Who’s in Jail?

The issue of jail overcrowding in the Boise Valley has been in the news again. Canyon County voters have twice now told the law enforcement industry that they don’t want to pay for another jail. That has led to calls to create a new “regional” jail that we could all pay for. Dave Frazier loves this idea; I hate it. Ada County Sheriff Gary Raney also likes this idea since his jail will be full by 2014, he says.

BSU Criminal Justice Professor Mike Blankenship has written that sentencing reform is the way to go. BSU Criminal Justice Prof Bob Marsh is doing the consulting study for the law enforcement industry to determine the feasibility, etc. of the regional jail. We’ve got a regular ding-dong fight going here.

In my mind there’s one real issue - who we are locking up. The answer is damn near everyone. This is foolish. The government is responsible for protecting the safety of our person and our property. That is why we lock up murderers and thieves.

But the law enforcement industry is locking up everybody. In fact, only 12% of those housed in the Canyon County jail have committed either a property crime or a violent crime. The rest are dopers, drunks, and probation violators. The sad reason for this is that there simply isn’t anyone else for the law enforcement industry to lock up.

The fact is that property crimes and violent crimes have been falling for 20 years - and it has little to do with improved police activity. From the FBI’s website, I compiled the following charts to show that the wurl we live in is really quite a safe place, and that there is simply no reason to think that we need to spend MORE incarcerating misdemeanants. That is simply ridiculous. So here’s the crime picture in America:

Folks, we don’t need to spend more on jails. We need to spend less. Economics has long held that governments need to take into account the value of services that the public provides for themselves at their own expense. The number one reason for the decrease in property crimes is deadbolt technology, and the fact that people use them. There is also the “abundance” factor. Things like iPods, VCRs, TV’s, and digital cameras have no street value anymore because they are ubiquitous, and pawn shops don’t take stolen goods. We’ve spent 20 years “hardening the target” by adding security lighting, security systems, pit bulls, guns, and forming neighborhood watch committees. Thus, we need less police protection since we have taken security into our own hands.

If the demand for any other public good had dropped in the way that the demand for police protection had, that public good would be offered less. But for some reason people still believe that they are in mortal danger of being beaten and robbed, even though those fears are almost completely unfounded. Truth is violent crime is very, very rare.

I say NO to a regional jail, or any other new jail because the crime rate does not justify it. In fact - it’s just the opposite. Sentencing reform that would send dopers and drunks through treatment using dollars currently used for incarceration would empty the jails, and we’d be left with HUGE overcapacity. We don’t need another jail now or in 2014. It just makes no sense.

Police Department Revenue Source: Stealing from Poor People

Taking property from poor people without due process of law in order to enrich local police departments. Seems like the sort of thing Barack Obama might have fought to change in his days as a community organizer.

One of the most astute observers of global criminal justice policy, Radley Balko, writes that above missive in a recent blog post on his popular Agitator blog. As it turns out, indeed, the Obama administration supported via friend of the court briefs, the State of Illinois’ seizure of assets from 6 people NOT charged with any crime.

Soon, the U.S. Supreme Court will review the Alvarez v. Smith case in which, as noted, six persons had their property seized - and were never charged with a crime. The facts of the case, as Radley Balko points out, are this:

The six petitioners in Alvarez each had property seized by police who suspected the property had been involved in a drug crime. Three had their cars seized, three had cash taken. None of the six were served with a warrant, none of the six were charged with the crime. All perfectly legal, at least until now.

Under DAFPA (Illinois’ Drug Asset Forfeiture Procedure Act), incredibly, the government can delay for up to 187 days before an aggrieved property owner can get even a preliminary hearing on warrantless seizures of less than $20,000. The three car owners, for example, had to go without their cars for more than a year.

As shocking as that sounds, President Obama’s Justice Department sided with the State of Illinois in the initial court battle. The more conservative U.S. Supreme Court may not feel the same way.

So what are the police departments doing with the assets seized from people who have committed no crime? Selling them, of course, and sticking the proceeds in their budget coffers. In Roseville, Michigan over 4% of the police department budget comes from selling looted assets. In Romulus, Michigan it’s over 11%!

File this under, if you aint angry, you aint paying attention.