From: Adam Shostack <adam@bwh.harvard.edu>
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 94 13:06:08 PDT
To: CCGARY@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu (Gary Jeffers)
Subject: Re: *credit info
In-Reply-To: <9408081954.AA29356@toad.com>
Message-ID: <199408082005.QAA07869@bwnmr5.bwh.harvard.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Gary Jeffers:

|    On the CRUSADERS news program on tv last night, they reported that
| a Ca. city, I believe Palo Alto, has been enforcing traffic law, such
| as revoked licenses & drunk driving, by taking the drivers' cars.
| They brag that the program pays for itself. They think that it
| is a bright innovation & are promoted it for other jurisdictions as
| well. Very clever, stealing peoples' property to enforce law. Reminds
| me when the law 1st started doing "sting" operations & bragged that
| they were terribly clever - participating in crime to catch criminals.
| The criticism of entrapment now has mostly been forgotten.

	Taking property as a form of punishment has a long history
(fines); usually, the criminal has a choice of what property to give
up, but not always.  As long as the city is going through with
judicial hearings, respecting individuals rights not to be searched at
random, and not rewarding the cops who seize the most cars, I'm not
sure I see this as a bad thing(tm).

	Of course, they probably seize the car on the spot, after
random breathalyzer tests, and give the cop who meets his quota an
extra bonus at the end of the monthl; at which point I have serious
problems with it.  However, in theory, it strikes me as a good idea,
likely to be poorly implemented.


Adam

-- 
Adam Shostack 				       adam@bwh.harvard.edu

Politics.  From the greek "poly," meaning many, and ticks, a small,
annoying bloodsucker.