Just laws, cop abuse, and the arrogance of Eric Garcetti

The 2006 Duke Lacrosse case featured:

• An investigation of a  real crime. Unlike, say, the phony "crimes" like gun or drug possession, rape has an actual victim 
• White men, athletes at an elite university, as suspects. Maybe they weren't all rich, but they were privileged with access to  competent legal counsel.

Even after evidence indicated the accused were innocent, the police and prosecutor pursued the case.

If innocent Duke athletes aren't safe from The State, nobody is. Botched prosecutions and wrongful convictions are commonplace even when the laws, such as  laws against rape, murder, and robbery, are just and necessary.

So what happens when they're not? Increasing the minimum wage is a case in point. Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, in a Freakonomics interview, said it will lead to increased "net economic activity" in his city.

That's a dubious proposition at best, but the more important question is...

Who does Eric Garcetti think he is think he is to make it illegal for people to take jobs at wages they are willing to accept?

Garcetti admits there will be some displacement with a minimum wage hike, but somehow thinks it's worth it. What will happen to the jobless?

They'll likely get public assistance of various kinds. But also, the circumstances will encourage them to earn money in the unlicensed, untaxed shadow economy.

Even if the goods and services they provide aren't illegal in themselves, they're made illegal by the lack of paperwork and taxes.

And that can lead to nosy neighbors calling the police, or police spotting and inquiring into "suspicious" activity themselves. Arrests will be made, convictions plea-bargained, and honest peaceful people will have misdemeanors or even felonies on their record.

In addition, some of that police contact will get out of hand. Sometimes police will panic or become abusive. It's statistically likely the victims will disproportionately be racial minorities.

And when an incident becomes a national headline, we'll again wonder how we can "reform" police departments so they'll be less racist in practice. No doubt Eric Garcetti will have something reasonable and "compassionate" to say.

But it's the Garcettis of the world who are the fundamental problem. Don't pile on victimless laws on top of just laws and then be shocked when minorities bear the brunt.

Just laws, cop abuse, and the arroagance of Eric Garcetti

The 2006 Duke Lacrosse case featured:

• An investigation of a  real crime. Unlike, say, the phony "crimes" like gun or drug possession, rape has an actual victim 
• White men, athletes at an elite university, as suspects. Maybe they weren't all rich, but they were privileged with access to  competent legal counsel.

Even after evidence indicated the accused were innocent, the police and prosecutor pursued the case.

If innocent Duke athletes aren't safe from The State, nobody is. Botched prosecutions and wrongful convictions are commonplace even when the laws, such as  laws against rape, murder, and robbery, are just and necessary.

So what happens when they're not? Increasing the minimum wage is a case in point. Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, in a Freakonomics interview, said it will lead to increased "net economic activity" in his city.

That's a dubious proposition at best, but the more important question is...

Who does Eric Garcetti think he is think he is to make it illegal for people to take jobs at wages they are willing to accept?

Garcetti admits there will be some displacement with a minimum wage hike, but somehow thinks it's worth it. What will happen to the jobless?

They'll likely get public assistance of various kinds. But also, the circumstances will encourage people to earn money in the unlicensed, untaxed shadow economy.

Even if the goods and services they provide aren't illegal in themselves, they're made illegal by the lack of paperwork and taxes.

And that can lead to nosy neighbors calling the police, or police spotting and inquiring into "suspicious" activity themselves.

Some of that police contact will get out of hand, and police may panic or become abusive. It's statistically likely the victims will disproportionately be racial minorities.

And when an incident becomes a national headline, we'll again wonder how we can "reform" police departments so they'll be less racist in practice. No doubt Eric Garcetti will have something reasonable and "compassionate" to say.

But it's the Garcettis of the world who are the fundamental problem. Don't pile on victimless laws on top of just laws and then be shocked when minorities bear the brunt.

Law abuse precedes cop abuse

You want to reduce police shootings of black men, and prevent any possible retaliation? 

Get rid of your bs victimless crime laws. Those laws are  abusive and so their enforcers will be abusive.

So...

Stop harassing people for selling stuff on the street without a license.

Stop endangering lives on the road to enforce traffic and vehicle laws that do nothing but raise revenue for The State.

Get rid of the drug laws. and gun laws. They were enacted in the first place with racist intent. Using a drug or possessing a firearm does not victimize anybody else.

And get rid of the Drug War-induced  asset forfeiture laws in which innocent people see their cash, cars, or even homes taken from them without so much as being charged with a crime.

As it stands now, the police are REWARDED for harassing people, and they'll racially profile NOT because blacks are more likely to be criminals, but because they're more likely to be poor and have fewer resources to fight back with competent legal counsel. 

If we repeal victimless, abusive laws, the police will have fewer incentives to be abusive.

A plan for safer traffic

Reason has a brief clip (at the end of this post) on a town's police cracking down on an individual who carried a sign warning drivers of speed traps.

What this man did, however, is a public service. Indeed, provided he might have had other things to do with his time, it's downright heroic and should be emulated.

Why?

Because he's alerting speeding or careless drivers that it's in their best interest to drive carefully within the speed limit. This serves the public, and the drivers themselves, by creating safer traffic.

Police should be grateful. Indeed, they should deploy plainclothes officers to do this kind of thing, randomly, throughout parts of town. They could even announce the program to the public that they'll be doing it, and even announce that the signs will be lying 50% of the time.

Wouldn't that encourage drivers to obey the traffic laws and avoid getting pulled over?

If safety, not ticket revenue, really was the end-game of traffic laws and police patrols, this should be a no-brainer.