Following upo on my earlier post, and Scott Greenfield’s challenge to me to explain my politics (and Mark Bennett’s reminder that I have not yet done so), I’d like to say a few words about why I think there is no inherent contradiction in a criminal defense lawyer being a political conservative or voting for Republican candidates. Let me preface this by saying that, on at least one point, I part company with my fellow right tinger Shawn Matlock. I do not believe in mandatory minimum sentences. I think that mandatory minimums remove from a judge the ability to consider all the relevant facts and circumstances that affect a possible sentence. That’s why we have judges – to make those decisions. If you don’t like the sentences they are handing out, there’s a solution. Its called the political process. Change the judges or change the law. That said, here’s my two cents on the politics issue.

As a conservative, I believe in the Constitution and the system of justice that it established. Those are bedrock principles by which I live my life and conduct my law practice. I am what some might describe as a constitutionalist. The rights that the Constitution bestows belong to us all, especially those accused of crimes and facing the loss of their freedom. In the same spirit that John Adams represented the British soldiers charged with murder (or was it manslaughter) after the Boston Massacre, I see representing the accused as a duty, and a privilege, of the advocate. I believe in law and order (and will probably support that Law & Order guy for president), but also believe that law and order also means that we don’t railroad folks, send them off to prison and take their freedom without being scrupulously fair about protecting their rights. and part of that process is allowing a vigrous defense. The right to a defense, moreover, is essentially meaningless if only the incompetent step up to provide it.

In fairness, I am probably more of a libertarian conservative, or a Goldwater conservative, get the state off my back guy in my politics ( I am in favor, for example, of decriminalizing the use of most most drugs, as well as prostitution). Those views are, I believe, wholly consistent with being a defense lawyer. Suspicion of the State in one sphere necessarily spreads, and leads to general suspicion of the state. I am, mind you, not a George W. Bush style conservative (and can the fellow who gave us No Child Left Behind really be said to be a conservative in any sense of the word?), but did vote for him twice. Why? Because, on balance, I expect that a vote for Bush probably meant greater freedom than a vote for Gore in 2000, or a vote for Kerry in 2004, although none of the options were all that appealing.

In short, to me that hallmark is freedom, within an ordered structure. Ordered liberty was the term that Edmund Burke used. Ordered liberty requires that we safeguard the rights of the individual such that those rights are meaningful, and that we insist on the sanctity of the rule of law and procedural fairness. These are distinctly conservative traits – although, to be sure, not principles exclusive to conservatives – and fully consistent with zealous defense of the accused.