 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 
|
|
 |
||||||||||||||||
|
Bar News - May 23, 2003 Opinions - Increasing Fines Doesn't 'Fill Court Coffers' Editor’s Note: The following letter was sent to the Union Leader, but was not published in its entirety. It is published with the author’s permission. Your April 23rd editorial, "Hike Fines for Deterrents" relies on a mistaken premise to launch yet another criticism at the judicial branch of this state. You wrote, "(b)ut for the courts to use these (fine) hikes as a fundraiser, the way a school holds a bake sale, is a disturbing conflict of interest. Fines exist to mete out justice, not to fill court coffers." What you either do not understand, or fail to mention in your editorial, is that all fines collected by the courts are deposited not in the court’s budget, but in the State’s General Fund. There can be no argument that fines are a very important part of this and other state criminal sentencing structures. However, to suggest that budget writers and others do not calculate the anticipated revenue to the state when such increases are considered is naive, at best. The governor met with court officials, as he has with representatives of the other two branches of government, and urged creativity in addressing the state’s fiscal problems. The Supreme Court responded by reviewing its original budget request line by line and reducing that request significantly. At the same time, the branch reviewed the revenue side of its work, as have the other two branches of government. What we found was that most "scheduled fines," that is to say fines set by statute or joint legislative-court action, had not been reviewed in some instances for more than a decade. Since most of these fines are imposed by the state’s 37 district courts, a committee of 12 district court judges from around the state was formed and asked to review the fine structure. Those judges immediately raised the same concern as you raised in your editorial about the need not to raise fines for purposes of turning the courts into "profit centers." The judges also urged the importance of staying focused on the primary sentencing purposes of fines. Judges are in a unique position to see firsthand the impact fines have on the behavior of those who appear before them and the ease or difficulty people have in paying these fines. They are also uniquely qualified to see which areas of the law tend to be the most violated and then direct sentencing attention to those violations. The judges formed their opinions but next turned to representatives of the law enforcement community, another group of uniquely qualified individuals in this area. We received extremely helpful input from the Police Chiefs Association and the New Hampshire Police Standards and Training Council, and we revised many of our original suggestions as a result. The schedule was then given to legislative budget writers for their review and suggestions and will be given to others as well — the criminal defense bar, for example. In the final analysis, any changes will have to be approved by the Supreme Court and the Fiscal Committee of the Legislature. As with most things in life, there are advantages and disadvantages to raising fines. The judicial branch is attempting to exercise restraint and common sense in its collaborative effort to review this issue. Will an increase create revenue to New Hampshire in a time of fiscal need? Yes. Is it the sole or even primary reason for considering this option? No. It is an important function of the press to be vigilant of state government and to raise criticisms of governmental action where it is deemed appropriate. However, it is an equal obligation of the press to investigate its facts before printing them. You did not do so in the case of this editorial. Isn’t it about time that knee-jerk criticism to any action taken by the judicial branch be ended? Hundreds of your fellow citizens labor every day in our courts at all levels to bring justice to the people of this state and do so professionally and effectively. Your readers deserve more than a cheap, uninformed shot at a branch you consider an easy target. Edwin W. Kelly
|
|
Home | About the Bar | For Members | For the Public | Legal Links | Publications | Online Store New Hampshire Bar Association |
