GAZETTE'S ARGUMENTS AGAINST ASSET FORFEITURE SHOW FLAWED THINKING

This is in response to the Our View, "Spoils of war," in the March 20
Gazette. Even though there was an (intentionally weak?) attempt to slightly
distinguish law enforcement agencies in the current drug war from the
notorious Blackbeard the pirate, the obvious thrust of the piece was to
promote the idea that they have much in common. Too bad. I believe The
Gazette demonstrated some seriously flawed thinking, happily an uncommon
attribute of its columns.

First, the privateers and pirates attacked innocent shippers. They did
nothing wrong, they were simply victims. The drug traffickers are
criminals. They are the scum who are responsible for a major portion of the
crime in our country. And of course I include the criminal activity of
their customers who commit crimes to get money to buy drugs - and the
crimes of murder, rape, manslaughter, child abuse, property damage, etc.,
that they commit while under the influence.

And how shall we quantify the damage to the lives wasted by drug abuse and
addiction, and the costs to our society in medical care, welfare, and many
other areas? That also includes incarceration and law enforcement. Not all
costs are avoidable, but if we win the war, many can be significantly reduced.

The Gazette stated that property seizure is an unjustifiable penalty.
However, I can find no reasoning in the column that presents rationale for
that claim. Does The Gazette really believe that the criminal who lures
children into drug use should get to keep his expensive car and bankroll if
he is caught? For the kind of money these dirt bags make, a little time in
prison would be a profitable experience if they could keep their ill-gotten
gains when released. They could even invest it while they're living off of
us, and make more.

I believe the most glaring flaw of logic in the column is the position that
property seizure should not be allowed in any case wherein the arrest and
accusation did not result in conviction. What court system has The Gazette
been observing for the past few decades? The editorial implied that every
bad guy that the law enforcement agencies arrest - and who is guilty - will
be convicted.

The editorial even noted that seizure related to a "bust that didn't even
result in a conviction ... penalizes the innocent." Note that the editorial
did not say there was potential for that, it said it is the case. So, if
the judge says the cop didn't say "may I" at some ridiculous point in
arresting an obviously guilty criminal, the case is thrown out and that
criminal is released, then obviously he was innocent. I can't think The
Gazette means that.

Do I suggest that every seizure is justified, or that there is no
opportunity for abuse in the system? Of course not. But the column pointed
out that there is provision in civil law for recovery of improperly seized
property. The editorial suggested that the costs and procedures may inhibit
the reasonable exercise of this remedy. I don't doubt that this might often
be true. Why don't we fix that, instead of throwing the baby out with the
bath water?

Wayne Reynolds, Colorado Springs