ACS is pleased to distribute an Issue Brief by Scott Phillips, Associate Professor in the Department of Sociology and Criminology at the University of Denver, entitled “Hire A Lawyer, Escape the Death Penalty?” In this Issue Brief, Professor Phillips describes the results of his study to test the claim made by death penalty opponents that wealthy defendants who hire legal counsel are exempt from capital punishment. His research focuses on Houston, Texas, and surrounding Harris County, which is the county with the largest number of executions in the United States and is the largest jurisdiction that uses court-appointed lawyers to represent defendants who cannot afford an attorney, although the county is currently considering the creation of a public defender. The data for the study include the 504 adult defendants indicted for capital murder in Harris County from 1992 to 1999, and represent all of the relevant cases from this time period. Professor Phillips compares the outcomes in cases where the defendant hired a lawyer with cases where the defendant had a court-appointed lawyer and finds that, “[h]iring counsel for the entire case not only eliminates the chance of death, but also dramatically increases the chance of an acquittal.” He also finds that “[h]iring counsel for a portion of the case substantially reduces the chance of death,” and “hiring counsel did not appear to be the province of the wealthy because virtually all capital defendants seem to be poor.”

Professor Phillips argues that these dramatic findings “are not an indictment of appointed attorneys, but rather an indictment of the structural deficiencies inherent in the appointment method of indigent defense.” He discusses these deficiencies and reform efforts in Texas aimed at addressing them. He believes that the reform efforts have not succeeded, however, and argues that “the solution is to create a public defender office, including a capital defender unit, in Houston that is responsible for all indigent cases. The public defender must be funded at a level proportionate to the DA’s office.” He acknowledges that, “[t]he hybrid plan currently being considered [that would use both a public defender and appointed attorneys] represents genuine progress and is a laudable step in the right direction,” but concludes by asserting that “Houston’s distinction as the capital of capital punishment creates a special obligation to provide the most rigorous system of indigent defense possible. Only a top-notch public defender can meet such a standard.”

This Issue Brief has been updated by the author with additional information since it was originally published on February 23, 2010.

Click Here to Download the Issue Brief

Professor Phillips previously wrote an ACS Issue Brief entitled, “Racial Disparities in Capital Punishment: Blind Justice Requires a Blindfold.” His first issue brief described research he conducted on race and capital punishment in Harris County, and is available here.

ACS is pleased to distribute “Free Riding on Families: Why the American Workplace Needs to Change and How to Do It,” an Issue Brief by Phoebe Taubman, an Equal Justice Works Fellow with A Better Balance: The Work and Family Legal Center, based in New York City. Today’s fast-paced economy relies on many different resources, including electricity, fuel, technology, and the labor of our workers, among many others. Ms. Taubman argues, though, that there is one critical resource whose value we do not fully recognize, and without which our economy would founder: the unpaid work of caring for our families. Whether it is the education and care of the next generation or the comfort and care of the elderly, this work produces extensive benefits for society and we could not go on without it. Ms. Taubman, employing a variety of statistics, discusses the staggering costs imposed on unpaid caregivers, most of whom are women, and on their families, companies, and society as a whole. She contends that, “[f]or a country whose politicians tout family values, the United States has done little to confront these costs and support the critical work that families provide.”

In her issue brief, Ms. Taubman compares current U.S. policies with those of other countries around the world, and she argues that the comparison is not flattering with regard to our policies on paid maternity leave, paid paternity leave, paid sick leave, and the treatment of part-time workers. She provides empirical data to demonstrate how our workforce has changed since our current policies were implemented, and contends that “[o]ur workplace norms and laws were developed over 50 years ago when a different workforce model and a different family model prevailed [and] . . . [i]t is time to adapt our laws to reflect and support the way Americans live and work today.” She then discusses several potential changes to our law or policies, some of which “are already being considered and/or implemented in a variety of U.S. cities and states, as well as overseas, and all of [which] . . . would provide meaningful, immediate support to families who are struggling to provide and care for their loved ones, and would set us on a path toward a more family-friendly workplace culture for the future.”