With gay marriage decided, what will be the next big left-led social change?

[Baron Scicluna]

Even conservatives aren't defending it any more.

#wrongsideofhistory

 

[Baron Scicluna]

I'm all for arresting, and jailing, drug buyers. If you lower the demand, you lower the supply.

As long as we do nothing about the demand, people will break the law to supply it.

heck, I'm for programs like this one. Take away daddy's car, and junior probably won't be driving into Washington Heights to score again:

When law-enforcement officials stopped 43 people whose cars were cruising last week in areas of Manhattan where drugs are widely sold, they not only arrested them on charges of possessing crack. They also seized their cars.

In the latest wrinkle in the battle against the potent cocaine derivative, the police and Federal drug agents have expanded their use of a 16-year-old Federal law that allows the confiscation of property used in drug transactions. In the four-day period that ended Saturday, 30 cars were taken, the majority from middle-class suburban communities in New Jersey.

''If you come to New York to buy crack, bring car fare and be prepared to take the bus back,'' Police Commissioner Benjamin Ward said yesterday afternoon as he and other officials announced the seizure of the vehicles, which ranged from a 1971 Chevrolet van to a 1986 two-door Pontiac Fiero.

In the past, the 1970 civil statute used as the basis for the seizures has been applied mostly to drug dealers, according to Rudolph W. Giuliani, the United States Attorney in Manhattan, who appeared with Mr. Ward yesterday at a news conference at a Manhattan garage where the vehicles are being stored. But he said a recent review of the law had confirmed that it could be applied equally to any property used as an instrument in drug transactions.

Mayor Koch said he thought officials should set a goal of confiscating 5,000 vehicles during the program. He said the city would provide garage space if Federal space proved inadequate.

NEW YORK POLICE NOW SEIZING CARS IN ARRESTS FOR POSSESSION OF CRACK - NYTimes.com

But, this kind of thing has been shut down by judges, and viewed as too harsh by many.

It was shut down because confiscation laws were being abused. Too many reports of police pulling over people, finding cash on them, arresting them on suspicion of drugs, dropping the charges, and the cash conveniently goes missing.

 

[YankeeFan]

It was shut down because confiscation laws were being abused. Too many reports of police pulling over people, finding cash on them, arresting them on suspicion of drugs, dropping the charges, and the cash conveniently goes missing.

Why not just reform the program?

And, asset/civil forfeiture still exists. The Feds recently curbed how locals could use/benefit from it, but it's still widely available to the Feds.

But, the particular program began in the 80's by Guiliani, Koch, and Ward is now mostly over:

Krimstock hearing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[YankeeFan]

But, there are still certain activities that will get your car confiscated:

Facing increasing pressure from the taxi industry, authorities in New York have begun to crack down on Uber — issuing tickets and seizing cars of Uber drivers who participate in illegal pickups in the city.

Between April 29 and June 15, the New York Post reports that NYC authorities seized 496 cars from Uber drivers taking illegal street hails, mostly at the three airports in the region.
496 Uber cars seized by New York City authorities - Business Insider

 

[JohnHammond]

How is the site loving Ricky Gervais and Stephen Merchent teaming up to debate (er, insult) Karl Pilkington. Have not seen that before. Must make both of them feel like big, strong men.

Unfortunately for long-time readers, Gervais and Merchent have not come up with original material in several years.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

Why not just reform the program?

And, asset/civil forfeiture still exists. The Feds recently curbed how locals could use/benefit from it, but it's still widely available to the Feds.

But, the particular program began in the 80's by Guiliani, Koch, and Ward is now mostly over:

Krimstock hearing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Because it's assuming guilt before trial.

Now, if they made the law where, upon conviction, the accused forfeits their car, that'd be a different story. The problem, as the link you posted, was that people were accused of crimes, had their cars confiscated, and were waiting years for their hearing to try to get their cars back.

 

[YankeeFan]

Bill, making it easier for Grandma to run against his policies, disavows his 1994 crime bill:

Former President Bill Clinton on Wednesday disavowed part of the anti-crime legislation that he long considered one of his top accomplishments, concluding that it went too far in sending even minor criminals to prison "for way too long."

Addressing a convention of the N.A.A.C.P. a day after President Obama called for a wholesale overhaul of the criminal justice system, Mr. Clinton embraced the idea. He agreed that the law he enacted in 1994 played a significant part in warping sentencing standards and leading to an era of mass incarceration.

"I signed a bill that made the problem worse," Mr. Clinton said. "And I want to admit it."

The expression of regret was the latest effort by Mr. Clinton to reframe his record nearly 15 years after he left office and clear the way for his wife's own campaign for the White House. Mr. Clinton has previously renounced the Defense of Marriage Act that he signed, defining marriage as the union of a man and woman, and the don't-ask, don't-tell policy that barred gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/16/u...ny-for-too-long.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0

 

[Baron Scicluna]

Here's another good idea -- one with bipartisan support in Congress: Let's reward prisoners with reduced sentences if they complete programs that make them less likely to commit a repeat offense. (Applause.) Let's invest in innovative new approaches to link former prisoners with employers and help them stay on track. Let's follow the growing number of our states and cities and private companies who have decided to "Ban the Box" on job applications -- (applause) -- so that former prisoners who have done their time and are now trying to get straight with society have a decent shot in a job interview. (Applause.) And if folks have served their time, and they've reentered society, they should be able to vote. (Applause.)

Remarks by the President at the NAACP Conference | whitehouse.gov

Why should they have to be permanently punished by not being able to vote when they've already paid their debt to society?

 

[Baron Scicluna]

But, there are still certain activities that will get your car confiscated:

Facing increasing pressure from the taxi industry, authorities in New York have begun to crack down on Uber — issuing tickets and seizing cars of Uber drivers who participate in illegal pickups in the city.

Between April 29 and June 15, the New York Post reports that NYC authorities seized 496 cars from Uber drivers taking illegal street hails, mostly at the three airports in the region.
496 Uber cars seized by New York City authorities - Business Insider

Because the use of the car is the illegal activity, which is the street hails.

For drugs possessors using the car isn't an illegal activity. Having the drugs is the illegal activity.

 

[Batman]

Why should they have to be permanently punished by not being able to vote when they've already paid their debt to society?

Because losing the right to vote is also part of the punishment and of paying their debt to society.
That said, I'd be OK with them being able to regain the right to vote if they keep their nose clean for a certain amount of time.

 

[Songbird]

If young people who get out of jail are likely to commit additional crimes, and end up back in jail, it seems we have only a few options:

1. Just arrest them and release them more often
2. Find some alternate punishment to prison
3. Decriminalize certain activities

Anyway you look at it, it would seem that the only way crime rates would go down would be if you, in a Baronesque move, redefine what you consider a crime.

Which of these things will help communities?

So, what, now we just let folks sell loosies in front of a convenience store?

If a guy steals some cigarellos from a convenience store, do we just let it go?

And by all means more Zimmermans.

 

[Ace]

On the news this morning, NPR quoted an export on prison reform/crime and punishment who said that when penalties first got tougher crime dropped. But then when even tougher sentences were piled on that and more people were incarcerated, it didn't affect crime rates.

His conclusion is that it might really help to put the first million hard-core criminals away and keep them off the streets but when you add non-violent offenders and throw them in for long stretches it doesn't affect crime rates.

There are always going to be people who aren't "hardened" criminals doing drugs, driving drunk, urinating on sidewalks, etc.