A few days ago, I happened to tune in a television program that had as it's subject matter some details about a couple of recent cases where three individuals had brought concealed weapons into their local courtrooms and had shot several assorted wives, sister-in-laws, judges, and attorneys. The result of all this activity seemed to be a clamor on the part of attorneys and judges, especially those who deal primarily in divorce and other civil cases, for the installation of metal detectors, security guards, and other security measures in all local courthouses across the land. Apparently, the federal courts are already sealed off from the public with metal detectors, armed guards, and other security measures, and the boys on the local and county level must have felt slighted, and wanted to keep up with the big guys.

While not condoning the actions of the perpetrators in these incidents, I find myself in total disagreement with the response of those judges and attorneys. In the days of the Imperial Presidency, and with all the perquisites that our so-called public servants in every branch of government seem to be giving themselves, the last thing we need is more attempts to isolate these public servants from their great unwashed public. The courts are supposedly there to administer justice to, and even on occasion, for the people. When some individuals become so alienated from the system that they feel their only recourse is to go into the courtroom with guns blazing, perhaps we really ought to spend some time seriously evaluating whether there might be some real problems with the system rather than immediately jumping to the conclusion that fortification, metal detecting, and armor plating will solve the problem.

The present day court system, and most of those working within it, is really foreign to the average citizen to begin with. Very few understand it, and anyone with half a brain absolutely dreads becoming personally involved in any manner. It is probably safe to say that half of the people who get tied up with the court system lose the shirts off their backs as both a direct and indirect result, and this realization is at the heart of the matter. Whether this has always been the case, and whether there has been some needless and self-serving complication within the system that has produced this alienation are questions worth looking into from a historical point of view. However, I would suggest that those closest to the system would not be in any position to give a fair and impartial assessment of their own system. That suggestion is just an application of lessons pointed out in the fables about foxes around chicken houses. When lawyers and judges become scared enough to start demanding protection from us, but still feel their monetary rewards are sufficient to justify the risk of existing and working in such deplorable conditions, then that fact alone may be the best indication that something is terribly wrong with the system.

Maybe it would be possible to build and furnish judicial pillboxes with such a degree of luxury that the officers of the court and judges would eagerly stand and defend it from those they are supposedly serving to the last drop of their security guards' blood, but it probably would amount to a greater waste of the taxpayer's money in the final analysis. It may be cheaper to just replace judges and attorneys as casualties occur. Would it have to come to the point where lawyers and judges families would need to be housed in fortified enclaves, too? You bet it would! While it appears that tales of Robin Hood's adventures with the Sheriff of Notingham are figments of imagination, the appeal of those tales remains significant. If the courts need protection from the people, then the simplest analysis would indicate that the courts need change. The only alternative is that the people will have to start ignoring the courts, and that ultimately leads to a short period of total repression of the populace in order to justify the existence of the system.

Copyright 1994 R. E. Brossman