3 ms·

That graph is always shocking to me. Not only in terms of the terrible irony in having the police steal more than the people they are protecting us from but bec

That graph is always shocking to me. Not only in terms of the terrible irony in having the police steal more than the people they are protecting us from but because asset forfeiture has quintupled in just 10 years.

jessaustin 11y ago
For me it clarifies the nature of "protection" rackets in general.
watty 11y ago
While it's shocking, is it really all "stolen"? The linked case is absolutely appalling but doesn't this graph include forfeiture of real drug money as well? For example, here's a quick $90M bust: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/feds-seize-90-million-cash-cartel-laundered-money-article-1.1961449 http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/feds-seize-90-milli...
- tedks 11y ago
  Without a trial, it isn't "real" drug money. It's accused drug money. In the United States, we nominally presume innocence until guilt is proven. Since civil forfeiture uses kangaroo courts, there is no proof and so it isn't "real" drug money.
  - watty 11y ago
    I don't understand. If a cop pulls over a drug dealer and happens to find drugs and $1M, isn't that still counted in the graph as forfeiture? Let's assume the drug dealer is convicted.
    - talmand 11y ago
      In that case it's likely justified. But then you can link the forfeiture to an actual person being tried in a court of law. Many, many, many of these cases are things like "State Court vs $12,348.45". In those cases there's no defense and the owner of the property has to interject as a third party to attempt to get their property back. In many cases it'll cost more to retrieve the property than the value of the property in the first place. Also, I would assume that even if the alleged drug dealer is found not guilty for some reason they won't get their $1M back. I would imagine the people responsible for tracking such statistics are not motivated to flag the differences.
      - true_religion 11y ago
        The problem with civil forfeiture isn't actual criminals, it is what happens to everyone who is profiled as a potential criminal. Today, we have it pretty good, but imagine being Italian during the hay-day of the NY Mafia busts. If civil forfeiture existed during that time, any man or woman or Italian decent could have been reasonably pulled over accused of being involved in mafia activities (gambling, prostitution, intimidation, etc) and have whatever cash they had on their persons seized.... even if they never got a conviction. The police today are under a lot of scrutiny to not profile (though they still do it anyways), but crime rates are at record lows. What will happen if crime rates rise, and the populace becomes more willing to accept policing profiling as a preventative measure?
        talmand 11y ago
        Profiling is common and not a bad thing. The police profile, the feds profile more. They just have fancy new words for it to avoid the silliness that the word profile has somehow gotten the same meaning as discrimination. Your example is already done today, you just don't hear about it in those terms.
      - watty 11y ago
        Ok... well that was my entire point and the reason why I stated that it's not fair to call all forfeiture as "stealing".
        talmand 11y ago
        Well, until they specify line-by-line in their statistics which is which, and then address the obvious issues/corruption, I'm comfortable with calling all of it stealing.
    - tedks 11y ago
      My understanding is that what happens is that the money is civil-forfeitured immediately after arrest in a separate proceeding from, in your example, the alleged drug dealer being charged. That said, the fact is that your example's archetype accounts for a vanishingly small amount of civil forfeitures.
maxerickson 11y ago
It's partly a gimmick, it includes huge fines related to the Madoff case and huge fines paid by Toyota (neither of which are particularly gross examples of law enforcement excess). http://www.thecrimereport.org/news/crime-and-justice-news/2015-11-civil-asset-forfeiture-report http://www.thecrimereport.org/news/crime-and-justice-news/20...
- cmdrfred 11y ago
  > A Justice Department spokesman pointed out that big cases, like the $1.7 billion Bernie Madoff judgment and a $1.2 billion case associated with Toyota, have led to large deposits to forfeiture funds in a single year. The total figures above show the size of the funds after deposits and expenditures are accounted for. "In a given year, one or two high-dollar cases may produce unusually large amounts of money—with a portion going back to victims—thereby telling a noisy story of year-to-year activity levels," the report found. The numbers reported today represent a more stable and accurate account of forfeiture activity, the institute says. "Even without those major cases, the overall trend is still upward,"
JimboOmega 11y ago
People always talk about the cost of the war on drugs. The DEA is largely self funded, it turns out (and I have heard reports of it even being profitable, though I suppose it depends a lot on what exactly is included in costs)

jessaustin 11y ago

For me it clarifies the nature of "protection" rackets in general.

watty 11y ago

While it's shocking, is it really all "stolen"? The linked case is absolutely appalling but doesn't this graph include forfeiture of real drug money as well? For example, here's a quick $90M bust: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/feds-seize-90-million-cash-cartel-laundered-money-article-1.1961449 http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/feds-seize-90-milli...

tedks 11y ago
Without a trial, it isn't "real" drug money. It's accused drug money. In the United States, we nominally presume innocence until guilt is proven. Since civil forfeiture uses kangaroo courts, there is no proof and so it isn't "real" drug money.
- watty 11y ago
  I don't understand. If a cop pulls over a drug dealer and happens to find drugs and $1M, isn't that still counted in the graph as forfeiture? Let's assume the drug dealer is convicted.
  - talmand 11y ago
    In that case it's likely justified. But then you can link the forfeiture to an actual person being tried in a court of law. Many, many, many of these cases are things like "State Court vs $12,348.45". In those cases there's no defense and the owner of the property has to interject as a third party to attempt to get their property back. In many cases it'll cost more to retrieve the property than the value of the property in the first place. Also, I would assume that even if the alleged drug dealer is found not guilty for some reason they won't get their $1M back. I would imagine the people responsible for tracking such statistics are not motivated to flag the differences.
    - true_religion 11y ago
      The problem with civil forfeiture isn't actual criminals, it is what happens to everyone who is profiled as a potential criminal. Today, we have it pretty good, but imagine being Italian during the hay-day of the NY Mafia busts. If civil forfeiture existed during that time, any man or woman or Italian decent could have been reasonably pulled over accused of being involved in mafia activities (gambling, prostitution, intimidation, etc) and have whatever cash they had on their persons seized.... even if they never got a conviction. The police today are under a lot of scrutiny to not profile (though they still do it anyways), but crime rates are at record lows. What will happen if crime rates rise, and the populace becomes more willing to accept policing profiling as a preventative measure?
      - talmand 11y ago
        Profiling is common and not a bad thing. The police profile, the feds profile more. They just have fancy new words for it to avoid the silliness that the word profile has somehow gotten the same meaning as discrimination. Your example is already done today, you just don't hear about it in those terms.
    - watty 11y ago
      Ok... well that was my entire point and the reason why I stated that it's not fair to call all forfeiture as "stealing".
      - talmand 11y ago
        Well, until they specify line-by-line in their statistics which is which, and then address the obvious issues/corruption, I'm comfortable with calling all of it stealing.
  - tedks 11y ago
    My understanding is that what happens is that the money is civil-forfeitured immediately after arrest in a separate proceeding from, in your example, the alleged drug dealer being charged. That said, the fact is that your example's archetype accounts for a vanishingly small amount of civil forfeitures.

maxerickson 11y ago

It's partly a gimmick, it includes huge fines related to the Madoff case and huge fines paid by Toyota (neither of which are particularly gross examples of law enforcement excess). http://www.thecrimereport.org/news/crime-and-justice-news/2015-11-civil-asset-forfeiture-report http://www.thecrimereport.org/news/crime-and-justice-news/20...

cmdrfred 11y ago
> A Justice Department spokesman pointed out that big cases, like the $1.7 billion Bernie Madoff judgment and a $1.2 billion case associated with Toyota, have led to large deposits to forfeiture funds in a single year. The total figures above show the size of the funds after deposits and expenditures are accounted for. "In a given year, one or two high-dollar cases may produce unusually large amounts of money—with a portion going back to victims—thereby telling a noisy story of year-to-year activity levels," the report found. The numbers reported today represent a more stable and accurate account of forfeiture activity, the institute says. "Even without those major cases, the overall trend is still upward,"

JimboOmega 11y ago

People always talk about the cost of the war on drugs. The DEA is largely self funded, it turns out (and I have heard reports of it even being profitable, though I suppose it depends a lot on what exactly is included in costs)