OFF-TARGET CRITICISMS OF OUR COURT SYSTEM OFFER ONLY A DISSERVICE

In his guest commentary, "Asheville's drug culture has a crippling
effect on city and region," (AC-T, Feb. 2), Councilman Carl Mumpower
wrote that legislators have the obligation to "renew an impaired
judicial system" that has "become a mockery of justice" caused by the
lack of adequate funding.

In his two-column commentary in the Aug. 29 edition, and emphasized
again on Sept. 11, he continues: "Impaired with antiquated technology
and absurd manpower constraints, what can be called a system of
misjustice (sic) that a crack dealer must be caught and convicted
three or more times to get any meaningful jail time." This inmate of
the courthouse since 1971 offers a different view. Budget constraints
The North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts every year
submits our base or expansion budget requests for technology, manpower
and other needs to the General Assembly as does every other branch,
department and agency of state government. Legislators, required to
balance the budget, do the best they can over the objections of those
who contend we can run government on no or less money.

That process of state funding enabled us this year to replace the
computer hardware in the courthouse with newer versions, including
some Dell products. Admittedly, we don't have the latest
state-of-the-art software, but other users don't either.

And I'm advised that upgrades are in the works for installation soon.
Besides, what we have is not so "antiquated" that it has any relevance
to or interferes with the disposition of cases.

Our court's judgments can be printed, tendered to the judge, signed
immediately and recorded. The clerk of court and the district attorney
have been allotted additional employees this year. We once operated
the district attorney's office with three attorneys and two assistants.

District Attorney Ron Moore, with larger dockets and additional
obligations, now has more than 15. In 1975 we had about 56 Superior
Court judges statewide. We now have twice that number.

The courts could use more funds and "manpower" (and womanpower), but
so could every other recipient of state funds. Explosion of drug cases
In 1971 there were less than 10 drug cases pending in Superior Court,
all limited to heroin, LSD and marijuana.

Frequently, officers today may file that many crack cocaine cases at
the end of a shift. Mumpower says that "society as a whole looks the
other way ..." That is not my recollection of the past 37 years.

During my career the courts have processed hundreds of cases of drug
abuse, from Manteo to Murphy. And "society," through mental health
clinics and other drug treatment programs, has, on the contrary,
offered drug abusers help. Buncombe's elected Superior Court judges,
with Ron Payne presiding, have added a court dedicated to drug abuse
only that meets on some Fridays. Take a closer look Perhaps the
councilman could visit the fifth floor to see for himself whether or
not addicts "can easily dodge a broken court system." Regretfully and
sadly, we have too many offenders, including some that do not, or
physically cannot, take advantage of the help that is offered and
available. Those face revoked probation and activation of suspended
sentences. State law provides three categories of punishment:
community, intermediate and active prison time. Judges do not decide
what "meaningful jail time" is. The Structured Sentencing Act mandates
the term for each offender of each crime.

Respect for and obedience of our laws are the critical and
indispensable blocks in this nation's foundation. Opinions based on
accurate findings of the facts can be constructive criticism.

Feckless, irresponsible carping without supporting data is destructive
and affects both respect and obedience. I will let the readers decide
where Mumpower's comments fall.