HOW SERIOUS are judges and law-enforcement leaders about reforming Baltimore's malfunctioning criminal-justice system?
Baltimoreans should find out today, when the newly resurrected criminal justice coordinating council convenes for the second time. That informal panel must commit to leading the turnaround of a dysfunctional court system whose inefficiencies and backlogs contribute to Baltimore's crime problems. Among the most pressing decisions that must agreed upon:
* Timetables for action.
* Coordination of often overlapping agencies.
To meet its considerable challenge, the council cannot continue as an amorphous body of 15 to 20 law-enforcement and criminal-justice agencies that dabbles in reform. It has to be shaped into a focused organization that develops and pursues an aggressive agenda.
That mission can best be achieved if the criminal justice coordinating council becomes independent of the court system and is fully accountable for its work.
Court of Appeals Chief Judge Robert M. Bell, who controls the council through his court administrator, George B. Riggin Jr., is against any such move. He proved that last week when he rejected an offer for staffing and funding from Del. Peter Franchot, the public safety subcommittee chairman.
The reason: Accepting money and staff would obligate the council to report progress to legislators. Mr. Bell, a believer in separation of powers, sees such a demand for accountability as a threat to his autonomy.
It seems self-evident that if the criminal justice coordinating council intends to press for meaningful, systemwide reforms in courts, law enforcement and jails, it has to be free to operate -- and step on toes, if necessary.
It also has to be fully accountable to the public, the media and politicians.
A pointed reminder of why coordination is needed came last week. For three weeks, state agencies had been scrambling to find additional court space downtown. Then came an astonishing announcement: The Circuit Court had found the needed space within its buildings.
In a Feb. 14 editorial, "Getting away with murder," The Sun detailed how organizational inefficiencies and jurisdictional jealousies have contributed to Baltimore's inability to curb the frightening numbers of homicides, which exceeded 300 for the ninth consecutive time last year.
Courts are backlogged; detention cells are packed. Trials have been postponed so long that judges have ordered murder and armed robbery cases dropped because delays violated the state's speedy-trial rules.
Meanwhile, a well-intended personnel rotation policy in the Police Department has deprived the homicide squad of seasoned detectives. To make matters worse, police and prosecutors are often at loggerheads over proper charging of suspects.
Amid this crisis, the judiciary chose to police itself by resurrecting the criminal justice coordinating council. A cooperative panel of the same name existed when William Donald Schaefer was mayor from 1971 to 1987. It directed the city's crime-fighting efforts but did not deal with courts. When Kurt L. Schmoke, a former prosecutor, became mayor, he allowed the council to wither away.
Unless the new council makes the right organizational decisions today, it may never attain its potential.
Baltimore's criminal justice crisis did not erupt overnight. But early warning signs were ignored. Even now, resistant leaders are propelled to act more by threatened budget sanctions in Annapolis than by the deplorable crisis itself. However, they know that in just a few weeks, when budget decisions are completed, political pressure is likely to lessen.
Baltimoreans rightly outraged by this inertia can make sure public pressure doesn't abate by conveying their anger to their elected officials. Unless the entire criminal justice system is overhauled, this crisis will be repeated.
Pub Date: 3/10/99