E-mail Scott
Scott's Links
About the Author
Opinion Archives
Social Media:
Google Plus
Monthly Archives:

January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
April 2010
May 2010
June 2010
July 2010
August 2010
September 2010
October 2010
November 2010
December 2010
January 2011
February 2011
March 2011
April 2011
May 2011
June 2011
July 2011
August 2011
September 2011
October 2011
November 2011
December 2011
January 2012
February 2012
March 2012
April 2012
May 2012
June 2012
July 2012
August 2012
September 2012
October 2012
November 2012
December 2012
January 2013
February 2013
March 2013
April 2013
May 2013
June 2013
July 2013
August 2013
September 2013
October 2013
November 2013
December 2013
January 2014
February 2014
March 2014
April 2014
May 2014
June 2014
July 2014
August 2014
September 2014
October 2014
November 2014
December 2014
January 2015
February 2015
March 2015
April 2015
May 2015
June 2015
July 2015
August 2015
September 2015
October 2015
November 2015
December 2015
January 2016
February 2016
March 2016
April 2016
May 2016
June 2016
July 2016
August 2016
September 2016
October 2016
November 2016
December 2016
January 2017
February 2017
March 2017
April 2017
May 2017

Powered by Blogger
Subscribe via RSS

Wednesday, June 3, 2015

Dennis Hastert, structuring, and government overrreach

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:00 AM (#)

The arrest of Dennis Hastert late last month is an example of how government has over-criminalized our lives and is an example of how government's reach needs to be sharply curtailed. We need to reform our criminal justice system, especially as it relates to the War on Drugs.

Hastert was arrested under "structuring" laws, which make it a "crime" to avoid federal reporting requirements by making withdrawals or deposits in amounts less than $10,000. This is unjust. As long as you are not doing anything illegal with your money, you should be allowed to withdraw or deposit in any amount you want as often as you want. And what Hastert was doing with that money was not illegal.

I understand the reasoning behind structuring laws, to catch drug kingpins and prevent money laundering, along with other things. But as Radley Balko has pointed out, structuring laws catch too many innocent people and became oppressive a long time ago. It is an overreach of the War on Drugs that has harmed many people who have nothing to do with the drug trade. Once again, we are punishing the innocent for the crimes of the guilty.

When the Hastert story broke, I imagined the following scenario: A rich man sets up four accounts of $100,000 in four different banks. Each business day, he makes two transfers of $9,500. On the odd days, he transfers the money from account A to account B, and from account C to account D. The second day, he transfers money from account D to account A and from account B to account C. This is repeated until he catches the attention of the federal government and federal law enforcement arrests him, leading to a lawsuit challenging the law itself.

Because of the interest in combating organized crime, I would be comfortable with a reform where "structuring" is illegal, but only if someone is convicted of doing something illegal with that money. Unless you are convicted of a separate crime, structuring would be completely legal. If you are convicted of a crime, it would be either an additional criminal charge after that conviction or an enhancement to the punishment for the first conviction.

What is interesting about this scandal is that Hastert was a drug warrior. Hopefully, this will serve as a reminder of the overreach of the War on Drugs and why it is in everyone's best interest to curtail it. Sadly, that will not happen.

Note: Nothing I said above is meant to excuse any sexual misconduct and/or sex crimes Hastert may have committed. I am a strong and enthusiastic supporter of harsh punishments for those who commit sex crimes, especially against children and underage teens.

Below are the rules for commenting on ConservaTibbs.com.

  1. A reasonable level of civility is expected. While it is expected that controversial political and social issues may generate heated debate, there are common-sense limits of civility that will be enforced.

  2. This blog is a family-friendly site. Therefore no cursing, profanity, vulgarity, obscenity, etc. will be allowed. This is a zero-tolerance rule and will result in automatic deletion of the offending post.

  3. Anonymity has greatly coarsened discourse on the Internet, so pseudonyms are discouraged but not forbidden. That said, any direct criticism of a person by name cannot be done anonymously. If you criticize someone, you have to subject yourself to the same level of scrutiny or the comment will be deleted.

  4. Please keep your comments relevant to the topic of the post.

  5. All moderation decisions are final. I may post an explanation or I may not, depending on the situation. If you have a question or a concern about a moderation decision, e-mail me privately rather than posting in the comments.

Thank you for your cooperation.