The title of this post is the title of this notable new report from the Institute for Justice and authored by Brian Kelly. Here is the report's executive summary:
This study provides the first multistate analysis of whether forfeiture works to fight crime or is, instead, used primarily to generate revenue. These competing claims lie at the heart of the policy debate over forfeiture, a legal tool that allows law enforcement agencies to seize and permanently keep people’s cars, cash and even homes if they suspect the property is connected to criminal activity. Typically, any proceeds from the property go to law enforcement coffers. Critics charge that this creates an improper incentive for police and prosecutors to pursue forfeiture revenue instead of justice, especially under civil forfeiture laws that do not require a conviction or even criminal charges to forfeit property. Law enforcement and other proponents counter that forfeiture is an essential crime-fighting tool and that forfeiture proceeds can help law enforcement fight more crime.
To test these claims, this study uses a newly assembled set of forfeiture data from five states that use forfeiture extensively — Arizona, Hawaii, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota — as well as detailed state and local crime, drug use and economic data. The study examines forfeitures under state law alone as well as those conducted in concert with the federal government.
Results show:
• More forfeiture proceeds do not help police solve more crimes — and they may, perversely, make police less effective at solving violent crimes.
• More forfeiture proceeds do not lead to less drug use, even though forfeiture proponents have long cited fighting the illicit drug trade — and the reduction of drug use — as a primary purpose of forfeiture.
• When local budgets are squeezed, police respond by increasing their reliance on forfeiture. A one percentage point increase in unemployment — a common measure of economic health — was associated with an 11% to 12% increase in forfeiture activity.
In other words, this study finds no material support for the claims that forfeiture fights crime, either by enabling police to solve more crimes or by reducing drug use. It does, however, find economic conditions have a large and statistically significant effect on forfeiture activity, suggesting that at least some forfeiture activity is motivated by a desire for revenue.
These results, like those from earlier studies, are particularly salient now, when local government budgets are suffering due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The data suggest that during economic times like these police may pursue more forfeiture.
This report adds to mounting evidence that forfeiture fails to serve the public good, all while violating basic rights to property and due process, thus demonstrating the pressing need for forfeiture reform.
Comments
Post a Comment