◆ SpookStack

oo enh a ea Ne LR ee aoe thee. PEMBERTON: \We are rapidly nearing — time when old-fashioned bail will be abolished. The Vera Foundation in New York recently carricd on a_ three-year Manhattan Bail Project experiment dur- jing which 3505 accused were released on their.. own recognizance after recom. mendation by the Foundation — staff. Only 1.6 percent willfully failed to ap- pear in court; during the same period, three percent of those out on financial bail bond failed to appear. It’s also note- worthy, and a bit sobering, to reflect that 59 -percent of those held in jail till trial were convicted, but only ten per- cent of those who had been out on bail. This. it seems to me, may indicate that freedom of the accused before trial is an important. factor in preparing a defense and escaping improper punishment. BELLU: Another excellent reason to do away with the bail bond—if one is needed—is the simple fact that it’s a dirty, vicious racket. Too often the bail- bond broker gets his cut.of the criminal lawyer's fee, acting as a- lawyer's agent and steering business to the highest bid- der. It’s a completely illegal racket, but it exists in every major city in the United States. PLAYBOY: That brings up another aspect of legal injustice to the poor. What hap- pens to the accused who can’t afford a lawyer's fee, either? The Gideon deci- ston requires that each accused, no mat- ter how poor, has the right to counsel. How do you think it should he provided? Belli: I favor the paid public defender, like those of Oakland and Los Angeles in California. The Los Angeles public defender has a large staff with many in- Vestigators and, what's more important, all of them are sincerely dedicated to defending the poor. When 1 visited Russia. the people there were shocked to learn from ime thatin mast parts of... the United States the government pays not only for the prosecution but also for the defense. . RUSTIN: But to have the state pay both the prosecutor and the defender fives the state still more power than it already wields in court. Inevitably, the defender will become friendly with the prosecutor because his salary comes from the same treasury. It’s only human nature for him to become, perhaps unconsciously, more on the side of the state than of his indi- Rent clients. No, the defense of the in- digent should be the function of private agencies such as the Legal Aid Society, - the bar associations, civil rights groups and volunteer panels of public-spirited attorneys, ° PEMBERTON: Though ours is not a legal-aid society, the ACLU is one of those private “agencies Mr. Rustin just described. We've studied this knoity problem with- eut reaching any clear conclusion, but We be Crys ate fee ote » . San we ce mee eh socicties like ours, paid public defenders —whatever system or mixture of systems each district feels is most effective in its own area. But whatever system is used, the government should foot the bill for the truly indigent. Most of our expe- rience with the publicdcfender system has been good, by the way, despite the reasonable-sounding objections Mr. Rus- tin has raised. . PLAYBOY: For several years, Mr. Pember- ton and the ACLU have been in the forefront ‘of a campaign by various civil liberties groups to overturn local “stop- and-frisk” statutes that permit the police in some cities to accost any citizen “on reasonable suspicion,” search him pub- licly and force him to explain his pres- ence and his plans. The principal avowed purpose of the search is to protect the police from attack with concealed weap- ons and to prevent thieves and dope pushers from “dumping” stolen goods or narcotics before apprehension. Do you think this law serves its purpose, gentle- men—and that the stated end justifies the means? PEMBERTON: The answer to both questions is an emphatic no. The policeman’s right to force us to explain our presence on his beat is a gross violation of our right to remain silent—and to mind our own business. And the stop-and-frisk law gives the police the right to detain anyone they feel intuitively is about to commit a crime. How can you have probable cause to believe a person guilty of a crime that hasn't been committed yet? INBAU: Hold on a minute. This stop-and- frisk law doesn't permit a policeman to stop just any citizen on a whim. He can stop and frisk only when there has been a crime committed in the neighborhood and the person stopped fits the descrip- tion of the criminal, or when he finds Persons loiteriig-ii a dark alley where they have no business at three in the morning. This is what the law means by “reasonable suspicion” that a person has committed a crime or is about to com- mit a crime. A policeman can't search for papers or flip through personal effects: he can search only for weapons. Should he search a wallet and find a stolen bond. for instance, that bond would not be ad- missible as evidence, because he would have exceeded the search authority given him by this stacute. RUSTIN: Whatever its provisions or its purpose, this law is a nefarious example of class legislation, for its effect is to per- mit harassment of the poor. ‘No police are going to stop and frisk well-dressed bankers on Wall Street—but they don't hesitate to stop well-dressed Negro busi- nessmen in Harlem and go through their attaché cases. That kind of brusque police action is reserved for the poor 2 TSE aS PSS Oe ee teal «5 SOS bm Me ates t t