Occasionally an idea comes along that is just so good, that, of course, most people fail to recognise it for what it is. The latest example of that is the move in Britain and America to seize the proceeds of a criminal's life. It's simple: you get convicted of a crime, especially a high-profit crime such as drug dealing, and the police have been given the opportunity to look at your bank account. There's a pile of money in there? Well, then, there's only one question: where did it come from? If you haven't got a sensible explanation, (your Auntie died and left you her fortune, for instance), then it's reasonable to assume that you made the dollars from your nefarious activities. The courts then give the police the right to confiscate the cash and give it to widows and orphans.



The idea is just so perfect and for a very obvious reason: no one goes into drug dealing these days because they want to change the world - that was the 1970s! They go into that business because, one, they're too stupid and lazy to want to bother starting up a legitimate business that would make them the same amount of money. And two, they want to spend the money on girls, cars and glitter. So, here's the problem, as was: you put someone in prison for a bad thing, like drug dealing, they serve the time, get back on the street, go down to their bank and liberate some cash. Then, hours later, they're back in their neighbourhood with smart threads and a cool motor. Did the prison time hurt? Sure, but the pain has now gone away, because they've got what they always wanted - the respect of the dead-beats and low-lifes who can't imagine better Role Models than the crazily bedangled hoods with gold medallions, thick shades and other examples of bad taste.

The alternative? Strip them of their riches while they're in prison. They serve the time, get back on the street, and all they've got are the clothes they stand up in and a future involving signing on at the Unemployment Office. Sure, they could go back to crime, but their stash has been confiscated. It will be a while before they get back in business and earn enough to buy flashy clothes and jewelry again. Meanwhile, they're as poor as the teenagers and runners who form the lowest level in the food chain of tough neighbourhoods and ghettos. Imagine, the middle-aged gangster without even enough change to buy himself a hat. Ouch, that's gotta hurt!

Even better, this idea could be extended further. What about the flashy wide-boys in their souped-up and pimped rides, cruising down in the 'hood with the hood down and the wind whistling in their expensively coiffed hair. Imagine they get stopped by the police. The question is the same as the one above: where did you get the money to buy this thing? If they can't provide an explanation, then how about a law which says, 'This doesn't belong to you, we're having it'. If a few high-priced Beamers and Mercedes got crushed into junk, then the message might start getting through: it's not worth being a show-off mobster, because son, the Man is going to take it off you.

Ah, you say, but look what happens now. If you're a black man in London and you drive round in a high-end car, it might be that you're a D.J., a radio star or a sports personality. Plenty of young black footballers are even now being stopped on suspicion of something or other. Then, angry and aggrieved, they're let go, to drive off and feel that all the cops in London are racist. After all, they drive a car that they've worked for. They deserve the flash that they own. Sure, but there's a downside to that: all the people who don't do 'real work', merely crime, are able to emulate and copy their more deserving brothers. The dealer and the pimp can put up just as much bravado as the sports guy, claim 'harassment' and threaten to sue. But that wouldn't last long, if this law was enacted: soon, all the bad guys would find themselves with no wheels! When that day comes, the black guy behind the steering wheel of the BMW really would be able to hold his head up and say, 'This is mine, I deserve it,' and more important, would be a really effective Role Model to young people. At the moment, it looks like a choice to the kids: I can play football and get rich, or I can cut cocaine. Which one? Hmm, tough choice. Either one will do. In this scenario, you can deal drugs but you can't show off: if you do, raising your head above the parapet with a gold chain or a silver car, you lose it. Literally.

Another problem, say the wise. This law would require a reverse of the usual process. In the old days, we were all 'innocent until proven guilty'. Under these rules, you will be 'guilty, (of possessing posh stuff), unless you can prove yourself innocent'. Ooops, the lawyers will have a field day. They won't be able to stop themselves suing everyone in sight. You think lawyers are on the side of Law and Order? Not if they've got clients that can pay them to harass the police department and the courts. Well, isn't that the problem, that the bad guys have just as much access to the good things of life, like fast cars and swift justice. Why NOT tip the scales back in favour of the rest of us? Under this law, criminals can complain, hire a lawyer and try to sue for being stopped and searched, for having their cars and jewelry seized. Ah, but here's a final wrinkle: if they go to court, if they risk that, then the new law allows the police to look at their bank accounts, remember? And if they can't explain where that moolah is coming from that pays for the high-priced lawyer, then they risk losing it. Zap! End of luxurious criminal career. Yep, this method would take the fight to the gangsters, instead of sitting back and putting up with all the crap they throw at us right now. Isn't that better? Isn't that a good idea? It's just so good, in fact, that it's likely to meet the fate of all the best plans: it will be ignored, of course.