“GIDEON’S ARMY”—THE PLIGHT OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER
On Monday, HBO aired a terrific new documentary called “Gideon’s Army” that takes a look at the world of public defenders, attorneys representing those that cannot afford to hire their own defense attorney.
The NY Times and the NY Daily News both raved about the film. (WitnessLA has seen it, and we like it, too.) Here’s a clip from NYT’s Stephen Holden’s review:
The title of Dawn Porter’s stirring documentary, “Gideon’s Army,” refers to the legion of idealistic public defenders fighting for equal justice in a land where not everybody can afford a high-priced defense attorney. That army is named after Clarence Earl Gideon, who was arrested in 1961 for stealing soda and a few dollars from a pool hall in Panama City, Fla.
Convicted of theft after representing himself at trial, Gideon appealed the verdict to the United States Supreme Court, which ruled unanimously in a landmark 1963 decision, Gideon v. Wainwright, that the right to counsel in criminal court is fundamental to the American system of justice.
The decision ushered in a nationwide system of public defenders representing clients who are too poor to pay for their legal defense. Today the disparity between the haves and have-nots is such that most of the 12 million people arrested in the United States each year will be represented by one of the country’s 15,000 public defenders.
[SNIP]The film devotes most of its attention to Travis Williams and Brandy Alexander, public defenders in Georgia who dedicate their lives to representing America’s underclass. It is emotionally grueling work in which both struggle to maintain their humanity. In the words of Mr. Williams, who handles 120 cases at a time and has no room left for a personal life, “Everybody’s in an emergency state.”
(By the way, HBO will be airing it again Wednesday morning at 11:15a.m. and at 8:00p.m., and it is also on HBO On Demand.)
WHY LA COUNTY NEEDS TO GET WITH THE PROGRAM ON SPLIT SENTENCING—NOW
Through split sentencing, a person convicted of a non-serious felony serving time in county jail under realignment, would serve part of their sentence in jail and the other part on probation in the community. This sentencing alternative is not widely used in LA County, but is seeing success in the surrounding counties.
An LA Times editorial explains in clear terms why “split sentencing” would be a helpful tool to chop at LA County’s recidivism rates and free up beds in the jails. Here are some clips:
Today, defendants convicted of felonies defined by law as violent, serious or sexual continue to go to state prison; and despite widespread public misunderstanding and assertions to the contrary by officials who ought to know better, defendants convicted of lesser felonies also go to state prison if they have rap sheets that include past violent, serious or sexual offenses.
But since October 2011, newly convicted “non-non-non” felons — those whose offenses are not violent, serious or sexual — with no current or previous record of serious convictions go to county jail. Just like their counterparts in state prison, they will serve their time, get out and return to their communities.
And then what? The addicted and the mentally ill will most likely remain untreated; they and other inmates badly in need of life skills, anger management counseling or similar programs will leave jail at complete liberty, with an unstructured reentry into society. Their prospects for success — shunning trouble, getting work, leading productive, crime-free lives, leaving their neighbors safe — will be about the same as those of felons returning from state prison: not good.
[SNIP]AB 109, the criminal justice realignment laws adopted in 2011 that gave counties new responsibilities over low-level felons, also proposed a reinvention of the reentry process to deal with criminal recidivism. Defendants could receive what is known as a “split sentence,” with a portion of the time to be served in jail and another portion to be served in the community, under supervision by probation officers who would monitor mandatory participation in rehabilitation and other programs. The period served under supervision in the community, after release from jail, is known as a “tail.”
[SNIP]So how tightly is the state’s largest jurisdiction, Los Angeles County, embracing the opportunities presented by split sentencing? This county is bottom of the barrel, with a supervised tail in only 4% of sentences.
The reasons for the failure to use this proven tool are unimpressive. Defense lawyers and prosecutors are used to bargaining over custody time, not negotiating for tails. Defendants would rather do their time and return to the streets at full liberty. Prosecutors would rather maximize custody time than require post-custody programming. Judges defer to the lawyers’ plea bargains when sentencing. The focus is shortsighted, aimed at efficient processing, not structured reentry or breaking the cycle of recidivism. The leader of a committee made up of local law enforcement officers, judges and county service providers told the Board of Supervisors last week that he expects no change in the number of split sentences here.
(Go read the rest of this worthwhile editorial.)
MILLER V. ALABAMA AND THE PATH TO APPROPRIATE SENTENCING FOR KIDS
A year ago, SCOTUS ruled in Miller v. Alabama that mandatory life-without-parole sentencing for children was unconstitutional, but did not strike down LWOP for youth altogether.
Jody Kent Lavy, director and national coordinator for Campaign for the Fair Sentencing of Youth, says in an op-ed at the Post and Courier that while Miller was an important win in the fight for fair sentencing for kids (whose brains are not fully developed and should not be treated the same as adults), there is still a long road ahead. For instance, while some states have thrown out sentencing kids to LWOP, the federal government has done little to address the issue. Here are some clips:
A year ago last week, the Supreme Court ruled in Miller v. Alabama that it is unconstitutional to impose on a child a mandatory sentence of life without parole. The court stopped short of striking down all life-without-parole sentences for children but required that judges consider a child’s maturity, home environment, role in the crime, potential for rehabilitation and other key factors before ordering this harsh penalty.
Miller was the third Supreme Court ruling in three years to reaffirm the notion that children who run afoul of the law cannot be treated the same way as adults without consideration of their status as children because science tells us — as all parents know — they are fundamentally different.
[SNIP]Miller struck down the statutes in at least 29 states, many of which have considered changes to comply with the ruling. Some states have focused on approaches that would impose the next-harshest available sentence. A few states — including Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Washington and Wyoming — have pursued compliance more broadly, seeking reforms that provide periodic reviews of sentences for youths convicted of serious crimes. This approach reflects the notion that children should be held accountable in ways that ensure they will have a second chance at life, increasing the likelihood that they will be motivated to change and be productive members of society when they return home. The federal government, however, has been silent about addressing this issue.
The Campaign for Fair Sentencing for Youth also has this relevant report on the issue.