Two recent columns in the Register brought to our attention the costs of our legal system. Both were aimed at Sandusky Municipal Court.
The first, written by a local columnist, pointed out the dissatisfaction of local police departments with the failure of the current municipal judge to levy and collect fines from persons violating the law.
The second was written by a local defense attorney whose political leanings were readily apparent in the article. He was defending the court and stating how well the court costs are spent.
As a taxpayer and resident of the city of Sandusky, I would like to have a judge who fairly and impartially hears the cases but afterwards makes the person who violated the law or who wronged someone else, pay for more of the costs of the enforcement of the law. We all know there are much greater costs than the operation of the court in upholding the law. Why shouldn't the person who breaks the law or uses the system pay a greater part of the costs of the legal system?
No one gets fined or pays court costs until after they have been convicted. However, all of us, as law abiding citizens, pay when lenient sentences are given out. The jail costs, and costs of the police departments are not covered by court costs. The cost of the legal departments are not covered by court costs. But more importantly the failure of the person who broke the law or injured someone else, to learn a lesson that crime does not pay, exacts a very heavy burden on everyone.