News (Media Awareness Project) - US CA: Editorial: Car Seizures A Bad Idea |
| Title: | US CA: Editorial: Car Seizures A Bad Idea |
| Published On: | 2000-09-22 |
| Source: | San Francisco Chronicle (CA) |
| Fetched On: | 2008-09-03 07:55:11 |
CAR SEIZURES A BAD IDEA
It's easy to stop crime: Create a police state, suspend the Constitution, allow law enforcement agents to arrest suspects on suspicion and then mete out punishments whether one is proven to be guilty or not.
Under such a sure-fire scheme, criminals wouldn't have a chance. But then neither would many of the rest of us.
Still, that is exactly what Supervisor Amos Brown is proposing to do with a Vehicle Forfeiture Ordinance that would allow the city to seize automobiles of people arrested for drug and prostitution offenses. The measure is similar to one in Oakland that permits police to confiscate cars as public nuisances if their drivers are believed to be engaged in either of these illegal activities.
Brown should be commended for pitching battle against street crimes that are partly responsible for the deteriorating quality of city life. Street-level drug dealing and prostitution not only destroy the character of neighborhoods, they often foster more insidious crimes such as rape and drive-by shootings in which innocent victims become inadvertent targets. But the proposed ordinance goes too far to combat these evils by jettisoning our judicial system and declaring a form of martial law.
The presumption of innocence and the right to a jury trial are at the core of American jurisprudence. But neither tenet survives under the forfeiture law that gives police discretion to decide who gets arrested and who loses personal property because of it. The law is especially onerous for people of color who are stopped and searched more often by police.
For those convicted, the punishment is disproportional to the crime. Surrendering a $25,000 car for an offense that carries a $100 fine is unfair.
This ordinance punishes on suspicion alone, and it shifts the burden of proof so that citizens must show why their cars should not be held hostage. It's bad policy.
Instead, the city of San Francisco should beef up patrols of hot spots and push for stiffer penalties for convictions that would curb crime and preserve due process, too.
It's easy to stop crime: Create a police state, suspend the Constitution, allow law enforcement agents to arrest suspects on suspicion and then mete out punishments whether one is proven to be guilty or not.
Under such a sure-fire scheme, criminals wouldn't have a chance. But then neither would many of the rest of us.
Still, that is exactly what Supervisor Amos Brown is proposing to do with a Vehicle Forfeiture Ordinance that would allow the city to seize automobiles of people arrested for drug and prostitution offenses. The measure is similar to one in Oakland that permits police to confiscate cars as public nuisances if their drivers are believed to be engaged in either of these illegal activities.
Brown should be commended for pitching battle against street crimes that are partly responsible for the deteriorating quality of city life. Street-level drug dealing and prostitution not only destroy the character of neighborhoods, they often foster more insidious crimes such as rape and drive-by shootings in which innocent victims become inadvertent targets. But the proposed ordinance goes too far to combat these evils by jettisoning our judicial system and declaring a form of martial law.
The presumption of innocence and the right to a jury trial are at the core of American jurisprudence. But neither tenet survives under the forfeiture law that gives police discretion to decide who gets arrested and who loses personal property because of it. The law is especially onerous for people of color who are stopped and searched more often by police.
For those convicted, the punishment is disproportional to the crime. Surrendering a $25,000 car for an offense that carries a $100 fine is unfair.
This ordinance punishes on suspicion alone, and it shifts the burden of proof so that citizens must show why their cars should not be held hostage. It's bad policy.
Instead, the city of San Francisco should beef up patrols of hot spots and push for stiffer penalties for convictions that would curb crime and preserve due process, too.
Member Comments |
No member comments available...
