After the tragic murder of Judge Lefkow's family, and the recent Atlanta shootings, the topic of the day will be: How do we protect our judges? Regular readers know I love judges, so their safety matters significantly to me.
Protecing judges is a complex and emotional issue. Many will demand that we adopt costly proposals, perhaps turning courtrooms into bunkers. Yet every dollar allocated towards courtroom security will be a dollar not allocated to other programs. Should costly security measure subordinate medial research or protection from terrorists.
And I don't think that handcuffing criminal defendants is a suitable answer. Such proposals would face obvious constitutional problems. But as a matter of policy, do we want to further prejudice defendants by handcuffing them? It's hard enough instilling in a jury the presumption of innocence without chaining litigants. A chained defendant, like a chained animal, is not someone but something. And we put things in cages, even if its only crime was making us afraid.
What should we do? My proposal is simple -- Arm judges.
Judges are officers of the court, and almost all undergo a strict background check. Those obtaining a lifetime federal appointment will have their life histories vetted by the FBI. Those running for office will be scrutinized by their opposition. So in arming judges we are not giving firearms out willy-nilly.
Moreover, we already trust judges with the gravest concerns. Literally every day judges answer constitutional questions that will affect the life and liberty of millions. Holding that suspected terrorists be must be provide due process might mean that our enemies will remain among us. Requiring police officers to read defendants Miranda rights might prevent law enforcement from stopping crime sprees. We trust our judges.
Judges also sentence people to prison, and sometimes, to death. Given that we already trust judges with matters of life and death, why not trust with firearms?
Implementation would be simple and relatively inexpensive. Every judge would be issued a sidearm suitable to his or her size and disposition. Special instructors would provide judges with mandatory firearms training, similar to a CLE. We have ample state and federal police officers willing and able to provide this training. Given that even the highest-quality firearms and inexpensive, and that we already have firearms instructors on the government payroll, it's obvious that the costs of protecting our judges - and thus our courtrooms - are small.
Some will argue that judges are among the most vocal opponents of gun rights. Thus, they would resist this proposal. Fair enough. Judges should not be required to possess a firearm. But we should not deny other judges the right to self-protection. The most effective - and most cost-effective - proposal to keep judges safe is to empower judges to protect themselves.
