Ohio Politics, Making My Head Hurt

I'm sure we are all sick of the political ads we are bombarded with daily, hourly. I'm ready to vote already! And I don't want to set off a sh*tstorm of controversy, but, one issue is really really bothering me. So, I'm going to talk about.

There is a man running for Ohio Attorney General, named Mark Dann, against an incumbent attorney general, Betty Montgomery. And the ads being run against this man, Mark Dann, have my blood boiling.

Let me say, straight out, I don't know Mark Dann, I don't know anything about Mark Dann - I am neither a supporter nor a detractor of Mark Dann.

But the reason I am mad as hell about these ads, is that the ads say that because Mark Dann is a defense attorney who has defended criminals and child molesters (the ad specifically states that he is a child molester defender, which, I think, is misleading as hell) that he is not fit to be the Attorney General of the State.

Now, he may not be fit to be the Attorney General for other reasons, but it is absolutely UNFORGIVEABLE in my mind to suggest that he is UNFIT because he is a DEFENSE ATTORNEY.

The truth is that any judge can, at any time, assign any attorney practicing in his or her court of jurisdiction to defend an accused criminal. And guess what? THAT ATTORNEY WOULD BE OBLIGATED TO DEFEND THAT PERSON UNLESS HE OR SHE HAD A REALLY GOOD REASON. And that reason would have to be something bigger than "accused criminals give me the skeevy heeby jeebies."

Now, in practice, that almost never happens - judges know which attorneys are accepting court appointments for criminal defense work, and they appoint those lawyers.* But, if the fact remains that if the judge wanted to, the judge could appoint ANY LAWYER.

And the reason for that is, we are SUPPOSED TO BE committed to our SYSTEM OF JUSTICE. And our system of justice demands that every person charged with a serious crime have access to a lawyer - access to one person who is going to be on that person's side. Access to one person who is going to advocate for the accused.

We have this system of justice and we believe it to be the best system of justice on the planet. We do. But, if no attorneys took criminal defense cases, the very foundation of our system would FALL APART.

Maybe I am waving the flag too much here, but, DEFENSE ATTORNEYS are of VITAL IMPORTANCE to OUR DEMOCRACY AS WE KNOW IT.

I am absolutely not kidding about this.

We believe in innocence until guilt is proven. We believe in an adversarial system where the State must prove the bad acts of the accused.

The fact that one is a defense attorney does not imply that one thinks that criminals are good people. It implies that one believes in our system of justice. And that is an honorable thing.

It also implies that the lawyer knows a heck of a lot about criminal law. Guess who needs to know a heck of a lot about criminal law? The Attorney General, that's who. So, while there may be other good and viable reasons why Mark Dann may not be fit to be Attorney General, the fact that he has defended criminals in his career is not one of them.

I'll get off my soapbox now.

LM

* And many young lawyers do this because, um, you have to EAT, and, it's a way to get some actual legal experience at a time when most people won't hire you because you have no actual experience. And being a public defender won't make your rich, but, it probably will keep a roof over your head and food on the table.