A Fault In Our Courts

A Fault In Our Courts

One Danville citizen finally has said publicly and for print what a few have said “off the record,” some have stated privately and many have pondered silently.

The question goes something like this: Is it really worth trying to see justice done when the victim, himself, may expend far more time, effort, energy, the taxpayers’ money and inconvenience to other citizens . . . than the criminal— if captured and penalized—will ever suffer?

Here is an example: The owner-operator of a ^.small business is the victim of a nighttime burglar. The loss was not great, but a crime was committed. He notifies police and willingly stands by until the investigation is completed . . . inventory, fingerprints, business closed to regular customers. Suspects are detained. There are trips to . police headquarters—during which the business is either at a standstill or left in the hands of some last-ditch rep la cement. But the case is solved, the apparent criminal arrested . . . and the victim feels he has done his duty and can relax.

Oh NO! The ordeal has just started. The hearing in the “lower court” isn’t bad, once it’s held—only the loss of a half-day’s work. But by • then another half-day has probably already been consumed on the date for which the case was first set, when it had to be continued after the defendant announced he wanted an attorney.

Weeks pass and the victimized merchant is summoned to appear in the “upper court” only to discover this is not the date of the trial but the start of the term when grand jury indictments are being returned. A date is then set for the hearing and he returns to court where he sits and squirms all day, thinking surely his case will come next. If the preceding case is drawn out longer than anticipated, however, he may have to return the next day, and even a third day. And then finally, his case is called . . . and continued until a later term. And the ordeal may be repeated again . . . and again.

It was not surprising that tue victim of a recent break-in politely but firmly asked police to lay off the investigation. He had been through it many times before. Even when there had been convictions, he had lost more trying to see justice done than the criminal had stolen in the first place.

The victim often ended up feeling more guilt than the criminal. He recognized all the tax money spent by hard working police. He had some idea of the records that had been prepared and the time lost by jurors and court officials.

So, why bother? he asked. Please don’t investigate, he pleaded. There would be too much time wasted in the courts, he reasoned.

This example is not restricted to one smallbusiness operator. Ask around. IT IS TYPICAL.