Md. Public Defender Chief Fired Over Philosophical Differences

Pity the (literally) poor criminals in Maryland. It seems the state's Office of the Public Defender is having a tough time making certain services available for their clients, such as drug treatment or proper housing.

This issue was highlighted in an article in today's Washington Post, which described the circumstances surrounding the firing of OPD's chief attorney, Nancy Forster. Forster apparently thought social workers would be a good way to help the office's clients. But the head of the board that oversees the agency has begged to differ, saying that lean times offer no room for such services.

Of course, it's easy for one to dismiss this as simply a political struggle within an agency that many people look down upon, something to which the Post alludes:

Officially called the Office of the Public Defender, the agency doesn't receive much attention, in part because it represents people accused of drug dealing, homicides and other offenses that don't make them popular with the public. With 400 lawyers and 600 support employees, it spends about $90 million a year representing more than 170,000 people.

I have to admit that it is, in general, difficult to sympathize with anyone associated with the Maryland OPD these days. But then I started reading some of the online comments about this article, and it seems that Forster may well have been trying to do the right things here.

Unfortunately, this is the same OPD that opposed the bills that would have limit violent offenders' good behavior credits, the same office that said, "The purpose of incarceration is not to incapacitate persons by removing them from society for as long as possible." Right. And the purpose of the OPD apparently is to get their clients out of jail as soon as possible, regardless of whether their most violent subjects have been reformed or received all the treatment they need.

Here's something else to consider. Betsy Tolentino, the OPD rep who testified against Senate Bill 354 earlier this year, said "Earning diminution credits serves an important purpose. Getting education, treatment, and vocational opportunities allows for a successful reentry, allows for the inmate to create a stable life upon entering the community, therefore hopefully lessening the chance of reoffending."

Which begs a rather interesting question for Ms. Tolentino. If violent offenders in Maryland's prisons are benefitting so much from the programs in which they participate in prison to earn diminution credits, then why did her boss feel that the office needed to hire social workers to get their clients into those same types of programs?