The editors of the Washington Post come out in support of banning ski masks:
Tucked into Mayor Muriel E. Bowser’s Addressing Crime Trends Now Act, a bill intended to help police fight crime in D.C., is an under-discussed proposal: a prohibition on ski masks and face coverings.
The mayor’s proposal would revive the anti-mask section of a 1982 law, the Anti-Intimidation and Defacing of Public or Private Property Criminal Act. That statute prohibited those 16 and older from covering their faces while in public, intending to commit a crime, intimidate, threaten, or harass others or in cases in which masking would recklessly “cause another person to fear for his or her personal safety.â€
The provision, which carried a one-year maximum sentence, was rarely enforced even when it was on the books. And D.C. repealed it in 2020 to encourage the use of face masks during the covid-19 pandemic.
That reasonable public health policy had an unintended consequence: normalizing masking for all sorts of purposes, legal and otherwise. Now, identity-obscuring ski masks have become a de facto uniform for those who commit retail thefts, carjackings and robberies. The disguises make perpetrators more difficult to identify and their crimes scarier — which of course is the point. One of the more remarkable aspects of last week’s City Center Chanel store break-in was that a video camera recorded a burglar without a face covering.
I have all sorts of questions about this including:
- Why do they think that enacting a law will stop people from doing something?
- Why do they think that police officers who won’t enforce laws against shoplifting will enforce laws against wearing ski masks in public?
- What percentage of those wearing ski masks in public do so with the intention of concealing their identity when they commit a crime?
I wear a ski mask which I call a “balaclava” nearly every day in the winter when I take the dogs out for a walk. Or, at least, I did until my wife insisted I throw the raggedy old balaclava I was wearing away. The entire notion strikes me as backwards from how our laws ought to work.
My general view of law is that anything not expressly banned is allowed (rather than the other way around), we should be prepared to make a good faith attempt at enforcing all laws that are enacted, you can determine whether a good faith attempt at enforcement is being made by the number of violations without enforcement that are being made, and that the primary effect of any law should be to discourage behaviors we must prevent rather than limiting the actions of people who are doing no harm.
Laws don’t reduce crime. Vigorous and routine enforcement of laws reduces crime.
Dave Schuler: I wear a ski mask which I call a “balaclava†nearly every day in the winter when I take the dogs out for a walk.
That wouldn’t have been illegal under the law, but only when intending to commit a crime, intimidate, threaten, or harass others “. It’s more like an add-on to another crime. Get caught with the mask committing a crime, and the penalties will be enhanced. The underlying crime still has to be proven, of course.
Since nowadays anything can be harassment or intimidation, that looks like a distinction without a difference. How will adding such a law increase the likelihood of enforcement?
Dave Schuler: Since nowadays anything can be harassment or intimidation, that looks like a distinction without a difference.
The distinction is as to whether there is an underlying indictable offense.
Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime.
Dave Schuler: Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime.
While the American justice system is far from perfect, and it often falls short, there is substantial due process throughout the system. Simply quoting a Stalinist is hardly an argument about due process in America.
Laws on harassment vary considerably across the United States, but all such charges and the law itself are subject to due process. On the other hand, being convicted of wearing a mask while shoplifting would result in a penalty enhancement due to the underlying crime.
The law was on the books for 40 years. How was it used in the past?
Steve
I have no idea. My guess is that it was rarely if ever enforced.
The law would be used to establish reasonable suspicion. Reasonable suspicion allows you to question the person. Questioning the person allows you to pat down the person. Patting down a person is for your safety, and it is limited to weapons. If you find an illegal weapon weapon or contraband, game over – the person is arrested. The arrest allows you to do a full search the person – pockets, shoes, etc.
At least in Louisiana, these are specific terms with specific meanings and limitations. It may be different today, and each state determines their Criminal Code and procedures.
When you have beta males as police officers, it does not work. With both alpha and beta male officers, it is very prone to abuse, and without proper supervision, your police force is running the gangs or operating torture facilities.
TastyBits: The law would be used to establish reasonable suspicion.
While some police will abuse their authority, masks alone would not constitute reasonable suspicion. It would have to be combined with some other basis to form reasonable suspicion.