It’s the 53rd anniversary of my birth, the day when the unfunded mandate of state-provided lawyers for the poor was declared1. The decision was absolutely right and led to the creation of public defender offices across the country. Poor people, accused of crimes by the Government, facing incarceration, must have access to the tools to defend themselves just as much as those who are financially well off and can find counsel themselves.
The idea of Gideon is sound, but its execution has been anything but smooth sailing. States chronically and repeatedly underfund public defender offices, because public defenders “represent criminals” and get people off on “technicalities“. In fact, that’s precisely why prosecutors are often viewed as champions of the people and more frequently get nominated to appellate courts:
“Merrick Garland would take no chances that someone who murdered innocent Americans might go free on a technicality.” —@POTUS #SCOTUSnominee
— The White House (@WhiteHouse) March 16, 2016
I’ll talk more about prosecutors in a later post, but it’s not something I haven’t said already, repeatedly.
Right now, I want to talk about you. You’re the reason we have this distrust of public defenders. You’re the reason Law and Order has been on the air for a thousand years. You’re the reason that tough on crime was so prevalent for decades, destroying lives and economies. You’re the reason that public defense is under appreciated and under funded.
Public defenders represent people accused of and convicted of crimes, sure. But public defenders also represent you. Public defenders represent the idea that each defendant is an individual and each individual circumstance is worthy of separate and unique consideration. Public defenders represent the idea that the treatment of one criminal defendant affects the treatment of all citizens.
Public defenders protect the rights of criminals. But more importantly, public defenders protect the rights of law abiding citizens too.
When the government argues that people walking on the streets can be stopped for no reason at all and questioned, who stands in their way?
When the government argues that people can be questioned and interrogated and subjected to the third degree, who fights back?
When the government hides information that shows a person is innocent, who brings it to light?
When the government argues that merely standing next to someone who is suspected of a crime means that you are also suspicious, who thinks that’s preposterous?
When the government argues that merely legally possessing a firearm in public is a crime, who points out the ridiculousness of it?
When the government wants free access to your phone, who says get a warrant?
So, you, the one who thinks we work only for criminals: we don’t expect a thank you. We don’t expect you to send accolades our way. That’s fine. It’s part of the job. We know that it’s a thankless job.
The one thing you can do, however, is start to understand that public defenders represent the rights and protections given to the entire public.
So when people ask: how do you represent the guilty? The most honest answer is: Easily, because I don’t care if they’re guilty or not. What I care about is that the Constitutional rights of every citizen are protected. And that includes you.
- I wrote a longer, more detailed post about the import of Gideon when the decision turned 50. ↩