Death Penalty Case Against Aurora Movie Theater Shooter a Waste of Taxpayer Dollars

James E. Holmes, age 27, is the only suspect in the 2012 Aurora, Colorado movie theater shooting, which resulted in the deaths of 12 people, along with injuries to 70. In a midnight screening of the film The Dark Night Rises, Holmes allegedly shot at the audience with a semi-automatic rifle, tactical shotgun, and handgun. The New York Times reported that his trial is set to begin soon, 2 ½ years after the shooting. 9000 people in Arapahoe County have been issued juror summons for the trial, which is 2% of the population. Jury selection alone could take months, with the trial expected to last 6 to 8 months.

The reason for the delayed and lengthy trial is that prosecutors rejected Holmes’ guilty plea, which would have meant life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. District Attorney George Brauchler seeks the death penalty, which has forced Holmes’ lawyers to plead not guilty by reason of insanity. Is the prosecution correct to seek the death penalty?

There is no evidence that Holmes was part of a terrorist group. He was a PhD student in neuroscience at the University of Colorado until about a month before the shooting. He dropped out of the program after doing poorly on an oral exam. Obviously an intelligent person, Holmes also had psychiatric problems. Although the details of his problems haven’t been fully made public yet, one of his psychiatrists reported to the campus police a month before the shooting that he made homicidal statements. It’s a reasonable assumption that his psychiatric problems interfered with his academic performance and forced him to drop out of school. Considering the bizarre, destructive, and irrational action he took at the movie theater, only a highly disturbed individual could have perpetrated this shooting.

Colorado has only executed one person since 1977, the last one being 17 years ago. The death penalty in Colorado, like in the rest of the country, isn't a deterrent. Only swift and certain punishment is an effective deterrent, and the death penalty is anything but swift and certain. Even if the death penalty was delivered like in the old days, in a reasonable time frame with reasonable certainty of death, it’s unlikely that this would have deterred someone in Holmes’ state of mind. Typically these mass homicides by disturbed individuals are murder-suicides. (Remember another Colorado tragedy, the Columbine school shootings?). There is no way that any (earthly) punishment would deter this type of crime.

The only way to prevent tragedies like this from happening is to prevent mentally ill people from purchasing firearms. As I blogged about in 2013, guns and mentally ill people go together like North Korea and nuclear weapons. I made a policy recommendation back then that has not yet been implemented: “Gun sales and ownership should be banned for anyone who has been treated for a psychiatric disorder—I mean anyone treated at any time in their life.” People with serious mental illness should not have access to firearms. The biggest threat is that they will harm themselves. In the U.S. in 2010, over 38,000 people committed suicide, with more than half using firearms. About 85% of suicide attempts with firearms are successful.

Holmes didn’t commit suicide, but he did legally purchase firearms that were used to murder 12 people. He was in psychiatric treatment. If my policy recommendation had been put into place, he would not have been able to legally purchase these firearms. If he went to the movie theater with a knife in hand, he could have easily been wrestled to the ground before doing much damage. Knowing this, I doubt that Holmes would have even tried it without a firearm.

The NRA has pretty much prevented any kind of gun control at all in the U.S. in recent years. Probably many NRA members would love to see Holmes executed, saying “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” In the case of the Aurora movie theater shooting, a person using a gun killed 12 people. If that person didn't have a gun, he wouldn't have killed that many people. He probably wouldn't have killed anyone at all.

Because of his mental illness, even if convicted Holmes most like won’t be executed. The state is wasting time, money, and resources pursuing the death penalty. They’ll waste more time, money, and resources on handling endless appeals. The average time between sentencing and execution in the U.S. is about 16 years. Even if somehow Holmes exhausts his appeals and is executed, the death penalty will not deter anyone from doing what Holmes allegedly did. To prevent tragedies like this from happening in the future, better gun control is needed.

IRS May Confiscate Your Property if You Make Frequent Small Cash Deposits

I recently read a New York Times article that I found to be disturbing. The American federal government is supposed to be guided by the rule of law. People are innocent until proven guilty. The government only seizes property if someone is found guilty of a crime. There have been cases of misguided federal laws. I blogged about one last year, a burglar who received 15 years in federal prison for possessing shotgun shells (without a shotgun). This was heartless and a waste of federal prison resources, but at least the burglar was convicted of a crime in a court of law. Imagine having your property seized without even being charged of a crime? That’s what this article describes.

The IRS is operating on the controversial area of law known as “civil asset forfeiture”. This allows law enforcement agents to seize property suspected of being tied to a crime, even in the absence of criminal charges. In the cases reported in the article, the people fall under suspicion by making frequent cash deposits under $10,000. Under the Bank Secrecy Act, banks must report cash deposits over $10,000. Criminals know this, so they try to evade scrutiny by making deposits under this amount. Banks are also supposed to report deposit patterns below $10,000. Making frequent deposits under $10,000 with the intent of evading reporting requirements is known as “structuring”, and is illegal.

What if you operate a cash business, and make frequent small cash deposits? There’s nothing illegal about that, right? There may be grounds for an IRS audit, but certainly not justification for the government to seize your money without charging you with a crime. But this is what’s happening.

The article reports on some cases of innocent people whose property was confiscated by the federal government. Carole Hinders has operated a cash-only Mexican restaurant in Iowa for almost 20 years. She deposited her earnings at a small bank branch. The IRS seized her checking account, amounting to $33,000, without charging her with any crime. The reason for seizure was that her cash deposits were consistently under $10,000, which the IRS perceived as an attempt to avoid reporting. According to Hinders, “my mom had told me if you keep your deposits under $10,000, the bank avoids paperwork. I didn't actually think it had anything to do with the I.R.S.”

In Long Island, owners of a family-run candy and cigarette distributor named Bi-County Distributors made daily cash deposits between $5,000 and $10,000. Investigators were able to obtain a seizure warrant based solely on the pattern of deposits. The federal government seized $447,000 from the business 2 years ago. The business owners have not been charged with any crime. The government has made settlement offers to the owners that require that they surrender a large chunk of the money seized. Jeff Hirsch, one of the owners, said that “We’re just hanging on as a family here. We weren't going to take the settlement, because I was not guilty.”

Army sergeant Jeff Cortazzo of Arlington, VA, saved for his daughters’ college costs by making  small cash deposits from his paychecks at a bank. The government seized $66,000. His settlement to get back his money cost him $21,000, almost 1/3 of his money. As a result, his oldest daughter had to delay college by a year.

These three examples include business owners and individuals who haven’t been charged of any crime. Their property was confiscated by the federal government for the sole reason that they made frequent cash deposits. This is completely un-American, a violation of the rule of law, and the rule that you’re innocent until proven guilty. The federal government simply stole these people’s money, and extorted them a large percentage to get the money back.

Civil asset forfeiture was supposed to be only used against drug dealers, racketeers, and terrorists. Clearly whatever flimsy rationale for this law has been undermined by the federal government’s recent behavior. I don’t see a reason to seize assets of people who have not been convicted of a crime. I fully support severe penalties against people convicted of drug dealing, racketeering, and terrorism. These penalties should include asset forfeiture. But the seizure of assets of innocent people whose only “crime” is that they made frequent small cash deposits is simply expropriation. We’re talking about something that Fidel Castro or another petty dictator could get away with. This is not something that we should accept in the United States.

In this election season, let’s make it clear to our federal representatives and candidates running for office that we will not tolerate federal government expropriation of the property of people who are innocent of any crime. Misguided laws allowing confiscation of private property of innocent people need to be repealed.

Burglar Gets 15 Years in Federal Prison for Possessing Shotgun Shells

We've all heard of criminals getting off on a technicality, but what about getting a long prison term for a technicality? That’s what happened to Edward Young, 43 years old, a convicted burglar who tried to reform himself. When Young was released from state prison in 1996 (where he served time for burglary charges), Young told his grandmother that he would turn his life around. He married, went to work, and with his wife raised 4 children in Chattanooga, Tennessee.

As reported in the New York Times (and more critically in timesfreepress.com), Young’s life took a sharply downward turn beginning in 2011. Young’s troubles came from a combination of virtuous and immoral behavior. On the virtuous side, Young helped a neighbor widow dispose of her husband’s belongings. Young kept the widow’s chest of drawers at his place. In this chest of drawers were seven shotgun shells. Young put them away so his children couldn't find them. He claims not to have known that it is illegal for convicted felons to possess ammunition.

About the same time as his helping the neighbor widow, Young regressed to his previous criminal behavior. He allegedly stole tools, tires, and weightlifting equipment from vehicles and a business warehouse. He brought his son with him one time during a crime spree. This behavior brought the police to his house to conduct a search, during which they found the shotgun shells.

Young confessed to the burglaries and faced a few years in state prison, with the possibility of parole and probation, which seems a reasonable punishment for the crime. The possession of the shotgun shells, however, allowed the U.S. Attorney to prosecute Young under the “Armed Career Criminal Act”. His 20-year-old burglary convictions counted against him, something that is unique to this law. Young never used a firearm in any of the crimes he was convicted of, and although possessing shotgun shells, he had no gun. Nevertheless, Young got 15 years for possessing the shotgun shells, which is the minimum sentence under the federal law. This sentence allows for no possibility of parole, and no discretion in sentencing. The judge, sympathizing with Young, compared the situation to a Charles Dickens novel.

The federal government will spend $415,000 over 15 years to incarcerate Young. His children, ages 6 to 16, will grow up without a father. Is this in society’s best interest? High incarceration rates have reduced the crime rate, but this comes at a high cost. In 1978, the United States had 307,000 inmates in state and federal prisons. In 2012, the number had quintupled to 1.57 million. 1 in 100 adults are now in prison or jail nationwide. The average cost to incarcerate someone in state and federal prison is about $30,000 per year. Multiplied by 1.57 million, this amounts to $47 billion per year.

Beside money, another societal cost is children growing up without fathers. Due to disability, Young was a stay-at-home father for his four young children. Now his children will have to be raised by their mother alone. Single parenting is a societal concern that causes an elevated risk of children’s experiencing cognitive, emotional, and social problems. The number of children living in single parent households has nearly doubled in the last 50 years. One in three children are now raised without a father. Not all children raised by a single parent have problems, but children are more likely to have problems compared to children raised by two parents. Boys in particular are more likely to have conduct and academic problems if their father is absent.

There are many reasons why more children today are raised by single parents. One common reason is that the father abandons the child. This can happen to married or unmarried parents. The mother may not want to marry the father for some reason, or if they are married, she may want to divorce. Many fathers are unemployed or employed in menial jobs, not making them attractive candidates for marriage. Some fathers are alcoholics or drug addicts, and may be violent and abusive.

In the case of Edward Young, these reasons aren't relevant. He got married, had 4 children with his wife, was involved in the children’s upbringing, and both he and his wife wanted to stay married and raise the children together. In this case, the government removed Young from his family and will incarcerate him for 15 years, for having shotgun shells with no shotgun. Young was not a perfect father. He had a history of burglaries when he was younger, and was a convicted felon. More importantly, he recently resumed criminal behavior, and involved his son. At age 43, and a father of 4, it’s unlikely but possible that Young would become a habitual criminal. Most criminals are young people. Young men are more impulsive and prone to criminal behavior than middle aged or older men. I think that a conviction and sentence of one or two years in prison would be enough of a deterrent to make him avoid any further misdeeds.

We need to rethink mandatory sentencing and mass incarceration. Mandatory sentencing usually kicks in when someone has a long history of criminal behavior. The problem is that longer sentencing for older men makes no sense, since older men are less likely to commit crimes. Mandatory sentencing and mass incarceration are expensive in terms of monetary and societal costs. They are a major cause of family breakdown, especially in low-income neighborhoods. Mass incarceration is one reason why so many American children are raised by single parents. The incarceration rate is 1% in the U.S., and much higher in low-income neighborhoods. Many states have moved away from mass incarceration, including New York and Texas. It’s time for the federal government to rethink laws like the Armed Career Criminal Act and restore common sense and the public interest to sentencing.