriving at the amount required. It may be quite valid, and he certainly is under no legal obligation to explain it. However, I do feel that a much bigger issue here is being overlooked.
Our court system, one that is legally obligated to function in a timely manner, is under an extremely heavy burden, and I have no doubt that without substitute and fill-in judges that burden would be significantly increased. I understand that the pool of retired judges willing to sacrifice the great amount of time required to serve in such positions may not be adequate to offset the caseload, and that others may be needed to augment their numbers.
At the same time, I have great difficulty in accepting the fact that a judge such as the one mentioned in the article, who was voted out of office in the last election, should be allowed to continue to serve and pass judgment in direct contradiction to the will of the voters of this county. I have no personal complaint against Tom Foster, but at the same time, I do admit feeling that the electoral process set up for choosing judges has been blatantly ignored by our legal system. Our State Constitution mandates that these be elected positions, and although there are provisions allowed for fill-in appointments, to appoint someone back into a position he was just voted out of is an insult to the citizens of this state.
Andi Sells
Greensboro
Comments (5)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
"to appoint someone back into a position he was just voted out of is an insult to the citizens of this state."
Details please. Link to an article?
Posted on July 6, 2006 9:48 AM
Andi,
If you've got your facts straight, I agree with you.
Posted on July 6, 2006 12:01 PM
I can't remember the exact date of the article but the writer does indeed have his facts straight about this specific incident. While his point is well taken, I used to work in district court and must say that were it not for retirees and visiting judges, the judicial process on some days simply would not exist. Yes, there must be a better way...wish I knew what it was.
HOWEVER, I must also point out that Judge Foster's questionable (?) decision about this particular accused's bond pales in comparison to some of the decisions handed down by judges who continue to be elected term after term despite numerous questionable decisions. If your constituency is strong enough, for whatever reason, I guess some things are easy to overlook as long as they don't directly effect you. Our system, it ain't perfect, but it works more often than not. Thank God for petty mercies...
Posted on July 6, 2006 9:36 PM
I am in total agreement with JEC as to the larger problem in our courts system. What it all boils down to is a lack of voter awareness and responsibility. That was my purpose in writing my original comments, to help heighten that awareness in the public mind. As previously stated I have no grudge against Tom Foster, I simply see his immediate reappointment as symtomatic of the underlying problems that have become endemic in the system. (Andi Sells)
Posted on July 7, 2006 8:49 AM
Okay, so I can't spell symptomatic before I finish my morning coffee, does that invalidate my opinion?
Posted on July 7, 2006 8:54 AM