The injustice of "policing for profit" -- and how to end it | Dick M. Carpenter II

譯者: Lilian Chiu 審譯者: Jessie Chen

Picture yourself driving down the road tomorrow,

想像一下，明天你自己開車上路，

heading somewhere to buy an item you found on Craigslist,

要去某個地方買你在 Craigslist 網站上找到的一件物品，

perhaps a nice mountain bike for 3,000 dollars.

也許是一台很好的三千美金登山車。

At that price, it's probably one of those bikes

價格這麼高的腳踏車，可能是 配有電動小馬達的那一種——

with a little electric motor on it --

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

maybe some streamers from the handlebars.

也許把手上還有裝飾彩帶。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

The seller has declared this a cash-only deal,

賣家表明只做現金交易，

所以你在車子前座的置物箱裡 放了三千美金現金。

so you have, in the console of your car, 3,000 dollars.

Suddenly, you are pulled over.

突然，你被警察攔下來。

During the stop, the officer asks,

你停下來時，警察問：

"Do you have any drugs, weapons or large amounts of cash in your car?"

「你的車內有任何毒品、 武器，或大量現金嗎？」

You truthfully answer, "Yes,"

你老實回答：「有。」

not to the drugs or to the weapons,

並不是你有毒品或武器，

but to the cash.

而是有現金。

In the blink of an eye, you are ordered out of your car.

馬上，警察就命令你下車。

The officer searches it and finds your cash.

警察搜索了你的車， 找到了你的現金。

On the spot, he seizes it,

他當場就沒收了現金，

and he says he suspects it's part of a drug crime.

還說他懷疑這筆現金 和毒品犯罪有關。

A few days later,

幾天後，

the local district attorney files paperwork to keep your money --

地方檢察官聲請扣留你的現金——

permanently.

永遠扣留。

And all of this happens

在這整個過程中，你都沒有被起訴

without you ever being charged or convicted of any crime.

或判定任何罪名。

Now, you might be saying,

這時候，你可能會說：

"Ah, this would never happen in the United States."

「啊，這不會發生在美國啦！」

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

Incidents like this occur every day in our country.

在美國，這種事天天都在發生。

It's one of the most significant threats to your property rights

這是對你的財產權 最大的威脅之一，

most people have never even heard of.

大部分人卻從來沒有聽過。

It's called "civil forfeiture."

它叫做「民事沒收」。

雖然大多數人通常 都聽過「刑事沒收」，

Most of you are generally aware of criminal forfeiture,

although the term itself might be a little unfamiliar,

但對這個名詞還是有點陌生，

so let's begin with forfeiture.

所以我們先從沒收談起。

When we forfeit something, we give up that thing,

當我們的東西被沒收時，

就表示我們放棄它， 或我們被迫放棄它。

or we're forced to give it up.

就刑事沒收來說，

In criminal forfeiture,

someone is charged and convicted of a crime,

一旦有人被起訴且被判罪，

and therefore, they have to give up property related to that crime.

他們就得要放棄 和該犯罪相關的財產。

For example, suppose you use your car to transport and deal drugs.

比如，如果你用你的車 來運送和販售毒品。

You're caught and convicted;

當你被逮捕且定罪之後，

now you have to give up or forfeit your car

你就得要放棄你的車， 或你的車會被沒收，

as part of the sentencing.

作為處罰的一部分。

That's criminal forfeiture.

那就是刑事沒收。

But in civil forfeiture, no person is charged with a crime --

但，以民事沒收而言，

沒有任何人會因犯罪被起訴——

the property is charged and convicted of a crime.

是財產被起訴且判罪。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

You heard that correctly:

你沒有聽錯：

the government actually convicts an inanimate object with a crime.

政府確實認為沒有生命的物品 會犯罪且將之定罪。

It's as if that thing itself committed the crime.

就好像那東西本身犯了罪一樣。

That's why civil forfeiture cases have these really peculiar names,

這就是為什麼民事沒收案件 會有很奇怪的名稱，

like, "The United States of America v. One 1990 Ford Thunderbird."

比如「美利堅合眾國起訴 一台福特雷鳥汽車」。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

Or "The State of Oklahoma v. 53,234 Dollars in Cash."

或者「奧克拉荷馬州起訴 53,234 美元現金」。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

Or my personal favorite:

還有我個人最愛的：

"The United States of America v. One Solid Gold Object

「美利堅合眾國起訴一件

公雞狀純金物品」。

in the Form of a Rooster."

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

你可能在想：怎麼可能有這種事？

Now, you're thinking:

How does something like this happen?

That's exactly what I said when I first learned about civil forfeiture

我第一次看到民事沒收時， 就有這個疑問，

while on a road trip with my wife.

那時我和我妻子正在開車在路上。

No, we did not get pulled over.

不過我們沒有被攔下來。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

I was reading about the history of civil forfeiture

當時我正在讀民事沒收的歷史，

as part of my work as a research director at the law firm,

我是法律事務所的研究主管， 這是我工作的一部分，

and I came across one of the cases I just mentioned,

我讀到了我剛才 提到的其中一件案件，

"The United States of America v. One 1990 Ford Thunderbird."

「美利堅合眾國起訴 一台福特雷鳥汽車」。

In that case, Carol Thomas loaned her car to her son.

在那個案件中，卡蘿 • 湯瑪斯 將她的車借給她的兒子。

While in the car, her son committed a minor drug crime.

她的兒子在那台車子裡面 犯了一起和毒品有關的小罪。

Carol didn't commit any crime,

卡蘿並沒有犯罪，

so law enforcement couldn't convict her and take the car,

所以執法單位無法 將她判罪再把車拿走，

but they could -- and did --

但他們可以——也的確做了——

use civil forfeiture to "convict the car" and take it.

用民事沒收的名義「將車判罪」，

再把它帶走。

Carol was completely innocent, but she lost her car nonetheless.

卡蘿完全無罪，但無論如何 她都失去了她的車。

In other words,

換言之，她沒有犯罪，卻要受罰。

she was punished for a crime she did not commit.

When I read this, I was gobsmacked.

我讀到這個案件時，我目瞪口呆。

How could this occur?

怎麼可能發生這種事？ 這怎麼可能是合法的？

How is this even legal?

It turns out, it began in our country with maritime law.

結果發現，在美國， 民事沒收是從海事法開始的。

Early in our republic, the government sought to fight piracy --

在美國建國初期， 政府要對抗海盜行為——

yes, actual pirates.

對，是真的海盜。

The problem was the government often couldn't catch the pirates,

問題是，政府通常無法抓到海盜，

so instead it used civil forfeiture to convict the pirates' property

所以政府會用民事沒收的名義

來將海盜的財產判罪並拿走，

and take it,

and therefore deny the pirates their illegal profits.

用此方法來阻止海盜的非法獲利。

Of course, the government could've simply taken and kept the booty

當然，若沒有用民事沒收的名義，

without necessarily using civil forfeiture,

政府就不能把贓物拿走並保管，

but doing so would have violated

如果這麼做就是違反了

our most basic due process and property rights.

最基本的正當程序和財產權的規定。

Now, the government rarely used civil forfeiture until the 1980s

過去政府很少使用民事沒收，

直到八○年代向毒品宣戰，才有轉變。

and the war on drugs.

我們將民事沒收的法律 再擴展到毒品犯罪上，

We expanded civil forfeiture law to cover drug crimes

and then later, other types of crime.

後來，再擴展到所有犯罪上。

Canada and the European Union adopted similar provisions

加拿大和歐盟都有採用類似的法規，

so that now all kinds of people are ensnared in the forfeiture web,

所以現在幾乎每個人 都落入這套沒收法規的網羅，

people like Russ Caswell.

比如拉斯 • 凱斯威爾這樣的人。

Russ Caswell owned a small budget motel in Tewksbury, Massachusetts.

拉斯 • 凱斯威爾在麻薩諸塞州 圖克斯伯里經營一家廉價旅館。

His father built the motel in 1955, and Russ took it over in the 1980s.

他的父親在 1955 年 創立了這間旅館，

八○年代時由拉斯接手。

During the years that Russ owned the motel,

在拉斯擁有該旅館的這些年間，

from time to time, people would rent rooms,

經常有客人來投宿，

and they would commit drug crimes.

並犯下毒品相關的罪行。

Russ didn't condone the activities --

拉斯並沒有容忍這些活動——

in fact, whenever he found out about it, he would immediately call police.

事實上，每當他發現有這種事， 他就會馬上報警。

Russ was entirely innocent of any crime,

拉斯完全無罪， 沒有參與任何犯罪，

but that did not stop the US Department of Justice from seizing his motel

就算如此，美國司法部仍然因為

其他人在他的旅館內犯罪， 就沒收了他的旅館。

simply because other people committed crimes there.

But Russ's case was not alone.

但，拉斯的案件並非獨立個案。

Between 1997 and 2016,

1997 年到 2016 年間，

the US Department of Justice took more than 635,000 properties.

美國司法部沒收了

超過六十三萬五千件財物。

This means each year,

這就表示，每年，

tens of thousands of people lose their properties

有上萬人因法律案件失去財產，

in cases in which they're never charged or convicted of any crime.

卻不是因為自己被告或被判罪。

And we're not necessarily talking about major drug kingpins

這裡說的不是大毒梟

or headline-grabbing financial fraudsters

或會上新聞頭條的金融詐騙集團，

whose cases involve hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars.

他們涉及的案件通常 不是幾十萬就是幾百萬。

Many of these seizures and forfeitures involve just everyday people

許多捲入沒收案件的人 都只是市井小民，

like Russ Caswell

像拉斯 • 凱斯威爾，或是你，

or you

or me.

或是我。

But it gets worse.

但，還有更糟的。

Are you wondering:

你是否在納悶：

Where does all this cash and property end up?

這些錢和財物最後都到哪裡去了？

In most places, law enforcement keeps it.

在很多地方，執法單位自己留下來了。

And they use it to buy equipment

他們會用來購買設備

or pay for building repairs

或支付建築物維修的費用，

or even pay salaries and overtime.

或甚至支付薪水和加班費。

This is a clear conflict of interest.

這很明顯是利益衝突。

It creates a perverse profit incentive that can distort law enforcement.

這樣做等於形成一種不當利益刺激， 扭曲執法單位的權責。

And this is a problem that's not lost on those in law enforcement, either.

這就產生一個問題 如何不對執法人員產生誤解。

Former chief of police in Rochester, Minnesota, Roger Peterson,

明尼蘇達州羅徹斯特的 前警察總長羅傑 • 彼得森

described the choice that police officers often face.

就描述過警員要面臨的選擇。

As he described it:

他是這麼說的：假設我是警員，

suppose I'm a police officer,

and I see a drug deal.

我看到了一宗毒品交易。

Now I face a choice:

現在我要面臨的選擇是：

Do I go after the buyer and remove from the street illegal drugs,

我要去逮捕買家，

在街頭掃蕩非法毒品？

or do I go after the seller

還是要去追賣家，

and get cash for my agency to use?

為我所屬的機關弄一些錢來用？

So it's easy to see why a police officer might go for the cash.

這就不難看出為什麼警員 可能會選擇追現金。

It was just such a circumstance

正是這種風氣，

that compelled police officers in Philadelphia to seize an entire house.

造成費城的警員沒收整間房子。

In 2014, Chris and Markela Sourovelis' son sold 40 dollars worth of drugs

2014 年，

克里斯和瑪凱拉 • 索羅維里的兒子

在他們家外面的街上販售了 價值四十美金的毒品。

down the street from their house.

Forty dollars.

四十美金。

The police watched the deal go down.

警方監看著交易進行。

They could've arrested the buyer and confiscated the drugs,

他們大可逮捕買家，沒收毒品，

but they didn't.

但他們並沒有。

They could've arrested the Sourovelises' son

他們大可當街逮捕 索羅維里的兒子，

right there on the street

and grabbed 40 dollars.

並拿走那四十美金。

But they didn't.

但他們並沒有。

They waited to arrest him at home,

他們等到他回到家才逮捕他，

because then they could seize their entire house.

因為這樣他們就能沒收整間房子。

The house was worth 350,000 dollars.

房子的價值是三十五萬美金。

That is what I mean by a perverse profit incentive.

那就是我所謂的，不當利益刺激。

But the Sourovelises' case was no outlier.

但索羅維里的案件並不罕見。

Philadelphia, the "City of Brotherly Love,"

費城，所謂的「友愛之城」、

the "Athens of America,"

「美洲的雅典」、

the "Cradle of Liberty," birthplace to the Constitution,

「自由的搖籃」、「憲法的發源地」、

home to the Liberty Bell and Independence Hall,

自由鐘和獨立紀念館的所在、

the "City that Loves you Back" --

「關愛之城」——

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

that Philadelphia was running a forfeiture machine.

這樣的費城卻在執行沒收的制度。

Between 2002 and 2016,

在 2002 年到 2016 年間，

Philadelphia took more than 77 million dollars through forfeiture,

費城透過沒收，取得了 超過七千七百萬美金，

including 1,200 homes.

包括一千兩百間房子。

Cars, jewelry, electronics -- all of it they sold,

汽車、珠寶、電器——

凡是被他們賣掉的， 收益都歸他們。

the proceeds they kept.

And they would have kept right on doing it,

他們本來還會繼續下去的，

had it not been for a class-action lawsuit --

但一件集體訴訟阻止了他們——

our team's class-action lawsuit --

我們團隊的集體訴訟——

(Applause and cheers)

（掌聲和歡呼聲）

Thank you.

謝謝。

We forced them to change their forfeiture practices

我們迫使他們改變 執行沒收的做法，

and to compensate victims.

並補償受害者。

(Applause and cheers)

（掌聲及歡呼聲）

When our team first began researching forfeiture in 2007,

當我們的團隊在 2007 年 剛開始研究沒收時，

we had no idea how much forfeiture revenue there was.

我們完全不知道 沒收的收益有多少。

In fact, no one knew.

事實上，沒有人知道。

It wasn't until our groundbreaking study, "Policing for Profit,"

直到我們開創性的研究 「為了獲利而執法」，

that we found federal law enforcement agencies have taken in

我們才發現，聯邦法律的執法單位

almost 40 billion dollars --

已經中飽私囊近四百億美金——

billion with a B --

是「百億」——

since 2001,

這是從 2001 年算起，

more than 80 percent of that through civil forfeiture.

其中的獲利有八成以上 是透過民事沒收取得。

Unfortunately, we have no idea

不幸的是，我們不知道

how much state and local agencies have taken in,

州政府及地方政府吞掉了多少，

because in many states, they don't have to report it.

因為在許多州是不用呈報的。

So until we reform forfeiture,

所以，在我們改革沒收之前，

we'll never know how much forfeiture activity actually occurs

我們永遠不會知道美國 到底進行了多少沒收行動。

in the United States.

And we desperately need reform.

我們迫切需要改革。

Legislatures should abolish civil forfeiture

立法機關應該廢除民事沒收，

and replace it with criminal forfeiture.

用刑事沒收來取代。

And all forfeiture proceeds should go to a neutral fund

且所有沒收的收益都應該 存入一個中立的基金，

such as a general fund.

比如普通基金。

When forfeiture proceeds stop hitting law enforcement budgets directly,

當沒收的收益不會直接 影響執法單位的預算，

that is when we will end policing for profit.

我們才算終止「為了獲利而執法」。

(Applause)

（掌聲）

Now, as you can imagine,

各位可以想像，

law enforcement officials don't love these recommendations.

執法單位官員不會喜歡這種建議。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

They stand to lose a lot of money,

他們會損失很多錢，

and they believe civil forfeiture is an effective crime-fighting tool.

且他們相信民事沒收 是種有效的打擊犯罪工具。

The trouble is,

問題是，

it's not.

它並不是。

In June 2019, we released a study

2019 年六月，我們 發表一項研究的結果：

that found forfeiture does not improve crime-fighting.

沒收對於打擊犯罪並沒有幫助。

And the report also found

該報告也發現，

that law enforcement agencies pursue more forfeiture money

在經濟衰退時，執法單位

during economic downturns.

會追尋更多的沒收款。

So when city and county budgets are tight,

所以，當市預算 和郡預算很緊的時候，

law enforcement will use forfeiture to find the money.

執法單位就會使用 沒收的方式來找錢。

So it's no wonder, then,

所以，也難怪，

that law enforcement officials predict a criminal apocalypse --

執法單位的長官能夠 預測犯罪大動亂——

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

if these reforms are adopted.

如果這些改革被採用的話。

But some states have already implemented them,

但，有些州已經在進行改革了，

and we're pushing for reform all across the country,

我們在全國各地推動改革，

because until we reform forfeiture,

因為，在我們改革沒收制度之前，

this is something that could happen to any of us.

這種事都有可能 發生在我們任何人身上。

It can happen in the United States,

這種事在美國有可能發生，

it can happen in the United Kingdom,

這種事在英國有可能發生，

it can happen in countries throughout the European Union

這種事在歐盟內外的 所有國家都有可能發生。

and beyond.

People like you and me and the Sourovelises and Russ Caswell,

像你、我、索羅維里一家， 及拉斯 • 凱斯威爾這樣的人，

just doing the everyday stuff of life,

平常循規蹈矩的平民百姓，

can be caught in a scheme we never thought possible.

我們都有可能在完全 意想不到的情況下落入圈套。

It is time we end policing for profit

現在改始終止「為了獲利而執法」的時候了。

once and for all.

徹底終止！

Thank you.

謝謝。

(Applause and cheers)

（掌聲及歡呼聲）