The justice system is supposed to be about, well, justice. It’s why district attorneys are ethically obliged to pursue convictions only against people they believe to have committed the crime. They are not supposed to pursue convictions at all costs to bolster their careers.

Likewise, when police agencies use “civil asset forfeiture” to take private property, they are not allowed to build their budgets around such takings. The funds are supposed to support extra programs – not supplant current dollars. That’s so agencies don’t replace the pursuit of justice with the pursuit of cash.

Unfortunately, forfeiture has become a widely abused practice. Instead of targeting drug kingpins as intended, police often target average citizens who haven’t been convicted or even accused of a crime. For instance, officials tried to take a $1.5 million Anaheim office building because one of the owners’ tenants was accused of illegally selling $37 in marijuana. Reports show that more than 80 percent of targets haven’t even been indicted for anything.

There are many cases of police pulling over a driver and finding a large sum of cash – and they often keep the cash even if there’s no evidence it was tied to a crime. It’s clear why this happens. A recent report shows a number of Southern California cities rely on forfeiture cases to fund their budgets. If they can take it, they will. And to avoid California’s tougher restrictions on these takings, police partner with the feds and split the loot.

SB 443 was a bipartisan effort to rein in the abuses. Mainly, it would have required a conviction before police can take property. It also was designed to stop police from bringing in the feds to circumvent state law as well as make it easier for people to contest a taking. It tried to force police to use this fearsome tool as intended – to target criminal enterprises – rather than to grab the cars of people caught in a minor offense.

The bill was defeated on its final vote on Thursday after law-enforcement lobbies swarmed the Capitol. Police chiefs were calling legislators. Legislators from both parties went wobbly. That’s so – even though the bill already has been severely watered down to mainly require a conviction. At the last moment, some past supporters of reform started claiming it needed yet another amendment. California Republicans constantly blather about the Constitution, but only four GOP Assembly members backed this bill. And so much for Democratic concerns about police abuse.

Things got tough for supporters after the U.S. Department of Justice started interfering by telling law enforcement groups the legislation might endanger the “equitable sharing” funds California receives. “Should this legislation pass, the Treasury program would issue a notification… that the California state and local law-enforcement agencies are no longer eligible to participate in its sharing program,” wrote one Justice Department official.

The California District Attorneys Association had been battling asset-forfeiture reform. In its August 5 letter to bill co-sponsor Sen. Holly Mitchell, D-Los Angeles, the association painted a dire picture. It predicted a nearly $24 million loss to the general fund and a $75 million loss to law-enforcement budgets.

That’s a similar line from a group of police organizations including the California Police Chiefs: “Passage of SB 443 will result in annual losses in excess of $80 million to California law-enforcement agencies.” The groups say it will take away a tool for fighting “transnational criminal organizations.”

“They say it’s taking away their ability to deal with drug kingpins,” said Diane Goldstein, a retired Redondo Beach police lieutenant and spokesperson for Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. “It’s absolutely not true. They are acting like bullies.” She points to a recent public-opinion poll showing 76 percent of Californians are opposed to current asset-forfeiture standards.

Even police claims of financial loss were exaggerated. “This proposal does not violate the statutes or policies governing the Department of Justice Equitable Sharing Program,” wrote Alice Dery of the Justice Department’s asset-forfeiture unit, earlier this month. Dery, however,complained SB 443 “may be unworkable” because of some paperwork and deadline problems.

In other words, state and federal law-enforcement officials stopped this state bill that would protect people from oftentimes unfair takings of their property because they depend on the money and it’s too much of a hassle for police to make sure a targeted person has been convicted of a crime.

We should at least be honest. California police agencies and district attorneys don’t care about justice. They’re just about the money.

Steven Greenhut is the California columnist for U-T San Diego.

In June, the Coalition For Public Safety, a bipartisan group consisting of Center For American Progress (CAP), Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), FreedomWorks, The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and the Faith and Freedom Coalition, announced their Fair Sentencing & Fair Chances campaign, which aims to reduce recidivism rates, the prison population, the cost of incarceration, and reforming the socioeconomic barriers that often make convicts transitioning back into society almost impossible.

In a statement, Executive Director Christine Leonard said, “When the U.S. makes up only five percent of the global population, but represents 25 percent of the world’s prison population, it’s clear that our criminal justice system isn’t working.”

“We have too many prisoners, our facilities are well beyond capacity, it’s costing taxpayers $80 billion per year, and current policies create significant human costs to families and communities across the nation as those caught up in the system continue to struggle to turn their lives around and avoid re-entering the system,” she added.

Some states have already begun reforming their systems to address these issues.

“Several states, including Texas and Georgia, have proved that reform works through declining prison populations, cost-savings, and reduced crime and recidivism rates,” said Freedomworks’ Jason Pye.

Tim Head, Executive Director for the Faith and Freedom Coalition, touched upon how mass incarceration is effecting the social fabric of the country, and how reducing rates of recidivism–and the policies that exacerbate that problem–keep families divided.

“The time has come for bipartisan sentencing and prison reform that better protects our communities and better prepares returning offenders to be parents, spouses and employees. Through modest, incremental changes, we can make criminal punishments better match the crime, give people who have paid their debt to society a second chance, and reduce the costs of the state and federal prison systems,” he said.

Concerning being tough on crime and serving the interests of public safety, ATR’s Grover Norquist said “The cost of keeping people in prison has grown right along with the number of people being kept behind bars. The disappointing fact is that none of this has not always made us any safer.”

On July 14, Coalition for Public Safety hosted a discussion with Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), John Cornyn (R-TX), Cory Booker (D-NJ), and Mike Lee (R-UT) on the need for criminal justice reform in the Kennedy Caucus Room in the Russell Senate Office Building. The panel was moderated by former executive editor of The New York Times Bill Keller, now editor-in-chief of The Marshall Project–a nonpartisan news outlet that specializes in news related to criminal justice–who wanted each lawmaker to lay out a pitch for criminal justice reform, and why it’s needed. Every senator touched upon the points raised by the Coalition’s members.

Sen. Cornyn started the conversation by saying whether we like it or not, the issues surrounding our criminal justice system effects us all because these people who we’ve locked up will be released back into society; most of the people we have in prison are nonviolent offenders. He proudly mentioned how Texas was known for being tough on crime, but then became “smart” on crime around 2006-07.

Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) touched upon how over-sentencing has staggering economic and moral costs.

“With as many people as we incarcerate sometimes for decades at a time, we need to consider the impact this has on the American family, and on communities throughout America who are missing sons, and fathers – nephews and uncles – members of the community who could be playing a meaningful role,” said Lee.

As a former federal prosecutor, Lee mentioned how federal judges know the sentences they have to hand out are unjust. He distinctly remembers many judges saying the following upon sentencing:

“This sentence that I’m about to impose is one that I’m required by federal law to impose. It is excessive; it is plainly excessive in proportion to the conduct involved in this offense. Nonetheless, this a determination for Congress, not for me, my hands are tied. I hope Congress will change something.”

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse said that for all of our criminal justice system’s ills, it’s virtually the envy of the world. As a result, we have an obligation to improve it, to keep making strides in making it the best way to dispense justice.

He also touched upon the bipartisan nature of this issue, noting that Rhode Island and Texas are as far apart in terms of size and political disposition, but as lawmakers they were still able to come together.

Sen. Booker aptly noted “If you’re a fiscal conservative, dear God; this is your issue.” He took a more data-focused approach to his pitch, going down the list where every person from every political stripe would find some area of agreement.

He mentioned our criminal justice system has seen an explosion in government spending on the federal level amounting to an 800 percent increase. That, in turn, siphons funds away from basic government programs, infrastructure funding, and education, though some of those areas are also in drastic need of reform, especially in how our schools are run. Nevertheless, Booker had the rather disturbing statistic that we were building a new prison every ten days between 1995-2006.

Regarding child welfare, Booker noted that we have an inordinate number of children suffering due to our incarceration rates. Concerning the economy and GDP growth, the U.S. has lost of tens of billions of dollars in economic productivity.

Regarding limited government, mandatory minimum sentencing is–as Sen. Lee pointed out–a gross intrusion of the federal government into the courtroom. With a prison population that’s risen 700 percent, our current system has become ruinously expensive.

Sens. Cornyn, Whitehouse, and Lee mentioned their pieces of legislation are aimed at reducing costs.

The Cornyn-Whitehouse bill introduced in February–officially called the Corrections Oversight, Recidivism Reduction, and Eliminating Costs for Taxpayers in Our National System (CORRECTIONS) Act­–tackles prison reform (via The Hill):

The law is meant to reduce the number of people — currently just over 210,000 — incarcerated in federal prisons.The package proposed by the two senators takes a more moderate approach to reducing prison populations than other proposals that would implement reductions to mandatory sentences.

It also supports programs that help prisoners avoid returning to crime after being released.

Prisoners would undergo a risk assessment to determine whether they present a low, medium or high risk of committing another offense.

Prisoners determined to have a low or medium risk of offending again would be eligible to earn time off of their sentences by participating in recidivism reduction programs, including drug counseling or vocational training, a release from Whitehouse’s office said.

In total, prisoners can earn 25 percent of their sentence off through the law.

The bill, though, prevents certain types of prisoners, like those serving time for sex offenses or terrorism, from benefiting from the law.

Sens. Patrick Leahy and Lee also put forward a piece of legislation in February that addresses the inequities within mandatory minimum sentencing, and reduces the time to be served for nonviolent drug offenses. It doesn’t eliminate mandatory minimums, but Lee described it as a good first step. This is also part of his reform agenda, which began in 2013 when the senator decided to get serious about policy.

Lee is particularly proud of his work with Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin on criminal-justice reform. In February, the pair introduced the Smarter Sentencing Act, which seeks to rationalize federal sentencing for drug offenders. “This is very much a reaching-across-the-aisle exercise,” Lee tells me, pointing to cosponsors ranging from Al Franken to Cory Booker to Rubio to Cruz. Even the president is on board, he beams. “I went over to the White House a few weeks ago for a meeting about criminal-justice reform,” he says, “and the president spoke at length about how much he liked my bill.”

About 35 minutes into the discussion all four senators noted that they had votes to cast, probably on amendments regarding the Every Child Achieves Act. Yet, the panel did touch upon another area that needs reform: civil asset forfeiture.

Lee virtually described how the system is a perversion of justice, where law enforcement can seize assets, including property, without proving beyond a reasonable doubt that such resources have been–or will be–used in a felonious act. It places the burden of proof on the accused, where the citizen whose assets have been taken is considered guilty and must prove his or her innocence.

The Coalition for Public Safety also has a 501(c)(4) project called fixforfeiture.org, which acknowledges that it has been used as a useful tool in fighting crime, but is also ripe for abuse.

“Asset forfeiture can be a critical tool for law enforcement to combat criminal activity,” said Senior Project Director Holly Harris in a statement. “But, it’s also a tool that can be abused, entangling innocent property owners with the costly and often bizarre task of having to prove their property “innocent” of criminal activity. And when the nation’s most well-respected conservative and progressive voices agree that a system is broken, it is time to get to work on a solution,” she added. Often times, those impacted by civil asset forfeiture do not have the legal fees or the time to get their property back. When Fix Forfeiture was launched in June, it said:

At the federal level, 80 percent of individuals from whom the government seized funds or property were never charged with a crime. Since 2001, more than 60,000 cash seizures were made by the federal government without search warrants or indictments, totaling more than $2.5 billion.Fix Forfeiture will begin its state work in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Ohio, three states with year-long legislatures and interest in reform. In Michigan, House Speaker Kevin Cotter and House Judiciary Chair Klint Kesto are taking the lead, and a set of reform bills recently passed out of the Michigan House of Representatives by overwhelming bipartisan margins. In Pennsylvania, Senator Mike Folmer recently filed common-sense reform legislation, and momentum is building for companion legislation in the House. Ohio boasts pioneers in criminal justice reform work, and hope is high that civil asset forfeiture reform will be part of that conversation this legislative session.

In all, overcriminalization and civil asset forfeiture are the two issues that galvanize conservatives to join the cause of reform. At the same time, honoring the basic principles of fairness, along with the hideous costs, is what seems to unite both sides that seek to create a fairer criminal justice system together. Something has got to give. With nearly a third of the U.S. population with a criminal record, something has to be done regarding rehabilitation, reducing rates of incarceration, reducing (or eliminating) mandatory minimums on nonviolent offenses, and the ability to participate in obtaining GEDs and job training seem to constitute the consensus regarding how to tackle this issue on both sides.

Sen. Booker noted how one obstacle that threatens to poison the well is fear. Fear is pervasive among members of Congress. Fear of being viewed as soft of defense, crime, and immigration seem to be surefire ways to mobilize a primary challenge. The fear of being viewed as soft on crime is something that some lawmakers on the Hill will probably ponder during these discussions.

“Fear is a toxic state,” said Sen. Booker. But he’s not unfazed by it if it means bringing a sense of mercy, justice, and empowerment into these discussions.

By Matt Vespa for Townhall.com

Right now, about 480,000 people are locked in American jails nationwide awaiting trial. Their median wait time will be 68 days, but for some, it will be much, much longer. At the notorious Riker’s Island prison in New York, for example, some 1,500 people have been imprisoned for a year or longer without trial. Another 400 have been there at least two years, and six prisoners have been waiting more than half a decade for their day in court.  The report issued by prisonstudies.org can be read here: World Pre-Trial Imprisonment Report

The world-wide numbers are sobering, but the United States is definitely in the lead with some of the highest numbers of incarcerations in the world, without a trial. The total includes some 480,000 in the United States, 255,000 in India, 195,000 in Brazil, 116,000 in Russia, 107,000 in Mexico, 70,000 in the Philippines, 66,000 in Thailand, 55,000 in Iran, 50,000 in both Indonesia and Pakistan, 48,000 in Turkey, 47,000 in Bangladesh, 44,000 in South Africa, 40,000 in Colombia, 37,000 in both Nigeria and Peru, 35,000 in Venezuela, 32,000 in Morocco and 31,000 in Argentina.

While some of these prisoners may indeed be guilty of violent crimes, three out of four are low-level offenders, accused of nonviolent infractions like drug possession or traffic violations. In other words, most of them aren’t a danger to society; they just can’t make bail.

Washington Post reports,

A 2013 analysis by the Drug Policy Alliance, a group that advocates for changes in drug laws, found that nearly 40 percent of New Jersey’s jail population fell into this category. The Bureau of Justice Statistics report found that among felony defendants in the nation’s largest counties, 34 percent were detained before trial because they couldn’t make bail.

The idea of bail makes a lot of intuitive sense: when someone’s charged with a crime, you make them put down a deposit to ensure they show up in court for trial. If they don’t put the money down, they have to wait in jail.

Keeping half a million people jailed pre-trial costs about $17 billion annually. It can also assign life-altering consequences to relatively small mistakes, as 68 days in jail is more than enough time to default on rent or wear an employer’s patience thin. Loss of home or job, in turn, compounds taxpayers’ costs, making it far more likely that defendants, once released, will require public assistance.

Parts of this article were published on TheWeek.com by Bonnie Kristian