THE TRIBUNE'S VIEW PUBLIC DEFENDERS JUSTICE FOR THE
POOR

Though equal protection of the law is a cardinal principle in our
Constitution, most citizens don't care much for the plight of poor
people accused of crime who can't afford counsel. Large numbers of
defendants depend on lawyers provided at taxpayer expense. Funding the
public defender budget is an increasing challenge as "get tough" laws
proliferate and particularly now when the state is in a real budget
crunch.

It's a bind. The Constitution requires the provision of defenders, and
state lawmakers see no way to pay the bill. Recently the Missouri
Supreme Court said public defenders can't turn away cases even though
the system is overloaded and sent the problem back to circuit courts
and local prosecutors to work out solutions, which might include
reducing the number of charges involving potential incarceration,
naming private attorneys more often to defend indigent clients pro
bono, or simply dragging feet by not naming defense attorneys as promptly.

Having kicked the can down the road, state government now waits for
officials on the front lines to do -- something. Problem unsolved.
Solution not in hand.

I'm reminded of the reaction of Cole County Circuit Judge Byron Kinder
at a former time when a similar state budget crunch threatened the
public defender system. In typical grab-the-bull's-horn style, Kinder
simply began appointing the most prominent lawyers in Jefferson City
to represent indigent clients. Amazingly, it was only a matter of
weeks before the state legislature came up with more money for the
system, letting the swells off the hook.

Today such an intriguing approach might not work. Even pressure from
the most elite might not be enough to create money in the current
budget, but one of the high court's solutions is to tap private
attorneys for unpaid constitutionally required work, a prospect that
might help break the logjam if anything will.

At this moment I'll mention a change in the criminal code sure to
relieve this and other problems occupying police, prosecutors, judges
and prison wardens. Legalizing drugs not only would empty courtrooms
and prisons; it would eliminate crime stemming from the drug black
market, which costs billions in counterproductive law enforcement time
and money.

We met similar problems by ending Prohibition of alcoholic beverages.
With drugs we fear legalization would lead to more drug abuse. I don't
buy it. Today's drug market operates through private sellers secretly
targeting vulnerable users, often school kids on playgrounds,
developing users who must come up with big money to afford inflated
black-market prices, users who become addicts and turn to crime to
raise the money. If their rap sheets show burglary, robbery and
mayhem, often as not the underlying cause is drug prohibition.

If we diverted only some of the billions not spent on law enforcement
to education, treatment and rehabilitation, we would enhance badly
strapped mental health budgets and go further toward curing addiction
than we ever will by busting users and sellers doing what comes
naturally in a black-market environment.

But, as I have learned in decades of making this fruitless entreaty,
society is not in the mood to break the back of the drug black market
as we did back then with booze. I suppose it's because liquor is an
ingrained, accepted and even coveted staple for most of us. We refused
to tolerate Prohibition, frequenting speakeasies with open disdain for
the law. Today, narcotic drug use is not as openly condoned even
though use is widespread and law enforcement never will stop it.

So, dear taxpayer, keep forking over for programs like the public
defender system and all the others made ever more expensive because of
drug prohibition. We are going out of our way to keep the drug black
market alive, and we suffer every day from our myopia.

HJW III

If hypocrisy were gold, the Capitol would be Fort Knox.

- -- JOHN MCCAIN