The Perils of Blogging Attorneys

In case any of our esteemed readers wonder why the AZCAJD doesn't post much about his work life, even though it is like a soap opera, read on. While much of the exposure that attorneys receive is negative, especially indigent criminal defense attorneys, the vast majority concern themselves with ethical considerations and hypotheticals on a regular basis. This particular situation is unfortunate because I sympathize with the need to decompress from what amounts to the most unappreciated and maligned job in law. But, the sordid details of the daily life in indigent criminal defense must remain in the office if they fall under the duty of confidentiality. Sorry I can't deliver the juicy stuff y'all.

Back in Black

The U.S. Supreme Court opens a new term today, and of course there is a new face in the line-up as Justice Sonia Sotomayor begins her tenure after replacing retired justice David Souter.

There will be several cases of interest to criminologists before the Court this session:

The court is also taking on the issue of gun rights again. Last year, the court declared for the first time that the constitutional right to bear arms is an individual right that puts some limits on federal laws and regulations. Specifically, the court struck down a total ban on handguns in the District of Columbia.

This term, in a case involving a Chicago gun ban, the court examines whether the same limits apply to state and local laws.

In the criminal law field, two cases from Florida test whether it is unconstitutionally cruel and unusual punishment to sentence a minor to life in prison without parole for crimes that do not involve a death.

One case involves a 13-year-old sentenced to life in prison without parole for sexual battery. The other case involves a 17-year-old sentenced to life after violating his probation for an earlier armed robbery.

As for white-collar criminal law, the court will examine the federal law that allows business executives to be prosecuted for depriving shareholders of their honest services — and similarly allows prosecutors to bring charges against public officials for depriving citizens of their honest serves.

At least one justice, Antonin Scalia, has suggested that the expansive phrase "honest services" invites abuse by headline-grabbing prosecutors, because it's so broad that no citizen can know what conduct is illegal.

Have a thought about the criminal law (or other) cases before the SCOTUS this term? Let us know in the comments!

P.S. Like the post title? Here's a little AC/DC to kick off your Monday!

Statistical Correlation v. Individual Liberty?

Good morning all. In the spirit of assistance to Dr. Hugginkiss, I offer the following:

I have recently had the experience that the local probation department has been using an attitude assessment in determining the type of probation a person is placed on after sentencing. The assessment utilizes "yes" / "no" responses to questions such as (exact wording not utilized) "Sometimes people have to do whatever is required to get money," "I think tattoos are normal," "I believe the police are there to help people" and so on. Other parts of the probation assessment request information on whether family members have a history of not only convictions but arrests, and whether the client has family members or friends in or associated with any gangs.

The struggle I have currently undergone is due to training in both statistics and research methodology (Shock Prof) and law. While I recognize that affirmative answers to such questions may be statistically correlative with risk factors for recidivism, the binary nature of the answers and inability of the assessment to include explanatory shades of grey for such answers give me pause. As an attorney, I'm required to protect my client's individual rights and liberties, amongst which are protecting the client from being punished for the wrongdoings of others in which he/she did not participate.

Probation departments may argue that an intensive form of probation is not a punishment, but rather a program tailored to the individual's risk factors for recidivism. However, I am required to advocate my client's best interests. Often my clients feel that intensive probation (a form in which a probationer must have an hourly schedule each day, must participate in numerous programs, and is continually under close monitoring of probation officers) is not in their best interests. As such, I must advocate this position.

Therefore, my rather longwinded conundrum posed to the great minds of my contemporaries and other thoughtful individuals is: Are potentially beneficial probation programs based on statistically significant risk factors, including the actions of others not under a client's control, incompatible with a defense attorney's duties to protect a client's individual rights and liberties?