4 ms·

It was never envisioned as a tool to dismantling organised crime. That use came later. It was originally created to allow the govt to seize assets of non-citize

It was never envisioned as a tool to dismantling organised crime. That use came later. It was originally created to allow the govt to seize assets of non-citizens where the laws of the US could not be used. For example, captured assets of foreign drug suppliers where they were unable to prosecute those people. It was never envisioned to be used on US citizens because the laws of the US can be applied to citizens as their punishment. To have assets seized AND criminal prosecution is unconstitutional.

manachar 11y ago
Wikipedia has a nice section on the history and includes this about constitutionality: "While the 1993 Supreme Court case Austin v. United States ruled that a forfeiture could be considered as an excessive fine, the court upheld the principle of civil forfeiture generally. A 1996 Supreme Court decision ruled that prosecuting a person for a crime and seizing his or her property via civil forfeiture did not constitute double jeopardy, and therefore did not violate the Constitution. However, in 1999, the Supreme Court ruled that civil forfeiture was not permitted if the amount seized was "grossly disproportional" to the gravity of the offense." It seems the current legal interpretations do not support considering double-dipping like this to be unconstitutional. However, it's also clear that it should be able to be argued that due process is not being followed, and the dollar value of punishment is excessive, which seems to be ACLU's stance on the matter. I hope the unconstitutional elements are removed from this tool sooner rather than later.
- ImTalking 11y ago
  Yes. http://cafehayek.com/2011/05/bennis-v-michigan-and-the-awful-advance-of-civil-asset-forfeiture.html http://cafehayek.com/2011/05/bennis-v-michigan-and-the-awful... is also good.
- mapt 11y ago
  " nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Seems pretty mindbogglingly clear to me. Regardless of what the present Justice Department refuses to go after, or what the present Supreme Courts choose to go after, the people practicing these policies are corrupt traitors committing literal armed robbery in defiance of their compact with the People. That sounds like a hyperbolic statement, but it's not. I'm going to borrow xkcd's analogy at https://xkcd.com/463/ https://xkcd.com/463/ Imagine you're at a parent-teacher conference, and the teacher, out of the blue, assures you that while he doesn't wear a condom while teaching, all his STD testing is up to date and meets the state code as presently written; He has been inspected by the principal for venereal diseases on a weekly basis. He's clean, and your children are safe, no matter what their marks on the upcoming math test happen to be.

manachar 11y ago

Wikipedia has a nice section on the history and includes this about constitutionality: "While the 1993 Supreme Court case Austin v. United States ruled that a forfeiture could be considered as an excessive fine, the court upheld the principle of civil forfeiture generally. A 1996 Supreme Court decision ruled that prosecuting a person for a crime and seizing his or her property via civil forfeiture did not constitute double jeopardy, and therefore did not violate the Constitution. However, in 1999, the Supreme Court ruled that civil forfeiture was not permitted if the amount seized was "grossly disproportional" to the gravity of the offense." It seems the current legal interpretations do not support considering double-dipping like this to be unconstitutional. However, it's also clear that it should be able to be argued that due process is not being followed, and the dollar value of punishment is excessive, which seems to be ACLU's stance on the matter. I hope the unconstitutional elements are removed from this tool sooner rather than later.

ImTalking 11y ago
Yes. http://cafehayek.com/2011/05/bennis-v-michigan-and-the-awful-advance-of-civil-asset-forfeiture.html http://cafehayek.com/2011/05/bennis-v-michigan-and-the-awful... is also good.
mapt 11y ago
" nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Seems pretty mindbogglingly clear to me. Regardless of what the present Justice Department refuses to go after, or what the present Supreme Courts choose to go after, the people practicing these policies are corrupt traitors committing literal armed robbery in defiance of their compact with the People. That sounds like a hyperbolic statement, but it's not. I'm going to borrow xkcd's analogy at https://xkcd.com/463/ https://xkcd.com/463/ Imagine you're at a parent-teacher conference, and the teacher, out of the blue, assures you that while he doesn't wear a condom while teaching, all his STD testing is up to date and meets the state code as presently written; He has been inspected by the principal for venereal diseases on a weekly basis. He's clean, and your children are safe, no matter what their marks on the upcoming math test happen to be.