The Fight Over Who Gets to call Themself a Mitigation Specialist is a Problem

In a recent forum discussion for mitigation specialists a social worker questioned the ability of someone like me, without an LCSW license to do mitigation work. Someone very smart on the forum responded so perfectly I'd like to share what they said here:

 "Mitigation is a relatively new field compared to others. And it is in fact, multidisciplinary. I am a credentialed person in both law and social work. I have equally talented friends who do Mitigation in Texas and other states that utilize their journalism backgrounds. Mitigation while it is unique, falls under the field of law. Ultimately it’s the defense attorneys and judges who determine who they think is qualified and who is not qualified to do the work. This work is about the clients, ultimately. And the focus should be Client-centered. I’ve observed people of all backgrounds and licensure fight over who should get to work with our clients- and it’s rarely about the clients’ well-being. There are some places that psychologists and psychiatrists don’t think that social workers have enough clinical training. This competition over the market seems never ending and often based on a lot of illusions. How elite do we have to be in this entire system of mass incarceration and death row system to prove one is qualified? 

1) the Federal Rules of Evidence is broad in its definitions of sentencing, permissible evidence, and who can work to become a qualified expert witness for a reason— it gives the court broad latitude for people with a wide variety of backgrounds to be qualified. I love that there are many paths one can choose to get to the same place. This is the only area within criminal justice that gives us such vast room to be creative and to maneuver in high stakes cases.

2) If we think about capital work, then the focus for mitigation specialists should be on proving that capital punishment and other harsh sentencing schemes are obsolete to begin with. When we’re working in such an obsolete system, I wonder what these battles for distinction are truly about if not for the ultimate preservation of the client and the client’s rights."

My own response to the original post on this forum was this:  "I think it’s important to understand that flexibility about what we do and what qualifies to do it is only going to refine and improve our ability to help our clients which ultimately is what everybody’s goal should be. My formal education is in storytelling through film and I have found that tool to be incredibly helpful in mitigation. So much so that I do workshops teaching attorneys and social workers how to use it. I would never in a million years tell a social worker that she shouldn’t pick up a camera and try to help the client with that tool because she doesn’t have a film degree. Just sayin’."