That wise old sage, Bennett, takes young Shawn Matlock to task for being a conservative Republican criminal defense lawyer.  Matlock is okay with mandatory minimums, sentencing guidelines, the death penalty, and any other sacred cow that his hero, Ronnie Reagan, loved.  How can this be?

It’s not entirely surprising, or novel, to me.  Whenever the politics of law is discussed, the conservatives and the Republicans (two separate groups, mind you) come out from behind their defense lawyer facade to reveal that defense lawyer is more of a job than a belief.  They can perform the tasks, and some quite well, without believing that their arguments are necessarily valid.  As Bennett suggests, that’s not only rife with hypocrisy, but creates a strain on the credibility of the advocate.  Nonetheless, I’ve seen it done and done well.

My wife is far more liberal than I am.  I have a knee-jerk reaction to knee-jerk reactions.  Each issue is worthy of its own deliberation, and sometimes I fall on one side of the fence and sometimes the other.  I tend to be fiscally conservative, but socially liberal.  And yet even those pigeonholes don’t necessarily fit quite right.

Still, one has to wonder how anyone who defends people can support such simplistic and flawed concepts as one-size-fits-all justice, such as mandatory minimums and sentencing guidelines.  These aren’t conservative ideals, though they are certainly Republican.  These are just magic bullets meant to delude the populace that the Government is there to protect them.  Regardless of your politics, thinking people have a natural inclination to reject simple answers that fail to resolve real problems.

Am I calling Matlock simple?  No, my purpose is not to diss young Matlock, but rather to help him recognize that it’s fine to be conservative in outlook provided that you’ve reached your conclusions honestly.  Just because the Republican Party says so doesn’t mean he has to join in lock step. 

One of the primary misunderstandings of criminal defense lawyers is that we support crime and criminals.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  We are lawyers, not criminals.  We defend people accused of crimes; we do not defend crimes.  We believe in the Constitution, a document that President George Bush is sworn to uphold.  I guess that kinda makes us Bush-like, right?

When I read decisions by Justice Antonin Scalia, I often find myself in agreement.  Worse yet, I’m frequently impressed by his analysis and his intellectual integrity.  There are some horrific exceptions, but I cannot disdain Justice Scalia because his politics differ from mine.

One of the greatest moments in my life was when I was invited to be in the audience and green room at Firing Line with William F. Buckley.  His guest that day was John Kenneth Galbraith.  I was allowed to be near two intellectual giants, men whose brilliance and grace placed them high above mere mortals in my eyes.  Of course, these two individuals were diametrically opposed to one another on almost every issue under the sun.  It was exhilarating.

It gave me pause to appreciate the difference between varying points of view based upon reason, passion and sheer, unadulterated intellect.   The wit of their repartee was awe-inspiring.  I doubt I will ever hear two people lunge, parry and riposte like that again.  I wish I could play a video of this match here, but alas, it doesn’t exist as far as I know.  It would make the point so much better than I ever could.

So Mark and Shawn, you are absolutely allowed to be a criminal defense lawyer and hold whatever political beliefs suit you, with one proviso.  Shawn, you are not allowed to believe in something because Ronnie Reagan told you to.  You are not allowed to be Republican because your mommy and daddy were.  You are allowed to be whatever you want because you, yourself, believe in it and, after hearing both sides and giving each due consideration, you have reached your own conclusion. 

But once you do, and assuming that conservative beliefs prevail, you may want to consider whether representing someone who will go to jail for an extended stay under some misguided and rationally unsound theory, is consistent with your own intellectual integrity.  To do otherwise would deeply disappoint Antonin Scalia.  As for Ronnie Reagan, not to worry.  He was only an actor.