Councilman Herbold is chairman of the Public Safety Committee, which scheduled a briefing Tuesday on “the concept of amending the Seattle City Code” to add a defense against prosecution of offenses on the grounds that a person committed a crime to satisfy an immediate basic need. The backgrounders indicate that the board should define: whether the new positive defence only applies to someone who meets immediate basic needs. Like stealing a sandwich to eat, or stolen items for resale – so the defendant can pay the rent. Herbold says his committee will continue work on the proposal in January. In practical terms, if this regulation becomes law, it will effectively legalize a range of offences, including theft, assault, harassment, drug possession, destruction of property and indecent exposure. Criminals simply have to prove that they have an addiction, mental disorder or low income to escape justice. The impact of this would be enormous. In 2019, the Seattle Police Department reported 25,993 thefts, 8,442 assaults, 6,430 property crimes, 4,194 frauds, 3,910 trespassing and 1,640 drug-related offenses, accounting for 72 percent of all reported crimes. If passed, almost all of these crimes would be legal.
Councilman Alex Pedersen issued a statement expressing concern that “the proposal appears to create an overly simplistic excuse for repeated vandalism, trespassing, shoplifting and other crimes that harm others.” Contrary to these concerns, the law would not eliminate the consequences, but it would help address the underlying motives of crimes of necessity. Accused who take a sandwich because they are starving will still spend time in jail and in court, probably doing community service and being told what to do to comply with their diversion program. Seattle has more than 100 criminal laws for offenses in the Seattle City Code, excluding DUI and DV offenses. Offenses are all offenses punishable by one year or less in prison and prosecuted by the Seattle City Attorney in Seattle City Court. (The offenses are offenses punishable by more than a year in prison, encoded in the revised Washington Code and prosecuted by the King County District Attorney in King County Superior Court.) The courts, for their part, would be emptied of their substance. The “crime of poverty” legislation would nearly eliminate the burden of cases for nine of the ten most frequently filed criminal complaints in Seattle City Court. There are two objectives here. First, council members believe that mass decriminalization is a commodity in itself. Second, it is almost certainly a strategy to “starve the beast” and justify the dramatic downsizing of the justice system. The Seattle activist coalition has long argued that the courts are a bastion of racism and oppression. Political leaders have sought to replace traditional courts with social justice and rehabilitation programs, particularly for “crimes of poverty.” And while some homeless or poor people may benefit from illegal looting in the very short term, this reform would almost certainly destabilize and undermine the city`s economy and create incentives for crime.
If businesses cannot work, there will be no jobs, wages will not be offered, taxes will not be paid, and in a short period of time, crime and poverty will only increase. If businesses cannot work, there will be no jobs, wages will not be offered, taxes will not be paid, and in a short period of time, crime and poverty will only increase. It is the most recent and brazen attempt by the city`s countryside to establish an “inverted hierarchy of oppression.” The underlying theory is that society has condemned the lower class to a life of poverty and stigmatization, leading to dependence, insanity and want. The poor, therefore, in the logic of Seattle`s progressive elites, are forced to commit crimes – including violent crimes – in order to ensure their existence. Since society is the cause of this inequality, the crimes of the poor must be forgiven. Crimes are transformed into an expression of social justice. The scope of the new defence was still in sight, particularly on what constitutes a “need”, where changes would be made to the code, and whether lawyers would have to prove that their client had exhausted all other avenues before resorting to crimes. Burgess argues that the new defence would be at the expense of merchants and others affected by these crimes.