Via an article in the New York Times today comes news that is no surprise to the poorer among us who are caught in the United States legal system:
Public defenders’ offices in at least seven states are refusing to take on new cases or have sued to limit them, citing overwhelming workloads that they say undermine the constitutional right to counsel for the poor.
Public defenders are notoriously overworked, and their turnover is high and their pay low. But now, in the most open revolt by public defenders in memory, many of the government-appointed lawyers say that state budget cuts and rising caseloads have pushed them to the breaking point.
In examining the situation, it is clear that something needs to be done, and soon, in spite of the current economy. Legal reform for the poor needs to be a high priority, not just from a moral standpoint, but from economic and political standpoints as well.
The New York Times cites the following states that currently have public defenders who have refused to take further cases or have threatened to sue over their workloads: Arizona, Florida, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri and Tennessee.
Taking the example of Florida, the budget in the 11th Judicial Circuit has been cut more than 12 percent. Meanwhile, the Pew Charitable Trust has predicted that Florida's prison population will increase by more than any other state by 2011. Arizona, another state with on the list above, is also among the states projected to have a higher rate of incarceration than the national average. Perhaps there is some correlation?
These issues of increased incarceration at a time of decreased legal assistance (which one would think would be self-evident as effect and cause) are not the only problems with the current situation. It is also clear that some rural areas (those who benefit most directly from sustaining the current prison industry) are also gaining unfair representation because of an statistical quirk, courtesy of the Census Bureau.
As the group Prison Watch Initiative makes clear, the way the United States Census counts prisoners has consequences for political representation. The census counts all people, including prisoners, from their place of residence at the time of the census, rather than their actual home addresses. Thus, if a prison is in a remote rural county with a population of one thousand but has a prison with one thousand five hundred inmates, the county is granted representation for two thousand five hundred persons, even though as many as over half may not be able to vote. If you think this is far-fetched, follow the link and you will see that actual cases are even more outrageous.
Though many have written about these issues, it becomes clear that substantial overhaul to reform the prison industry will include not just increasing budgets and assistance for public defenders, working to decrease the incarceration rate and allowing convicted felons to vote upon release, but also changes in the way the census counts prisoners for apportionment. All together (among other issues) need to be considered to begin much-needed effective reform.
Crossposted at Free Speech Zone