A slightly personal post, if you will abide.

When I graduate law school, I will need a job. For the public interest-minded, like myself, there are few options out there. Non-profits are few and far between. Every state has organizations devoted to providing civil legal services to low-income individuals. There are also plenty of public defender offices. To a lesser extent, there are non-profits that focus on matters of public policy and activism. But for the deluge of new JDs coming out of the degree-emporiums they call law schools, demand and competition for positions in these organizations is very high. And since the jobs provide for a steady source of income (though quite low in comparison to many firms), benefits, and often less mind-numbing and more inspiring work, those who get the jobs seldom let them go, which results in few positions opening up for new graduates.

Where else can the public interest-minded turn? Theoretically, government work is in the public interest, and it is generally characterized as such. District attorneys prosecute alleged criminals, making us all safer. Attorneys staff regulatory agencies and government bureaucracies, thereby keeping industries in check and maintaining the integrity of the government.

But politics warps this theoretical classification, in both subjective and objective ways. The subjective effect is easy to recognize. My personal policy preferences (though I consider them stronger than mere “preferences”) will never allow me to become a prosecutor. Why? Because I recognize that many crimes in this country could be prevented by social and economic justice before-the-fact. Poverty breeds crime. Who tends to commit crimes? The poor, the mentally ill, the uneducated, the addicted, and the desperate (take a trip to the criminal court in Manhattan and go see the arraignments). Are some of these people immoral and deserving of prosecution? Perhaps some are deeply, manifestly, born with evil in their hearts, and perhaps some only committed their crime for that reason and none other. If this is even possible, I would posit that the number of such offenders is infinitesimally small. If given a chance to compete in the beginning of life, and if given a decent environment (social, economic, and natural) throughout life, I imagine most of today’s criminals would be law-abiding. Simple determinism.

Another important reason why I couldn’t be a prosecutor is that prisons are terrible places. We should keep as many people out of them as possible, for reasons of both compassion and utility, until they become truly rehabilitory and safe.

But within this group of criminals I have just described, I decidedly left out probably the biggest group of peopled who commit “crimes,” but who in my mind are not even criminals. These people are the victims of the war on drugs; if only the war was actually “on drugs” and not a war on people. The United States boasts the largest number of incarcerated people and the highest percentage of our population incarcerated in the world, though we are only the 3rd most populous nation (and supposedly a nation that values freedom). The primary reason for this is drug prohibition. Why are people arrested for drugs? Using, dealing, and a whole host of crimes caused by addiction (theft, mugging, etc.) or the black market (homicide, etc.).

But I digress with these statistics. The point is this: I could not with good conscience prosecute a person for possessing a drug, nor even use a drug charge as leverage for a plea. The ridiculous prison statistics bolster a case for drug legalization, sure. As do economic arguments (for example, financial the benefits of a government controlled drug cartel), and crime reduction arguments (if legalized, drug-related crime would disappear). But I think the most convincing argument may be one of morality and justice. It is not right to arrest someone for the mere possession of drugs. Public consumption of drugs? Sure, treat it like public consumption of alcohol. Nobody wants a junkie shooting up in front of their house. Driving under the influence? Certainly a just criminal statute. But merely possessing a drug, in the home or out, is inherently harmless. (and lets not forget the double standards, re: cigarettes and alcohol)

Furthermore, even the many laws against dealing need to be reevaluated. Surely we should go down hard on the big time sellers and suppliers. Many small-time “dealers” are little more than junkies making enough profit to score their own fix.

Thus, prosecution is one line of work I will need to stay away from. I would reconsider in the highly unlikely scenario where a local DA chooses to exercise prosecutorial discretion in a way that would circumvent unjust criminal laws. David Soares of Albany comes close, but I’m not sure if he will push his discretion far enough for me (and I don’t think I would want to move to Albany).

I also feel great reluctance to enter government work in general. This introduces more of an objective influence of politics. George Bush is in charge of the federal government. George Pataki is in charge of NY’s government. Bloomberg has got NYC. In general, Republicans tend to want to limit the public benefits government agencies provide (Bloomberg on a much lower level, I would guess). Even if I were to work in NJ, where the Dems currently have control, who knows how long it will last? And just like with DA’s offices, having Democrats in office does not necessarily they will be working for the public good.

Yet with a Democrat, say, as President, you can at least have some faith that many of the federal agencies will be allowed to fulfill the social good they were intended to promote. And many of the attorneys that start in a Democratic administration will remain employed under Republicans. They become the often overly-maligned bureaucracy. But in the hands of the current administration, we see these agencies either twisted from the inside or hand-cuffed. This article (thanks to Laborblog) about immigration officers impersonating OSHA officials to fool illegal immigrants is the perfect example of the sick ways agencies are undermined.

So, if I can’t find a public interest job? I guess there’s always personal injury. Contingent fees… ah yes.

UPDATE, 7/17/05:
Here’s an excellent comic (8 pages, short, and effective!) provided by Greg, written by his brother-in-law, which really personalizes the effect drug laws have on regular people. Do read!

UPDATE, 7/18/05:

Here is another example of the way politics ruins perfectly good regulatory agencies, thanks to HuffPo linking to the NYTimes. The EPA is now wasting precious resources on PR (aka, propaganda). Why would the EPA need PR? Because facts lead to one set of conclusions, and spinned facts lead to another set of conclusions. I feel sorry for all of the attorneys who joined the EPA under Clinton for the noble purpose of protecting the environment, and who now must stomach this twisted facade to keep their pensions.