Following attacks, federal judges question safety

Date: 23/02/2005
Source: The Phoenix
Author: Fran Wilcox

An embittered plaintiff in a failed medical malpractice suit kills the husband and mother of an U.S. district judge. Less than a month later, a defendant on the way to his rape trial allegedly overpowers the deputy guarding him and takes her gun on a shooting rampage, killing three people and injuring one. In the aftermath, judges begin to wonder: Are we safe?

The recent murder of Judge Joan Lefkow's family members by Bart Ross in Chicago and the shooting spree of rape suspect Brian Nichols in an Atlanta courthouse have judges worried. They have called on Congress to increase staffing and funding for the U.S. Marshals Service, which protects the judges, according to a Chicago Tribune article ("After attacks, judges state case for smarter protection," March 15). The article said a panel of local, state and federal officials will be formed to consider courthouse security, transportation of prisoners and identification of threats.

Judges have proposed several recommendations to improve safety: federally-funded security outside the courtroom, limiting public access to judges' home addresses and phone numbers, having psychologists in courts to evaluate defendants for possible unstable or dangerous behavior, and not arming deputies.

Security for judges outside the courtroom could consist of either a home alarm system or bodyguards.

"I think a home security system, whether federally funded or not, is a must," director of campus safety Bernard Ward, Ph.D., said. Ward said, however, that federal funding for home security could get out of hand. "If you're going to give judges these things, where do you draw the line?" he said.

"Why don't judges just pay for [home security systems] themselves?" a first-year law student, who preferred to remain anonymous, said. "I would rather the money went to people who need food."

Providing bodyguards for judges would be cost-prohibitive, Loyola School of Law professor Jamie Carey said.

"I have been teaching in our summer law program in Rome for several years," Carey said. "I have had a couple of guest speakers participate, one of whom is a prosecutor involved in 'anti-terrorism' and mafia prosecutions. Each time we have met he has traveled in a convoy of two cars, with [three bodyguards]. At first it was exciting for me to experience this; gradually the cost of such protection - its probable psychological cost to my friend as well - dawned on me. The cost here of providing similar continuous protection appears to be exorbitant; certainly no state, with their beleaguered budgets, is likely to be able to provide this protection."

A more affordable solution could be to keep judges' home addresses and phone numbers off public documents.

"I think [limiting public access to judges' home addresses and phone numbers] is a great idea," the anonymous law student said. "That's way better than the stupid security system."

Loyola School of Law professor Allen Shoenberger said it would be difficult to implement this strategy. According to an article in the Chicago Sun-Times, Ross used a global positioning device to find Lefkow's home ("Lefkow killer used GPS to find her home," March 16). Authorities are investigating how he obtained the address.

"Limiting public access to home addresses and phone numbers of judges [is a] good idea in theory, but in practice there is so much data available on the Internet," Shoenberger said. "I doubt if it would succeed against a really determined stalker."

Carey expressed another reservation about this strategy.

"Preventing publication of a judge's address and the names of his family members might help, but it rubs against the grain of the judge's traditional role as someone among the people, not above them," Carey said.

Another suggestion has been to have criminologists or psychologists in courts to evaluate defendants for possible violent or unstable behavior, according to an Associated Press article ("Killing of judge's family highlights lack of security for bench," March 20). Campus safety's Lieutenant Dennis McGuire said this idea is impractical due to time constraints.

"The judge can assign a court psychologist if they think one is needed," McGuire said. "But as far as evaluating each defendant? Each evaluation could take weeks or possibly months and would most likely be cost prohibitive."

A suggestion prompted by the Atlanta case has given rise to two theories of opposing mindsets: more guns versus fewer guns. Illinois senator Larry Bomke (R-Springfield) has drafted a bill that would allow judges to carry concealed weapons, according to a Chicago Tribune article ("Tragedy triggers push to let judges pack guns," March 11). Meanwhile, Chicago mayor Richard Daley disagrees, arguing that arming judges will not fix the problem, according to Illinois news channel WQAD ("Daley says Lefkow killings show too many guns are on streets"). Daley called the attack part of a mindset that guns solve problems. Like-minded judges have proposed that deputies should not carry guns in order to avoid situations like the shooting in Atlanta.

"I think that's a good idea," first-year law student Malini Rao said. "Once you get inside the courtroom, don't let anyone have weapons."

McGuire said the problem in the Atlanta incident was not that the deputy was carrying a weapon, but that only one deputy, who was much smaller and older than Nichols, guarded him. McGuire said courtrooms in Chicago are extremely secure.

"Most courthouses have tremendous security systems," McGuire said. "You have to go through some very intense screening to get in. They've probably done as much as they can securing the courthouses."

Carey agreed courts are safe places.

"Security within court buildings is already strict; what is new in the light of the recent tragedies is the apparent need to protect judges outside of court," Carey said.

That may be true of courthouses in Chicago, but there are no federally mandated standards for safety measures in courthouses, according to an article in the Fredricksburg, Va. Free Lance-Star ("Securing the courts," March 20). The article said the decision of how to make a local court secure falls to the budget and judgment of local sheriffs and judges.

Shoenberger was less confident about safety, but felt courthouse safety was not the real issue.

"[Safety is] decent in some courtroom buildings, such as the federal courts downtown and in the Daley Center," Shoenberger said. "[It is] poor in some others around the state. More importantly, the Lefkow murders were at the judge's home, and little is done to deal with that issue."

Statistics support this view. Only three federal judges have been killed since 1949, all at their homes by people angry with previous decisions or worried about pending rulings, according to the Free Lance-Star article.

Although only three federal judges have been killed, the U.S. Marshals Service receives approximately 700 threats against judicial officials each year, the Free Lance-Star article said. When a threat is considered credible, judges can request bodyguards, an Associated Press article said ("Killing of judge's family highlights lack of security for bench," March 20). The difficulty, of course, lies in determining whether a threat is credible. Ross was labeled a serious safety threat in 1999, according to an article in the Chicago Tribune ("Lefkow killer tracked in '99," March 14). The article said investigators created a file on Ross, noting his "paranoia, anger with the government and judiciary and predilection for violence." Yet the threatening letters he sent to several public officials did not result in any added safeguards for Lefkow.

In the furor over the recent incidents, it is easy to forget just how rare they are. Judges' responsibilities put them at risk to some extent, to be sure, but most jobs involve some element of risk.

"You can't not do something because there's a risk," Ward said. "If no one took risky jobs, there would be no police officers or soldiers."

McGuire did not think the recent attacks would negatively influence any students who hope someday to be judges.

"These judges love their job," McGuire said. "It's a phenomenal job. For a student here who has a vision that he or she will be a judge, go for it."

Rao also doubted the incidents would affect students' view of judges.

"Personally, I know judges are threatened every day of their careers, but I also think that these two incidents, while tragic, were, not random exactly, but it was a freak coincidence that they came so close together," Rao said. "These incidents don't happen very often."

This article may be reproduced as long as the source Footprint Home Security is provided as a link.

Back to Free Expert Advice

Back to Footprint Home Security