What’s startling about the security surrounding the Daniel Roberts murder trial isn’t its strength, but its mere presence; we’ve become so accustomed to passive security inside Maine’s courthouses that metal detectors still seem strangely out of place.

Nearly every court facility in Maine is equipped with security technology. Yet metal detectors and X-ray machines are idle 95 percent of the time, according to the state, because of a paucity of humans to operate them. Screening occurred in just 420 of 8,820 court days in 2006, a frightening ratio.

“The availability of entry screening is sporadic, unpredictable and woefully inadequate,” said Maine’s chief justice, Leigh Saufley, in addressing the Legislature last week. “We are among the few states in the nation that have failed to provide full weapons screening at our courthouses.”

It’s led to situations such as with Roberts, whose affiliation with the Hells Angels has prompted “beefed up” security: dusting off the metal detector and posting a sign about gang colors, which are measures used by elementary schools and taverns every day.

Some also raise the point that this security presence is prejudicial to Roberts and the Hells Angels. The concern is valid, even with the fierce reputation of the motorcycle club, and the savage crime Roberts is accused of committing.

Nobody is saying another Altamont will happen inside Androscoggin County Superior Court. It’s sensible to believe, however, that filtering prospective jurors though escalated security could jeopardize Roberts’ right to a fair trial.

The hue and cry for change will be deafening if haphazard security hinders justice. This is why the Legislature, after hearing about courthouse insecurity for years, should finally find the funding to ensure an effective, and consistent, security presence in Maine’s courthouses.

The investment seems meager. Saufley said implementing security inside Maine’s 40 courthouses would cost $3.7 million, and even described half-measures – at a cost of $1.8 million – as a “huge step forward.”

We’re always wary of advocating for increased state spending, but a preponderance of evidence exists to support this expenditure for courthouse security. Courts cost taxpayers $13 million in 2006, according to Saufley, once $42 million in fees were deducted from the judiciary’s $55 million appropriation.

The $42 million, she reported, represents the courts’ peak revenue year: A $3.7 million increase over 2005, largely from the collection of $2.5 million in overdue fines. This goes far to prove the revenue exists within the court system to fund security today, perhaps without complete dependence on taxpayers.

Or, maybe, the Legislature should scrap LD 1 – which would increase juror pay from $10 to $50, at an estimated cost of $1.3 million – and instead use those funds to make courthouses secure. Juror pay, like security, is an evergreen issue, and there’s few new pressures on lawmakers to change it.

After all, a few extra bucks won’t make jurors, or any court patron, safer.

Unless it’s spent on security.