Help Reason Help People Who Get Screwed Over by the Criminal Justice System!

Our coverage gets results, brings fringe issues to the mainstream, and mints new libertarians.


On Day 5 of Reason's annual webathon, in which we ask our most frequent consumers to throw some end-of-the-year tax-deductible scrip into our tip jar in exchange for some sweet swag, we are going to make an appeal based on our half-century of infuriating but impactful criminal justice coverage. BUT FIRST!

Two huge announcements: Because of your startling generosity through the halfway point of this fundraising drive, we are jacking our goal upward, from $200,000 (which was just a hair below last year's total) to $300,000, which would be our second-biggest haul in a decade of doing this. Thank you so much, and let's re-orange that box! (Not a euphemism.)

Secondly: Toward that goal, we've got another anonymous challenge-granter, people! A very generous Racer X has agreed to match a whopping $50,000 of contributions from this point onward in the webathon. If we only raise $23,000 between now and Tuesday, that matching check is only $23,000. If y'all donate $50,000, well, that box be orange.

Won't you please donate to Reason today? Now, on to today's pitch.

"The solution to violence in America," founding editor Lanny Friedlander wrote in the second issue of this magazine, "is painfully obvious: Unlock the doors and empty the cage."

Friedlander was speaking metaphorically, but only just: The overincarceration of Americans, the overcriminalization of peaceful human behavior, the lopsided war between individuals and the state, have been preoccupations of the world's flagship libertarian publication since its inception. Animated by a constrained fury at injustice, Reason has defended the defenseless, shined journalistic light at police abuse, and occasionally helped remedy wrongs. It is probably the single best reason to give a tax-deductible donation to the Reason Foundation today.

Won't you please donate to Reason right the hell now?

Let's give some examples. In April of this year, that heroic libertarian litigation firm, the Institute for Justice (I.J.), filed a class-action lawsuit alleging that the city of Chicago's notorious automobile impound program—which saddles largely poor residents with fines and deprives them indefinitely of their own wheels, even if they didn't commit so much as a traffic violation—violates due process and other constitutional protections.

How did I.J. learn about these forfeiture shakedowns? From a jaw-dropping investigation by Reason criminal justice reporter C.J. Ciaramella, our resident Freedom of Information Act ninja. (Make sure to read more about C.J.'s FOIA heroics in Katherine Mangu-Ward's initial webathon post.)

In follow-up reporting, Ciaramella found that "Between 2012 and 2017, Chicago imposed $114 million in fines in more than 108,000 impound cases….Roughly $36 million of that money was collected based on drug violations." One of the plaintiffs in the I.J. suit, Ciaramella wrote in October of this year, "owes…$6,000 in fines and fees after her car was impounded in 2017, even though the criminal case that led to her car being impounded was dismissed, and even though she wasn't driving her car, or even in the state, when she violated Chicago's city code."

Such grim spadework can lead to tangible policy changes for the better, as when the Illinois state legislature in 2017 passed civil asset forfeiture reform—after yet another Ciaramella investigation, this one into how Chicago was using the foul police-theft tactic to shake down poor and minority communities who didn't have the means to fight back.

In September, Associate Editor Zuri Davis wrote about the appalling case of a grieving father named Jonathan Vanderhagen, who was jailed and charged with malicious use of telecommunications services for writing Facebook posts criticizing the judge who granted custody of Vanderhagen's two-year-old son to a mother the Michigan man had argued was not fit. The boy died from a pre-existing medical condition shortly thereafter. Two days after Davis's post, amid widespread outcry, Vanderhagen was acquitted.

Having covered this stuff for decades, Reason has developed early-detection capabilities for sniffing out police spin, particularly in deadly use-of-force situation. Senior Editor Jacob Sullum, who literally wrote the book on the harms of prohibiting recreational drugs, is especially adept in such circumstances. On January 28 of this year, Houston police executing a drug warrant shot and killed a reportedly armed and resisting middle-aged couple named Dennis Tuttle and Rhogena Nicholas. Initially, people covering the case almost universally acclaimed the cops' heroism in the face of deadly circumstances. Sullum on January 30 patiently explained why "I am not one of those people."

Sullum was skeptical of the warrant, skeptical of the accounts of the couple's behavior, skeptical of the police department's post-shooting claims of Houston's drug trade and anti-cop animus. He concluded that initial post: "If police officers don't want to be portrayed as the enemy, they should stop acting like the enemy."

Read through Sullum's ensuing coverage in chronological order. Long story short, narcotics officer Gerald Goines has been charged with murder. As Sullum summarized last week, "a federal indictment unsealed last week shows [that] a drug raid that killed a middle-aged couple on January 28 was based on lies from start to finish, which should alarm anyone who thinks the Fourth Amendment protects Americans from unreasonable searches."

Our work helps reorient discussion around the exercise of police power to be more skeptical of government claims, and more mindful of the many structural distortions and incentives that generate unjust outcomes. Criminal justice issues that we were toiling on nearly alone for decades—civil asset forfeiture, cash bail, junk forensics, prosecutorial immunity, no-knock raids, "drug-sniffing" dogs—have at long last become part of the national conversation about reform. Your donations help us spread awareness of these issues from the (heroic) activist fringe to the laggard mainstream.

Our coverage also contributes to the making of new libertarians. What could be more instructive about police power than, well, police power? Fully five of our top 10 highest-trafficked stories in 2019 were about criminal justice outrages:

2) "A Michigan Man Underpaid His Property Taxes By $8.41. The County Seized His Property, Sold It—and Kept the Profits," by Eric Boehm

4) "A 16-Year-Old Girl Is Facing Child Pornography Charges for Making a Sex Video of Herself," by Robby Soave

5) "The NYPD Bragged About a Big Pot Bust. Turns Out It Seized 106 Pounds of Legal Hemp," by Zuri Davis

6) "Secret Memos Show the Government Has Been Lying About Backpage All Along," by Elizabeth Nolan Brown

8) "Mom Ignores Doctor When Her Sick 2-Year-Old Starts Feeling Better, Child Services Send a SWAT Team," by Lenore Skenazy

Note too that we've discussed the work of seven different Reason journalists in this post. For us, criminal justice is not some boutique beat, silo'd off from the rest of our activities. It is fundamental to what we do, and why we get up in the morning.

Won't you please donate to Reason, so we can do more of this fundamentally important work?

In the meantime, please enjoy this video of Katherine Mangu-Ward greeting the entrance of Sen. Kamala Harris (D–Calif.) into the presidential race with the prescient reminder that Kamala is a cop.

NEXT: Socialism Killed My Father

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Hey let’s play a game. It’s called “How many days in a row will Reason have a blackout on a Saudi terrorist attack on American soil”

    1. Same number of days they will lack an actual condemnation of a member of the house subpoenaing phone records for political reasons. (No, victim blaming Nunes wasnt condemnation)

      1. The House committee requested the phone records as part of the impeachment investigation. Yes, impeachment has always been politically motivated in nature, but it’s part of the Constitution. Why, exactly, do you expect Reason to condemn a Constitutional process?

        1. I wasn’t aware that warrantless wiretapping was part of the constitutional impeachment process. Thanks for your scholarly work, cytotoxic. Or maybe it just works that way in Canada, where you actually live?

          1. The subpoena was for phone records, not wiretaps.

        2. Sadly Mike doesnt see how easily he accepted Congress looking into people for political purposes.

          1. There is still such a thing as investigation in a free society.

            1. Under the 5th Amendment, nobody has to cooperate with Congress either.

              Oh wait, Congress doesnt like that.

        3. Btw mikey… do you not know the 4th amendment is so part of the constitution and applies to congress? You “neutral” halfwit.

    2. Reason is under no obligation to cover every local crime story.

        1. F it
          So funny on multiple levels, but succinct

          1. Still not as good as his response yesterday about how lame it was repeating the same joke over and over. He has reached a new level.

      1. That’s precisely true. Reason isn’t a newspaper. It is very odd to expect the Reason blog to cover ever news event going on when they never has.

        1. poor Mikey.

    3. Seriously? Is the implication that they are suppressing the story because of some left-wing agenda?

      Reason is not a newspaper.

      As the Reasons editors just said in their latest podcast, Reason Magazine is a long-form article format where they often spend about two months putting together the stories. Reason also produces videos and podcasts on various topics. Reason also has a blog, which is virtually only active Monday – Friday and the incident occurred Friday morning.


        You L I T E R A L L Y went with the “too local” line even AFTER it was already presented as a punchline


        Oh cytotoxic. Never change my dude. Never change.

        1. The word, literally, would mean that I actually used the words, “too local”, which I did not.

          1. Haha

      2. You know what wasn’t ”””””too local””””” on the same morning though? A plastic bag ban in New Jersey (“New Jersey Bill Would Crack Down on Both Plastic and Paper Bags”, Britschgi). A viral social media video about the border wall (“A Viral Video Shows Why Border Walls Are Ineffective”, Binion). The reboot of a lesbian TV series (“The L Word Returns, with an Unwelcome New Obsession with Identity Politics”, Garvin).


      3. But hey, I’m sure it’ll be at the top of the Reason blog on Monday morning. It’s not like Reason ever covers Friday document dumps or other weekend trivialities.


        1. Like I said, Reason is not a newspaper. They might talk about it on the blog, they might not. It doesn’t mean anything if they don’t.

          1. Wow you’re pathetic.

    4. Are we looking for Reason to criticize our alliance with the Saudis?


  2. Help Reason Help People Who Get Screwed Over by the Criminal Justice System!
    Our coverage gets results, brings fringe issues to the mainstream, and mints new libertarians.

    Except anyone associated with Trump. Orange man bad, so he and his pals get no help from reason.

    reason is correct though, people will see how bad reason is with principles and helping those destroy America and maybe become new Libertarians.

    1. On one hand prosecutor abuse is bad. On the other hand opinions and hearsay is now evidence, IC abuse is okay, and process crimes are good as long as it is for political reasons.

      1. Biased judges are good, because fuck Roger Stone and some SEAL
        They’re associated with Trump
        OrANgE mAn baD!

      2. Non firsthand testimony and hearsay can be evidence. Whether it is admissible depends on the rules of the court or other judicial proceeding, and even then whether it is admissible depends on what claims the evidence is being used to prove.

        1. Non firsthand testimony and hearsay can be evidence.

          Good job cytotoxic. You L I T E R A L L Y just made the exact statement that was being parodied.


          Oh man, you’re really rolling this morning.

    2. The impeachment is not being conducted within the criminal justice system.

      1. “My principles only defend kiddie fuckers and crackheads not the goddamn president.”

        ImpEAcHmEnT Is PoLiTIcAL!>!

        1. What am I supposed to be protecting Trump from?

          1. You are pathetic.

  3. We have heard a bunch of comments as to why one might not want to donate to reason.

    Any comments from people who did donate as to why one might want to donate to reason?

    1. I would donate, but like Charles Koch I’ve been hit hard by this #DrumpfRecession. Just don’t have the extra cash right now.

      Donating is totally worth it though for anyone with money to spare. What other website features near-daily updates on how Drumpf’s tariffs have ruined the economy? Where else can you read Shikha Dalmia manipulate American guilt about slavery in order to promote the immigration agenda of white billionaires?

      1. reason is taking all sorts of donations, not just cash.

        You can donate your soul.
        You can donate your principles.
        You can donate your rights.

        1. Yeah, like I still own my soul.

      2. You really are one of the few reasons I still visit this site.

    2. Donated yesterday. Because Reason has a decades-long history of being the best forum for articles and wide-ranging opinion from a moderate, non-partisan libertarian point of view.

      1. LMAO did you send them an envelope full of loonies, cytotoxic?

  4. How did I.J. learn about these forfeiture shakedowns?

    I learned about the Reason shakedown when I logged onto this website and saw ONCE AGAIN that Reason had moved the goalposts and now they want $100,000 more.

  5. I read reason and all, so I won’t be so ungracious as to claim they don’t deserve to raise money as some seem to. But that said, I too have been disappointed by Reason’s impeachment coverage bias, and it shouldn’t be too hard to please me because I hate Trump. I did not nor will I vote for him. But it seems clear in most articles here that his guilt on every possible aspect is taken a priori and the facts are just presented to justify that.

    So I gave directly to the Institute for Justice. Good luck in your fundraising, Reason.

  6. I q­ui­­­t wo­­­rk­­­­ing m­­­y de­­s­k jo­­­b an­­d n­­o­w,,,I ‘m m­­a­­k­­i­­n­­g $­­9­­7/H­­r w­­o­­r­­k­­i­­n­­g f­­r­­o­­m h­­o­­m­­e b­­y d­­o­­i­­n­­g t­­h­­i­­s s­­i­­m­­p­­l­­e o­­n­­l­­i­­n­­e h­­o­­m­­e j­­o­­b­­z.i e­­a­­r­­n $15 ­­t­­h­­o­­u­­s­­a­­n­­d­­s a m­­o­­n­­t­­h b­­y w­­o­­r­­k­­i­­n­­g o­­n­­l­­i­­n­­e 3 H­­o­­u­­r p­­a­­r d­­a­­y.i r­­e­­c­­o­­m­­m­­e­­nd­­e­­d y­­o­­u t­­r­­y i­­t.y­­o­­u w­­i­­l­­l l­­o­­s­­e n­­o­­t­­h­­i­­n­­g.j­­u­­s­­t t­­r­­y i­­t o­­u­­t o­­n t­­h­­e f­­o­­l­­l­­o­­w­­i­­n­­g w­­e­­b­­s­­i­­t­­e a­­n­­d e­­a­­r­­n d­­a­­i­­l­­y…g­­­o t­­­o t­­­hi­­­s si­­­te ho­­­me media tech t­­­a­­­b f­­­or m­­­or­­­e d­­­et­­­a­­­il thank you………. http://www.9Klife.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.