Devil's advocate?

I interviewed with the Orange County Public Defender's office on Wednesday afternoon. They asked me the same eight questions they posed to every other applicant, which seems fitting for an employer concerned with procedural fairness and substantive justice. Believe me, that structure is highly unusual for interviews in the rest of the legal world. Which, in its own way, makes sense too. The last question the two senior deputy public defenders asked me: how do you justify defending people who often do not have the law or facts on their side (who, in effect, probably committed the crime with which they are charged)? Why, that's a very good question I said.

I also said a few other things. A public defender is someone that our system provides to represent the accused's interests, just as we have prosecutors in the District Attorney's office to represent the interests of society at large. Yes, many people accused of a crime are in fact guilty of some wrongdoing, and most of the time it's pretty obvious. But the PD's job is also to see the defendant fairly treated in his sentence, as well. Because someone has committed a crime doesn't mean he gives up his rights, or that society can throw the book at him. The prosecutor isn't looking out for the defendant, that's not his job. That's the public defender's job. If the PD couldn't do that, the DA's role would be incredibly unfair. Instead, in our adversary system, the prosecutor pushes with all the resources of the state. And the defender is ethically bound to push back.

For two years I taught and tutored students in Oakland public high schools. I wanted to work there because those were the kids who lacked the money, education, and family background to do well in math. Hence, they were the kids who needed my able services the most. I would say the same with public defense. Individuals who need public defenders can't afford to choose their own lawyer. They often come from the same socioeconomic groups as my students, and deserve the same degree of help we believe those students ought to have. Mind you, my students weren't all angels - sure you've got poor neighborhoods and mediocre teachers and lack of family help but many kids are just lazy or unfocused - as at any other school. Let's not hold their poverty and background against them too.

The public defender defends not just the person but also the rights of the accused, and those rights belong to us all. And when those rights are threatened, so are we all. In fact, since indigent criminal defendants are the most vulnerable elements in society (without friends or wealth), indigent defense is the most likely area where the state will cut corners to a "just result" and in the process short-circuit our system of rights. Democracy is a cloth that frays around the edges, and affects those who live on the edges of society first and most often. We see examples of fraying today not only in murder and rape cases, but also in the area of terrorism and war crimes.

And so I ask you... Would you ever work for the public defender? Why or why not? If so, would you ever draw the line at representing someone? A murderer? Rapist? Child molester? What do you think?