NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/bit/listserv/wordsl/49170

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-22 | 1.6 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!olivea!pagesat!netsys!jthomas
From: [e-mail] (Jim Thomas)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.words-l
Subject: Re: Vance Cunningham
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 22 Dec 92 03:38:03 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Netsys Inc.
Lines: 22

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Graham Toal) writes:
>Jim, what's the word on the streets about the new US practice of locking
>up free citizens (in prison - not detained under the mental health act)
>*in case* they committed some crime in the future?  Isn't anyone over
>there worried by this?  Has it been reported even?

Other than isolated instanced, I've heard nothing about it as a general
practice of pro-active prevention. In fact, the opposite seems to be
true--there are complaints that some walking time bombs are allowed to
roam because they haven't done anything (particularly in mental health
and in restraining orders on ex-partners). There is a practice, still
used in Chicago, in which "sweeps" are made and youths who look like
gang members (which means Black and Hispanic males under the age of 21)
are "arrested," kept overnight (or longer) then released 'cause there are
no charges. The ACLU has been fighting this with some success, but it's
a long struggle.

I find RICO and related laws that allow semi-permanent confiscation and
forfeiture of property to be more serious. Laws intended for Organized
Crime are extended to *suspected* drug dealers, computer "hackers," and
others. The "profits" from confiscations generally go back into police
coffers.