AN INSTITUTIONAL EXPLANATION FOR CORRUPTION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE OFFICIALS

http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj8n1/cj8n1-9.pdf

162 pages (mini journal pages though) but a GREAT read. Though I bet no one but Tremblay reads it...

AN INSTITUTIONAL EXPLANATION FOR

CORRUPTION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE

OFFICIALS

Bruce L. Benson

Introduction

Even a very limited sampling of headlines from news magazines

over the last several years about instances of corruption by police,

prosecutors, andjudges illustrates the magnitude of corruption among

law enforcement officials. For example: “A True Prince of the City:

In Chicago, ACop Goes Underground toCrack a Police Dope Ring”

(Time, 26 July 1982, p. 17); “Corruption Is Still a Fact of Life” (U.S.

News & World Report, November 1982, p. 46); “The Trouble with

Harry: AFederal Judge Goes on Trial in Nevada on BriberyCharges”

(Time, 2 April 1984, p. 64); “The Real Miami Vice?” (Newsweek, 11

November 1985, p. 32); and “Passing Judgment on the Judges: A

Spate of Legal Troubles in the Judiciary” (Time, 20 January 1986,

p. 66). This list only touches the surface; after all, these are only

some of the officials who got caught. Even if a similar number of

crimes by public officials were cleared by arrest as crimes in general

(roughly 20 percent of reported crimes and perhaps less than 10

percent of all crimes), the total level of corruption would be substantial. But there are several reasons to believe that the crimes that

public officials commit are considerably less likely to be reported

(exposed) than private sector crime.

Corruption by law enforcement officials is actually a black market

for the property rights over which those officials have been given

Cato Journal, Vol. 8, No, 1 (Spring/Summer 1988). Copyright © Cato Institute. All

rights reserved.

The author is Professor of Economics at Florida State University. This paper draws

from his forthcoming book Liberty andJustice:Alternatives to Government Production

ofLawand Order, supported by the Pacific Institute for Public Policy Research.

139

Pat Robertson: Time To Legalize Marijuana

Pat Robertson: Time To Legalize Marijuana

Pat Robertson: Time To Legalize Marijuana
DOUG MATACONIS · WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 22, 2010 · 48 COMMENTS
File this one under the category of things you’d never thing you’d see.
Christian Coalition Founder and former 1988 Republican candidate for President Pat Robertson favors marijuana legalization:



ShareThis
FILED UNDER: DOUG MATACONIS, LAW AND THE COURTS, QUICK PICKS, US POLITICS
Related Posts
Marijuana Legalization Support at Record High
Marijuana Legalization Initiative Leading In California Polls
A Return to The Tea Party and the War on Drugs
On Legalizing Marijuana in California
Prop 19 Loses Big
About Doug Mataconis
Doug is an attorney in private practice in Northern Virginia. He holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May, 2010 and also writes at Below The Beltway. Follow Doug on Twitter | Facebook

Friend & Colleague GANORML’s Dave Clark named “HIGH TIMES Freedom Fighter”

Dave is a former Gwinnett Magistrate Court judge. It's in fact rare you won't find a judge that privately (ie outside the confines of the judicial elections in GA) doesn't support legalization of not only marijuana, but most drugs, if not all.



‹ Great video on Prop 19 • Let’s Get Blazed for the Holidaze! ›

GANORML’s Dave Clark named “HIGH TIMES Freedom Fighter”
November 19, 2010 in Who we are, How to Join | 1 comment
Just found out I was featured in High Times December issue as Freedom Fighter of theMonth for my efforts with NORML and my book “101 Ways to Beat a Marijuana Charge in Georgia.” I am honored to support NORML, and all efforts to bring sanity to US cannabis regulation.
I have been representing Georgia citizens charged with crimes for over 20 years now. IMHO it is a giant waste of time to prosecute recreational drug users. I empathize with those who have lost loved ones to drug overdoses and associated diseases. I empathize with victims of drug biz violence, including police officers and those who volunteered for illegal military actions. Those stories are really tragic. But you have to look at the grand scheme of things and figure out the best way to deal with the issue. . .

People have been intoxicating themselves for fun since the dawn of time. Even animals do it. You can’t stop it. We have tried to stop people from drinking and it didn’t work. In fact, using the criminal justice system to fight alcoholism turned out to cause more problems than the booze itself.
The reason people self-medicate with drugs and alcohol is not because they are immoral and mean other people harm. So it’s not a criminal act with a mens rea or criminal intent. Drugs and alcohol will be abused for as long as mankind walks the earth and it is, and always will be, a public health issue.
And what’s the best way to address public health issues? First, do no harm.
Second, treat sick people. Third, educate in the interest of prevention.
There is a well-thought out and proven successful alternative to the war on drugs. It’s called “harm reduction.” I, along with most other cannabis reform activists, do not want more people to abuse anydrug. What we want is a sane approach to managing the irrepressible human instinct toward recreational intoxication. What we want is a hands-off approach to recreational use, and a compassionate approach toward those who are suffering because of abuse or addiction. They are not criminals, they are human beings, weakened by the slings and arrows of this weary world, who let a rational means of escape overtake their judgment.
If you’ve ever binged on chocolate, if you drink too much coffee, if you are overweight, if you text too much, watch porn a lot, vegged in front of the tube more than you should, or if you have EVER gotten drunk, then don’t you DARE judge my potheads.
And ask yourself, do you belong in jail for your minor sin? You might not be in jail, but you’re in a glass house – so don’t throw stones at stoners.

Controversial Regulations To Purge L.A.’s Medical Cannabis Dispensaries Takes Effect Today | NORML Blog, Marijuana Law Reform

Controversial Regulations To Purge L.A.’s Medical Cannabis Dispensaries Takes Effect Today | NORML Blog, Marijuana Law Reform


Georgia NORML wants YOU! »
Controversial Regulations To Purge L.A.’s Medical Cannabis Dispensaries Takes Effect Today
June 7th, 2010 By: Paul Armentano, NORML Deputy Director
Share this Article

Los Angeles’ controversial municipal ordinance capping the total number of medical marijuana dispensaries that may legally operate in the city, regulating how operators must conduct their business, and restricting where such facilities may be located takes effect today.

Los Angeles ordinance No. 181069 seeks to limit the number of legally zoned dispensaries within city limits to fewer than 100 in total. The ordinance will allow for at least some additional facilities to maintain in operation if they opened prior to the passage of city’s 2007 moratorium prohibiting new dispensaries, and if they comply with the newly enacted guidelines.

Under the new rules, city officials would require dispensaries to be at least 1,000 feet from certain ‘sensitive’ public locations, such as schools, parks and other gathering sites – restrictions that would compel many existing outlets to either close their doors or change locations.

It is estimated that some 400 facilities will likely be forced to close if the measure is stringently enforced.

Commenting on the new L.A. law, NORML Deputy Director Paul Armentano said: “Medical cannabis dispensaries can be safely and positively integrated into the community in a way that addresses the legitimate concerns of law enforcement while at the same time maintaining the spirit of the law and properly meeting the needs of the patient population. Unfortunately, L.A.’s arbitrary and overly restrictive ordinance will do neither.”

He continued: “Ideally, oversight regulations must acknowledge that a majority of the public support these operations, that these facilities serve an unmet community need, that they create jobs and spur economic growth, and that they dispense a product that is objectively safer than commonly prescribed pharmaceuticals. It is unfortunate that Los Angeles ordinance No. 181069 fails in large part to reflect these realities.”

To date, over 20 lawsuits have been filed against the city arguing that the ordinance is unconstitutional because it prohibits patients’ access and infringes upon state law.

Under the ordinance, unlicensed facilities determined to be dispensing medical marijuana could face daily fines, a $1,000 penalty, and six months in jail.

Local law enforcement authorities told the Associated Press that they “won’t take any action against medical marijuana collectives in Los Angeles until they tally how many of the shops have defied a new ordinance,” a process that could take several months.

NORML will have additional details on this story in this week’s media advisory.

Tags: 181069, dispensaries, Los Angeles, medical marijuana, ordinance, regulations


This entry was posted on Monday, June 7th, 2010 at 4:26 pm and is filed under News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a trackback from your own site.