GOVERNMENT WASTE OCCURS REGULARLY IN OUR JUDICIAL SYSTEM

Too often when we think of waste we immediately think of our giant
federal bureaucracy and blame either the President/administration or
the Congress which, of course, is a body of some 500 lawmakers, all
with different ideas and priorities. Much of the waste is also
generated by mid-level administrators who have authority to make
certain expenditures.

Or, we may think of state or local waste in these categories.

While we do not have figures on the amount, one only has to visit
courts at any level to realize that much of the nation's waste of
money is squandered in our courts at all levels.

We realize that judges - especially those that periodically face
reelection - do not want to antagonize their fellow lawyers or the
people who appear in their courts. However, they need to exercise
their authority to hold attorneys in contempt of court when they fail
to appear on time and fine the delinquent attorneys.

Just remember that when an attorney makes a late appearance before a
judge, the persons on the other side of the case are paying attorney
fees, based on the hours involved, even though they are sitting and
waiting. In addition, there are often witnesses as well as plaintiffs
or defendants away from their jobs while they are waiting for a late
attorney to get to the previously scheduled court appearance.

We would suggest that if the late attorneys were held in contempt of
court by the judge and assessed a fine in line with the cost of the
time lost by people kept waiting and their added attorney fees, our
courts would move along a lot faster and more efficiently. The late
for ``good reason'' excuse has long been over used. It is an
attorney's responsibility to adjust his or her schedule so they can be
on time for court appearances.

We are no longer in the horse and buggy days and our courts need to
move into at least the latter part of the 20th century just concluded.

We also think that Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy may be
right in his address to the annual meeting of the American Bar
Association Saturday.

He said that prison terms are too long and that he favors scrapping
the practice of setting mandatory minimum sentences for some federal
crimes.

``Our resources are misspent, our punishments too severe, our
sentences too long,'' he said.

``I can accept neither the necessity nor the wisdom of federal
mandatory minimum sentences. In too many cases, mandatory minimum
sentences are unwise or unjust,'' he added.

And that comes from a moderate conservative placed on the court by
former President Ronald Reagan.

And we would add that in a few instances the sentences are also too
light or too short.

It is our humble opinion that the only reason we ever got into this
mandatory sentence business is that we got some judges who for various
reasons were not making sound judgments when they handed down
sentences. It was a way to force them to not turn criminals loose the
day they were sentenced.

We realize the most judges have many friends among the attorneys that
appear in their court but the best favor they can do for their friends
or enemies, attorneys, defendants or plaintiffs, is to assure them
they will receive a fair and just trial based on a continuing equal
interpretation of the law.

We greatly reduce the need for judges when we decline to mandatory
sentencing. Not many situations around a crime are exactly the same.
Each case should be decided on its merits. It also demands that we
have judges at all levels with sound judgment who can ignore
friendships and acquaintances and hand down sound verdicts in keeping
with the case.

So, the next time we start thinking about waste we should not leave
out the judiciary branch of government which is well funded by the
legislative branch. It also has some authority in legally requiring
additional funds from the administrative and legislative branches of
government.