Shownotes
In this episode of Frogmore Stew, host Grace Cowan talks with Will Folks of FitsNews about needed judicial selection reform in South Carolina. They discuss the power of lawyer legislators controlling the selection of judges they will appear before and the conflict of interest that presents. They get into the issues of public trust, crime rates, and the importance of comprehensive reform beyond the selection process.
00:00 Introduction to Frogmore Stew with Grace and Will Foulkes
00:39 Understanding the Judicial Merit Selection Commission
01:18 The Role of Lawyer Legislators in the Selection Process
01:39 Exploring the Unique Judicial Selection Process in South Carolina
02:04 The Debate on Executive Branch Involvement in Judicial Selection
02:18 The Process of Judicial Screening and Appointment
03:17 Proposals for Reconfiguring the Judicial Selection Panel
04:14 The Influence of Partisan Politics in Judicial Selection
04:27 The Impact of Outside Interests on Judicial Selection
07:44 The Problem of Perception in the Judicial Selection Process
09:04 The Role of the Judicial Selection Committee in Violent Crime Cases
14:36 The Need for Greater Representation of Women in the Judiciary
23:48 The Challenges and Potential Solutions for Judicial Reform
33:08 Closing Remarks and Future Discussions
33:34 Podcast Credits
Copyright 2024 Grace Cowan
Transcripts
Hi, it's Grace, and this is Frogmore Stew. Today, I'm back with Will Foulkes. He has spent a lot of time focused on South Carolina's justices. The judges that make up our justice system. He is particularly focused on the process with which our judges are chosen. Will, I'm so glad to have you back on Frogmore Stew.
Will Folks:Hey, great to be back. I appreciate you having me on again.
Grace:The hot topic right now, both in your paper and at our legislature, is the Judicial Merit Selection Commission, which is the committee that chooses judges, narrows it down to three, and then those three judges then go on to the legislature.
Will Folks:That is how it works.
Will Folks:It is intended to screen these candidates based on their merits and qualifications. Unfortunately, as we've seen in far too many cases for far too many years, it is a way of rigging these races before lawmakers vote on them.
Grace:How does that happen? Because the committee is made up of 10 legislators, both from the House and the Senate, and some are also what is called a lawyer legislator.
Grace:But those 10 people, how do they procure the original groups of justices? Like they go out and say, okay, we have these open seats, who wants to be a judge or how does it work on the front end?
Will Folks:And some context here for your audience, South Carolina is one of only two states. In the entire country where lawmakers pick the judges, Virginia is the other state that does it this way.
Will Folks:The vast majority of other states do it either through a mix of gubernatorial appointment or some states obviously elect their judges. And there's been some debate about that here in South Carolina, but I think most folks generally think that would not be the way to go. But there is a lot of appetite for having the executive branch get more involved in the process based on the idea that the governor would be accountable to everybody ostensibly.
Will Folks:And That would, according to some, be a better way of doing it, but you laid it out very well there. Grace, it is a situation where technically the process begins with vacancies on the judicial branch, judges retire, judges decide to step down. And so at that point, candidates can apply for the position and they go through this process called screening.
Will Folks:And that is where the Judicial Merit Selection Commission comes into play. And as you noted, it's 10 members. They're Are legislators and in fact a majority of them are lawyer legislators. In other words, attorneys who are practicing before the very judges that they end up appointing. So that perception right there is, has created a number of issues.
Will Folks:When these lawmakers then go back and appear in front of these judges, how do you think the judge is gonna rule?
Grace:And the people that are non legislators on that committee, who are they? Where do they come from?
Will Folks:One of them is actually a very good advocate for victims. Her name is Hope Blackney out of Spartanburg.
Will Folks:Unfortunately, she's peeling off of the panel because I think she feels like her voice hasn't really been heard. What's interesting is there are a few proposals to reconfigure this panel and one of them has been put forward. by a group of state senators, Senator Greg Hembree, a former solicitor out of Horry County, Senator Wes Clymer, a reformer out of Rock Hill, South Carolina.
Will Folks:They've put forward a bill that would change this panel so that lawyers in the General Assembly still get a voice. They're still able to have their leaders pick members of the panel, but the governor would get a pick. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court would get a pick. You would have the South Carolina Bar Association get involved and have a representative.
Will Folks:The solicitors would also get a pick on the panel. So it would spread around the accountability over the selection process a little bit. Now, is that the kind of reform that would really clean this process up? I don't know. Grace, I'll be honest. I care less about the structure and more about the outcomes.
Will Folks:And I think if we can tweak this structure to get better outcomes, that's what we need to be focused on. As opposed to the musical chairs of the political process.
Grace:Out of the 10 people on this selection committee. Only 2 are Democrats. Is that right? Ronnie Sabin, Todd Rutherford...
Will Folks:you're using partisan labels in a conventional sense.
Grace:When I look at this as a whole. We look at other states, you can see in every other state where judges are elected that outside interests get involved in placing judges into seats because money gets thrown at them in large amounts. I think there's even a John Grisham book about this. It is in the best interest of certain groups to have judges that have outcomes in a certain way.
Grace:You can look at this U. S. Supreme Court, an originalist or what's called a judicial activist, right? Whatever their mindset is, what the outcome is going to be. And so when you're picking the three judges on the front end and only two out of 10, so 20 percent is represented on one style of how you judge, I think that in itself lays out a not great.
Will Folks:I think if you look at the composition of this panel, you're right, two of the lawmakers on it are Democrats. Four of them are Republican. I think the other four members of the panel, I mentioned one of them, hope. Blackley just a moment ago. Yeah, I don't know what her partisan idea is. I think Pete Strong, actually one of my attorneys, is on this panel.
Will Folks:I think it's safe to say he would be a Democrat. He was appointed U. S. Attorney by a Democratic president. The other two, I'm not sure what their partisan affiliations are, but one of the things I would point out, Grace, a lot of folks that look to the issue of partisan balance, and again, I use these partisan labels very Buyer beware.
Will Folks:Okay. So when I say Republican, I don't want everyone to think that they're all cut from the same cloth because clearly they're not. But I think if you look at a general assembly where two thirds of the Senate and two thirds of the house are in name anyway, Republican elected officials, I don't have a problem with the committees representing the parties in that same sort of proportional manner. If Democrats want more seats on these panels, they should win more elections.
Grace:You should listen to my episode on gerrymandering. 45 percent of the 2022 House races were unopposed. I don't know that the makeup of the legislature, in my opinion, is equal to the actual makeup of the state. I feel like part of the problem with our state government is that in statewide elections, it doesn't show that it's two thirds Republican.
Grace:I think that brings me to the point on this judicial selection committee. It's Getting pushback because we've lost trust. I haven't spoken to anyone that wants the governor to appoint judges. So this is the best way. The problem is right now, there's such little trust from the Democratic side of the Republicans that are running the state that people get the cringe.
Will Folks:Again, though, if you go to the state house, most folks know this, but running the state, I would argue state representative Todd Rutherford, the minority leader in the house, a member of this judicial merit panel, one of the most influential lawyers in the entire state. And by the way, he came on our show not long ago.
Will Folks:You should have him on. He's a great guest. He articulates his belief in the current system very eloquently, but I would argue to everyone who says Republicans are running the show, I would. Caution against such an assumption because I think Rutherford may downplay his own influence, but those who follow this process closely know he is every bit as influential as any Republican on that panel or in the legislature for that matter.
Grace:Even if this panel works exactly the way it's supposed to, the appearance is also something that is problematic. You shouldn't have lawyer legislators who have what people say is a benefit because you can push your case out while you're actually. in session, if a court case is coming up, they can get an extension on it because they're working in the House or Senate, right?
Will Folks:Absolutely. They are immune from being called for at least half the year. And then if they have meetings, legislative meetings that fall outside of that legislative calendar, they can be excused for those as well. So yeah, you're right.
Grace:So that's one piece that's an advantage. And the second is that the ones that sit on this commission are actually choosing which three judges it boils down to.
Grace:They have outsized power when they go in front of a judge who may be up for reelection, that they have the ability to say, Nope, I'm going to get rid of that guy. And so then the judge loses their judgeship.
Will Folks:And we have seen it happen. There have been a number of high profile. Cases in recent years where judges have ticked off the wrong member of the legislature and they end up getting canned.
Will Folks:Uh, Christie Harrington down there in your neck of the woods was a very tough judge on violent criminals, but she rubbed a few lawmakers the wrong way and they took her out. They took her off of her, uh, circuit court seat down there in Charleston. And the sad thing, they ended up replacing her with an individual by the name of Bentley Price.
Will Folks:I'll give you an example of one of the reasons that I don't like Bentley Price's rulings from the bench. And it's the story of a guy named Casey Lee Combs. Just this past month, Casey Lee Combs broke into a house down there in Charleston, pistol whipped a man in the face, proceeded to go into the bedroom where his ex girlfriend was, stuck a gun to her head, repeatedly threatened to kill her.
Will Folks:Now you think about this, okay, maybe it's a one off, maybe this just happened this one time. No. This is a guy who just last year appeared in front of Bentley Price. Three different female victims stood up and described in detail the abuse that they sustained at his hands. Being choked, being punched, being kicked in the head on the ground.
Will Folks:This is a guy who had a lengthy rap sheet of violence against women in South Carolina and North Carolina. The victims, the prosecutors, law enforcement all argued for a lengthy jail term for Casey Lee Combs. But Bentley Price put him back out on the street. And again, this is just one of many examples where this judge has made decisions that were demonstrably deleterious to public safety down there in the low country because of political meddling by the legislature.
Grace:The lawyer that was on that case, was that a lawyer legislator?
Will Folks:Not on that case, but there were several examples of defendants that have come before him. And in fact, one case, Bentley Price actually initially ruled to deny bond to a particular violent defendant. But then a lawmaker, Leon Stavronakis, apparently stood up in the courtroom and said, are you sure you want to do that basically, or hey, can you, you need to take another look at this and then decided to grant the guy bond.
Will Folks:So, when these lawyer legislators, whether it's Leon Stavronakis, Todd Rutherford, Gil Gadge, these guys stand up in court, very easy for them to get the results that they want. And again, you talked earlier about being able to beg off from cases for half of the year because of their legislative schedule.
Will Folks:That's one benefit. It's also a huge benefit to be able to walk in and know the outcome before the case has even been heard, which I would argue is the essence of the problem we have here in South Carolina.
Grace:The piece that I guess I'm missing is that You can show certain examples. There's Bentley Price who has had multiple cases, as you said, where he's let people off on lighter sentences or let them off in a way that doesn't seem reasonable.
Grace:And there's one, I think in Orangeburg that you've covered quite a bit as well. The 19 year old guy that raped multiple women over a period of time was given house arrest and then went out and almost raped a bartender. Bowen Turner, correct out of Orangeburg. Yeah. There's so many other things wrong with both of those cases that it seems like by the time they get in front of a judge, it's almost like there are 30 other things we should be focusing on to eliminate them even being before the judge in the first place.
Will Folks:And that's a fair point. And I think in Bentley Price's case and a lot of those violent criminals who have come before him so many times in the past, it's almost like, okay, how many times do you need to see this particular offender to realize that they are a danger? to the community. And so I would argue in a lot of cases, the judges know these defendants already because they've been in their courts so many times before, but it isn't just one judge and it isn't just judges.
Will Folks:And you make a very good point. It is a systemic issue. You have certain circuits where prosecutors are not as aggressive in pushing for tougher sentences, but ultimately it is up to the judge. Once a defendant is in front of them. And particularly in the case I mentioned earlier about Casey Lee Combs, this repeat offender who has shown on numerous occasions that if you let him out, he is going to go back and do exactly what he has done time and time again.
Will Folks:And sure enough, he did. And I think when people show you who they are, you need to believe them. And I think these judges in far too many cases, it is repeat offenders coming in front of them. And to me, that becomes a lot less about. The systemic problem and a lot more about the judgment of those judges.
Will Folks:But you're right. Prosecutors need to do a better job of laying out the sentences they want. Uh, Scarlett Wilson, uh, the solicitor down there in the Ninth Circuit, to her credit, she did that in front of Bentley Price repeatedly. Uh, and in fact, Judge Price got very offended when she put out a press release after Casey Lee Combs was released in which she told the public, Hey, this is what I asked for. And he got very upset by that. What do you expect her to do?
Grace:How big of a problem is this?
Will Folks:The circuit court judges are the ones who set bond for the violent offenders. And I guess to answer your question, Grace, about how big a problem is it, I think we just need to look at South Carolina's violent crime stats.
Will Folks:If you look at our murder rates, if you look at our violent crime rate. Both of those have been skyrocketing in recent years, according to statistics from the state law enforcement division, uh, particularly crimes involving guns, which is why we've got a big push now for felon and possession restrictions.
Will Folks:And I want to point this out particularly to those who are, again, coming a little bit more from the left on the issue of gun violence. I come from, I guess, the far right on the issue of gun violence. I am very opposed to laws that restrict gun ownership. If you are a repeat violent offender and by virtue of that you have been denied the right to own a handgun or any kind of gun, I think that South Carolina needs to strengthen its laws for, again, holding you accountable and there are some new laws being pushed this year that would impose mandatory minimums on the gun laws.
Will Folks:felon and possession laws. So I think that would be a huge step forward and hopefully could empower some of these judges to lock some of these folks up who are again, serial violent offenders.
Grace:I looked up some of the statistics for South Carolina, 42. 3%. These are sled numbers of South Carolina women and 29 percent of South Carolina men experience.
Grace:Intimate partner physical violence or sexual violence and or stalking and 79 percent of South Carolina's domestic violence fatalities. The cause of death was a gunshot. The thing that I can't quite wrap my brain around this push about judges is. It feels to me like there's a massive cut on someone's arm, and by going after how the judges are appointed and what the judges are sentencing, we're saying we don't need to pay attention to the cut, we just need to change what type of bandage that person has on their arm.
Grace:There are all of these other things that I think are so much more important than two judges out of 60 something. that are making bad judgments.
Will Folks:It's a little, again, a little more than that. I don't want to interrupt you, Grace, but it is a little more than that. We can go around the horn if you'd like to the various different circuits where judges have either let folks out on lenient sentences, lenient bonds.
Will Folks:It is not just Bentley Bryce and it is not just the judge in that Bowen Turner case. It happens all over the state. And one of the things I do want to point out, you talk about the cut on the arm. I'm interested in what you think that is, because we're talking about these crime stats and I think it's very important.
Will Folks:You talked about the domestic partner increases. I've talked about the murder rate increases, but the one that we really need to look at is the weapons law violations. They were up by over 11 percent in the most recent year for which data was available, uh, 2022, but they are up 106. 2 percent over the last decade.
Will Folks:And again, 90 percent of those involve firearms, nearly three quarters of them involve handguns. Again, I'm not a guy who wants to impose gun laws on law abiding citizens, but if you are a repeat violent offender, there's absolutely no way you should be allowed to have access to a gun. And if you're caught with one, there should be mandatory minimums for holding you accountable.
Grace:I think that's a start. And I think that there are a couple of other places that we could look and one of them is how we're raising our men in South Carolina. We're one of the top states for abuse by men toward women. And I think that goes all the way up to the Supreme Court. I think that we are a state that doesn't value women's voices.
Grace:And I think there is no better example of the manipulation of putting judges in place than our Supreme Court. I think the abortion law, the six week ban, was ruled unconstitutional by our Supreme Court. The only female on the Supreme Court retired, and then they went out and found a man they could bring the case back in front of those five judges and get the outcome they wanted.
Grace:So that to me was judge shopping, and we now have a state Supreme Court, the only one in the country, by the way. that doesn't have any women on it. And it, it reminds me of that story of the woman was going up into space and the male engineers didn't know how many tampons she was going to need for a week.
Grace:So they gave her a thousand tampons, which is, it just speaks volumes about like why it's so important to have female voices. And I would argue the state is made up of 52 percent women. We have no Supreme Court justices on our state Supreme Court. I don't understand that.
Will Folks:Well, a couple of things. And first of all, I'm raising five men currently and two women, so I know a little bit about that.
Will Folks:And we got one more coming, so we'll see what that one is and try to raise it the right way as well. But as far as you, you mentioned that Supreme Court case, it was actually a 4 1 decision on the 2023 abortion law, which changed. Somewhat, again, from the 2021 law that was voted down three to two, but it was a four one decision.
Will Folks:So even if former justice, her and had been on the Supreme court, when that second law came through, it still would have lost by three to March. But I agree with you completely. There needs to be a woman on the Supreme court. I think Letitia Verdon. Ida Greenville is going to be the next justice on the court and I think she'll do an amazing job. By the way
Grace:I'm sorry to interrupt you, but the point is that even if it was four to one, the state is made up of more women than men. Why are there more men on this? It just doesn't make sense. That's the piece that I just can't get past. And by the way, when she was on it, they had made a judgment.
Will Folks:Cahern wrote the lead opinion on that, but it was overturned. And it passed.
Grace:Yeah. And then it was overturned.
Will Folks:But here's the key. Again, it was a different law. Lawmakers went back after the Supreme Court struck it down three to two and the court made some very good arguments. They argued that lawmakers had been arbitrary in assigning the timing for the cutoff for when abortion would be legal versus not legal.
Will Folks:They argued that was done arbitrarily, not based on any sort of scientific justification. And so they went back. And again, inserted specific definitions as to why they chose this particular time so that it wasn't deemed just an arbitrary imposition. So they did change some things in the language of the law to make it again, responsive to what the court said was unconstitutional.
Will Folks:And it was in particular justice John few that had raised objections to it. He was the swing vote the first time the new law addressed his concerns. And so he voted differently than he did the last time.
Grace:Which again, you said it basically was semantics, the arbitrary language of timing. And there are so many doctors in this state who gave very good testimony during all of that.
Grace:And one particular doctor that I've talked to who told me that During the, just in the committee process before it went through the state house, she had gone in and done like a backdoor meeting with some of the legislators. And as they were talking, she realized that they didn't know anything about women's bodies at all.
Grace:So she asked them if they knew when a woman started her period. And one said 19, one said 26, and another said after she's had sex. She walked out of that meeting dumbfounded. Uh, how any person that doesn't experience what women experience can make a judgment on what is best for women. And that's for another day.
Grace:I'm getting into the weeds here about abortion, but this goes back to my point earlier. When you have The appearance of five male judges making decisions about women's bodies, and particularly after it had already been ruled on, and then changing a few words coming back after the female has gone. So there's no woman that they're accountable to on this court. They can do whatever they want.
Will Folks:Well, look, I agree. The optics of it were not good. And I'm not someone who was particularly engaged in the debate, other than simply covering it based on the facts that were laid out. So it wasn't a debate that I was weighing in on as much as we have on the judicial reform debate.
Will Folks:But look, I agree with you. The optics were not good. However, I do think it's important to point out about women's voices. And I want to tell you something. When we covered that, we wrote a story on Fitz news where we covered nine different responses from nine different female legislators. I didn't interview a single male in the legislature.
Will Folks:I talked to conservative women who were in support of the Supreme Court ban, who actually thought it should have gone further. I spoke with middle of the road lawmakers who were fine with it, but felt that it could have been tweaked. And I talked to several liberal female lawmakers who were vehemently opposed to it.
Will Folks:And I felt that was a great thing for our outlet to do because I felt like it was important that the voices of female leaders were the ones that were not only prominently featured in that article, but exclusively featured in that article. But another thing about female voices that I want to bring up because you raised that issue and it's very important.
Will Folks:If you go to our media outlet, you will see interviews. on the issue of justice reform with folks who have been victimized by this system. One of them is Molly Vick down there in the low country. Uh, she came on our cameras and spoke about everything that she endured, not only at the hands of Casey Lee Combs, the violent criminal we've been talking about, but at Bentley Price's hands as well.
Will Folks:We also did a story on a murder up in Rock Hill, South Carolina, where a judge, you talked about just two judges. This was a judge up there in the South Carolina 13th Judicial Circuit who was placed in front of this case by Todd Rutherford. He specifically timed a hearing so that this judge would be in court that day.
Will Folks:And a former law enforcement officer who brutally murdered another law enforcement officer, according to police, was let go. And again, we featured, this story was told by his sister on our website. So I'm very proud of us featuring the female voices, particularly those who are victims of these violent crimes who have had enough of the system being rigged.
Will Folks:And by the way, the lawyer legislator who rigged that particular hearing was Todd Rutherford.
Grace:So what are the alternatives here? What does this look like? How does this get fixed?
Will Folks:I think the first thing you have to do is get rid of lawyer legislators who can then go in front of these same judges. I think we've got to get them completely out of the process.
Will Folks:That's the first thing. But, oh, go ahead.
Grace:Well, isn't that something that the, the ethics committee should investigate?
Will Folks:I would encourage you to file an ethics complaint against a judge in South Carolina and see what happens. You're going to find out real quick how that system works. I'll go ahead and say, and it ain't working on behalf of those who have been victimized by these rulings.
Will Folks:Go ahead. Uh, one thing I do want to say, Grace, and you, you've raised some good points here and I want to be sympathetic and sensitive to them. I feel for a lot of these judges because I don't know what I would do if I were in their place and this incredibly powerful politician comes into my courtroom.
Will Folks:I know that they control my position. They control my salary. They control the budget for my entire office. I'd like to think I'd be able to stand up and stand in the gap and do the right thing, but it is a tremendous amount of pressure. And so why put them in that position at all? Why have that sort of existing conflict hanging out there when we can just, again, take a couple simple steps and take lawyer legislators off of this panel and I believe just keep them from voting on these judges altogether.
Grace:And so who would you put on this commission?
Will Folks:If it were up to me, we wouldn't have this commission. I would have a three step process. You would have gubernatorial appointment. You would have lawmakers provide their advice and consent. And again, when I say lawmakers, I mean everybody who isn't an attorney going in front of these judges.
Will Folks:It would be lawmakers who aren't also attorneys. And then the last step of the process, I would have a bill that imposed a recall and a retention election. Basically, if a judge comes out with a decision that just flies in the face, like for example, say Dylann Roof. Say you had a state judge that lets Dylann Roof out on bond.
Will Folks:I think everyone would agree that would have been horrific, right? A recall election would have allowed the public to say, Hey, you know what? You're clearly not capable of exercising that position. We're going to recall you. But the retention election part of it would be to give the public a voice. So let's say after two years, four years, however long you want to make it.
Will Folks:Those judges stand for a simple up or down vote of the public, and if they get voted up, they stay. If they get voted down, then the process begins again with the governor and the lawmakers providing advice and consent.
Grace:So the lawyer legislators would argue that process is already in place because in the House they get elected every two years, in the Senate they get elected every four years.
Grace:If they're doing a poor job, they argue that their constituents would vote them out. And so that's already in place.
Will Folks:Well, it's in place for them. It's not in place for the judges who make these decisions. Does Todd Rutherford have credible opposition when he comes up?
Grace:Well, that was my next point is that 45 percent of those people don't have a competition.
Grace:So the other thing that I've heard from quite a few lawyers. is that the people on that committee need to be lawyers because lawyers are best at picking judges. And to your point, if they are then going in front of those judges, even if it's not improper, it still gives the appearance of being improper, right?
Grace:Whether or not the process works, I'm sure that can be argued over and over. Just. The appearance of it makes me cringe. It's sort of like the Clarence Thomas thing. Whether or not his RV and all of his trips have affected the outcome of his decisions, it's still the appearance that does not give the public confidence.
Grace:So I'm just not sure what the right next step is for how to address and change this problem. Off the top of my head, I would say put retired lawyers on that committee. Don't let it be anyone that's actually in the legislature. But then again, a lot of people don't trust the process. And that's because the process has been manipulated in every way.
Grace:Like every law that we have gets manipulated. or the placement of judges gets manipulated. So the outcomes, it's like on the U. S. Supreme Court, the judges that have been picked have been handpicked because there is an originalist judge and there is a social activist judge. When you choose a judge like that, it takes away the independence of the court.
Grace:And one of the most revered things that our country has is an independent court. When people feel that's coming undone, It's very difficult to trust in our systems.
Will Folks:Uh, you're absolutely right. That's why conversations like this are so important because I laid out a, a reform that I think is good just a second ago, but there are folks that have other ideas.
Will Folks:And for example, Todd Rutherford, I was glad that he was willing to sit down with me and share what his views are on this. And I think the fact that you're willing to have this kind of discussion with me, I'm willing to have it with him. I think if we keep having these conversations, I think. We're ultimately going to get to the good and, and I also think it's important because we go back and forth on these things and there's obviously so much at stake, people's lives, people's safety.
Will Folks:But as I mentioned earlier, I really don't care what the specific letter of the law is regarding the solution. I think as long as we have, again, robust accountability over these individual decisions, because ultimately the South Carolina bar determined Bentley price was not qualified. Uh, the Judicial Merit Selection Commission agreed he was not qualified.
Will Folks:And I think were it not for all of these rulings, I think he probably would have kept his job. And so I have had a few of my lawyer, legislator friends, the one argument I think they've made back that has been credible is they said, Hey, at least in this case, our system worked. So I think keeping that accountability case by case, and as you said earlier, making sure that when we do publish these stories that we're getting into the entire story.
Grace:So what does Todd Rutherford think the solution is or does he think there's a problem?
Will Folks:I think he thinks everything's going just fine. He's doing really well with it, but look, he walked me through each one of his cases. And he laid out why he believed that the judges in those cases acted appropriately.
Will Folks:He argued that he's just a better lawyer than all the other folks on the other side. And a lot of cases he is, he's a very skilled attorney. But I also think that there's just so many examples of him leveraging the system to his benefit, given his status, that you just can't ignore him. Once you look at the facts of these individual cases, and that's what we've tried to do, is dig into these individual cases.
Will Folks:Call them out, lay the facts out for people to see, and then always invite Rutherford and anyone else we call out to come on the air and share their views. So, that's how you get to the truth.
Grace:I think it's a process problem. It's what we've become accustomed to or what people ask for when they go into court, knowing they can push time back.
Grace:I just think there's so much more reform that needs to happen within our justice system. Coupled with What else can be done? I mean, on the case in Orangeburg, he was released, basically, back to his parents and he went back to his parents house and they didn't do anything. He went out to bars. He was continuously out.
Will Folks:Yes, essentially. It was a Mother's Day incident. He attempted to lure another person into a car. I don't know if we could go so far as to say he was going for number four, but he was on house arrest, so he should have been nowhere near that bar.
Grace:That goes back to the cut on the arm, and we're looking at judges, that's the bandage to me. There, there just are so many ways before this person ever gets to that point that I think we are failing as a system. We have lots of services, but we don't measure the outcomes of those services. So if the judge says, go do. 30 days at anger management class. We don't actually measure the outcome of whether or not that worked.
Grace:That's just one of the things off of a list that the defense attorney can request. I hear exactly what you're saying of why the impropriety of having lawyer legislators is on. And why that's an important thing. I just don't really understand why that's the main target right now. Why it's not other things.
Will Folks:It's got to be a lot of things. I think you're, you're absolutely right. It's not just judicial selection reform. It's bond reform. It's docket reform. It's sentencing reform. And certainly as it relates to the speed at which the system is, I think docket reform is going to be a big part of that. And listen, I'm a libertarian.
Will Folks:I believe cops and courts are two of the few things government should do, and it should do them with excellence. We should fund these functions commensurate with their importance and sustaining our free society. And so the one thing that often gets overlooked in this is whenever I write an article about somebody who's accused of anything, I always point out.
Will Folks:In my coverage, this person is presumed innocent until convicted or until they plead. And we forget that sometimes in this process, because I'll tell you what, as offensive as it is to me to watch someone who is a thrice convicted or thrice pleaded violent offender to watch them go free on next to nothing on bond.
Will Folks:It's also offensive to me to watch them sit around for Over two years waiting to have their case called. I don't think that's fair either. Right. So we do need to find that balance. I agree with you completely on that.
Grace:Alright, I think we should call it a day and agree that lots of change needs to happen in this state to make it more efficient, productive, and get better outcomes.
Will Folks:I appreciate you hosting a conversation to help get us there.
Grace:Always enjoy talking to you, Will. I'm sure we'll have you on again in a few weeks. We've got lots more to talk about.
Will Folks:Would love to come on anytime. Thank you for having me, Grace.
Grace:That's all the Stew for today. Talk to you next week.
Grace:The Frogmore Stew podcast is written and hosted by Grace Cowan. Editing and IT support by Eric Johnson. Produced by TJ Phillips with the Podcast Solutions Network.
