Wednesday, February 12, 2003
|
Wednesday, February 12, 2003 |
|
Bill aims to give Fayette 2 judges, its own circuit? By JOHN THOMPSON
Could Fayette soon have its own judicial circuit, despite a state judicial panel report last year recommending against such a move? Preliminary legislative work has begun that would create a two-judge superior court circuit comprising just Fayette County. Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-Sharpsburg) said he was approached by legislators from Pike and Upson counties who are concerned Fayette could control the entire judicial circuit. "We're studying the issue right now and have sent a letter to the Fayette County Commission to get their input," he said. Westmoreland said the county currently funds about 40 percent of the costs for the circuit, which is nearly $800,000. "We could have two judges and still save some money," he added. Last year, a judicial panel discounted the notion of Fayette having its own circuit because of cost concerns, particularly since, the panel said, there is no case backlog. But with other legislators now pushing the idea, Westmoreland wants to get a consensus from county officials before he officially introduces a bill into the hopper calling for a separate Fayette district. With the idea still in the trial balloon phase, all the details are still not clear how the election process for the potential judges would take place. Attorney John Mrosek, who carried Fayette County in an unsuccessful 2000 campaign bid to unseat current Superior Court Judge Johnnie L. Caldwell Jr., questioned the reasons for establishing a new circuit for Fayette County only. Currently as part of the Griffin Judicial Circuit which includes Pike, Spalding and Upson counties Fayette criminals traditionally get stronger sentences than issued to criminals in other south metro counties, Mrosek said. If the Fayette circuit was created, it could lead to sentences that aren't as strong, Mrosek added. "We'll become more and more like Atlanta and less like middle Georgia," Mrosek said. Mrosek also said that the change would cost the state $1 million a year with little benefit since there is no case backlog.
|
||