Does anyone else think there is a moral hazard in allowing police to seize and sell stolen goods?

Question

Someone steals your plasma tv. They go to another city while drunk and try to sell it - but they get caught when the electronics store manager checks their name with the police, and they have a prior criminal record.

However, because there is no central database of stolen goods, you don't get your tv back. Gee, sorry but as a victim you need to travel the country looking in police newspaper notices. No, the police have it, and sell it in an auction -- making money for nicer cars and salaries. Who is shafted? You, the victim. Who benefits? The police.

In some places, like New Zealand, nonviolent criminals commonly escape from jail through windows. Is this really too hard to stop...? Come on and realize that we are allowing tigers to act as gaurd dogs -- the police are part of the theft problem.

Who else? The lawyers and legislators who ignore or fail to understand there is a moral hazard in allowing police funding to depend on the sale of stolen property.

Answer 1

I'll answer this plain and simple, I agree with you.

Answer 2

First off, I don't know where you are, but in the U.S., there is a central database of stolen property. It's called NCIC. If you give the police the serial number of your plasma television, then that serial number will be entered into NCIC as stolen property, along with information about the time/date/location stolen, and thenphone number of the police department that entered it in the system.

If you didn't write down your serial number and couldn't give it to the officer, that's your fault. I have a list of every serial number of every item in my house that has a serial number. It only takes a few seconds to write it down.

Secondly, if the person has gone to another town to sell your stuff, and for whatever reason the serial number was not entered as stolen property, the police would not be able to take the plasma tv from that person. Just because someone has a history of selling stolen property does not give the police probable cause to arrest the person for selling something. Unless the police can prove that the property was stolen, and without a victim identifying it that's pretty much impossible, then they cannot charge the person will possessing/stealing stolen property. My point is that if the police take the tv from him, they are charging him with it, and to do that, they have to have the report from you saying it was stolen. In which case, they would contact you and you could get it back.

And even if you never get it back, you should have insurance. If you have insurence, you get your money for a new tv, and it's the insurance company that gets "shafted." And if you never got it back, the police never recovered it for being stolen property. So who benefits is the person who stole it, because they either still have it or made the money from selling it.

Answer 3

I know this isn't an answer to your question, and I probably deserve to be rated negatively, but:

"In some places, like New Zealand, nonviolent criminals commonly escape from jail through windows"

What the hell is with that statement? Apart from being completely irrelevant, it seems to be based on absolutely nothing. Don't use a country's name if you know nothing about it.

---
My Blog:
http://www.peteandmegan.com

Answer 4

The hazard is obvious. A seizure should happen only if (a) the culprit has been convicted of a crime in which the goods were used, and (b) the things seized are the property of the culprit.

Answer 5

If you have a plasma, you should also have insurance. So really, the insurance companies are financing police auctions. I am sure that, as soon as the insurance companies realize this, the system will change dramatically.

Answer 6

Of course. You think that the majority of the drugs and money seized ever make it all the way to the precinct?! I assure you that they DON'T!

Answer 7

yes,but hey they need the money to cover the cost . hey money is money. it the stolen goods so might as well get somethng out of it. who it belong to anyway?