Cash Cops
How cops making money from going after petty offenses makes for antagonism between the Ferguson citizens and the police there, from a blog post by Walter Olson at Cato.
He quotes a Newsweek article:
"Despite Ferguson's relative poverty, fines and court fees comprise the second largest source of revenue for the city, a total of 2,635,400," according to the ArchCity Defenders report. And in 2013, the Ferguson Municipal Court issued 24,532 arrest warrants and 12,018 cases, "or about 3 warrants and 1.5 cases per household."
Yes, that's three arrest warrants and 1.5 cases per household. In a single year.
Olson comments:
The town gets nearly a quarter of its municipal revenue from court fees - the figure in some neighboring towns is even higher - and according to the ArchCity Defenders report quoted in Newsweek, Ferguson's municipal court is among the very worst in the way it adds its own hassle factor to the collection of petty fines...In recent years scholars and journalists have been developing a literature on how petty fines and low-level law enforcement can snowball into life-changing consequences for persons not by nature inclined toward criminality...
Olson ends with this:
It seems so random and meaningless that a legal offense as minor as walking on the roadway would set in motion what was to prove the fatal confrontation between officer Darren Wilson and Michael Brown. But in the wider scheme of how Ferguson came to have its problem with policing, it may be neither random nor meaningless.
Power blog post.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at August 21, 2014 12:45 AM
This is a protest in North Texas, but there isn't anyone in that photo who I wouldn't prefer to see in a dark alley rather than dealing with a Ferguson cop in broad daylight.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at August 21, 2014 12:57 AM
I have long thought that fees and fines should be refunded to the citizenry in the form of reduced tax rates. This would remove the perverse incentive to invent ever more ways of fining citizens, so that bureaucrats have more spending money.
a_random_guy at August 21, 2014 1:50 AM
Amazing.
MarkD at August 21, 2014 5:25 AM
An economist - Alex Tabarrok at Marginal Revolution - looks at Ferguson - notes how de facto debtors' prisons (which are supposed to be illegal in the USA) ruin lives:
http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2012/04/debtors-prison-for-failure-to-pay-for-your-own-trial.html
Amy Alkon at August 21, 2014 5:59 AM
There's nothing new about the general concept -- just the specific means. After all, lots of towns have been funding a lot of parasitic government for decades using revenue from traffic tickets. The point, though, is that in either case, when the citizenry gets the message that the purpose of policing is revenue rather than maintaining public order, you get disrespect for the law.
Cousin Dave at August 21, 2014 6:32 AM
Real crime - Junior-Murvin-style polees-an'tieves crime - continues to fall in all major categories.
It is in the nature of any government system to attempt to increase its power, staff and budget, or, in the face of adversity, to do everything it can to maintain all three. It is what they do - for large parts of any government system, it rapidly becomes the single largest motivator for almost-all of their activity. Bigger budgets, more headcount. The criminal-justice system is no different.
As the primary reason for their existence continues to shrink (and the shrinkage we see now is as-nothing to what we will see as the tide of drug legalization gathers strength), they are acting exactly as they should be expected to act - finding other ways to keep their headcount, maintain their budgets and (in the final analysis) justify their continued existence.
The court and corrections systems have now become revenue generators that do a bit of guilt-and-innocence on the side. Their main motivator now is the preservation of the system. Any good they may do for society is purely incidental.
As we see here. When there is not enough real crime - Junior-Murvin-style polees-an'tieves crime - it becomes necessary to create crime - and criminals - in order the maintain the system.
llater,
llamas
llamas at August 21, 2014 6:41 AM
I've been watching as fines for speeding, littering, and other minor infractions have been inching upward.
And while that part of me stuck in the crowded regular lanes fumes while others get away with driving single in the HOV lanes and hopes they get caught and are sentenced to the $281 maximum fine, the rational part of me wonders what purpose so high a fine serves (it also wonders what purpose the lightly-used HOV lane serves).
Years ago, the town of Waldo, Florida (a well-known speed trap near the University of Florida) was faced with a budget shortfall. The choice presented to the citizenry was to raise property taxes or increase the fines for speeding. Guess which on the good citizens of Waldo chose.
Righteous people justify ever-higher fines for even minor infractions by pointing out they affect scofflaws and those who consciously violate known laws.
However, these arguments ignore the sometimes serious impact these fines can have on people who cannot afford them. $281, to a person desperate enough to get to a minimum wage job on time to risk using the HOV lane, represents almost a week's work, before taxes.
And with the explosion of laws being promulgated every day at various levels of government, how many of these laws are really known?
Conan the Grammarian at August 21, 2014 9:39 AM
Conan, you might remember the town of Hacienda Village in south Florida. It was a town that existed specifically to be a speed trap. The city limits encompassed one area about half a mile square, which just happened to be centered on the intersection of U.S. 441 and Alligator Alley (before it became part of I-75) in west Broward County. Lots of commercial traffic went through that intersection. Hacienda Village had about 70 residents, nearly all of whom worked for the "city" government in some capacity. About 90% of their funding came from patrolling that intersection and writing traffic tickets. Speed limits were set at 20 MPH and yellow lights were made super-short in order to catch more people running red lights. They liked to catch commercial drivers since they could just bill the employers and most of them would pay without contesting it. It was such a racket that eventuallly the state couldn't ignore it any longer, and the state legislature passed a bill revoking the town's incorporation charter.
Cousin Dave at August 21, 2014 9:59 AM
"The town gets nearly a quarter of its municipal revenue from court fees "
I can see a little of the other side of that. If a neighborhood either has a high crime rate or appears to have a high crime rate, property values drop, or people abandon property, property taxes drop, which is supposed to be the main source of $ for the municipality. If that drops low enough? You have 2 choices cut staff/services (not going to happen) or raise $ other ways. Being "tough" on crime grts in the $ and looks good on paper.
Joe J at August 21, 2014 10:33 AM
CD, I rarely had to take Alligator Alley. Most of my trips to South Florida involved one side of the state or the other, rarely both. However, I do remember HV from various discussion of the state's speed traps.
Didn't the police there ticket one of the state's power brokers, which forced the legislature to finally take action?
Conan the Grammarian at August 21, 2014 11:51 AM
There are now over 12 witnesses backing up officer Wilson's version. That version has him pulling up to the two of them walking in the middle of the street. He was telling them to use the sidewalk when Brown attacked him and then it escalated from there.
Jim P. at August 21, 2014 12:13 PM
CD, you bring up another "finance the gov't by tickets" scam. Revenue produced by Red Light cameras was actually written into the city's budget. And when they didn't get enough, they shortened the yellow lights, to insure drivers ran the light.
Accidents went up (rear-ending), which gives lie to the talking points that the cameras were for "safety".
- Steve
Steve at August 21, 2014 12:14 PM
llamas:
And with the explosion of laws being promulgated every day at various levels of government, how many of these laws are really known?
Ignorance of the law is no excuse, however complete knowledge of the law is impossible, even for trained professionals. In chess that is known as a fork, in psychology it is called a double bind. It means that any time you get sucked into the system, you automatically lose.
kenmce at August 21, 2014 3:44 PM
"There are now over 12 witnesses backing up officer Wilson's version. "
Does any outlet not serving as a stenographer for the police back that up. Not saying you're wrong, but all I can find is "police sources", and no credible sources (only Daily Caller, bloggers, etc).
Chad at August 21, 2014 9:34 PM
"There are now over 12 witnesses backing up officer Wilson's version. "
Does any outlet not serving as a stenographer for the police back that up. Not saying you're wrong, but all I can find is "police sources", and no credible sources (only Daily Caller, bloggers, etc).
Posted by: Chad at August 21, 2014 9:34 PM
Just out of curiosity Chad, supposing you lived in Ferguson Mo. And you saw this 300 pound thug, beat the cop, back off, and then charge the cop.
You going to announce it live on Fox News, as you call the moving van, or are you going to make a statement down at the police station, in private, and then save your testimony for the secret grand jury, where your name will not be revealed?
Perhaps you also don't understand why reporters don't stand in the public square in Pyongyang, and interview North Koreans about how they really feel about Kim Jong-un?
Isab at August 22, 2014 6:59 AM
"There are now over 12 witnesses backing up officer Wilson's version. "
Not that it matters to the rioters, it could be 100, will just be proof that it's a coverup, and how deep the racism goes.
Joe J at August 22, 2014 7:28 AM
"You going to announce it live on Fox News, as you call the moving van, or are you going to make a statement down at the police station, in private, and then save your testimony for the secret grand jury, where your name will not be revealed?"
Simply quoting anonymous sources from one side of a contentious case isn't journalism, and should raise skepticipsm. Doesn't mean they're wrong or right, just not very believable. Would you find it credible if a site supporting Brown said "according to street thug sources, 12 people are prepared to testify that the cop fired the kill shot into Brown from several paces away as Brown was on his knees"? (which, BTW, is completely consistent with the autopsy)
P.S. "Just out of curiosity Chad, supposing you lived in Ferguson Mo. And you saw this 300 pound thug, beat the cop, back off, and then charge the cop."
Some might call this begging the question, but in its actual meaning, rather the commonly used meaning today.
Chad at August 22, 2014 9:44 PM
"Despite Ferguson's relative poverty, fines and court fees comprise the second largest source of revenue for the city"
It looks like I'll be odd one out in this discussion . . .
I think that should read "Because" rather than "despite" Ferguson's relative poverty. If the town has a large percent of "takers" (i.e., on welfare, collecting govt. benefits) rather than "givers" (i.e. hard-working taxpayers, businesses) why wouldn't fines and court fees comprise a large source of revenue for the city?
The question I would like to see answered by the "journalist" is what is the actual dollar amount of fines and court fees in other similar-sized cities? Is it in fact higher? is the crime rate higher as well?
Or is this journalist just doing as Mark Twain is reported to have said: "There are three kinds of lies; lies, damned lies, and statistics." Statistics can, and often are, used by folks who clearly are trying to "report" an agenda, rather than the news.
Charles at August 23, 2014 1:11 PM
Conflict of interests are avoided and are even outlawed in some cases because of the bad acts they encourage people to do. Supporting your government through fines is a clear conflict of interest. I am all for collecting fines. They are a good way to encourage people to follow the law. But the government should not hold on to the money. It should be rebated or in some other way separate those who collect the fines and those who profit from them. We don't need cops or inspectors hassling people just because they want a raise.
Ben at August 23, 2014 2:16 PM
I'm surprised nobody has sued or been sued over "Conflict of Interest"!
What's happening now is that cops will not address "real crime" since it does not pay fines for the courts.
jefe at August 24, 2014 1:49 PM
It can be worse than that Jefe. Many crimes have a fine or jail time. Technically you get to choose. So when the economy tanked back in 2008 a lot more people chose jail time. The cops started canceling sentences because jail costs them. So the crime really was just about generating revenue.
Ben at August 25, 2014 6:41 AM
Leave a comment