L.A. Times Interviews Jack Dunphy on Special Order 40
The L.A. Times expands today’s examination of Special Order 40 with an interview with Jack Dunphy. A taste:
Special Order 40 is hobbling police. That’s the view of an LAPD officer who writes about the department for National Review Online and other publications under the pseudonym “Jack Dunphy.”
Although the order states only that officers can’t stop people solely to inquire about their immigration status, “the policy and the reality are quite different,” he said in an interview with The Times. The officer asked that his real name not be used.
Worried about running afoul of department policy, Dunphy said, some officers are reluctant to take action against illegal immigrants, even known criminals.
As a result, he said, people who have been deported for crimes often return and live in full view of the Los Angeles Police Department.
Jack points out that LAPD officers have absolutely zero interest in alerting authorities to the illegal status of illegal immigrants who are crime victims, and I second that. As a prosecutor, I could not care less whether my victim is illegal or not.
But illegal aliens who commit crimes should not be here.
Read the interview here.
As a prosecutor, you don’t care whether someone is committing a crime? Would your feeling be the same if the victim happened to be a murderer rather than just someone violating our immigration laws? If not, where is the line drawn?
Lord Limp of Lancaster (ec60fa) — 4/20/2008 @ 7:34 pmLLL – I’m not sure of this, but I don’t think Patterico can prosecute illegal immigrants. I believe he must refer them to ICE.
If this is correct, then I wouldn’t want prosecutorial time spent chasing crime victims who are illegals, nor for that matter would I want Patterico to investigate the tax status of crime victims, as that is the function of the IRS. Both illegal immigration and improper tax payment are crimes, but local prosecutors should and do prioritize so as to maximize their effectiveness in protecting public safety.
Apogee (366e8b) — 4/20/2008 @ 7:47 pmAlso, I assume, invoking the forces of the law against them would probably cut down tremendously on any cooperation or even initial reporting of crimes by witnesses and victims who are illegal aliens–thereby impeding the prosecution of those who prey on them. And I would surmise a substantial number of the latter are themselves here illegally.
Patterico–is there an official policy from your office on what prosecutors should do when encountering victims or witnesses who are illegally here? Or is it left to the discretion of the individual prosecutor?
kishnevi (33bfb0) — 4/20/2008 @ 7:57 pmSuppose it was a murderer who had committed his crime in another jurisdiction such that Patterico would have to refer it to out for prosecution? Would/should he then be uninterested in the crime? Suppose it was someone who had been bombing abortion clinics in Wisconsin?
Lord Limp of Lancaster (ec60fa) — 4/20/2008 @ 8:15 pmLLL – I think you’re glossing over what I said: prosecutors should and do prioritize so as to maximize their effectiveness in protecting public safety.
Prosecutors, if they become aware that a crime victim is also wanted in another jurisdiction for a capital crime like murder, will hold that person for transfer to the outer jurisdiction.
That is a long way away from investigating every crime victim for any and all possible crimes they may have committed. That is why Patterico specifically stated that he has no interest in these illegal entry/visa investigations. It has nothing to do with their legal status, and everything to do with not wishing to investigate everyone involved.
Your argument doesn’t seem to make sense, unless you’re making implications on the futility of “rounding up all the illegals and shipping them home”, to which I agree. That’s not what this is about, however. This is specifically regarding the removal of Special order 40 which has, according to Police and Prosecutors, negative effects on the ability of law enforcement to capture and prosecute violent individuals who are here illegally. If you have a problem with that, you should state it directly.
Apogee (366e8b) — 4/20/2008 @ 8:47 pmJack, isn’t that the paper that stopped carrying your work?
Tell me you spent 5 minutes laughing at them before you started to actually talk to them…
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 4/20/2008 @ 9:52 pmPatterico — Did you see today’s (4/20) op-ed in the Times Opinion section that did its level best to confuse the issue of checking into the immigration status of arrested/convicted criminals and that of victims or witnesses? It struck me as typical LA Times bait and switch, and left me screaming at the paper. Your thoughts?
Curt (b088ff) — 4/20/2008 @ 11:10 pmThats for that, Patterico, I just wish our media and politicians were more concerned with the safety and well being of our citizens.
tyree (0d131f) — 4/21/2008 @ 6:07 amAre we are a nation of laws? One of the issues that is arose is that state law, federal law, and agency policy, especially in a sanctuary city like Los Angeles, are diametrically opposed. Whatever ones’ opinion may be about immigration laws they are not enforced in this City, this State (California), or much of the nation on a consistent basis. When it comes to immigration and the written law, actual enforcement lacks an earnest approach or a commitment of elected officials. Why risk offending a group of people, Hispanics, that endorse and pledge money to candidates? Also, it appears that politicians run the risk of being labeled racist or uncaring by breaking up families if they support enforcement of immigration laws.
I.M. Copper (d5a17b) — 4/23/2008 @ 2:30 pm