Civil asset forfeiture is getting out of hand. I mean, what's the point in taking $18,000 from someone whose charge is possessing a knife? Either that's a very steep fine, or you're just stealing.
What are your thoughts on this matter?
__________________
Need a great deal on a new or pre-owned car? Come see me at Platinum Mitsubishi — 2720 Barlow Trail NE
^ Oh, there is? Huh. I never knew that. Never posted in or entered that thread before.
That being said -- there's more to this story than just the LWT piece. Can we discuss the news article, too?
Agreed. Not that I care to get dragged into the debate on what deserves a thread and what doesn't, but as someone who doesn't watch John Oliver and hasn't checked that thread in a long time, I think it's in interesting topic. This topic isn't about his show, but an issue that was raised on it.
On topic, I find the reverse onus of proof troubling and contrary to what our justice systems in the west are supposed to represent. I can see if someone was at least being charged with something.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
Last edited by FlamesAddiction; 09-16-2016 at 08:57 AM.
You guys are a bunch of dinks. Let the man post a thread to talk about something he's interested in.
The law itself is a good law. Removing the proceeds of crime makes sense. Cook Meth in your house, lose your house. Transport drugs with your car lose your car.
I think the key though is that the forfeiture revenues should not go to the people enforcing the forfeiture laws. Put it all in a victims support fund or some kind of scholarship trust or community programming. Do allow the people who take the money to use the money.
And the second would be judicial oversight. Before inscring a civil forfeiture it should require judicial review like a warrant where the link would be evaluated.
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
Removing the proceeds of crime makes sense. Cook Meth in your house, lose your house. Transport drugs with your car lose your car.
These are not the proceeds of crime, first of all. The proceeds would be whatever you made off the meth / drugs.
Second, this is just state sanctioned theft. What you "lose" for committing a crime should be left to the sentencing judge, after you've been charged and convicted. It certainly should not be at police discretion and certainly not when you're arrested. That creates all the wrong incentives. It further erodes the already tenuous trust in police in the USA. Like you say, the only way to make this work is to have judicial oversight, and even then, how does a judge have all the facts when the person involved isn't there to represent themselves, not having yet been arrested?
Granted, I don't know why anyone would be carrying around $18,000 in his car like the guy in the article was. But there's no law against it, and abusing a law against knives to effectively steal that money is not something a police force should be bragging about on social media as a job well done.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
These are not the proceeds of crime, first of all. The proceeds would be whatever you made off the meth / drugs.
I can see why the house belonging to drug manufacturers would be considered a proceed...when it actually belongs to the drug dealers. When the house is rented and a relatively innocent landlord loses his/her asset, you've got state sanctioned theft. The punishment for not inspecting your property every three months shouldn't be half a million dollars.
What if it's an old lady growing pot for her arthritis. Is that justice? Seize her house and throw her to the street? I don't think any asset forfeiture is justified. Too slippery a slope.
I can see why the house belonging to drug manufacturers would be considered a proceed...when it actually belongs to the drug dealers. When the house is rented and a relatively innocent landlord loses his/her asset, you've got state sanctioned theft. The punishment for not inspecting your property every three months shouldn't be half a million dollars.
if you want the punishment for cooking meth to be $500,000, then you pass a law stating such.
I'm pretty sure we will see a lot of the civil forfeiture laws repealed in the next decade, especially those that don't stem from proceeds of crime.
if you want the punishment for cooking meth to be $500,000, then you pass a law stating such.
I'm pretty sure we will see a lot of the civil forfeiture laws repealed in the next decade, especially those that don't stem from proceeds of crime.
The problem with large fines is that it equates to debtors prison if people can't pay. Is it possible to scale punishment based on people's
Assets used around the crime.
Could you pass a law that said if you cook meth and own a car or a house you lose the car or house but if you don't there is no additional punishment?
I can see why the house belonging to drug manufacturers would be considered a proceed...when it actually belongs to the drug dealers.
Not unless it was actually purchased with funds that were generated by the commission of a crime. If I buy a house today with the money I made from my job, and decide to use it to start my criminal empire tomorrow, it is not the "proceeds" of a crime. It's the proceeds of my current job.
Any law that permits its seizure is effectively saying, "we think this guy is a really bad guy, so it's okay if we take his stuff without any oversight whatsoever without even proving he's a bad guy". That is just taking a giant crap on the rule of law.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
Let's Talk About Civil Asset Forfeiture
