HD15 - Assessing the Need for Services for Virginia's General District Courts
Executive Summary: "Taxpayers want the courts to ensure that offenders either go to jail or pay off or work off their fines. The public also wants to see restitution made to crime victims. We need services and a more appropriate place than jail for public drunks. Yet these programs do not operate on their own; they need administrative supervision and follow-up. In most localities neither the judge nor the clerk's staff has the time to direct sentencing alternatives programs in addition to operating the court." The Honorable David G. Simpson Judge, 26th Judicial District "The situation is ludicrous. We can fine misdemeanants forever but until we have a way to enforce payment and follow-up on cases, the general district courts will be a revolving door." The Honorable J. Peyton Farmer Judge, 15th Judicial District "In practice, we have no middle ground between jail and 'letting an offender go' and both the misdemeanants and citizens who are the victims know it. I want to fashion something to hold the individual accountable, yet not wreck his life with jail or a criminal record, particularly for first offenders." The Honorable John A. Paul Judge, 26th Judicial District The views expressed by these three Virginia general district judges reflect precisely the problems which gave impetus to the passage of House Joint Resolution #26 by the 1984 General Assembly. The resolution directed the Committee on District Courts to assess the need and the costs for providing court services to the general district courts in order to administer sentencing alternative programs for misdemeanants. During calendar year 1983, a total of 2,099,806 cases were initiated in Virginia's general district courts. This caseload was composed of 1,152,699 traffic, 605,988 civil, and 341,119 criminal cases. Approximately 89 percent of the criminal cases involved misdemeanor charges. A misdemeanor is any charge which carries a penalty of no more than one year in jail, a fine of up to $1,000 or both. Unlike the circuit and juvenile and domestic relations district courts, there is at present no comprehensive statewide system for providing probation offices or court services units for Virginia's 134 general district courts. Efforts to establish these services and other types of sentencing alternatives programs for misdemeanants have been increasing in Virginia since the mid-1970's. At that time, the only services available to general district courts for handling cases involving criminal misdemeanants were those provided on an ad-hoc basis through the adult probation and parole offices of the Department of Corrections. The law has long permitted use of probation personnel for this purpose. However, as has been documented through numerous reports, these services were and are obtainable primarily when the circuit courts' felon caseloads are at a manageable size. In the late 1970's, "judicial frustration" with the traditional sentencing options of fining, jailing or suspending sentences for misdemeanants prompted several general district court judges to seek federal and/or local funding to establish sentencing alternatives programs. Their frustration stemmed from the fact that they believed the traditional options and accompanying lack of services were not effective in: 1. preventing the general district courts from becoming revolving doors for some offenders, such as drunks in public; 2. insuring that offenders who are able to pay restitution or costs and fines do so; and 3. requiring offenders who cannot pay restitution or costs and fines work off those debts through community service. Thus, local programs were developed in order to provide specialized services to certain misdemeanants (e.g., first offenders, public inebriates) and as a mechanism to increase payment of court costs and fines and restitution to crime victims. At the same time, such programs were being viewed by the legislature and criminal justice officials as a potential means to reduce crowding within the state's local jails. Since 1980, the General Assembly has enacted additional statutes authorizing the use of sentencing alternatives for misdemeanants. Public funds have been appropriated to support programs in a few localities including two court services units and three public inebriate centers. In addition, the participation of misdemeanants in Community Diversion Incentive Act programs was authorized in 1982. Contractual agreements for services with non-profit agencies in a few areas also are being supported with state appropriations. Thus, a limited system of court services for misdemeanants has evolved within the past ten years. Support for further expansion of these programs has been expressed by judges and other criminal justice officials as well as through various legislative studies and evaluations. However, concerns remain regarding a direction for the future development and funding of court services programs. These concerns are discussed in the Committee's report and are reflected in the conclusions and recommendations sections which follow. In submitting its report, the Committee wishes to express appreciation for the assistance rendered by the following individuals: The Honorable David G. Simpson, Judge, 26th Judicial District; Mr. C. Ray Mastracco, Assistant Director for Adult Community Corrections and Ms. Dee Malcan, Coordinator, Community Diversion Incentive Act Programs at the Department of Corrections; Mr. James E. Kouten, Division Director, State and Local Services; Mr. James T. Roberts, Chief of Corrections Services Section; and Mr. Daniel E. Catley, Criminal Justice Analyst of the Department of Criminal Justice Services; and Mr. Vincent M. Burgess, Transportation and Safety Administrator of the Division of Motor Vehicles. |
Menu
Published Documents
