Thinking about Lawyering and Living

Now that I am off from work at the Public Defender's Office for a whole week, I have been thinking on and off about what it means for me to practice law. I practice almost solely as a criminal defense attorney, representing people charged with crimes who don't have enough money to hire an attorney.

And, that brings up one thing I really like about doing a good job as a public defender. If I am really doing a good job, then that means that a poor person in Blount Co, TN has as good a defense attorney as a rich person. It makes me happy to think about that. What makes me even happier is that our Public Defender's Office clearly provides better legal representation to clients than most of the private attorneys in our area who practice criminal defense.

Being an attorney in the area of criminal defense means "standing with someone in trouble." Now, oftentimes, the person is in trouble because they have violated the law; sometimes, like a man I had a trial for last week, people are in trouble because an officer charged them with a crime they didn't commit. But, whether my client is actually guilty or innocent or somewhere in between (that happens - life is complicated!), it is my duty to stand with them in the legal system - a system in which the government has decided to "prosecute" them.

Until you are being prosecuted, or are close to someone who is being prosecuted, it is hard to understand what it is like. For the government to decide they want to charge you with a crime is not simply someone saying: "hey, you did something wrong:" it is the most powerful authority saying: "you violated our state's laws, and we are going to punish you for it. We are going to put you in jail; then bring you to court; then try to get you stamped with a criminal conviction which you can carry around on your record everytime you apply for a job, or a school, etc. We are going to threaten you with jail time, etc. or at least probation and costs and fines."

I think the biggest thing that is hard to understand is how a person gets falsely charged. When that happens to a person, it becomes clear just how powerful the executive branch of government is (law enforcement/DAs), and just how inept the judicial system can be as a protection against wrongful prosecution. What happens is fairly simple. Here's an example:

A crime is committed. Let's say a really terrible crime: a child has been raped. Law enforcement feels pressure to solve the crime for obvious reasons. And, a suspect is identified. Let's say a neighbor saw this suspect around the child's house where the rape occurred on that same day. The suspect does not live in that neighborhood. The suspect has been convicted of assault and burglary before, and has a sexual assault charge as a juvenile. The suspect begins to look like a real possibility and becomes the focus of the investigation. Being influenced by law enforcement, the child picks the suspect out of a lineup (not real convincingly, but then more convincingly as time goes on). The suspect is interviewed regarding his whereabouts that day. He admits to being in that neighborhood, but can't give a good reason why he was there. He can't provide an alibi to show he wasn't in the neighborhood at the time the crime was committed. He is caught in a couple of inconsistencies. Now, law enforcement begins to gather all sorts of evidence that would support him being the rapist. And, law enforcement ignores any evidence that does not support him being the rapist.

It is amazing how strong a case you can make against someone if you only take account of those things which support guilt while ignoring all things which don't support guilt.

The example given above is pretty close to what happened in a North Carolina investigation twenty years ago, an investigation which resulted in an innocent man being convicted and a guilty man not being charged. Eventually the error was discovered by DNA testing, and after 11 years in prison, the innocent man was freed, and the guilty man was located - a previously convicted sex offender and charged.

But, the weight of the prosecuting branch of government on a single human being is a very heavy weight, and the protective power of the court system can be very weak.

Now, I don't want to act as if this is a common occurrence, but in real serious crimes it is probably more common than we would like to think. And, most criminal investigations don't go this wrong. But, many criminal investigations go a little and lot wrong, this way and that, because of a rush to judgment, and the desire to resolve a situation by blaming someone. Somehow human beings feel better when someone can be blamed for a terrible thing. We don't do well with "not knowing."

That's what I am thinking about today. How important it is in life to be able to live with "not knowing." If you can do that, you can consider more facts, can keep your mind and heart open to more things, before you try to decide something. Scientists are supposed to be able to do this. Judges are supposed to be able to do this. Truth is: scientists and judges often fail as often as the common man on the street in enduring "not knowing." But, they shouldn't. And, we as human beings shouldn't. To live with "not knowing" is to live in harmony with the way things really are in the world. There are always so many things that we will never quite understand, so many things which don't make much sense. It is not particularly easy to admit or accept this; but, in the long run it is a far more peaceful and humane way to live. It takes an enormous amount of effort to grate against reality; it is like swimming against the current of life. To be in harmony with life is to understand things, but the greatest part of understanding is when you realize how much you don't know.