Don’t Let Crime Fears Undermine Americans’ Rights

Whenever the nation faces a safety threate.g., a high-profile shooting, a wave of smash-and-grab robberiesor an act of terrorismthe public clamors for action, and politicians and police agencies respond with proposals to increase their power.

The new laws, however, always have disturbing unintended consequences that stay with us for decadesand they often fail to protect us from the threats that led to their creation.

In a democracy, criminal justice policy is understandably driven by public perceptions. After violent crime rates soared in the late 1980s and early 1990s, California voters in 1994 overwhelmingly approvedthe nation’s toughest three-strikes-and-you’re-out law. Myriad factors contribute to crime fluctuations. And policy often lags the data given the time it can take to pass laws or initiativesthus making it tough to see what works even in hindsight.

In 2005, the Legislative Analyst’s Officeanalyzed crime statistics and found crime began falling precipitously before “three strikes” went into effectand tracked national trends. In recent years, legislators and voters reacted to soaring incarceration rates. Just as fear of crime led to tougher laws, stories of resulting injustices (a man whose third strike was stealing pizza) and police abuses led to a flurry of criminal justice reforms.

Now that crime rates have moved upwardand fearof it at the highest level in yearspolicymakers are headed back in that 1990s direction. This is true even in our state’s most progressive cities. For instance, San Francisco Mayor London Breed introduced a new police-union-backed measurefor the March ballot that would make it easier for police to use surveillance and reduce their requirements to document when they use force on suspects.

It’s enough to make one’s head spin. Sadly, crime policy is not driven by policy wonks who carefully analyze the data and try to strike the right balance between public safety and individual rights. It’s driven by progressive ideologues (check out the goings-on in theAssembly Public Safety Committeeif you don’t believe me) on one side and powerful interest groups (police agencies and unions) on the other. Lawmakers react to those groups and public sentiment.

I am concerned about thecrime wave. I’m also concerned about over-incarceration and over-policing. I also am skeptical that our governmentswhich seem incapable of doing anything competently, justly, and cost-effectivelycan strike the right balance. I offer no easy solution or specific policy prescription, but I do offer a warning: Be careful what new laws we pass. They can take decades to undoand can obliterate our rights in the process.

Thiscolumnis prompted by areportin Reason magazine about Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt’s recent remarks in his State of the State address calling for reform of civil asset-forfeiture laws: “It’s crazy to me that somebody can be pulled over and have their cash and truck taken for an alleged crime, get acquitted of that crime, but they still never get their property back.” There are plenty of news stories over the years of outrageouspolice takings.

California has better asset-forfeitureprotectionsthan Oklahoma, but they still aren’t very good and California police agencies work around our state’s limitations by partnering with a federal agency. The feds operate under much looser standards. We’ve seen a variety of abuses in California in recent years, whereby law enforcement misuseforfeiturelaws concocted to stop drug cartels to take innocent people’s life savings and pad police budgets.

We’ve fortunately seen pushback by the courts. The U.S. 9thCircuit Court of Appeals in January overturned a lower court decision siding with the FBI, after it tried to take $85 million inassets from safe deposit boxes following a Beverly Hills raid on a company that rented them. The Drug Enforcement Agency claimed the company’s boxes facilitated money laundering, so they plotted to take and sell the contents fromeveryone’s boxeseven though the vaults are also used by law-abiding citizens for legitimate reasons.

That’s an obvious constitutional violation. It’s as if the government decided there’s drug dealing going on somewhere in my neighborhood. Instead of proving criminal activity by individuals, they just rounded up everybody’s stuff. Police agencies have a strong incentive to use these laws because they generally keep the ill-gotten bounty. Police aren’t supposed to use that money to supplant their budgets, anyway.

For a refresher, asset forfeiture was concocted during the Reagan-era anti-drug panic. As two former heads of the US. Justice Department’s asset-forfeiture program wrote in a 2014 Washington Postcolumn, it “was conceived as a way to cut into the profit motive that fueled rampant drug trafficking” but “has turned into an evil itself, with the corruption it engendered among government and law enforcement coming to clearly outweigh any benefits.”

I understand the latest fear of crime, but let’s take a careful and deliberate approachlest innocent people lose their rights and property in the process.

This column was first published in The Orange County Register.



About Author

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may also like


Delusional Nikki Haley Implies She is Going to Run Against Trump, Says ‘I’ve Never Lost an Election and I’m Not Going to Start Now’

  • November 21, 2022
Delusional Nikki Haley Implies She is Going to Run Against Trump, Says ‘I’ve Never Lost an Election and I’m Not

Add Amoxicillin to the Things in Critically Short Supply Saga

  • November 21, 2022
I have a dear friend, a single mom heroically raising three boys. As if that isn’t enough reason to provide