|
*** UPDATED x1 *** Question of the day
Tuesday, Mar 1, 2011 - Posted by Rich Miller * The setup…
Illinois has a similar law allowing locals to recoup DUI arrests after convictions. * The Question: Should the Illinois General Assembly approve this bill which allows the police to recover costs for drug arrests? Take the poll and then explain your answer in coments. Thanks… *** UPDATE *** I’m adding a second poll question at the suggestion of some commenters… Have at it.
|
 |
|
|
- formerpolitico - Tuesday, Mar 1, 11 @ 12:40 pm:
ONLY if the arrest results in a conviction. Innocent people are arrested from time to time.
- Objective Dem - Tuesday, Mar 1, 11 @ 12:45 pm:
I actually would have liked more choices in the survey.
If someone is running a meth lab, they should pay every cost possible including the cost of keeping them in jail.
But I think we need to move in the other direction for pot arrests. We should be reducing the money we spend by simply fining the person rather than arresting them.
- Chefjeff - Tuesday, Mar 1, 11 @ 12:45 pm:
Growing a few pot plants does *NOT* cost the city thousands of $$$. This will become an administrative fine, levied in addition to statutory penalties.
for the toxic waste disposal involved in meth - it makes some sense.
- Bonsaso - Tuesday, Mar 1, 11 @ 12:46 pm:
It’s tied to the fine which wouldn’t happen unless a person is convicted or placed on supervision. Makes sense to charge where the cost occurs.
- Matt - Tuesday, Mar 1, 11 @ 12:49 pm:
Considering I believe that marijuana should be legalized, I am forced to oppose this law. I am somewhat open to laws like this for harder drugs, but it is definitely a balancing act. People often turn to drug manufacturing because they need money. Although slamming them with the costs they are responsible for, this could push them further into the type of financial troubles that led them to crime in the first place.
- cermak_rd - Tuesday, Mar 1, 11 @ 12:52 pm:
No, I think it sets up a bad incentive for police to over-enforce laws.
On the other hand, for meth cleanup, I could see it, but then why not tack on a crime scene cleanup charge to all convictions, not just drug convictions?
- MrJM - Tuesday, Mar 1, 11 @ 1:05 pm:
No. There is no need to give law enforcement a financial incentive to further prolong the War on Drugs.
– MrJM
- Y2D - Tuesday, Mar 1, 11 @ 1:06 pm:
They said the costs are labor related … not for hazard waste disposal costs.
- Small Town Liberal - Tuesday, Mar 1, 11 @ 1:07 pm:
Nope, just another step in the wrong direction regarding drugs.
- Cheryl44 - Tuesday, Mar 1, 11 @ 1:11 pm:
No on the costs associated with busting someone for pot possession/growing/distributing. I don’t think it’s a bad idea to make the meth producers pay to have their labs cleaned up.
- Just Observing - Tuesday, Mar 1, 11 @ 1:11 pm:
No. Municipilaties tend to overcharge and overhype for administrative costs as a means to generate revenue. As pointed out earlier, it also serves as means for police officers to over-arrest and ensure job protection for themselves.
Marijuana (and some other drugs) should be legalized anyways.
- Edison Parker - Tuesday, Mar 1, 11 @ 1:16 pm:
What is the rationale for applying this only to drug charges? Why wouldn’t Elgin or any other municipality want to recoup it’s cost from thefts, burglaries, assaults or anything other crime?
- Responsa - Tuesday, Mar 1, 11 @ 1:25 pm:
I’d like to see the bill altered to address both the law enforcement labor costs and cleanup costs of (only) Meth convictions and supervision. Could support that. But 1258 as it stands I do not support. Too broad.
- Lefty Lefty - Tuesday, Mar 1, 11 @ 1:27 pm:
Absolutely a step in the wrong direction. If they want to save money, make possession a misdemeanor and leave 1000s of people out of the jail cells and courts. That would give the local cops lots of money to go after the distributors and manufacturers.
- Plutocrat03 - Tuesday, Mar 1, 11 @ 1:30 pm:
A couple problems with the bill for me.
There is a trend in public services to charge for doing what has been their job. An example of a misapplication of this approach is the red light camera debacle. Lots of money for the vendors and general funds. Similarly charging 1K for ambulance service is a strech. The western ‘burbs have had an issue where they confiscated cash and would not return it despite no charges or convictions.
Secondly it is a stretch to treat pot arrests with meth arrests. There is no hazardous materials disposal in a pot arrest. Seems like piling on the pot users. I think with all the discussion of decriminalizing pot, this seems to be a step in the wrong direction.
- Palatine - Tuesday, Mar 1, 11 @ 1:35 pm:
No, just another money grab.
- Jake From Elwood - Tuesday, Mar 1, 11 @ 1:52 pm:
===ONLY if the arrest results in a conviction. Innocent people are arrested from time to time.===
FYI, the bill provides for payment only upon conviction.
Several of these type of bills already exist for DUIs causing accidents, HazMat spills, etc. The problem has been getting the states’ attorneys to request the fines and the judges to impose them. Just because there is a mechanism for such payments of pass-through costs to the first responders does not mean it is included in a judgment order.
I support this bill.
- Robert - Tuesday, Mar 1, 11 @ 1:52 pm:
Yes - caveat is that there should be a floor of a certain class of felony with a large minimum fine, so that govt. won’t waste time&money collecting fines like $153 or $224.
- Pot calling kettle - Tuesday, Mar 1, 11 @ 1:57 pm:
As alluded to above, there are already property and cash seizures associated with drug arrests. Since they are already able to “reimburse” themselves (sometimes even without charging any person with a crime) I don’t see how this is justified. It seems like double dipping.
I also agree that this is what they are supposed to be doing; this is what are taxes pay them to do. I don’t like the police have a cash incentive to arrest people. The property seizure laws have been misused, so it’s reasonable to expect this would be as well. It gives law enforcement the wrong set of incentives.
- dan linn - Tuesday, Mar 1, 11 @ 2:02 pm:
I agree with the comments regarding cannabis being relegalized. Law enforcement should focus on catching more violent criminals and rapists and not nonviolent responsible drug manufacturers and consumers. The war on drugs undermines American liberties and financially costs a great deal, someday more folks will realize that this is just another prohibition doomed to fail like the noble experiment with alcohol.
- Jake From Elwood - Tuesday, Mar 1, 11 @ 2:06 pm:
===I also agree that this is what they are supposed to be doing; this is what are taxes pay them to do. I don’t like the police have a cash incentive to arrest people===
But “Pot”, only those found guilty pay not all who arrested. Why not have another penalty in place that has the drug dealers and possessors subsidize the cost of law enforcement and other first responders. Hypothetically, each dollar collected in this matter is one fewer tax dollar needed, right?
- Ahoy - Tuesday, Mar 1, 11 @ 2:08 pm:
Why are we targeting only certain arrests? Seems a little unfair to say that we’re going to make you pay for breaking this law, but those who break other laws are exempt. Also, we shouldn’t make those who are arrested pay, an arrest is not a verdict.
- D.P. Gumby - Tuesday, Mar 1, 11 @ 2:23 pm:
I don’t like the DUI law either. This is one of those slippery slope laws that will soon lead to “life w/o parole plus the cost of prosecuting you”. All of these cost-shifting criminal (and even civil) laws are simple attempts by legislatures to avoid paying the cost of government. “We’ll cut funds for drug treatment, but we’ll charge you for your conviction” and that way we don’t have to raise taxes. Irrational.
- Pot calling kettle - Tuesday, Mar 1, 11 @ 2:26 pm:
Not even for a conviction. I want the police working for the tax payer, not trying to make ends meet for the department. Adding that monetary incentive could lead to less than professional conduct, especially in tough economic times. History has shown that, unfortunately, corners are sometimes cut in the name of expediency, resulting in wrongful convictions.
- wordslinger - Tuesday, Mar 1, 11 @ 2:41 pm:
No, there shouldn’t be a financial incentive to enforce some laws and not others.
- Nope to Dope - Tuesday, Mar 1, 11 @ 3:00 pm:
No, this bill should not be passed - it will have minimal effect in deterring the sale and distribution of marijuana, which I hope is their main policy objective. This bill does nothing to address the larger policy issues/questions surrounding the use of cannabis by the general public. Should it be legal or not?
While operating under the current law, illegal, I understand the step, but if their motivation is financial, this bill will yield small potatoes compared to the possible revenue stream created from the legalization of cannabis.
These cops should instead launch a campaign calling for the legalization of cannabis. Financially strapped municipalities will save on the costs associated with combating it, and a new revenue source created once you begin to tax it. Municipalities revenues will flip from red to black in relation to fighting cannabis immediately once it is legalized.
- Wensicia - Tuesday, Mar 1, 11 @ 3:57 pm:
Agree with wordslinger, no. You’ll have police concentrating on drug crimes, while directing manpower away from violent crimes.
- Palatine - Tuesday, Mar 1, 11 @ 4:10 pm:
Nope to Dope : Agree
- Jake From Elwood - Tuesday, Mar 1, 11 @ 4:50 pm:
I guess there are some commenters on here who place more value on the ill-gotten treasuries of convicted drug dealers than providing additional monies to municipalities to continue providing police and fire services at a proper level.
Interesting.
- DuPage Dave - Tuesday, Mar 1, 11 @ 5:57 pm:
This is simply put, a crock. Right wing baloney sausage.
The “costs” are the paychecks of the police involved, who would have been paid the same amount had they spent the day issuing traffic tickets.
- So IL M - Tuesday, Mar 1, 11 @ 7:25 pm:
No. Law enforcement Agencys are not and should not be run as revenue producing agencys. The DUI law has seen DUI enforced as a way to make money for the Dept. and city/county. Without getting into the legalization of marijuana arguement, passing this bill will give incentive to Dept.s to focus on pot peddlers and take some of the Heat off of crack, meth, and heroin enforcement, which are all far larger problems.
- Pot calling kettle - Tuesday, Mar 1, 11 @ 9:45 pm:
==I guess there are some commenter on here who place more value on the ill-gotten treasuries of convicted drug dealers==
Apparently, you did not read the comments.
They primary reasons cited for opposition are:
1) opposition to criminalization of marijuana
2) concern about providing inappropriate incentives to law enforcement agencies
- Marty - Wednesday, Mar 2, 11 @ 5:23 am:
No. Same for civil forfeiture, tho you didn’t ask.
Giving the police and the municipality a financial incentive to make criminals out of people is a very bad incentive… and no one should try and tell me “it’s only covering out-of-pocket costs” because I know how cost allocation can be used to shift huge amounts of G&A between accounts.
The police and revenue powers are different and no good will come from blurring that. This is a bit over the top, but it has the odor of Beria purging someone and then taking over his long-coveted dacha (which actually happened).