4 ms·

Even when it was successful for some things ... when it hurts innocent people, the state has to find other tools to hunt down criminals. You can't simply drop

Even when it was successful for some things ... when it hurts innocent people, the state has to find other tools to hunt down criminals. You can't simply drop an atomic bomb on NYC -- and justify it, by saying you killed at least 100,000 criminals ...

manachar 11y ago
I'm not sold that civil forfeiture is an atomic bomb. It's more like guns in the hands of police. It's a very dangerous tool in the hands of people who are charged with achieving something that occasionally needs dangerous tools to solve. Guns have obviously led to killing innocents by police, and I'd like that number to go down. Heck, I'd like most police officers to not carry guns most of the time, leaving guns to SWAT teams that can be called in when needed. In other words, I want the dangerous tool used effectively in a manner that respects everyone's rights. Same with civil forfeiture. It's clearly being used in an abusive fashion. Innocents are losing money and property to help pay for police. It blows my mind that it's being used this way and needs to be reformed. To me it would make sense to hold the property in some form of escrow until the finding of guilt or innocence, essentially freezing assets.
- PythonicAlpha 11y ago
  I did not say, that cf is an atomic bomb. I just wanted to use a picture to make it more clear, that the end does not justify all means. I don't know, if cf can be reformed, so that it stays useful and has not such by-effects. The usefulness of cf is largely drawn from the aspect of being arbitrary. The side effect of a constitutional state is, that some times the bad guys can use it to protect their bad ways. But the alternative would be bad for all. cf does not only make innocent people to victims, but does change those to crooks, that should protect the innocent -- and thus an even bigger harm is done to the whole society -- with very bad consequences in the long run!

manachar 11y ago

I'm not sold that civil forfeiture is an atomic bomb. It's more like guns in the hands of police. It's a very dangerous tool in the hands of people who are charged with achieving something that occasionally needs dangerous tools to solve. Guns have obviously led to killing innocents by police, and I'd like that number to go down. Heck, I'd like most police officers to not carry guns most of the time, leaving guns to SWAT teams that can be called in when needed. In other words, I want the dangerous tool used effectively in a manner that respects everyone's rights. Same with civil forfeiture. It's clearly being used in an abusive fashion. Innocents are losing money and property to help pay for police. It blows my mind that it's being used this way and needs to be reformed. To me it would make sense to hold the property in some form of escrow until the finding of guilt or innocence, essentially freezing assets.

PythonicAlpha 11y ago
I did not say, that cf is an atomic bomb. I just wanted to use a picture to make it more clear, that the end does not justify all means. I don't know, if cf can be reformed, so that it stays useful and has not such by-effects. The usefulness of cf is largely drawn from the aspect of being arbitrary. The side effect of a constitutional state is, that some times the bad guys can use it to protect their bad ways. But the alternative would be bad for all. cf does not only make innocent people to victims, but does change those to crooks, that should protect the innocent -- and thus an even bigger harm is done to the whole society -- with very bad consequences in the long run!