[ad_1]
Whenever a nation faces a security threat, such as a high-profile mass shooting, a wave of violent robberies, or an act of terrorism, the public cries out for action, and politicians and law enforcement agencies respond with proposals to increase their powers. I agree.
But new laws always have disturbing unintended consequences that stay with us for decades. And they often fail to protect us from the threats that prompted their enactment.
In a democracy, criminal justice policy is, of course, influenced by public perception. After violent crime rates skyrocketed in the late 1980s and early 1990s, in 1994 California voters overwhelmingly approved the nation’s toughest three-strikes-out law. A myriad of factors influence changes in crime. And given the time it takes to pass laws and initiatives, policy often lags data, making it difficult to discern what worked even in hindsight.
In 2005, the Legislative Analysis Service analyzed crime statistics and tracked national trends, finding that crime began to decline sharply before the “three strikes” took effect. In recent years, lawmakers and voters have reacted to rising incarceration rates. Just as the fear of crime led to tougher laws, the resulting stories of injustice (a man went on a third strike for stealing a pizza) and police abuses led to criminal justice. This brought about a series of reforms.
At a time when crime rates are rising and there are fears that they will reach their highest levels in years, policymakers are looking to revert back to the 1990s. This is true even in the most progressive cities in the state. For example, San Francisco Mayor London Breed introduced new police union-backed measures on the March ballot that would make it easier to police police and reduce documentation requirements when they use force against suspects. .
It’s so dizzying. Sadly, crime policy is not driven by policy experts who carefully analyze data and seek to strike the right balance between public safety and individual rights. It is driven by progressive ideologues on the one hand (if you don’t believe me, check out what happened in the Congressional Public Safety Committee) and powerful interest groups (police agencies and labor unions) on the other. It has been. Lawmakers respond to these groups and public sentiment.
I’m worried about the increase in crime. We are also concerned about over-incarceration and over-policing. I am also skeptical that our government, which seems unable to do anything competently, fairly and cost-effectively, will be able to strike the right balance. I offer no easy solutions or specific policy prescriptions, but I do offer a warning. Be careful what new laws are passed. It could take decades to undo it, and our rights could be wiped out in the process.
This column was produced by the following report. reason The magazine reported on Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt’s recent State of the State address calling for reform of civil asset forfeiture laws. “It’s crazy to me that someone could be pulled over for a crime and their cash and truck taken away. They were acquitted of the crime, but they still haven’t gotten their property back.” There have been many news articles about outrageous police crackdowns over the years.
California has better asset forfeiture protection than Oklahoma, but it’s still not enough. California law enforcement agencies circumvent state restrictions by partnering with federal agencies. The Fed operates under much looser standards. In recent years, California has witnessed a variety of abuses in which law enforcement agencies misuse forfeiture laws designed to thwart drug cartels, robbing innocent people of their life savings and inflating police budgets.
Fortunately, we have seen pushback by the courts. In January, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit sided with the FBI, overturning a lower court’s decision to remove $85 million in assets from a safety deposit box following a raid on a company that rented a safety deposit box in Beverly Hills. did. The Drug Enforcement Administration alleged that the company’s boxes facilitated money laundering and that they planned to steal and sell the contents. everyone’s Even if the safe is used by law-abiding citizens and for legitimate reasons.
That is a clear violation of the Constitution. It’s as if the government decided there was drug dealing going on somewhere in my neighborhood. Instead of proving criminal activity by individuals, they just compiled everyone’s information. Law enforcement agencies typically have strong incentives to use these laws to preserve ill-gotten rewards. In any case, police should not use that money as a budget replacement.
As a refresher, asset forfeiture was invented during the anti-drug panic during the Reagan administration. As two former US presidents. The Justice Department’s Asset Forfeiture Program wrote in 2014: washington post The column notes that the system was “conceived as a way to cut into the profit motive that fuels rampant drug trafficking,” but that “the corruption it caused in government and law enforcement agencies clearly outweighed any profits, and the system became an evil itself.” It has become,” he said.
We understand the fear of recent crimes, but let’s take a cautious and measured approach to ensure innocent people don’t lose their rights or property in the process.
This column first appeared in The Orange County Register.
[ad_2]
Source link
