In Defense of the Defender

In society, there are a number of professions that give credence to the high standard from which we hold ourselves to. From policemen to firemen, these people sacrifice their own comfort for the benefit of society. A similarly important, but less recognized profession is that of the Public Defender. Often saddled with crippling student debt, little pay, and long hours, public defenders opt out of a high salary with private firms in favor of defending the poor. Despite the critical role public defenders play in our justice system, the recent budget cuts, due to sequester, has set to sap the budget allotment 14 percent for fiscal year 2014. Still reeling from a 9 percent reduction in the 2013 budget, public defender offices will truly feel the pain.

To illustrate the importance of public defenders, we will examine the culture of incarceration the U.S has adopted since the advent of the War on Drugs. As we will see, the inundated nature of public defenders workload, coupled with budget cuts will negatively affect the poorer echelons of society.

Representing principally the lower bracket of the socio-economic ladder, in the passed thirty years, public defenders have seen their work load pile up at staggering rates while resources are spread increasingly thin. Since the dawn of the Controlled Substances Act, signed into law by President Nixon in 1970, the drug related arrests have risen from .2 percent of the population to .8 percent. In 2011 alone, 1,252,563 people were arrested with simple possession charges. Projecting these rates back to 1981, it is not difficult to understand why 27.8 percent of the US adult population has some form of criminal record (www.census.gov/popest/).

At latest count, Justice Department officials estimated a total of 3,000 types of federal criminal offenses currently in effect. A distilled example of the oversaturated nature of the justice system can be seen in Title 21 of the Drug Abuse and Control section. Over the span of a staggering 130 pages, the language stipulates a litany of various trafficking and possession crimes.

While the Justice Department bears no reservations in telling us these laws are for the inherent benefit of society, the laws themselves tell a different story. Between 1981 and 2010, the requisite sentencing for crack versus cocaine was 100:1. In relatable terms, 5 grams of crack cocaine carried with it a mandatory 5-year sentence. For cocaine, however, 500 grams were required to meet the same sentencing requirement. It goes without saying what demographics tend towards which drugs. With reference to this draconic disparity, in 2010 Barack Obama signed the Fair Sentencing Act, reducing the margin to 18:1.

Now, when someone is arrested, it is his or her constitutional right to counsel. When a defendant cannot afford a lawyer, they are appointed one. To date, Congress appoints $1 billion annually to public defense, a measly portion of the $25.4 billion requested by Obama for the reduction of drug use for fiscal year 2014.

While, in recent years, the Obama administration has taken a more pragmatic approach to drug reduction through treatment and rehabilitation programs, lower income arrestees still need a public defender to fight for access to such programs.

With fewer public defenders, time between arrest and defense will inevitably rise and resources dedicated to individuals will, similarly, be diminished. It is not difficult to imagine the social toll this inevitably takes. For simple possession of marijuana, a defendant risks losing jobs, homes, and kids. Moreover, upon leaving jail with a criminal record, it becomes even harder to find work.

To date, 261,171 prisoners are currently serving time behind bars. Just under half of these inmates (47.1 percent) are serving time for simple possession charges. With reference to the social toll these laws have taken, the poor have been disproportionately targeted. To be sure, drug use does affect society.

On the other hand, the true measure of society is how we treat those who cannot take care of themselves. Restricting access to counsel, whether it is explicit or implicit, as it were, only serves to pervert justice. If you feel strongly about the inadequacies of the system, do not hesitate to call your representative and voice your opinion.