The Supreme Court may rule by July on whether a Michigan law that allows confiscation of property used in a crime, even if the property owner had no prior knowledge and wasn't involved, violates due process and protection from "taking."
The U.S. Justice Department has intervened on Michigan's side because the case could have major implications for federal, state and local asset forfeiture laws that allow police to seize cars, homes, boats, bank accounts and other assets of defendants.
Asset forfeitures net millions for law enforcement agencies when sold:
Prosecutors can seize property in a civil forfeiture hearing by showing "probable cause" that the property was used unlawfully. However, if the criminal case is dropped, the defendant acquitted or the owner wasn't involved, getting the property returned requires a separate civil action by the owner.
The federal Comprehensive Crime Act of 1984 allows state or local police agencies cooperating with federal drug enforcement authorities to directly benefit from the proceeds of property seizures. This has encouraged a substantial reallocation of law enforcement resources. For example:
Some state laws and constitutions restrict seizures to specific kinds of assets and require the proceeds to be spent on specific activities such as education. However, federal agencies have been known to "adopt" seizures and then return the proceeds to local agencies minus a 20 percent federal tax.
An economic study found that asset forfeitures net local police millions, even considering that local communities may reduce expenditure of tax funds due to the additional revenue. Interestingly, it also found that local communities are not rewarding police with larger budgets for more drug arrests.
Source: "Mrs. Bennis Goes to Washington," Economic Issues, Vol. 2, No. 1, January 1996.
Sad to say, building and managing prisons is a growth opportunity for those private firms which are being called upon to assist law enforcement agencies under the new privatization trend. About 1.5 million people are jailed in the U.S. and the inmate population is growing at 8 percent per year. Experts estimate that two new 1,000 bed facilities must be built each week just to keep up with demand.
About 35 states now allow privatized prisons, but only 15 have awarded such contracts.
Source: Robin M. Grugal, "Prison Operator Thrives in Crime Crackdown," Investor's Business Daily, March 4, 1996.
While overall crime rates have declined somewhat in recent years, serious crimes by youths have soared. Those who study the statistics warn that this may portend a future crime wave of extraordinary proportions, since the juvenile portion of the population will increase substantially in the near future.
John DiIulio, a leading crime researcher at Princeton University, warns that the baby boom of the late 1980s has unleashed a cohort of fatherless, unschooled youngsters onto the streets of America's inner cities.
DiIulio contends that the statistics show that revolving-door justice still exists and is a major cause of continued high levels of crime.
Thus, the justice system is imprisoning, at best, about one criminal for every 100 violent crimes.
So what is the cost to society?
Experts believe that the only choice is to jail those who commit violent crimes, and to treat juveniles the way we ought to be treating adults.
Source: Perspective, "A New Crime Wave," Investor's Business Daily, March 6, 1996.
A study on the economics of crime and punishment provides some interesting comparisons between developments in the United States and a selection of industrialized countries --England and Wales, the Netherlands, Belgium, Finland, Canada and Australia.
Changes in the makeup of these countries' populations and increased employment or unemployment may partially explain changes in crime rates. However, research shows criminals are deterred by both the certainty and severity of punishment, which varies widely between countries.
The study suggests that since public-sector policing has largely failed to prevent crime, individuals and groups should be encourage to purchase protection, and be given incentives to do so through the tax or insurance system.
Source: David J. Pyle, "Cutting the Costs of Crime," November 1995, Hobart Paper 129, Institute of Economic Affairs, 2 Lord North Street, Westminster, London SW1P 3LB, (0171) 799-3745.
The Constitution gave Congress jurisdiction over only three crimes -- treason, counterfeiting and piracy -- but today there are more than 3,000 federal crimes, and hardly any crime, no matter how local in nature, is beyond federal jurisdiction. Yet 95 percent of all criminals are apprehended, prosecuted and imprisoned at the state and local level.
This trend toward national control is dangerous to both federalism and individual liberty. But all three branches of the federal government have pushed national control over crime and punishment. For example:
Essentially local crimes have either been taken over by the federal government or are proposed for federalization.
New categories of crime have been created for matters that used to be handled by civil penalties in the areas of environmental and regulatory law.
The framers of the Constitution recognized the dangers to individual liberty in centralized crime control: Unlike appointed federal officials, local sheriffs and district attorneys are directly elected by and accountable to local citizens. Further, protection against double jeopardy is imperiled when prosecutors can turn to the federal courts if a defendant is acquitted in state court. And, as early as the 1930s FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover warned against a national police force.
Federal involvement in local law enforcement, as in Waco, Texas and Ruby Ridge, Idaho, has created growing concern. In a recent poll, 51 percent of Americans agreed it was likely that in the near future they would need to disobey laws in order to protect their constitutional rights.
Source: Edwin Meese III and Rhett DeHart, "How Washington Subverts Your Local Sheriff," Policy Review, January-February 1996, Heritage Foundation, 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE, Washington, DC 20002, (202) 546-4400.
Perhaps Americans can learn from the success of volunteer probation and parole officers in Japan.
A high percentage of U.S. parolees and probationers end up in prison, but fewer than 4 percent of Japanese criminals assigned to a volunteer will commit another crime within a year of their release from prison or sentence to probation.
The Japanese system is successful in part because they are more selective in the criminals they let out of prison. However, with the small caseload, the volunteers are able to focus on reuniting the offender with his family and finding him employment. Then the volunteers monitor the offender on a frequent basis.
Of course, in the U.S. it would take more than 1.75 million volunteers to achieve the same caseload as in Japan, given the number of convicts paroled or on probation here.
Source: Leslie Gardner, "Japan's Parole Models," Policy Review, January-February 1996, Heritage Foundation, 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE, Washington, DC 20002, (202) 546-4400.
Most states have statutes that allow or even require that the criminal records of juvenile offenders be expunged -- either destroyed or sealed -- when the delinquent reaches a certain age. However, some states are considering changing their laws, and some experts agree the practice is counterproductive.
Wiping the slate clean imposes a number of costs on society, since juvenile offenders are four times more likely to become adult criminals than other youths.
These laws also withhold information from the police, who use criminal records to identify suspects. This is an important consideration, since an increasing percentage of serious crime is committed by juveniles.
The laws expunging juvenile records were meant to keep teenagers from being stigmatized for life by minor offenses, but in many cases they have become a shield for youthful criminal careers.
Source: T. Markus Funk, "Young & Arrestless," Reason, February 1996.