Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

DOJ Cracking Down On Profit-Driven Policing, Audit Looks At How Far It's Spread (muckrock.com)

Posted by samzenpus on from the mine-now-I-take-it dept.

v3rgEz writes: Federal civil rights officials at the Department of Justice are launching an effort to combat widespread constitutional abuses in U.S. courts in the hope of ending budget-driven policies that cripple those unable to afford fines and fees for minor offenses, the Huffington Post reports. The DOJ's focus on court fees and bail practices follows the Ferguson report which found officials had colluded to raise revenue when they hit residents with exorbitantly high fines and fees, regardless of their ability to pay, and jailed people to extract the money. The Sunlight Foundation and MuckRock recently launched an audit to see how widely the practice has spread.

8 of 210 comments (clear)

  1. Everywhere by Aero77 · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's everywhere, you don't have to be a minority to get hit with excessive fines for minor (usually traffic) offenses.

    1. Re:Everywhere by ToddDTaft · · Score: 5, Interesting

      No, there's a simpler solution than that: don't let municipalities keep the money from traffic tickets (or any kind of fine). The payments should be made directly to the state's general fund. Take away the profit motive, no more profit based policing.

      North Carolina does this. The state constitution actually requires that all fines collected "shall be faithfully appropriated and used exclusively for maintaining free public schools."

      I've seen this work to have the desired effect.

      The campus police at some of the state universities used to issue all sorts of nuisance parking tickets for things like "parked too close to line". At the time, the universities were keeping the money from the fines. Quite a few years ago, there was a legal case that went to the state supreme court where they ruled that the universities couldn't keep the money. After that, the number of nuisance fines dramatically decreased, even though officials claimed that there was no correlation between these events.

  2. Civil Asset Forfeiture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How about they also do away with Civil Asset Forfeiture considering that cops have now stolen more from people than all burglaries combined last year, and most likely this year as well.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com...

    Coupled with all the other crimes committed by cops and the "justice" system over the years, like the Cash for Kids program, how are these people any different from a government sanctioned mob? Then there are the dimwitted idiots that are still defending these monsters, is this really the society we want?

    1. Re:Civil Asset Forfeiture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This, so much. In some jurisdictions the police can and will seize your car for something as relatively benign as soliciting a prostitute. And when you know that finding a tenth of a gram of marijuana in someone's car means your department gets to seize and sell that car, even if the person is never charged with a crime, there is a huge incentive to plant evidence and engage in other corrupt activities.

      Civil asset forfeiture needs to stop.

  3. Loretta Lynch by frovingslosh · · Score: 5, Informative

    Hard to believe that the D.O.J. is cracking down on Profit-Driven Policing when Obama's new Attorney General has been a huge advocate of "civil forfeiture" where the government takes your money without charging you with any crime or even having any suspicion that you committed any crime. I even saw sign on Interstate 70 this summer when driving through Kansas that there "checkpoints" ahead to check for "drugs" or "cash". Just part of the government's war on citizens.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
  4. Actually a serious problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is actually a very serious problem, and the linked articles don't do a good job explaining the actual issue.

    There are a lot of people who a 375$ fine (minimum for speeding in a construction zone nearby) for speeding is not something they can immediately pay, and may be 30% or more of their monthly income. If you can't pay immediately, you have to make a deal with whoever the Police contract out to.

    The trick is that a lot of those poeple charge an initial fee for the service along with interest and continuing fees, and any payment you make goes toward their fees and interest BEFORE it starts paying the actual fine down. These fees are typically 20% of the original fine or more, and for low income people make it effectively impossible to pay their actual fine.

    This then leads them to paying hundreds of dollars over the original fine, with none of it going to the original fine until the point where they are then jailed for not paying the fine. It is pure and out right corruption and fraud, and heavy legal action needs to be taken against any county or company that is involved.

    1. Re:Actually a serious problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, a speeding fine in an area where pedestrians are present should make your life hell for a while.

      Doesn't stop anyone speeding and driving dangerously next to cyclists and other pedestrians, no matter how much I agree.

      But what the GP was talking about is that flat fines are stupid and you appear to missed the point. If someone makes $60k/yr, a $300 fine is an "inconvenient tax" on them, and their opinion is that they did nothing wrong, like most here. But if you make $10k/yr, $300 fine can be crippling. And then there are people that make $200+k, and for them a $300 fine is hustle, nothing more.

      Perhaps a better system would be to base fines on person's annual income. Like 1% of their yearly income, with $50 floor (considering driving costs money anyway). So a $10k/yr poor person pays $100, which is a lot of money for them. But a $100k/yr upper middle class person pays $1000. And it's $10k fine for the $1m/yr upper class person. Then such a fine is painful for everyone involved, not just the poorest.

  5. Excessive bail - based on the offense - also... by gavron · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Another way to make money is to make excessive bail requirements in possible
    collusion with bail bondsmen.

    TL;DR - bail should be set by the circumstances of the person's ability to pay and
    the nature of them being a flight risk, NOT the nature of the crime.

    Now the "I'm sorry but it got long" part:

    Bail from the eighth amendment to the Constitution of the United States:
    "Excessive bail shall not be required"

    Excessive is when it's greater than the amount necessary to bring the offender to trial. From Wikipidia:
    "In Stack v. Boyle, 342 U.S. 1 (1951), the Court found that a defendant's bail cannot be set higher than an amount that is reasonably likely to ensure the defendant's presence at the trial" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    Judges are starting to agree: http://blog.simplejustice.us/2...

    But some are still hungry for HUMONGOUS bail to avoid looking soft on crime when BAIL HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CRIME.

    Man kills cop: 3 million dollars
    http://www.philly.com/philly/n...

    Man kills man: 2 million dollars
    http://www.bellinghamherald.co...

    Cop kills man: 1.5 million:
    http://abc7chicago.com/news/ja...

    The US DoJ ought to take a long hard look at how our nation's Courts are handing out large bail
    requirements --unconstitutionally-- to make it look like they're "tough on crime."

    In fact, the people being granted bail are innocent until proven guilty, AND
    the amount of the bail is only supposed to ensure they show up for trial.

    We need a lot of reform in the criminal justice system. Hopefully the DoJ won't whitewash
    bail while they look at the other methods that "the justice system" screws the people.

    Full disclosure: I've never been arrested, offered bail, denied bail, nor am personally
    part of the legal / "justice" system.

    E