Kevin McLeod sends in a tip on another perverse incentive, the previous being private prisons. Once again, this is law enforcement related: The Daily Signal reporting on the confiscation of possibly criminally-acquired funds:
He would eventually return home, but the cash Clarke had in his pocket didn’t make it.
Instead, the weight of the federal government came down on the 24-year-old, and his $11,000 was seized by federal and state law enforcement before he ever boarded the plane. …
Then, the officers seized his $11,000, cellphone and iPad.
Clarke received his phone and tablet two months later. But, more than a year later, he’s fighting to have his cash returned.
“I was being treated like a criminal, and I didn’t commit a crime,” he said. “It was very frustrating.”
According to court documents, Conrad said the money was seized “based on probable cause that it was proceeds of drug trafficking or was intended to be used in an illegal transaction.”
The article goes on to discuss the problems Clarke is having, and his use of the Institute of Justice.
At this juncture, a slight pause. While working on this post, I noticed The Daily Signal describes itself as a news organization of The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think-tank. That was interesting, as the right-wing tends to be hard on crime, and that’s the point of the civil forfeiture laws: to remove the profit from crime. However, there are two mitigating factors: civil forfeiture is dangerously similar to simple theft, so that goes against the grain of the right-wing – and the Institute of Justice, while to the best of my meager knowledge, is an admirable resource, it usually associates with the right-wing. It may just be the founders are conservative, or it may have to do with much of its work being to fight against the regulatory state, aka Big Government, a primary bugaboo of the conservatives.
The perverse incentives of the civil forfeiture laws are mentioned only in passing, and to my mind they are the primary problem. This is an age where laws of draconian and unnecessary nature exist, and conservatives try to cut budgets to the marrow, thus leaving law enforcement with too much to do with way too little funds; the civil forfeiture laws offer a legal, if unjust, way to replenish the war chests of agencies who are either underfunded, or at least regard themselves as underfunded.
If we were to consider revoking the civil forfeiture laws, we should also rescind the marijuana laws: legalize it, and reduce the work load. Perhaps there are some other unneeded laws.
End Civil Forfeiture provides reasoning and research.
The American Civil Liberties Union proves this is not just a conservative issue.
The Institute of Justice has some resources devoted to civil forfeiture laws.
