Highlighting how new resentencing laws could help law students consider becoming prosecutors

Hillary Blout has this intriguing new Slate commentary headlined “One Simple Criminal Justice Reform Could Solve the Prosecutor Shortage Crisis.”  The headline is a bit off because the commentary discusses a reform that is not really that “simple” and that surely would not alone “solve” the need for more prosecutors.  Nevertheless, the commentary is worth a full read and makes a good pitch for a concept I certainly favor.  Here are excerpts: 

[P]rosecutor-initiated resentencing is a form of “second-look” legislation that enables prosecutors to revisit old cases and propose revised sentences to the court. PIR posits that if prosecutors can recommend a sentence on the front end, then it is only just that they be able to look back, years later, and determine whether that sentence is still appropriate….

New research shows that there is a rapidly growing prosecutor shortage in this country, with retirements and resignations outpacing new recruits. In Miami, for example, 33 percent of prosecutor positions are unfilled.  Although some may cheer the shrinking scope of law enforcement officers, the shortage crisis may ultimately have a negative impact on reform efforts: If you want more reform, you actually need more prosecutors processing cases.

During the PIR process, prosecutors meticulously review cases, considering factors such as a person’s life before prison, how they have spent their time in prison, and their plans to reenter society. In the past five years, I have worked to advance this area of law, leveraging my experience as a former prosecutor who recognizes the importance of looking back. Today, five states — California, Washington, Oregon, Illinois, and Minnesota — have enacted PIR, resulting in nearly 1,000 people resentenced and given a second chance at freedom.  The process is favored by prosecutors because it centers victim input, rehabilitation, and public safety, making it a balanced and holistic reform.

One way PIR laws are engaging future attorneys is through law school clinics, fellowships, and internships.  These programs educate students about the multifaceted role of prosecutors — beyond influencing decisions on charging, bail, evidence, and plea bargains.  Through law clinics specifically, students review real cases of currently incarcerated people, scrupulously analyzing details over months and presenting them to elected prosecutors, who ultimately decide whether their offices will bring the person home.

Such clinical experience can broaden law students’ understanding of prosecution and reveal prosecutors’ power to effect change on the front end and the back end.  At the core, this challenges the adversarial nature of our criminal justice system.  Innovations like PIR have the power to recruit a young, diverse talent pool who may otherwise choose a different path than prosecution.

I have seen several such attorneys shift career paths toward prosecution after interacting with PIR and similar innovations early on in their careers. It is clear that dynamic innovations such as PIR encourage people who might otherwise not see themselves in these roles — first-generation college students, people of color, and women — to consider prosecution as a means of ensuring justice.