Civil asset forfeiture

Discussion in 'West Mall' started by djimaplon, Feb 8, 2017.

  1. djimaplon

    djimaplon 250+ Posts

    Good or bad?
     
  2. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    I'm OK with it after conviction, not before. Konni Burton and I agree on that.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Htown77

    Htown77 5,000+ Posts

    I do not agree that the government should just "get" your property. I am okay with the government seizing contraband (drugs), but that should not mean they get to keep the car the contraband was in even after conviction. This is the sort of nonsense the British pulled.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Brad Austin

    Brad Austin 2,500+ Posts

    The way I understand from past examples heard before this election cycle, not down with that at all.

    From what I recall it gives free reign to just take people's stuff as long as it's claimed wrongdoing was connected.

    Of course I used a lot of non-specific terms as I don't recall the sources too well.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    Concur with SH.
     
  6. Statalyzer

    Statalyzer 10,000+ Posts

    Exactly. The latter is called "theft".
     
  7. iatrogenic

    iatrogenic 2,500+ Posts

    Not if it is in compliance with the law. Instead of "theft", call it a "bonus" on behalf of law abiding Americans. Don't break the law and get convicted and you have nothing to worry about. Very simple.

    Having to fight for your property if you did nothing wrong is complete horse apples, however.
     
  8. Statalyzer

    Statalyzer 10,000+ Posts

    Legalized theft then.

    I haven't.
     
  9. Htown77

    Htown77 5,000+ Posts

    So if I get wrongly convicted for a speeding ticket, should the local police department be able to take my car?

    Should punishment for crimes vary based on what property I happen to have on me that the local sheriff wants for himself?

    "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

    The British had a policy prior to and during the revolution of seizing people's property. It was bogus because such a policy is just asking to be abused.

    A policeman busts someone in their apartment for drugs. While searching the apartment, they find a ring left to the criminal by his grandfather. Should the policeman just get to take that for the taxpayer? And again, what about the person that is wrongly convicted. In addition to their sentence, they lose their property too?

    How about we let the legislature and judges decide how much a convict should be fined and not leave it up to the local policeman?

    If someone is convicted and fined $10,000, they owe society $10,000, not $10,000 and whatever Joe the cop could get his hands on.

    I'll make another note that yes, I believe the police can and should keep actual contraband.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2017
  10. NJlonghorn

    NJlonghorn 2,500+ Posts

    I'm okay with the government taking the fruits of a crime. For example, if a guy becomes rich running a drug ring, and if the government can prove it, then he should lose his wealth when convicted.

    In contrast, a guy who supplements his legitimate income by dealing drugs to friends should not lose the house and car by virtue of being convicted.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  11. Htown77

    Htown77 5,000+ Posts

    I understand the intention behind the civil asset forfeiture and really do not disagree with it which I believe NJ described above. The problem I have is the risk of abuse is too high.

    If all of the cops were honest and acting on good faith, I would be okay with warrantless searches. The problem is the risk of abuse by those few cops with bad intentions is so high, warrants are generally warranted.

    Police are often asked to generate revenue for their departments. I just think the risk of cops taking as much property as possible, instead of just the ill gotten property, is too high and civil asset forfeiture is just asking for abuse.

    At the very least, most seem agree that agree that a conviction should be required at a minimum.
     
  12. Htown77

    Htown77 5,000+ Posts

    • Like Like x 1
  13. djimaplon

    djimaplon 250+ Posts

    Trump favors civil asset forfeiture? I would have never guessed. Or maybe I am misreading the article ...is that fake news? or maybe its the US murder rate being the highest in 47 years...
     
    • Like Like x 2
  14. Crockett

    Crockett 5,000+ Posts

    There has been egregious abuse of civil asset forfeiture laws. Some necessary reforms:
    1. Seize assets only of the criminal (teen dealing drugs from front porch should not result in grandma losing her house.)
    2. Criminal activity should be proven. (Police can't seize cash and require that you prove it was from legitimate activity to get it back ... they must prove it was derived from or to be used in criminal activity.)
     
    • Like Like x 3
  15. Crockett

    Crockett 5,000+ Posts

    I read about a guy who was driving across town with a large amount of cash to buy a used car. When he was stopped, police seized the cash and it was virtually impossible to prove he was involved in legitimate enterprise ... the police had no need to prove it was criminal. This should not happen in America.
     
    • Like Like x 3
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2017
  16. iatrogenic

    iatrogenic 2,500+ Posts

    The law says you can lose your car for a speeding ticket? Let me know where that is so I don't drive there.

    No. Punishment should be based on the laws in place. Is that not happening somewhere?

    If that is what the law allows, the answer is yes. If they can prove they were wrongly convicted, the "convicting authority" will be required to reimburse the wrongly convicted.

    They did decide it when they allowed forfeiture.

    That's not what the legislature has demanded.
     
  17. iatrogenic

    iatrogenic 2,500+ Posts

    How could not proving where the money originated possibly be the case? It is easy to follow the money trail. I agree that the authorities should damn well be following the law when they take property, and I know some do not, but there are crooks in every business. We just have to enact stiff punishment to dissuade the bad actors.
     
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2017
  18. djimaplon

    djimaplon 250+ Posts

    As with many discussions here, at its core it is a discussion of positive and negative rights. In this case, the individual has the negative right of not having his/her property expropriated by the the government (more precisely in this case law enforcement), versus the government's positive right to enforce the law.

    Often times government action interferes with negative rights of the governed. Thus creating the challenge for legislative bodies to by statute, create the laws or the positive actions that government can undertake. Conservatives' tendency for skepticism towards government action is rooted in the general adherence to the idea that the government that governs least governs best.

    Nevertheless, both parties are often guilty of promoting positive right frameworks for government action, though their actions tend to be in support of distinctly different ends.
     
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2017
  19. iatrogenic

    iatrogenic 2,500+ Posts

    Huh?
     

Share This Page