Bill Overview
Title: Access to Justice Act of 2022
Description: This bill requires a federal judicial district (or two adjacent districts or parts of districts) to establish a defender organization (i.e., a federal public defender organization or community defender organization). Currently, a federal judicial district (or part of a district or two adjacent districts) may establish a defender organization if at least 200 persons annually require the appointment of counsel.
Sponsors: Sen. Ossoff, Jon [D-GA]
Target Audience
Population: Low-income individuals charged with federal crimes needing legal representation
Estimated Size: 2000000
- The bill mandates the establishment of public defender organizations which serve individuals who cannot afford legal representation in federal court.
- Previously, a defender organization was only required if at least 200 persons annually needed legal representation. The new law removes this threshold, potentially increasing coverage.
- Federal judicial districts span the entirety of the United States, including all states and territories that have a federal court system.
- This will impact the low-income or financially disadvantaged individuals charged with federal crimes who need appointed legal representation.
Reasoning
- The Access to Justice Act of 2022 significantly impacts low-income individuals accused of federal crimes by enhancing their access to legal defense.
- Wellbeing among this demographic could be improved due to fairer trials and reduced legal stress, though many in the population may not notice changes immediately.
- The presence of public defenders might lead to better legal outcomes which could indirectly affect wellbeing scores positively over time.
- This act primarily affects those directly involved in the federal justice system and would have low or no impact on people not involved with federal law offenses.
Simulated Interviews
Unemployed (Chicago, IL)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This law could be a lifesaver for people like me who can't afford a lawyer.
- I'm hopeful that having a proper defense will impact my case positively.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
School Teacher (Mississippi)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I support access to justice for all, but this policy doesn't directly impact my life.
- It's good to know we're providing more services to those in need.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Freelancer (New York, NY)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Access to legal support could make a huge difference for people in my community.
- I'm relieved that more people won't have to navigate this alone.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Paralegal (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy ensures more people get the help they deserve.
- It will reduce some of the burdens we face in directing people to the right resources.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Student (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 26 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's a necessary step towards justice equality, and I'm proud to see this happening.
- I think it will take time to see the benefits, but it's a start.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Public Defender (Houston, TX)
Age: 31 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This new framework will help us manage cases better and perhaps provide more job satisfaction.
- I expect my workload will remain high, but the right resources make a big difference.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Construction Worker (Philadelphia, PA)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Having this kind of defense is reassuring—it makes the future seem a bit more secure.
- I may never need it, but it's good to know it's available.
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 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Retired (Rural Kansas)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Ensuring everyone has access to justice seems like the right thing to do.
- This policy might not impact me directly now, but it's comforting to know it's there.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Bus Driver (Detroit, MI)
Age: 37 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's about time this happened—too many people don't get a fair trial otherwise.
- I'm relieved for others, although it comes too late for my past experience.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Federal Prosecutor (New Orleans, LA)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This will make my job more balanced since defense will be able to counter more effectively.
- I respect the law's intention though work dynamics will shift.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $500000000 (Low: $450000000, High: $550000000)
Year 2: $550000000 (Low: $500000000, High: $600000000)
Year 3: $575000000 (Low: $525000000, High: $625000000)
Year 5: $600000000 (Low: $550000000, High: $650000000)
Year 10: $650000000 (Low: $600000000, High: $700000000)
Year 100: $800000000 (Low: $750000000, High: $850000000)
Key Considerations
- This policy significantly broadens access to federal legal defense, amplifying the potential impact on judicial efficiencies and the rights of defendants.
- Operational success relies on strategic planning, continued funding, and oversight to ensure high-quality defense services.
- Unexpected legal system stressors, such as surges in federal crime rates, could affect cost estimates.