A Response to Lawdoc

In linking to a public defender's recent post on violent crime registries I noted in passing that

"I suppose on some level this makes more sense than many current sex offender restrictions.  As I citizen I have never been opposed to such registries but deplore and abhor the ham-handed and ineffective way that they are imposed."

Andrew ("Lawdoc") suggests in his comment on my post that I wouldn't like it so much if bar complaints were similarly registered whether or not they were substantiated.  This may be a good time to lay out some philosophical differences with most of my fellow members of the defense bar:

1.  I do not believe it does the defense bar and its allies in the blogosphere and elsewhere to blindly rail against any and all sex offender (or violent crime registries if this law goes any further) registries.  The registries are clearly here to stay and wishful thinking is not making them go away.

2.  The defense bar is going to be more effective assisting lawmakers in crafting RATIONAL registry laws in the first instance rather than swinging blind hay makers in the vain hope something will dissuade lawmakers from a "popular" course of action which has so far been upheld by the courts.

3.  In my role as a citizen I think its entirely possible for a rationally crafted registration law to be of some use in alerting the public to dangers of which it may otherwise be unaware.  I am critical of somewhat random categories of crimes being held up as a rational method of categorization rather than a scientific look at the probabilities a particular individual poses a danger.

4.  If the defense community was successful in absolutely barring all registry laws, I think there would be a mass movement to create harsh mandatory minimums in these cases beyond anything we can currently imagine and that these mandatory minimums would have a far harsher effect than registration.  See e.g. the Genarlow Wilson case.

5.  Having represented my share of the irrational and wicked, I have received more than my share of bar complaints from the disgruntled.  So far the bar has not seen fit to publish my name.  If it did see fit to publish it would be after a consideration of who I was as an individual.  That said, is Andrew really suggesting that lawyers who engage in sleazy or overly negligent conduct should not be publicized for the protection of the public?

I have a healthy skepticism of the bar complaint process and I believe the tone and slant of this blog establish where my sympathies lie.  We do ourselves no service by blinding ourselves in the service of unachievable goals.

But keep those letters coming!

Comments

[Oneandonly]

As for number 4? There is and has been nearly 30 years of evidence that how this country and now other countries are handling this issue is so wrought with anger, few are seeing the reasons behind the hate.

But as long as people like Walsh and Lunsford cut such tragic hero figures, no one wants to listen to rationality.

[Alec]

I think that the registries are an awful idea but I agree that, unfortunately, they are here to stay. That being said, I think an individualized assessment is preferable to registration upon release. I.e., Wilson, who is unlikely to reoffend, should never be placed on a registry.

That being said, I doubt that the registries are related in any meaningful way to the mandatory minimums. The mandatory minimums are destined to rise for the foreseeable future. If it is truly all about the children, a lawmaker commits political suicide by opposing the increase. The minimums for child pornography have created an absurdity in federal courts (possession = 0-5, receipt = 5-10; but most people who possess receive, yes?).

I am far more concerned by the prospect of registries expanding into other areas. Drugs? Fraud? Theft? There are colorable (indeed, more than colorable) policy rationales for expanding registration into these areas.

[Gideon]

I tried to send a trackback, but I guess it didn't work. Here's the link to some further thoughts:

http://apublicdefender.com/2007/03/27/how-should-the-defense-bar-handle-offender-registry-legislation/

[Steve Smith]

I appreciate that the comment was intended to be constructive. The part where your analogy breaks down I think is that such a registry for lawyers already exists and is publicaly available (at least in my home state). I suspect most states have a similar arrangement.

Registration is going to happen. Don't believe for a second you're going to put that genie back in the bottle. Its how the registration is implemented that is the important battle still worth fighting.

[lawdoc]

1. I appreciate the blog, and the links, and the selection of articles. It brings attention to a very important issue.
2. My comment is a simple "slippery slope" argument about the false light a registry can produce. A Bar registry could happen, even if it is unlikely. After all, the public does not have a very good perception of lawyers, in general, and criminal defense lawyers, in particular -- until they need one!
3. I'm sure legal malpractice insurers would like such a registry.
4. I have no problem with evidence-based lawmaking that will actually improve public safety without substantially compromising basic rights.
5. I know most complaints to the bar do not merit further investigation. I made the comment to personalize what it must feel like for registrants. Registrants do not get placed on the registry with consideration of who they are as individuals. That could lead to arbitrary decision-making. Either the registerable event happened or it did not.