So we effectively punish based on probable cause by imposing sanctions. I can see some issues developing from that.
We also take away the ability of police to do anything about non-violent crime they encounter. I get witnessed committing a non-violent crime. The police stop me. I refuse to present ID and refuse to be arrested. Maybe I walk away or maybe I just keep committing the crime while the police stand there powerless. Who does the warrant for non-violent resisting arrest get filed against?
In my scenario, the cop films the entire encounter, and then (if warranted) uses the video and other investigative techniques to determine who the person is.
So I embezzle money from my business. The police come to arrest me. I decline. Then I take all the money I’ve embezzled and leave town. Who’s going to bring me back to face trial?
My unlicensed business specializes in selling stolen goods at ridiculously low prices. Not only do I decline to close down my business after being arrested, I continue to provide a ready market for the low level petty thieves who continue to shoplift and break into cars. What do you do?
Or the warrant for the underlying crime. One could stand in an elementary school parking lot snorting cocaine off of hookers. Police approach. Refuse to provide ID and refuse to leave. Do another line right in front of the cops. Get a blow job while being questioned. How would you ever get cited?
Is there a reason that all sexual offenses are included in the “violent” category? For example, let’s say Pete the Pervert likes to openly masturbate in the city park while making eye contact (but not physical contact) with passersby. I would classify that as both a sexual crime and also a non-violent one.
While someone with a job and family (i.e., something to lose) is likely to be dissuaded by various garnishments and sanctions, there are many people who have very little to lose. A mentally ill homeless person might break the law in some way and just not care (or even notice) that the police are trying to give him a Refusal of Arrest Ticket. He could just keep doing whatever it was he was doing before, again and again, and not get anything but stern looks of disapproval.
In my scenario, your property could be seized (and if you interfere forcefully, you’d be committing a violent crime), including things like bank accounts. Further, the police would communicate with other police departments and they’d institute the same sorts of non-violent sanctions described above.
Seize the stolen property, seize your other property, and if you interfere by force, arrest you for a violent crime.
The sexual part would probably fall into the violent crimes category. As to doing drugs publicly, then the cops might seize the contraband (the drugs). If he interferes by force, then he’s committing a violent offense and can be arrested by force.
I think sex crimes would be put into the “violent” category because of the special nature of the crimes. I think most folks would be okay with this (assuming they’re okay with the idea in general).
This is possible. Perhaps there could be special cases, with judges (after being convinced in the due process of the law) being necessary to issue such a “warrant for forceful arrest in the case of mental illness”. Or, as long as he does nothing violent, perhaps not much happens and everyone puts up with it.
To take a new tack on this, you’d have a huge problem with identification. The police don’t need to arrest people people in your scenario because they can easily identify them, but this isn’t intrinsically so. Most people are easy to identify because they 1) carry identification and surrender it when asked, 2) don’t wear masks or other things that hide their face and 3) have license plates on their cars. If I strip the plates off my car and go 100 miles/hour down the freeway, what are the police going to do when I refuse to pull over or identify myself? Follow me until I reach my house? What if I wear a mask while walking down the center of the road, trespassing, or any other number of offenses?
I don’t have to resist “forcefully.” I simply lock myself into my home and continue to do business. People come in and out of my house, but I never leave. What are you going to do? Post a guard 24/7 to arrest me if I should ever come out? How long are you prepared to do that? And what about all the other people you want to arrest who don’t surrender themselves?
[/QUOTE]
Property? What makes you think I have property? I own no house, no car. I don’t have my name on any utility bills. I don’t have a bank account. It’s true my spouse or my kids or my lawyer have all those things, but they haven’t committed a crime.
And while we’re on the subject: Suppose the police want to look around my house, or poke around my bank account. They go get a search warrant, but I refuse to let them in. And the person who actually owns the house also refuses to comply. Suppose they go to my bank, but I’m using Smapti’s bank, and they’ve made it a policy to never comply with search warrants. Now you have a cascading group of people getting dragged into the original charge, and you still don’t have either the suspect (me) in custody or even the evidence necessary to prove I committed a crime.
Cut off utilities, erect barriers (and interference with the barriers is considered “violent”), etc. Seize vehicles, accounts, etc. Essentially a very low-level siege, if the crimes are egregious enough to warrant it.
You were talking about stolen goods (and cash). Stolen goods and cash can be seized. Interference with the seizing is a “violent” offense.
The police can break down doors, perhaps with a judge’s authorization. If you interfere, you’re committing a violent offense.
Banks that don’t cooperate can’t operate legally. No banks are going to deliberately break such laws just to get the tiny business of petty criminals.
No, I think this could be handled reasonably while still maintaining the spirit of the original idea.
I can accept arson as being classified as a violent crime because of the danger of an uncontrolled fire. But I continue to disagree with the idea of classifying theft as an act of violence. It’s a crime against property - and it can be a serious crime - but it’s still a non-violent crime at its base. If you want to classify some related crimes that are associated with crime as violent crimes - like breaking into an occupied residence - then I’m fine with that. But keep those crimes separate from the theft itself.
To use an analogy, let’s say I’m a drug dealer on a street corner. My selling drugs is a non-violent crime. Granted I may often commit violent crimes as part of my business when I intimidate rival dealers off my territory or coerce my subordinates into following my orders or shoot somebody who sees me as a target for robbery. But you shouldn’t classify my drug dealing itself as violent just because I commit these other crimes.
I think reckless driving would fall into that special category, and be classified with violent crimes because of the intrinsic danger it presents to the public.
I think such weird behavior would be uncommon enough that it could be dealt with on an individual basis depending on the circumstances.
You can try. They can go around you, or fine a different path, or if all else fails, gently move you out of the way. If you resist, then you’re committing a violent offense.