Bartholomew County’s judges pleaded with the county council last week to beef up courtroom security, and thereby, courthouse security. There is no question the county can afford to do this, and we believe they ought to. As we have stated in this space before, the county council is hoarding a ridiculously rich $21 million surplus. You’d think they could at least spare a pittance to make sure the courthouse is safe.
But as usual, county council members are dragging their feet, finding reasons not to, or demanding cuts elsewhere to pay for it, if they decide it’s needed. This would be absurd if it wasn’t potentially tragic.
As The Republic’s Mark Webber reported, “Bartholomew Circuit Judge Kelly Benjamin, Superior Court 1 Judge James Worton and Superior Court 2 Judge Jon Rohde are requesting an armed security officer be present in each of their courtrooms at all times when court is in session.”
That seems reasonable. The annual cost would be something in the ballpark of $416,000, officials said.
If members of the council object to this, we invite them to explain why. If they don’t, then they should fund this request as soon as possible and stop the ludicrous charade of playing poor.
Judges presented their case: They all have faced threats or dangerous disruptions in court.
Just last week, a defendant fled court and had to be chased throughout the courthouse and subdued with repeated Taser jolts. Unpredictable, volatile, chaotic, sometimes violent incidents happen in court, and all too often, there is no law enforcement officer nearby to contain such situations.
We encourage every member of the county council to go observe court for a few days to see for themselves, and determine whether they think security is up to snuff. Because this isn’t just an issue for judges, it’s also a public safety issue.
No one going to the courthouse to pay a bill, apply for a marriage license or what have you should have to fear for their safety after they clear the metal detectors and the armed guards at the entrance. County council members ought to be judicious enough to understand this and act accordingly with our tax dollars.
All three judges last week told of litigants running amok, hiding in the courthouse, and in one case, a threat that a few months ago put the courthouse on lockdown for six hours.
Judges should not be in this position, but we also must point out something here. Why is the public only now hearing about these things — especially a courthouse lockdown for most of a business day? That was a matter of public safety. The public should have been alerted to a dangerous situation the moment the courthouse was placed on lockdown. A public announcement also would have mitigated risk, yet we learned about this after the fact.
Why was there no alert on the county’s much-ballyhooed Everbridge notification system or some other way? How can those responsible explain the judgment of not notifying the public of a public danger?
So yes, judges and the public need beefed-up courthouse security. But the public must be made aware in real time of active threats that lead to a lockdown of the courthouse. Because security measures only protect the public if they are used.
