Bad Rules Make Bad Cops: Bart Wilson on The Economics of Civil Forfeiture
"When you give [police] the power of civil asset forfeiture, they've got to choose between themselves or the public," says experimental economist Bart Wilson. "Why do we want to put them in that position?"
Civil asset forfeiture is the process whereby police seize any property or money associated with a suspected crime, often drug-related. If the owner wants the seized property back, he or she must spend an often considerable amount of time and money to prove in court that the property wasn't used in the commission of a crime. As Jacob Sullum explained earlier this month, it's easy for innocent third parties to lose thousands of dollars in the process.
In many states, the law permits police departments to auction off the seized assets and keep the cash. Critics say this system incentivizes "policing for profit" at the expense of innocent members of the community, while proponents argue that it motivates police officers to do their jobs better and funds police departments by "taxing criminals."
Wilson, a professor of economics at Chapman University, and his co-author Michael Preciado designed a study to reveal how the incentives set forth under civil forfeiture affect human behavior. In the study, one undergraduate student plays the role of law enforcement in a computer game, and three others play the roles of the public. Subjects played for real money, and Wilson says the results were overwhelming.
"It's not a few people just abusing it. This is the modal tendency: to abuse," says Wilson, who points out that subjects are more likely than not to help others in games when there's no financial cost of doing so. "For me, that's pretty strong evidence that it's the rules that are creating the incentives for them to police for profit."
To see a fuller explanation of the study's methodology and its results, watch the video above.
Approximately 8 minutes. Produced by Zach Weissmueller. Camera by Alex Manning.
Scroll down for downloadable versions of this video, and subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube channel for daily content like this.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Holy Shit Eric Holder is resigning.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/.....le/2553941
The timing of t his tells me that they think the Senate is probably gone and that it will be impossible to keep the IRS or other scandals from doing in Holder. Since he will probably have to resign anyway, do it now while the Democrats still hold the Senate and they can cram through another hack who will refuse to investigate anything.
I wonder how many Senate confirmations they can get done in a lame duck session.
They only need to get one for AG. That is the important position. It is amazing how they have completely politicized the AG and the media acts like it is no big deal. Pressuring the AG to bend to political will used to be a major crime. It was one of the biggest of Nixon's crime. Now it is just SOP.
Nixon was a Republican.
True, but I doubt they'll be satisfied with just one. There's gonna be a lot of Senators leaving with cronies to pay off.
Interesting question this raises. With Holder no longer running interference at the DOJ, does this mean that the corruption scandals against Harry Reid and Mike Lee now get to proceed? The DOJ had refused to investigate or prosecute them before because Holder said no...it's an open question of whether any other AG candidate that could get confirmed is going to be willing to jump on board with their little cabal, especially if the GOP retakes the Senate.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/.....d=22905068
Crimes and ad behavior are only bad when a Republican does it. When I cornered my feminist Marxist traitor retired California college professor aunt as to how it was ok for Bill Clinton to be such a misgynist pig, harassing and raping women. She explained it was distasteful, but he did so much for her evil Marxist, treasonous cause that it was excusable.
Of course, if a republican had done a tenth of the things (Bob Packwood, cough,cough) that Clinton did, she would be the first screaming for the end of his political career and his livelihood.
That is the progressive way.
The timing of t his tells me that they think the Senate is probably gone and that it will be impossible to keep the IRS or other scandals from doing in Holder.
Wait a second. Some very respected commenters here have postulated that these scandals are fake. Are you saying otherwise?
Nutpunch Thursday continues.
I get the headline, but I'd argue that bad rules attract bad cops. Good cops get fired or don't even play to begin with.
I disagree.the author got it right.
Working drug enforcement is corrosive enough for the soul but when you combine it with the asset forfeiture incentives it's just a terrible thing for any person to deal with over a long period of time.
I worked a deep undercover for two years and God knows that was long enough both due to its corrosive influence and the fact that it statistically about 10 times as dangerous as basic patrol work
The saving grace was no asset forfeiture shenanigans were used
In general with the system as it is there is a pretty good system of incentives and a decent system of counter incentives but that becomes twisted when it comes to asset forfeiture
Excellent analysis here
I'm a big fan of using the civil courts for redress of grievances ( full disclaimer... I'm 2 for 2 when it comes to suing and I've also Been the recipient of a substantial civil judgement against police administration with the help of my union - when cops violate my rights I fight back!!!!)
But asset forfeiture especially in some states just creates the wrong types of incentives and allows police to seize property such that people are guilty until they prove themselves innocent
Law enforcement should never have a profit motive and while I think there should be ways to civilly attack criminal enterprises it shouldn't come with the kind of liberty restrictions we see with asset forfeiture
this law is a complete joke and completely undermines the concept of both due process and most of the rest of the Bill of Rights.
So if I travel to South Carolina from Atlanta to buy a 1970 Trans AM with $25000 and I am stopped for a BS traffic ticket the police can seize my money and I have to fight to get it back?
Why is having a large sum of money (cash) in your possession automatically grounds for suspicion of a crime. Lots of people use cash for purchases all of the time to buy jewelry cars even houses. This is both businesses and wealthy individuals.
When the progressives created the Income Tax in 1913 they opened the Pandora's box of Government intrusion into personal and corporate wealth. Previously, it was nobody's business how much money you had or how it was spent least of all the government. Taxes were collected on sales, exports and property not on income.
not on income.
And now they're collected on heads - taxed just for being alive. Be sure to pay your Obamacare breathing tax.
Because, fuck you! That's why.
I disagree, bad rules do not make bad cops. Cops who have little or no character to begin with will use these rules to enrich themselves. It's like someone finding a bag full of money, the true character of the person will come out, he will try to find the owner or keep it. Cops too show their character, or lack thereof, when they have the opportunity to steal from someone.
We need to stop civil forfeiture so these already bad cops won't have an avenue to steal.
It isn't "stealing" when cops do it - it's "asset forfeiture." Words have magic powers to change the nature of reality - didn't you know that?
Could someone explain to me how, if as theory says, the thing is guilty, how deodand, i.e. the sovereign's taking ownership of it, expiates its guilt? If the thing is an instrument or product of wrongdoing, shouldn't it be destroyed rather than forfeited?
Forfeiture by law enforcement is the norm involving smaller amounts of cash....it is not really forfeited....it is just plain not logged in and stolen!
Go ahead and try to get your cash back after bonding out of jail!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! it ain't gonna happen!!
Another motivation to shoot the cops when they try and search your house or vehicle.
my classmate's mother makes $73 hourly on the computer . She has been unemployed for 6 months but last month her payment was $15449 just working on the computer for a few hours.
over here ====== http://WWW.JOBSFISH.COM