美國西雅圖，立法允許搶劫：因貧窮而搶劫、攻擊、盜竊可以免罪
2020年12月18日
據西雅圖當地媒體Komonews表示，這個法案是由西雅圖市議會主席麗莎·赫爾博爾德（Lisa Herbold）和金縣公共防衛局局長安妮塔·坎德爾瓦爾 (Anita Khandelwal)提出的。
他們把這個方案稱為「扶貧」法案，他們稱如果嫌疑人是為了滿足基本生存需要而犯罪，那麼他們會被赦免犯罪，例如盜竊、攻擊和入侵（ theft, assault, or trespassing）。
另一名市議員阿莎·文卡塔拉曼（Asha Venkataraman）稱，犯罪嫌疑人只需要證明這些符合基本生活需求的定義即可。
赫爾博爾德說，她希望陪審團聽取被告的推理，然後由陪審團決定是否被告犯罪是不是為了滿足基本需要。「這給人們提供了講故事的機會，並使法官和陪審團有機會聽取這些故事，並根據我們城市的價值做出決定。」赫爾博爾德在市議會上說。
西雅圖市議會成員
坎德爾瓦爾還建議成立一個公共賠償基金，然後由這個基金來補償盜竊受害人。不過她並沒有當場提出這個基金怎樣募款，以及賠償金額等。
雖然這是剛剛在討論的提案，但實際上已經開始在做了，西雅圖市的檢察長皮特·霍爾姆斯（Pete Holmes）在10月30日致議會的信中說，他的工作人員已經在做一些扶貧的工作。
他寫道：「我一直在努力使市檢察長辦公室對似乎出於生存需要而實施的財產犯罪免於起訴。」
不過，這個提議遭到社會上許多人的反對。
「這是給犯罪分子開綠燈，」曾任西雅圖市長公共安全顧問的斯科特·林賽（Scott Lindsay）說，這意味著，如果犯罪分子犯下我們刑事司法系統法典中的100種不同的輕罪，將不承擔責任。
另一名議員亞歷克斯·佩德森（Alex Pedersen）表示，：「這項提議似乎為反覆破壞，侵入和入店行竊，以及其他輕傷他人的輕罪創造了一種太簡單的方法。」
針對把盜竊的東西轉賣（俗稱「銷贓」）用來支付生活費就可以免於刑罰，阿莎·文卡塔拉曼（Asha Venkataraman）說：「如果有人偷走了一堆手機並打算轉售它們以支付租金，這將適用於這種辯護。」
對此，西雅圖市的助理檢察官約翰·斯科特（John Schochet）助理堅決反對，他說：「這可能會擴大範圍，並帶來一些意想不到的後果。」
事實上，自從夏天的國會山佔領區抗議活動以來，西雅圖一直在犯罪活動上呈上升趨勢。民主黨市長珍妮·杜肯（Jenny Durkan）稱，自抗議活動以來，西雅圖的犯罪活動呈上升趨勢，激增了525％。
資料顯示，自2019年以來，該市的無家可歸人口也增長了5％以上，其中至少26％患有成癮或精神健康問題。
另一方面，受到「解散警察」因素的影響，西雅圖警察局正面臨人員和資金的嚴重短缺，據KTTH電臺主持人傑森·蘭茲（Jason Rantz）的研究顯示，僅在最近的兩個月中，33名警察辭職。他在接受福克斯新聞採訪時表示，「我們有這種無法無天的文化，我們有一個犯罪高產率的問題，有大約100個人不斷地違反法律，但卻不用受到任何懲罰，然後他們又一遍又一遍地做著同樣的事情。」
蘭茲問：西雅圖的法律是只針對西雅圖居民嗎？如果不是，那是否全世界的窮人都可以來西雅圖搶劫？如果你是西雅圖市民，你還想住在這裡嗎？
文章來源: VITO 雜誌 2020-12-14
Seattle City Council again mulls poverty defense for some accused suspects
by Matt Markovich,
SEATTLE — If someone trespasses by pitching a tent on private property or walks out with a handful groceries from the corner market or steals power tools with the intent of reselling them online in order to pay for a basic need like food or rent, the city of Seattle may be OK with that.
The idea, referred to as the poverty defense, was discussed Tuesday by the Seattle City Council's Public Safety Committee after it was introduced by City Council member Lisa Herbold and Anita Khandelwal, the King County’s director of the Department of Public Defense.
During the committee meeting, council members heard an update to the poverty defense argument, which was first presented by Herbold, chairperson of the committee, in October. The council took no action on the proposal on Tuesday but its members are expected to discuss the proposal again in January.
The new twist is that Herbold wants the new legal defense to be added to the Seattle municipal code. It would provide an affirmative defense for someone who committed a crime because they need to meet a basic need to survive.
“The defendant would just have to prove that the needs fit within the definition of immediate basic need,” Asha Venkataraman, a member of the council’s Central Staff, told the Public Safety Committee.
Herbold said she wants a jury to hear a defendant's reasoning and leave it up to jurors to decide if the crime was committed to supply a basic need.
“It’s giving people an opportunity to tell their stories and giving judges and juries the opportunity to hear those stories and make a decision based on the values of our city,” Herbold told the committee.
In a letter sent to the council on Oct. 30, City Attorney Pete Holmes said his staff is already doing some of what the poverty defense would provide.
"I have worked to move the City Attorney’s Office away from prosecuting property crimes that appeared to be committed out of survival necessity," he wrote.
Critics of the plan suggested that it could lead to more criminal offenses.
“It’s a green light for crime,” said Scott Lindsay, a former mayoral Public Safety Advisor who unsuccessfully ran against Holmes for city attorney.
“If you are engaged in 100 different misdemeanors that are in our criminal justice system code, you are not going to be held liable," Lindsay said. "You are not going to be held accountable.”
Councilman Alex Pedersen said he wants the panel to back up a step and consider if the proposal is wanted before hashing out its details.
“This proposal seems to create too easy of a way for repeated vandalism, trespassing and shoplifting and other misdemeanor crimes that can harm others” he said.
A new element that was not part of the initial discussion last month was an exception that would allow for the reselling of stolen goods to raise money to pay for a basic need.
“If somebody stole a bunch of cell phones and intended to resell them to pay their rent, it would apply to that defense,” Venkatarama said.
But Assistant City Attorney John Schochet balked at that idea.
“That could broaden this and create some unintended consequences” he said.
Khandelwal said the legislation should not include any restrictions, monetary or otherwise, and jurors should be allowed to decide.
“Our jurors are going to be able to understand when someone is trying to meet an immediate need and when they are not,” she said.
