thecrimereport

Graham: Civil forfeiture became what it is today because it was a way to get buy-in on the drug war from small police departments. I think as we (maybe) see the drug war wind down, that particular aspect of it will get axed by legislatures.

Graham: I don't know if these will blow your mind, but: One of our reporters spent months trying to get to the bottom of how many wrongful convictions we have each year, if you include the lower-level crimes that the Innocence Project never gets to. The estimate: 50,000 per year. That story is called "America's Guilt Mill": http://www.thecrimereport.org/news/inside-criminal-justice/2015-02-americas-guilt-mill

For a story I did last year, we looked into environmental crime investigations. The gist of that investigation was that less than 1/2 of 1 percent of all potential environmental crimes are ever even investigated: http://www.thecrimereport.org/news/inside-criminal-justice/2014-07-environmental-crime-the-prosecution-gap

Another long-term thing that we did, in partnership with NBC, is a look at a notorious New York City substance abuse provider that's quietly become a lynchpin of the state's re-entry system, costing tens of millions of dollars per year while racking up allegations of poor services, decrepit housing, etc.: http://www.thecrimereport.org/news/inside-criminal-justice/2015-01-the-narco-freedom-case-whos-watching-the-caregivers

What got me into reporting: After college I was looking for a job that wouldn't be boring, and this (almost) never is.

Graham: In the last presidential election, in all the debates combined, the candidates were asked exactly one question related to criminal justice (it had to do with gun control). But if people ask them questions about this stuff at every campaign stop before the next round of elections, that can change. Making candidates answer these questions is important — otherwise it's all relegated to C-Span subcommittee coverage.

Adam: "Is this a good way to root out terrorists before they become real terrorists or is it just the system creating headlines to support its self?" That's at the root of what we are beginning to examine in this project. Are these law enforcement techniques (fake bombs, crimes coordinated by confidential informants) actually preventing terrorism or are they a way for the government to appear as if they are successfully thwarting acts of terror? I think there has been a heightened awareness of this in the last couple of years, though entrapment defenses and claims of "outrageous government conduct" are still mostly unsuccessful.

There's a great roundup from a couple years ago from Justin Elliott at ProPublica that looks at this issue - related to NYPD cases. Check it out:

http://www.propublica.org/article/fact-check-how-the-nypd-overstated-its-counterterrorism-record

Graham: Follow-up (pointed out by a colleague in the office) there's a big IF tied to the winding down of the drug war. As in, "IF it happens."