To the Editor:

"Forfeitures and Fairness" (editorial, Feb. 28), which appropriately called
for tightening federal asset-forfeiture policies, noted the "impetus for
abuse" when seized assets are shared with local police. There is certainly
risk of misappropriation when there is no accountability, but there is
another effect. Most individuals and organizations want more resources, so
they engage in activities that will provide them. This could shift the
focus of law enforcement toward drug dealers and their assets, and away
from duties that don't result in bounties - like arresting robbers and
rapists and building connections with the community.

We can avoid this distortion by requiring that assets go into a general
fund, rather than to the police and prosecutors. This should be
incorporated into pending legislation.

Alfred Blumstein, Pittsburgh, Feb. 29, 2000

The writer is a professor of operations research, Carnegie Mellon University.

To the Editor:

As an upstate resident faced with the growing threat of drugs in our
communities, I am concerned about the Senate's likely consideration of
legislation restricting government's ability to seize the property of drug
dealers without a criminal conviction (editorial, Feb. 28).

One Senate bill is too close to a measure passed by the House of
Representatives last year that would effectively have done away with civil
forfeiture by putting up so many legal blockades.

While current forfeiture laws have in isolated instances subjected innocent
property owners to injustice, reform must protect such individuals without
threatening the practice.

The bill sponsored by Senator Orrin Hatch and Senator Patrick Leahy is no
less than an attack on law enforcement's ability to arrest dangerous drug
kingpins.

John E. Bishop, Troy, N.Y., Feb. 28, 2000