Bill Overview
Title: Effective Assistance of Counsel in the Digital Era Act
Description: This bill prohibits the Department of Justice from monitoring the contents of a privileged electronic communication between an incarcerated person and his or her legal representative.
Sponsors: Sen. Wyden, Ron [D-OR]
Target Audience
Population: Incarcerated individuals needing legal communication
Estimated Size: 2000000
- The bill directly concerns incarcerated individuals who need to communicate with legal representatives.
- About 11 million people are currently incarcerated globally at any given time.
- The bill specifically addresses digital communications, which are increasingly common due to digital transformation.
- Access to legal representation is a right for incarcerated persons, making this a broad category within the access to justice context.
Reasoning
- The target population is primarily incarcerated individuals who need to communicate with their legal representatives, which numbers around 2 million in the US.
- Given that the policy focuses on the privacy of digital communications, those who primarily use electronic communication with their counsel stand to benefit the most.
- The policy goal is to ensure fair legal representation by preventing unauthorized access to privileged communications.
- A budget of $5,000,000 in year 1 and $23,500,000 over 10 years implies the policy could focus on upgrading secure digital communication infrastructure in prisons.
- The policy does not directly monetarily benefit individuals but boosts their legal rights and potentially their feelings of personal security and fairness.
Simulated Interviews
Incarcerated (California)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Ensuring privacy with my lawyer is critical to my case.
- Knowing this communication is protected gives me more confidence in discussing my defense.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Incarcerated (New York)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I have limited access to computers, but when I do, I worry about privacy.
- This policy might encourage more use of digital tools, which could be a huge advantage.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Incarcerated (Texas)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Most of my communication is via phone, so I see less impact for myself.
- Policy could help my peers who use email frequently.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
Incarcerated (Florida)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I always worry that someone is listening when I email my lawyer.
- This policy is really crucial to protect my legal rights.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 2 |
Incarcerated (Illinois)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 2
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't use much tech in here, but I support protecting those who do.
- I might consider more digital options if they're secure.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 3 | 2 |
| Year 2 | 3 | 2 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 2 |
Incarcerated (Ohio)
Age: 25 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I value being able to use tech to talk to my lawyer securely.
- This policy reinforces the security of our communications.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Incarcerated (Arizona)
Age: 31 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm more traditional, using letters mostly, but see how this is important for others who use digital means.
- Might explore digital if it’s safe.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
Incarcerated (Pennsylvania)
Age: 47 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Secure digital correspondence is vital for fair trials.
- The policy reassures me that our communication is safe.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Incarcerated (Georgia)
Age: 36 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- A secure policy encourages me to engage with my case more actively through digital means.
- I can focus better on legal strategies instead of worrying about leaks.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Incarcerated (Alabama)
Age: 58 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm skeptical but willing to trust digital systems if legally protected.
- Every bit of privacy helps and could be peace of mind for me.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $10000000)
Year 2: $4000000 (Low: $1500000, High: $8500000)
Year 3: $3000000 (Low: $1000000, High: $7500000)
Year 5: $2000000 (Low: $500000, High: $5000000)
Year 10: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $3000000)
Year 100: $100000 (Low: $50000, High: $500000)
Key Considerations
- Ensuring compliance without overburdening DOJ with monitoring for exceptions can pose a challenge and potential cost.
- Training for recognizing privileged communications properly will be essential to prevent legal issues.
- A balance between security interests and legal privilege rights will need careful management to avoid legal challenges.