Justice at Justice?

Janet Reno's selection as Attorney General last year, coming after two abandoned nominations, had a distressingly affirmative action cast to it.

Her appointment, fraught with symbolism, has thus far proved to be disappointing. There have been some modest accomplishments. Under Reno, the Justice Department has liberalized the release of information under the Freedom Of Information Act. She supported legislation which made it a felony to obstruct access to an abortion clinic.

The missteps, though, have been numerous. There was the disastrous Waco raid, the delay in appointing an independent prosecutor for the Whitewater episode. The agency under Reno has also been unusually vulnerable to pressure from the White House. This is reflected in Reno's receptivity to preparing legislation which would expand the reach of child pornography laws, an issue with clear political appeal.

Former Deputy Attorney General, Philip B. Heymann, Harvard Law Professor, may also have been a casualty of this lack of independence.

Heymann was responsible for producing an agency review of federal sentencing policies for drug related crimes. This review arose from Reno's concern about non-violent drug offenders who are given lengthy sentences under federal mandatory minimums.

The report's findings, detailing the futility of minimum mandatory sentencing, are in keeping with the Attorney General's holistic approach to crime prevention which calls for a shift in the nation's law-enforcement focus toward investment in children as a means of preventing crime.

Clearly, the Administration is not speaking with one voice on adopting anti-crime measures. The Omnibus Crime Bill which is making its way through Congress calls for stiffer prison sentences and the building of more prisons, measures which the Heymann Report describes as counterproductive. Heymann may have been a victim of this discord between the White House and the Justice Department.

The draconian measures contained within the Crime Bill reveal Reno's absolute failure in influencing the debate and consequently policy. Is politics then being privileged in dictating agency behavior?

It is clearly Reno's prerogative to assemble a team with which she can work productively. But Heymann was not a political neophyte. He was familiar with the organizational culture of government agencies.

He had begun his legal career at the Justice Department more than 30 years ago and had written at the beginning of his tenure, "I can think of no higher calling in our system of government than service with the Department of Justice."

Yesterday's Wall Street Journal reported that "Heymann objected to having White House lawyers sit in on staff interviews by Justice Department investigators following Vincent Foster's suicide" and "raised hell" with White House counsel Bernard Nussbaum about the lawyer's presence. So questions persist.

Did Heymann jump or was he pushed? What is the extent of White House involvement in this? Why is Janet Reno's Department of Justice failing to offer convincing proof of being an independent agency?

Lorraine A. Lezama's column appears on alternate Tuesdays.