In creating Fault Lines, an editorial decision was made. It would reflect all legitimate perspectives of the criminal justice system, from defense, public defender, police, judicial and prosecution.  There would be conflicts, sometimes deep and irreconcilable, because that’s how the system is. And that was okay.

FL was fortunate to have Murray Newman willing to stand up and speak on behalf of the prosecutors’ perspective. He was a long time prosecutor, and left his office not because he wanted to end his prosecutorial career, but in a regime change.  Murray has spoken thoughtfully for the prosecution.

Then Andrew King agreed to write for Fault Lines.  More importantly, Andrew’s office was on board with the idea. There were other active prosecutors who wanted to write for Fault Lines, but their offices refused to allow it for fear something they wrote would come back to bite them in the butt. Understandable, but unhelpful.  When Andrew’s office agreed, it was pretty huge.

Since then, Andrew has done an exemplary job of representing the prosecution’s perspective.  Not only is his writing superb, but he’s shown no shyness whatsoever in telling his side’s view of the world. Think Bill Otis, but not an antagonistic self-serving asshole. That’s exactly what we hoped he would do, and he has exceeded all expectations.

Remember, this is a matter of integrity, of Fault Lines remaining true to its principle of presenting all sides of criminal law rather than only the side with which you agree.

Andrew writes today about the antipathy toward Black Lives Matter.  I hated his post. Not because of the writing, which was strong, or the reasoning, which was supported by others who share his perspective. No, because it is diametrically opposed to what I believe.  And the subject is so inflammatory that it’s the sort of post that makes you want to scream at the screen.

But this is where my mettle was tested.  Lee Pacchia’s as well. No doubt many other Fault Lines writers will similarly find the post outrageous, and perhaps one will take it on directly, which is also fine.  But given that Fault Lines exists to present the prosecution’s perspective as well as others, there was no question but that this post would, and should, be published, no matter how I felt about it.

Is there no line that can’t be crossed?  If the question is one that legitimately arises in criminal law, then no, it’s fair game.  There will be no line that says only perspectives that don’t hurt feelings, that don’t fly in the face of deeply held beliefs, are worthy of airing.

In the early days of Fault Lines, one of the complaints was that it didn’t have a focus, meaning that it didn’t take a side in the confluence of criminal law issues.  Readers sought confirmation of their bias, and Fault Lines failed to present only the perspective they wanted to see.  We saw this as a feature, not a flaw. The notion was to challenge bias rather than to feed into it.  Some couldn’t deal with the idea that FL posts didn’t always prove they were right.

If that was what you found at Fault Lines, and it was more than you can handle, then it’s likely that you aren’t the sort of reader we were looking for.  There are plenty of places to go to find posts that will validate your beliefs.  Sure, they may not be written by lawyers, by people who actually know what they’re talking about and are professionally responsible for what they say, but when you’re seeking confirmation bias, you don’t care.

As a criminal defense lawyer, the first thing I need to know isn’t the defendant’s story about why he’s not guilty, but the prosecution’s evidence as to why he is. The most important information is what we’re facing, what is against us. The “for us” part is easy; it’s the “against us” part that we must confront and overcome.  If you can’t bear to read posts that defy your belief system, then you can’t understand what criminal law is really all about.

We’ve initiated a new subscription email at Fault Lines, where you will get an email every day with blurbs about each new post.  It allows you to see what’s new and decide which posts are worthy of your time.  Everyone who reads SJ should subscribe. These posts are worth your time.  And the subscription method allows you to pick and choose which ones deal with an issue, story, topic, that is of interest to you.

But I urge you to read and think about perspectives with which you disagree. Not because they will necessarily change your mind. Let’s get real. Minds don’t change all that easily. But because they will expand your mind, open your thoughts to a better and deeper understanding of what your beliefs are up against.

If you don’t know the arguments against you, you will never be able to test the validity of your beliefs.  And if your beliefs can’t withstand scrutiny, then you’re living in a fool’s paradise.  Many on the internets do so, reading only those who validate their love and hate, their bias.  If that’s not good enough for you, if you are tough enough to challenge your bias, then read ideas you despise.

As for Fault Lines, we will continue to provide a soapbox for all perspectives, without regard to whether they will make some people happy and others angry.  That was and remains our guiding principle, and we will adhere to it no matter how much we personally disagree with a perspective.  That’s what principle means.