Justice System Failing From Too Much Austerity

http://www.economist.com/node/21530985

The gist of the article?

Underfunding of the US justice system is leading to its slow collapse. Since it is one of the three branches of government in the United States, this risks democracy itself. Austerity measures cannot keep cutting into the justice system without eventually bringing about its downfall and with that social chaos.

This is how you know one side of the spectrum does not know how to play the political game: you hear nothing like "the austerity measures are making your family less safe!" coming from those who supposedly oppose them in Washington.

Yeah, I'm sure that second one will go over real well. <.<

It will when the justice system collapses and you can't get anything civil done anymore. No marriages, no divorces...

Government going out to the public with hat in hand during times of economic hardship sends entirely the wrong signals. Government is meant to lead. If a third of our government isn't getting the funding it needs, they should be attacking the politicians that helped enforce austerity and the platforms that make austerity politically viable.

Seems to me if this trend continues, the U.S. government will become a paper tiger. With the jails filled up, police can't do their job, and with the judicial system bankrupt, it can't do its job, so...laws can't be enforced to any degree. YMMV on how good or bad this is.

<checks off another prescience mark on the already all-too prescient novel>

edited 4th Oct '11 8:30:20 AM by TotemicHero

and then the republican voters can finally experience the "perfect" world theyve been clamoring for?

Prediction - they'll argue for more liberal use of the death penalty, harsher conviction penalties and increased privatization of prisons. Because, you know, crime is running rampant, and it's like a war, and we have to WIN wars... like the War on Terror... and the War on Drugs....

Couldn't the courts do something like rule those austerity measures unconstitutional for trying to shut down a branch of government?

Okay, so I don't actually know if it''s unconstitutional, but it'd be nice to see some part of the government stand up to all the austerity.

Also, the democrats should make this a campaign issue.

@Totemic Hero: Considering all the laws stacked against the Regular Joe and all the senseless prohibitions, a collapse of the justice system might not be a bad thing.

edited 4th Oct '11 9:38:46 AM by SavageHeathen

^ You are crazy :P

A complete halt to civil law means a total stoppage of normal social functionality.

I'd disagree with that, as there have been cases like this in the past (especially if you look at Chinese history, where this crops up a lot).

However, given how our society is set up, I doubt it will be nearly as good.

Personally, I don't want anything to happen that could give the right an excuse to keep on calling government incompetent. Very self-fulfilling prophecy. I'd much rather the people who're being squeezed actually stood up for themselves, considering they're in positions of power (unlike the average American citizen) and capable of making momentous impact with their court decisions.

/ignores Savage and his libertarian trolling

Eh, this is old news. Although, yes, the Democrats have no concept of how the game is played.

So, what kind of decisions could the courts make to get money? Isn't their power just based on the ability to declare laws unconstitutional?

They could declare it unconstitutional not to properly fund the justice system? :P

Well, they might have to file their own case against the US government and rule that way until it gets kicked up all the way to the Supreme Court to yea or nay it in binding fashion (at least until the current SC members change chairs). Although there might be some rules against collusion in that fashion, I'm not a legal expert. But even without collusion it ought to be a viable strategy, provided there's any judges with the balls to go through filing a case in the first place that outright orders the government to keep paying them X amount of money given Y expenses.

"Equal protection under the law", "Right to a speedy and public trial"

It seems trivial to argue these are being violated if the justice system can't afford to give people trials.

The problem is that I doubt the judges can file on these themselves, because technically it's not their rights being violated.

Such a case would probably have to come from someone whose case is/was stuck in the court system.

Uncontested divorces take half a year in California? Out where I live you can get a divorce in a month.

In the best instance, this may compel courts to find creative ways to speed along cases and dispose of more meritless cases. Several states have court-mandated mediation in a lot of instances, so perhaps this will inspire more.

Also, if jails are getting too full, then judges will let more people out in probation or release them pending trial. If prosecutors don't get the money they need, then they will start prosecuting only the important cases and let the lesser crimes slide for lack of resources.

People should rely more on settling disputes before lawsuits, but often people are just fine with getting sued because they can drag cases out far longer than they otherwise should.

In my opinion, judges need to step up and take steps to move the process along faster. Order cases to mediation or hire independent arbiters to take the load off. Courts should only be used as a last resort, not a place to delay resolution of disputes.

The Frivolous Lawsuit dying would probably help the court systems a lot, I imagine...

Why does an uncontested divorce take any time at all?

One party makes a claim, the other party doesn't contest it. Hell, it's a rubber-stamp procedure!

Probably outdated laws they never took off the books.

As I understand it, there are tons of laws nobody enforces that are still there just because it costs more to take the law off than to just ignore it. Some of them may still be binding, however, and nobody in politics gives a shit because there are more (immediately) important things to deal with...

Nah, it has to do with the registration of marriages and such. Someone has to actually do the stuff but if you have no one to literally file the papers, then it can take up to six months even if uncontested. I also imagine that since California's justice system is taking on emergency loans in order to pay for salaries that they likely have zero money for upgrading paper systems into electronic ones, further lessening the efficiency.

You know what they'll probably end up doing instead of all the intelligent things people said? Privatise the justice system.

One of the results: Topeka, Kansas has considered not prosecuting misdemeanor crimes, including domestic assault.

Lovely.