…and calls for specific reforms. I’ve written about this issue in the past. As enforced in Delaware, it’s legalized thievery by the police from those least able to defend themselves. The legislation was sold as a means of keeping drug kingpins from enjoying the spoils of their filthy lucre. I suppose you could make the case that that’s a worthwhile cause. In practice, the police steal stuff from those suspected of criminal offenses and, even if there are no subsequent charges, the onus is on those who had their stuff stolen to try to get their stuff back. Meanwhile, the cops and the AG’s office sell off the stuff and then dedicate the funds to certain police-related projects. Oh, and in Delaware, a ‘non-public’ body comprised solely of public officials from the police and the AG’s office decides who gets the money. And they don’t tell the public who got it.
Chris Johnson lays out his alternatives to civil forfeiture in this excellent piece. Read it in its entirety. For those with short attention spans, here is what he proposes:
The problem is this: Financially incentivizing law enforcement to take private property leads to abuse, and is a fundamental misalignment of incentives. It’s perfectly acceptable for police to seize a weapon used to commit a crime — but directly causing financial trauma and even homelessness can create more crime than it solves. The ugly truth is that poor people who cannot afford lawyers to get their property back are disproportionately affected by these policies; in terms of impact, civil asset forfeiture can be thought of as a tax on poor people that law enforcement itself can levy almost whenever it wants.
There are clear reforms that would ameliorate some of the problem. For one, property not belonging to someone convicted of a crime could be protected from forfeiture. Second, any contested property could require law enforcement — not you — to prove the connection and necessity of the seizure. Finally, separating the proceeds of seized property from going to law enforcement budgets — perhaps sending that money instead to public defense organizations, schools, or public housing networks — would sever the direct financial incentive police have to seize your stuff.Senate Bill 60 is an excellent piece of legislation that addresses many of these issues.
Have I mentioned that not only is Chris Johnson by far the most progressive choice for AG, but he’s the only one who has not been part of the AG’s office that enables these civil forfeiture laws?
This is only one reason why I support Chris. His vision for the office is to transform it from the traditional model that has been in effect forever. He is serious about decarceration, and he understands how getting away from the traditional Delaware Way ‘lock ’em up’ mentality can be not only a means of ensuring that justice is even-handed, but can also be an economic boon to the state and a means of freeing up lots of money spent on the costs of incarceration for better uses.
I’d be remiss if I didn’t link to Chris’ site:
https://www.chrisjohnsonforag.com/
I’m no longer remiss. Feel free to remit some funds into his campaign coffers.
