3 ms·

You’re always allowed to complain. You can go to court to get the civil forfeiture returned. In cases of petty theft or drug dealing, it’s not really worth eit

You’re always allowed to complain. You can go to court to get the civil forfeiture returned. In cases of petty theft or drug dealing, it’s not really worth either side (police or suspected criminal) to go through formal proceedings for $100. So either you put the onus on the police, in which case they’ll just stop enforcing a lot of small crimes because it’s not worth the hassle, or you put the onus on the suspected criminal, in which case you have some innocent people lose $100 unless they go to court.

phone8675309 3y ago
I think we probably come down on opposite sides of a divide on when the state should have to justify use of its power. If I had to choose, say, remake the justice system of the US, then the onus should be on the police to prove that they had the authority to do something - in this case, seize the $100. If the police _choose_ not to enforce the law as written by the legislature because they do not want the burden of justifying that action or because it is impractical for them to do so in every case then their abdication of duty is a choice they have made, and perhaps the legislature that writes the laws should consider removing those laws from the books. We're all adults here though, and we both know that laws that the police choose not to enforce are not unenforced evenly - there are plenty of minorities of all types that find that these unenforced laws in practice are in fact enforced against them or used to bootstrap additional intrusion into their lives. Let's take the case of Eric Garner. How many NYPD officers have turned a blind eye to people selling loose cigarettes on the street? Probably hundreds if not thousands, so it was pretty much an unenforced crime. Except if you're Eric Garner or in a similar situation to him. This is why I think that the police should constantly have to justify their use of authority and discretion in all cases, and I wish the judiciary would start striking down as unenforceable laws that are usually only enforced against minorities or people that piss off the police.
- highfrequency 3y ago
  Thanks for the thoughtful discourse. I do see your point. I also think that there are practical questions about whether, broadly speaking, police are not taking enough actions that they should be taking or whether they are taking too many actions that they shouldn’t be taking. Although there are several highly publicized incidents in the latter category (and I wholeheartedly agree it should be illegal for police to racially discriminate or use unwarranted force), it’s also true that these days most people can’t walk a few blocks in San Francisco after dark without worrying about their safety. Both sides of the coin are problematic, both should be fixed. These issues are challenging and too easily politicized; I think the country would be well served with less instinctual, black-and-white reactions and more balanced discourse.
  - phone8675309 3y ago
    I think, in general, we spend too much time allocating resources to punishing people (for it is punishment - the prison system does not reform) rather than resolving the actual issues that lead them to behave the way that they do. Obviously, we need a balance between enforcement and abatement - I'm not saying we should stop enforcing laws - but I think the balance is way off. One of the things that I don't see discussed very often is how most criminals, aside from those who have mental illnesses that compel them to action, act rationally in the moment when they commit a crime while that logic is foreign to someone not in their situation.
    - highfrequency 3y ago
      I see. What do you think are low-hanging fruit projects to help resolve the underlying issues? I am generally aware of education initiatives, unemployment insurance, needle exchange programs etc. but the effectiveness does not seem great. But I think you have better understanding here - what should we be doing better that you think would actually work well? I don’t think our prison system is very cost effective, but it does a reasonable job of creating strong negative incentives for a wide range of crimes in the general population.
pohuing 3y ago
Can you tell me what you mean by not worth the hassle? It's their job and they're on company time. Their subjective feeling on the worthyness doesn't matter right?

phone8675309 3y ago

I think we probably come down on opposite sides of a divide on when the state should have to justify use of its power. If I had to choose, say, remake the justice system of the US, then the onus should be on the police to prove that they had the authority to do something - in this case, seize the $100. If the police _choose_ not to enforce the law as written by the legislature because they do not want the burden of justifying that action or because it is impractical for them to do so in every case then their abdication of duty is a choice they have made, and perhaps the legislature that writes the laws should consider removing those laws from the books. We're all adults here though, and we both know that laws that the police choose not to enforce are not unenforced evenly - there are plenty of minorities of all types that find that these unenforced laws in practice are in fact enforced against them or used to bootstrap additional intrusion into their lives. Let's take the case of Eric Garner. How many NYPD officers have turned a blind eye to people selling loose cigarettes on the street? Probably hundreds if not thousands, so it was pretty much an unenforced crime. Except if you're Eric Garner or in a similar situation to him. This is why I think that the police should constantly have to justify their use of authority and discretion in all cases, and I wish the judiciary would start striking down as unenforceable laws that are usually only enforced against minorities or people that piss off the police.

highfrequency 3y ago
Thanks for the thoughtful discourse. I do see your point. I also think that there are practical questions about whether, broadly speaking, police are not taking enough actions that they should be taking or whether they are taking too many actions that they shouldn’t be taking. Although there are several highly publicized incidents in the latter category (and I wholeheartedly agree it should be illegal for police to racially discriminate or use unwarranted force), it’s also true that these days most people can’t walk a few blocks in San Francisco after dark without worrying about their safety. Both sides of the coin are problematic, both should be fixed. These issues are challenging and too easily politicized; I think the country would be well served with less instinctual, black-and-white reactions and more balanced discourse.
- phone8675309 3y ago
  I think, in general, we spend too much time allocating resources to punishing people (for it is punishment - the prison system does not reform) rather than resolving the actual issues that lead them to behave the way that they do. Obviously, we need a balance between enforcement and abatement - I'm not saying we should stop enforcing laws - but I think the balance is way off. One of the things that I don't see discussed very often is how most criminals, aside from those who have mental illnesses that compel them to action, act rationally in the moment when they commit a crime while that logic is foreign to someone not in their situation.
  - highfrequency 3y ago
    I see. What do you think are low-hanging fruit projects to help resolve the underlying issues? I am generally aware of education initiatives, unemployment insurance, needle exchange programs etc. but the effectiveness does not seem great. But I think you have better understanding here - what should we be doing better that you think would actually work well? I don’t think our prison system is very cost effective, but it does a reasonable job of creating strong negative incentives for a wide range of crimes in the general population.

pohuing 3y ago

Can you tell me what you mean by not worth the hassle? It's their job and they're on company time. Their subjective feeling on the worthyness doesn't matter right?