Court budget.

On May 1, Sen. Victor Crist, R-Tampa, chair of the Senate Civil and Criminal Justice Appropriations Committee, stated that budget cuts to Florida's state court system are "no reason for them to have to shut any doors, deny any services, furlough any employees, and certainly not any reason for any criminals to go scot-free."

Florida's judicial system is falling apart. The state attorneys are underfunded. The public defenders are underfunded. The court system is underfunded. Yet Sen. Crist beleives that somehow we can still have enough people to provide all of the services the public requires. Services that are often required because the Legislature continues to pander to special interest groups on the never ending quest of "there ought to be a law."

When legislators raise court system user fees and then redirect the money away from the courts in order to avoid raising taxes, they were guilty of dishonesty to the public. They did this with the reasonably foreseeable knowledge that criminals would "go scot-free" due to their own failure. The public is not stupid, and we are seriously questioning the wisdom of our elected leaders.

We know what will happen, and when it does, legislative members will then spend all of their special interest money campaigning against the courts for letting criminals go free.

Stephen G. Cobb

Pensacola

I've been following this bit about the court budget being cut and how the sky is apparently falling, and it occurred to me that only in government can they not figure out how to run a court system on $44 million.

I think it's interesting that elected officials are doing the most complaining about it, and as far as I can tell not one elected official in the whole state is being personally affected by the budget cuts. Just another example of certain government officials taking care of themselves and making sure their ox isn't being gored.

Then I had some ideas that might generate little extra cash on this side of the law. You know the law about criminals who lose jury trials or pleas having to pay court costs?

Let's make a law that says that if the state attorney takes a case to trial and the jury comes back with a big fat "not guilty" verdict in less than an hour, the state attorney has to pay court costs and attorneys' fees out of their budget. Make 'em a little more careful about what they charge and how they tie up the court system.

How about this one: Let's make that bunch up in Tallahassee that pretends to represent us quit making everything a felony. The only reason things like driving a car with a suspended driver's license and animal cruelty you can get a partial birth abortion--that's perfectly legal; but, darn it, don't beat your dog repeatedly or we'll send you to prison) are felonies is because some politician decided to be "tough on crime."

Here's another one: Why don't we make people who use the court system, but who don't speak English, pay for the services of the court interpreter? It's not like we don't make indigent defendants (most of whom aren't really indigent anyway--see how fast they come up with the money when they're going to jail on a purgeable writ of bodily attachment for failure to pay child support) pay for the public defender lien. If non-English speakers utilize court services that others who actually go to the effort of learning the language don't require, they should have to pay the costs associated with those services. And don't give me that whiny liberal excuse about how it's their right to understand the proceedings. There's no such thing as rights without attendant obligations.

By the way, kudos to the Supreme Court for making sure that kids be required to talk to an attorney before entering a plea. Like Emil Faber rightly said, "Knowledge is good."

Ernie Mullins

Kissimmee