Monday, November 10, 2008
Nothing I haven't heard previously from the AZ Public Defender...
On Sunday, the New York Times reported the news that public defenders in 7 states are so overwhelmed they are not taking some cases.
The fact that defender budgets are cut at the same time as caseload goes up is creating a crisis. Any practicing attorney can tell you that it takes time to handle any case well. These caseloads are making good or even adequate representation difficult to impossible.
The fact that defender budgets are cut at the same time as caseload goes up is creating a crisis. Any practicing attorney can tell you that it takes time to handle any case well. These caseloads are making good or even adequate representation difficult to impossible.
Comments:
<< Home
There is definitely an issue on both sides as prosecutors have to deal with more cases without increases in pay or positions.
Even in Dallas, there were threats to completely shut down the PD's office because they were supposedly not as effective as appointed attorneys. While, I don't buy that argument, I will state that our PD office has a real hard time finding qualified applicants because they can make considerably more money doing the same thing. This in turn creates a cycle since the lesser qualified applicants are less likely to be organized, good at negotiation, understand legal principles, and generally cause issues for their clients...which slows cases and causes a greater workload.
We all know that paying a higher salary and hiring hundreds more would help, but no one is willing to propose that because they'd have to propose it for my office, the police, the deputies, etc etc
Even in Dallas, there were threats to completely shut down the PD's office because they were supposedly not as effective as appointed attorneys. While, I don't buy that argument, I will state that our PD office has a real hard time finding qualified applicants because they can make considerably more money doing the same thing. This in turn creates a cycle since the lesser qualified applicants are less likely to be organized, good at negotiation, understand legal principles, and generally cause issues for their clients...which slows cases and causes a greater workload.
We all know that paying a higher salary and hiring hundreds more would help, but no one is willing to propose that because they'd have to propose it for my office, the police, the deputies, etc etc
# posted by 
: 6:16 PM
: 6:16 PM 
Dallas ADA-- You are absolutely right.
If we take criminal law seriously, the whole system has to get bigger together. One of things that bugs me most when people propose "across-the-board" spending cuts, when the military and social security are off the table, is that it means the federal criminal justice system takes a disproportional hit.
If we take criminal law seriously, the whole system has to get bigger together. One of things that bugs me most when people propose "across-the-board" spending cuts, when the military and social security are off the table, is that it means the federal criminal justice system takes a disproportional hit.
Osler,
How do you think we should combat this perception that the criminal justice system should not get bigger?
Obviously, with more people, the number of crimes will go up. With a faltering economy, crimes go up. With a greater wealth disparity in times of economic prosperity many crimes go up. Yet, no one ever thinks it's a good idea to increase criminal funding on all fronts.
I'm all for hiring more prosecutors, more cops, more PDs etc. I'm all for building more prisons, creating more in-patient treatment facilities, creating housing facilities for felons or probationers etc. But how do we get the country to move beyond: "we have 1% of population in prison and that's crazy"?
Personally, I say put 2% in prison/treatment if they deserve to be there or can get help there and it helps lower crime.
Is it simply a matter of cost?
How do you think we should combat this perception that the criminal justice system should not get bigger?
Obviously, with more people, the number of crimes will go up. With a faltering economy, crimes go up. With a greater wealth disparity in times of economic prosperity many crimes go up. Yet, no one ever thinks it's a good idea to increase criminal funding on all fronts.
I'm all for hiring more prosecutors, more cops, more PDs etc. I'm all for building more prisons, creating more in-patient treatment facilities, creating housing facilities for felons or probationers etc. But how do we get the country to move beyond: "we have 1% of population in prison and that's crazy"?
Personally, I say put 2% in prison/treatment if they deserve to be there or can get help there and it helps lower crime.
Is it simply a matter of cost?
# posted by : 10:56 PM
: 10:56 PM
There was a time when that might have happened, back when crime was on the radar, but it just is not a political issue anyone cares about anymore, which is crazy.
I had a student call the McCain campaign to find out some of his positions on some key criminal law issues, and it turned out he just didn't have any positions at all-- it was not seen as an issue.
I had a student call the McCain campaign to find out some of his positions on some key criminal law issues, and it turned out he just didn't have any positions at all-- it was not seen as an issue.
Dallas_ADA:
You've hit the nail on the head. We need to free up courts, police and prison space by removing non-violent offenses like drug use and possession without the intent to distribute from the criminal sphere. I won't go so far as to say we ought to legalize drugs (though I do think that no principled argument can be maintained for why certain drugs are illegal while caffeine, alcohol and tobacco not only remain legal but readily available to everyone), but we definitely ought to decriminalize small amounts of possession and personal use.
Having defended a few misdemeanor cases, another way that struck me that we might expedite the process is to put certain minor offenses (Class B Theft, 1st DWI, etc.) on a non-trial track. Just remove the charade that these things are going to go to trial (unless the defendant demands it). Have a fair, standard deferred disposition/adjudication package available. That way the messy process of plea bargaining is almost eliminated. Defense attorneys know you're going to eventually offer a workable deal. You prosecutors know that unless a case is particularly egregious, you're not going to take it to trial. So cut out the time-wasting dealing in the middle.
There are plenty of ways that we can soften the blow of increasing criminal justice funding without just making everything bigger. We need to (1) make it more efficient and then (2) increase the size of PD offices, DA's offices, police forces, etc.
You've hit the nail on the head. We need to free up courts, police and prison space by removing non-violent offenses like drug use and possession without the intent to distribute from the criminal sphere. I won't go so far as to say we ought to legalize drugs (though I do think that no principled argument can be maintained for why certain drugs are illegal while caffeine, alcohol and tobacco not only remain legal but readily available to everyone), but we definitely ought to decriminalize small amounts of possession and personal use.
Having defended a few misdemeanor cases, another way that struck me that we might expedite the process is to put certain minor offenses (Class B Theft, 1st DWI, etc.) on a non-trial track. Just remove the charade that these things are going to go to trial (unless the defendant demands it). Have a fair, standard deferred disposition/adjudication package available. That way the messy process of plea bargaining is almost eliminated. Defense attorneys know you're going to eventually offer a workable deal. You prosecutors know that unless a case is particularly egregious, you're not going to take it to trial. So cut out the time-wasting dealing in the middle.
There are plenty of ways that we can soften the blow of increasing criminal justice funding without just making everything bigger. We need to (1) make it more efficient and then (2) increase the size of PD offices, DA's offices, police forces, etc.
Lane,
The answer isn't to remove low level misdemeanors from trial tracks. The problem doesn't lie with misdemeanor caseloads; it lies with felony caseloads. Plus, the misdemeanor DUI is one of the greatest tools that young DA's and PD's have to practice trial skills and with both lay and expert witnesses.
I'm lucky to practice as a public defender in a county that actually thinks public defense is important. We have 19 attorneys on staff, and we all have very manageable caseloads. This is due in large part to the head of my office who won't let the county get away with underfunding. (Not to mention a huge indigent defense lawsuit in Las Vegas that scared our board of supervisors straight)
I was at a trial college this May in Dayton, Ohio with nothing but public defenders. When we compared caseloads/workloads, I couldn't believe how lucky I have it in Mohave County. Attorneys in my office have an caseload that is half the national average. I can't begin to explain what a huge benefit this is to my ability to give EFFECTIVE assistance. We have time to investigate properly, litigate issues properly, and to actually speak with our clients regularly. This has improved our morale and retention of attorneys immensely, which is the other plague of PD offices. These things don't happen when public defense is underfunded, and justice becomes too one-sided.
The answer isn't to remove low level misdemeanors from trial tracks. The problem doesn't lie with misdemeanor caseloads; it lies with felony caseloads. Plus, the misdemeanor DUI is one of the greatest tools that young DA's and PD's have to practice trial skills and with both lay and expert witnesses.
I'm lucky to practice as a public defender in a county that actually thinks public defense is important. We have 19 attorneys on staff, and we all have very manageable caseloads. This is due in large part to the head of my office who won't let the county get away with underfunding. (Not to mention a huge indigent defense lawsuit in Las Vegas that scared our board of supervisors straight)
I was at a trial college this May in Dayton, Ohio with nothing but public defenders. When we compared caseloads/workloads, I couldn't believe how lucky I have it in Mohave County. Attorneys in my office have an caseload that is half the national average. I can't begin to explain what a huge benefit this is to my ability to give EFFECTIVE assistance. We have time to investigate properly, litigate issues properly, and to actually speak with our clients regularly. This has improved our morale and retention of attorneys immensely, which is the other plague of PD offices. These things don't happen when public defense is underfunded, and justice becomes too one-sided.
Justin (future public defender)--
Ever thought about becoming a PD in Arizona? We start attorneys at close to $58k, great benefits, and up to $500/month in loan repayment.
Ever thought about becoming a PD in Arizona? We start attorneys at close to $58k, great benefits, and up to $500/month in loan repayment.
AZ, if I could bring myself to facing the possibility of another Bar examination, I might apply to work at your office! That sounds like something I'd love.
But as things stand, I think I'm going to try to make my name here in Texas.
Post a Comment
But as things stand, I think I'm going to try to make my name here in Texas.
<< Home
