Top Law Schools

My state has (and actually uses) capital punishment. Would I have to be OK with charging and trying capital cases to work in the DAs office?

You won’t handle a capital case for 20 years, so there’s no good reason for that to be disqualifying. That said, DAs are elected officials who can be arbitrary or capricious about anything.

Calibrazy wrote:My state has (and actually uses) capital punishment. Would I have to be OK with charging and trying capital cases to work in the DAs office?

To the question of "do you need to be okay with charging and trying it, I agree with the above response. I once interviewed for the DA's office in Miami. Made it to the second round before realizing it wouldn't be a good fit. But ultimately, I believe that in any state where it is legal and used, your response in an interview setting should be, at a minimum, that you are okay with it in the most extreme cases. I believe for FL, that was the position of the state AG at the time: so it made that answer even more reasonable.

In other words, whether or not you personally support it or will have to try it during your tenure, I would just recognize that you may interview with some true believers who would disqualify you if you present as being too firmly against it.

Thanks for the responses. My main concern was whether I'd actually have to try a capital case. I wouldn't tell an interviewer "oh by the way I am against capital punishment."

Regardless of how you feel about it,

“My one issue with capital punishment is that we expressly declare, as a matter of law, that you cannot kill anybody under duress no matter what the duress is; in other words there is not justifiable situation in which anybody could kill anybody and call it a defense...

...oh wait unless you’re the government”

You’ll impress them with your knowledge of defense and the fact that you’ve evidently thought about this issue. Your personal stance won’t matter, but when they’re working out or trying to get to sleep or whatever later that day, they’ll be thinking about what you said.

Calibrazy wrote:Thanks for the responses. My main concern was whether I'd actually have to try a capital case. I wouldn't tell an interviewer "oh by the way I am against capital punishment."

Like the others have said,it'll be decades until you try a capital case. And I'm guessing that you can choose to not enter the bureau that handles capital cases as well.

"Decades" is probably an exaggeration, but I think this should not be an issue for at least several years.

objctnyrhnr wrote:Regardless of how you feel about it,

“My one issue with capital punishment is that we expressly declare, as a matter of law, that you cannot kill anybody under duress no matter what the duress is; in other words there is not justifiable situation in which anybody could kill anybody and call it a defense...

...oh wait unless you’re the government”

You’ll impress them with your knowledge of defense and the fact that you’ve evidently thought about this issue. Your personal stance won’t matter, but when they’re working out or trying to get to sleep or whatever later that day, they’ll be thinking about what you said.

Honestly have no idea what you are trying to say here, or where this idea that no one can ever kill in self defense comes from. But the idea of saying something like this in an interview, “regardless of how you feel about it,” is absolutely insane.

If you are morally opposed to capital punishment but want the job, keep quiet and later on in your career when you are actually faced with having to pursue capital punishment, you can decide whether to keep your head down or stand up for what you believe (although, who knows, after dealing with a case where some little girl got raped and chopped up into little pieces and there is incontrovertible evidence re who the perp is, maybe your beliefs will change — life is complicated). Or if your conscious will be bothered by being a part of something, even in a super indirect way, like capital punishment, you should just not pursue the job.

In any case, the idea that you should go in and shame your interviewers is the absolute most insane thing I have seen on here — and that is saying a lot. This is real life, not reddit.

legalpotato wrote:

objctnyrhnr wrote:Regardless of how you feel about it,

“My one issue with capital punishment is that we expressly declare, as a matter of law, that you cannot kill anybody under duress no matter what the duress is; in other words there is not justifiable situation in which anybody could kill anybody and call it a defense...

...oh wait unless you’re the government”

You’ll impress them with your knowledge of defense and the fact that you’ve evidently thought about this issue. Your personal stance won’t matter, but when they’re working out or trying to get to sleep or whatever later that day, they’ll be thinking about what you said.

Honestly have no idea what you are trying to say here, or where this idea that no one can ever kill in self defense comes from. But the idea of saying something like this in an interview, “regardless of how you feel about it,” is absolutely insane.

If you are morally opposed to capital punishment but want the job, keep quiet and later on in your career when you are actually faced with having to pursue capital punishment, you can decide whether to keep your head down or stand up for what you believe (although, who knows, after dealing with a case where some little girl got raped and chopped up into little pieces and there is incontrovertible evidence re who the perp is, maybe your beliefs will change — life is complicated). Or if your conscious will be bothered by being a part of something, even in a super indirect way, like capital punishment, you should just not pursue the job.

In any case, the idea that you should go in and shame your interviewers is the absolute most insane thing I have seen on here — and that is saying a lot. This is real life, not reddit.

Okay Mr. Reading Comprehension, I said “duress,” not self defense. Not sure if you’re a big criminal law guy (or girl), but those are two different defenses. Duress is never a defense to homicide as far as I know. Self defense (or defense of another), by contrast, can be...but I didn’t say self defense; I said duress.

And obviously (though I acknowledge I did not expressly day it in my post), my suggestion was in the context of being directly asked about it during an ada interview. Sorry for not making that clear; figured it was a given.

objctnyrhnr wrote:

legalpotato wrote:

objctnyrhnr wrote:Regardless of how you feel about it,

“My one issue with capital punishment is that we expressly declare, as a matter of law, that you cannot kill anybody under duress no matter what the duress is; in other words there is not justifiable situation in which anybody could kill anybody and call it a defense...

...oh wait unless you’re the government”

You’ll impress them with your knowledge of defense and the fact that you’ve evidently thought about this issue. Your personal stance won’t matter, but when they’re working out or trying to get to sleep or whatever later that day, they’ll be thinking about what you said.

Honestly have no idea what you are trying to say here, or where this idea that no one can ever kill in self defense comes from. But the idea of saying something like this in an interview, “regardless of how you feel about it,” is absolutely insane.

If you are morally opposed to capital punishment but want the job, keep quiet and later on in your career when you are actually faced with having to pursue capital punishment, you can decide whether to keep your head down or stand up for what you believe (although, who knows, after dealing with a case where some little girl got raped and chopped up into little pieces and there is incontrovertible evidence re who the perp is, maybe your beliefs will change — life is complicated). Or if your conscious will be bothered by being a part of something, even in a super indirect way, like capital punishment, you should just not pursue the job.

In any case, the idea that you should go in and shame your interviewers is the absolute most insane thing I have seen on here — and that is saying a lot. This is real life, not reddit.

Okay Mr. Reading Comprehension, I said “duress,” not self defense. Not sure if you’re a big criminal law guy (or girl), but those are two different defenses. Duress is never a defense to homicide as far as I know. Self defense (or defense of another), by contrast, can be...but I didn’t say self defense; I said duress.

And obviously (though I acknowledge I did not expressly day it in my post), my suggestion was in the context of being directly asked about it during an ada interview. Sorry for not making that clear; figured it was a given.

Ah ok. No the context wasn’t clear since no one posed the question “what if I get asked.” In any case, don’t think a sarcastic response would be the way to go.

I’d probably go safer in an interview (and only if specifically asked) with something like “It is a complex issue and my views on it evololve and will likely continue to evolve as a I gain more life experience [or some other generic hedge], but I believe that the government should not have the ability to end life [or some other virtuous but not confrontational answer, and then you can even throw in a “just as individuals cannot, as a matter of law.....” if you feel like this will win you points]”

ADA for about 3 years in a very red state at an office run by elected conservatives here and my take on this is that I would be really surprised if you were asked anything about this in an interview. In any capital case, the elected would almost certainly make the decision about whether to pursue capital punishment and I can assure you that it is a decision not taken lightly by anyone. All that said, if an ADA in the office had moral or personal reasons why they didn't feel comfortable working on that case, I think any number of other ADAs would be happy to step in and help. I would be surprised if any reasonable DA would hold an aversion to capital punishment against you.

Assuming you're fresh out of law school or only have a couple years of experience, I would be prepared to answer questions about your takes on drug possession cases and your thoughts on rehab v. punishment especially in the context of drug addicts because those are the cases new ADAs get. At the beginning, at least half of my docket was either a drug possession case or a property crime that was committed by an addict to get money to buy drugs. I suspect this is pretty common throughout the US and your views on what to do in cases like those are much more relevant than your views on capital punishment.

Just my two cents, but happy to elaborate if you have specific questions.

morrissey wrote:ADA for about 3 years in a very red state at an office run by elected conservatives here and my take on this is that I would be really surprised if you were asked anything about this in an interview. In any capital case, the elected would almost certainly make the decision about whether to pursue capital punishment and I can assure you that it is a decision not taken lightly by anyone. All that said, if an ADA in the office had moral or personal reasons why they didn't feel comfortable working on that case, I think any number of other ADAs would be happy to step in and help. I would be surprised if any reasonable DA would hold an aversion to capital punishment against you.

Assuming you're fresh out of law school or only have a couple years of experience, I would be prepared to answer questions about your takes on drug possession cases and your thoughts on rehab v. punishment especially in the context of drug addicts because those are the cases new ADAs get. At the beginning, at least half of my docket was either a drug possession case or a property crime that was committed by an addict to get money to buy drugs. I suspect this is pretty common throughout the US and your views on what to do in cases like those are much more relevant than your views on capital punishment.

Just my two cents, but happy to elaborate if you have specific questions.

Would a view that addiction should generally be treated with rehab instead of incarceration be problematic for getting hired? Also, are we talking possession with intent to distribute or possession for personal use? And does the drug matter? (I.e. possession of marijuana with intent to distribute v. Possession of fentanyl w/ intent to distribute v. possession of marijuana w/o intent to distribute, etc.; these all seem different to me)

Calibrazy wrote: Would a view that addiction should generally be treated with rehab instead of incarceration be problematic for getting hired? Also, are we talking possession with intent to distribute or possession for personal use? And does the drug matter? (I.e. possession of marijuana with intent to distribute v. Possession of fentanyl w/ intent to distribute v. possession of marijuana w/o intent to distribute, etc.; these all seem different to me)

No, I don't think it's problematic at all. It's not our job to be automatons that ignore the larger societal problem of drug addiction. Frankly, I think it's unethical to ignore mitigating things like that. All that said, you can't give 100 chances and use your judgment to determine when someone is out of chances. Likewise, possession with intent to distribute can be different, but you will find that a lot of dealers are also addicts (and defense attorneys will always argue that large quantity of whatever is only for personal use). For context, if I have a PWID Meth where the weight isn't that high and there isn't any other evidence of distribution (multiple baggies, scales, guns, large sums of cash), I'm probably reducing to possession or recommending probation on PWID. If the weight is high and other indicia are present, I care a lot less if the guy is also an addict because he's ruining other people's live too. That offer might just be straight up active time.

tl;dr, my advice would be to answer that question with something along the lines of each case requires a full view of the facts and consideration of diversion programs, mitigation, and strength of the case before making a judgment call on the rehab v. incarceration scale.

Calibrazy wrote:
Would a view that addiction should generally be treated with rehab instead of incarceration be problematic for getting hired? Also, are we talking possession with intent to distribute or possession for personal use? And does the drug matter? (I.e. possession of marijuana with intent to distribute v. Possession of fentanyl w/ intent to distribute v. possession of marijuana w/o intent to distribute, etc.; these all seem different to me)

I've been a prosecutor for 5ish years, and I felt very much the same way when I started. I would therefore not hold those ideas against an interviewee. If they came across as rigid about stuff they didn't understand that would be a big red flag, but any thoughtful and deliberate response was a right answer when I was interviewing folks. I will say that reading the book Beautiful Boy gave me an advanced vocabulary to talk about addiction/rehab that impressed when I was interviewing. A smart DA will also realize that someone can be a good attorney and a bad fit for drug offenses (or property offenses, as mentioned previously property offenders are generally just addicts).