Protecting judges

Jeff Jarvis gets hysterical and i am forced to out myself as a bleeding heart civil libertarian.

Over at Buzzmachine he posts about "The danger of insanity" but rambles into the Atlanta courthouse shooting and Michael Jackson.

I don't disagree with the idea that we have been too ready to let mentally ill people live on the street, harass passers-by, and sometime commit crimes. But i do think he over-reacted here.

Look at today's tragic shooting of a judge in Atlanta. I doubt that this is about insanity; it's about raw criminality: A man on trial and facing forever in jail with nothing to lose is able to grab a gun because he was dressed in civilian clothes without handcuffs or shackles, they're saying on TV now -- so he wouldn't look guilty to a jury. Two good people are dead and others are injured when their safety should have come first; they needed to be protected from a dangerous and desperate man. The priorities are wrong.

Jarvis thinks the presumption of innocence is a minor matter to be tossed aside to protect the people in the court room. (Make sure you read the comments.)

I think there are better ways to maintain security without increasing the risk of wrongful conviction. Better training and supervision of the deputies and revised procedures for escorting prisoners can help prevent most of these cases (which are already rare). I think our objective should be to make courtrooms safer without sending innocent men to jail. (I don't think there is any question that shackling a defendant and putting him in an orange jump suit does make him look more "guilty" and dangerous and, hence, increases the chances of conviction.)

The funny thing is, this kind of "knee jerk" thinking (see the comments) is not just a left-wing position. Conservative judge David Sentelle (Clinton bete noir during the scandal years) made a similar plea for the presumption of innocence which i discussed here.

OTB's James Joyner will be discussing the recent attacks on judges this afternoon on MSNBC.