By Raman Gill

I was struck by a recent article in the Wall Street Journal on The National Network for Safe Communities, which is, essentially, an intervention program for future violent criminals. Much like substance-abuse interventions, the target (yes, target) is confronted and told that he must stop his offensive behavior. I call them targets because that's exactly what they are--targets of criminal investigations:

Under the project, law-enforcement officials and prosecutors in the cities identify individuals operating in violent-crime areas who haven't yet committed serious violent crimes, and build cases against them, including undercover operations and surveillance. The culmination is a "call in" when the case is presented to the would-be suspect in front of law enforcement, community leaders, ex-offenders and friends and family.

"The prosecutor talks to them and lets them know: 'we could arrest you now but we won't because the drug dealing stops today, the violence stops today,'" said Jeremy Travis, president of John Jay. "If you continue, you now know the consequences and you've seen the case against you but we don't want to send you to prison."

Here's the thing: Where's the defense attorney in all of this? I know, I know--there's no arrest, no case to defend against. No need for a defense attorney, right? But is there some sort of agreement about how statements and admissions that the target makes during these interventions are going to be used if - gasp! - the target reoffends? Can statements and admissions made during these "call-ins" be used against the target in future prosecutions? Because I'm guessing that, just like drug addicts who often have to go through rehabilitation many times before it sticks, a good number of people who've been regularly "operating" in high-crime areas don't stop doing so after one intervention.

I don't mean to be hyper-critical. Really, I don't. Instead of seeing these folks as targets of criminal investigations, they could easily be seen as recipients of a second chance. Not to mention that similar programs implemented in Boston, MA and High Point, NC in the 1990s significantly reduced homicide rates, which is fantastic. And we should all applaud prosecutors and law enforcement officials who are genuinely more interested in reducing crime than winning convictions and putting people in prison.

But still, it bothers me. I often find that defense attorneys are not included in projects and initiatives that focus on public safety. And that's really too bad, not only because initiatives like this might be skating a very fine line in terms of observing fundamental rights, but also because defense attorneys are sometimes in the best position to help offenders comply with the law.

What? Aren't defense attorneys the people in the system who help offenders "get away with it?" That's certainly one way of looking at it. But here's another: The defense attorney is the one person in the system whose undivided loyalty is to the accused. This means, in an ideal situation, that there is a solid relationship of trust between the accused (or, here, target) and the defense attorney. If a target, who might well be facing a host of pressures to continue his offensive behavior, feels he can talk about his predicament or predilections to his defense attorney, then the attorney can connect him to resources that can keep him on the right track. A good defense attorney, especially those that practice holistic advocacy like some of the best public defender offices in the nation, is going to have, or at least know about, tools and resources to help battle peer pressure, addictions, familial issues, and other issues that might sway even the best-intentioned people back to a life of crime.

In the end, defense attorneys, like everyone else, care about public safety. We can be assets, not impediments, to that end.

Labels: crime prevention, holistic advocacy, innovative tactics, risks and rewards, the role of defense attorneys

posted by Dan   permalink   0 Comments