6 ms·

>>this is the heart of civil forfeiture, and without it there isn't any Good, there should not be. > It's a case of police discretion being warped into someth

>>this is the heart of civil forfeiture, and without it there isn't any Good, there should not be. > It's a case of police discretion being warped into something it wasn't intended to be. Actually it is not, this is exactly what was intended when they passed the laws, I do not know where you get the idea this was about "taking a beer from a 16 year old"

kbenson 11y ago
Without civil forfeiture, any time the police take something from you, it's theft. Without it, the courts would need to be the ones to deal with this issue, and while I think most of us agree that would yield a fairer judgement, it wouldn't necessarily be timely, and time can matter. For example, CF is used to return stolen good to the owner. It's also used to keep criminals from using the fruits of their crime prior to conviction. Should a bank robber be allowed to use the money from their heist to pay for their defense? Should the embezzler be allowed to transfer the money in question to locations where the government has no jurisdiction? For reasons for civil forfeiture, this[1] might be an interesting read. You don't have to agree with everything in it (I don't), but I believe there are some good points. Here's an excerpt: Forfeiture is also used to abate nuisances and to take the instrumentalities of crime out of circulation. For example, if drug dealers are using a "crack house" to sell drugs to children as they pass by on the way to school, the building is a danger to the health and safety of the neighborhood. Under the forfeiture laws, we can shut it down. If a boat or truck is being used to smuggle illegal aliens across the border, we can forfeit the vessel or vehicle to prevent its use time and again for the same purpose. The same is true for an airplane used to fly cocaine from Peru into Southern California, or a printing press used to mint phony $100 bills. 1: http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/detail/forfeiture-is-reasonable-and-it-works http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/detail/forfeiture-is-rea...
- simplemath 11y ago
  Ah yes, thanks for invoking "save the children" and the farcical War on Drugs. Throw the baby out with the bathwater r.e. civil forfeiture. Civil forfeiture victimizes far more people than it helps protect people and society at large from bad actors using ill-gotten gains. In fact, I'd say that the bad actors using the ill-gotten gains are overwhelmingly LE itself.
  - kbenson 11y ago
    > Ah yes, thanks for invoking "save the children" and the farcical War on Drugs. That's from an excerpt from a document I referenced. I already noted I didn't agree with everything in it, but there were more examples that just that in the excerpt. > Civil forfeiture victimizes far more people than it helps protect people and society at large from bad actors using ill-gotten gains. That would be an interesting point in the argument if true. Can you substantiate that?
    - simplemath 11y ago
      >That would be an interesting point in the argument if true. Can you substantiate that? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States#Statistics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United... in 1986 reported civil forfeiture assets were $93.7M in 2010 that figure was $2.5B "Over 12 years, agencies have taken $20 billion in cash, securities, other property from drug bosses and Wall Street tycoons as well as "ordinary Americans who have not committed crimes."[31] One estimate was that in 85% of civil forfeiture instances, the property owner was never charged with a crime" emphasis mine.
      - kbenson 11y ago
        > One estimate was that in 85% of civil forfeiture instances, the property owner was never charged with a crime" That needs more explanation, as large shipments of contraband that are seized would likely fall under that category. How do you charge the owner of a shipping container, or an abandoned boat, or illegal items left at the scene of a crime, when the owner is not present, or is in a location you have no jurisdiction, or you don't know who the owner is? You don't, you use Civil Forfeiture and seize the illegal goods without a criminal case, because that's the mechanism the law provides.
        simplemath 11y ago
        • In 2008, for the first time in history, the U.S. Department of Justice’s Assets Forfeiture Fund (AFF) held more than $1 billion in net assets—that is, money forfeited from property owners and now available for federal law enforcement activities after deducting various expenses. A similar fund at the U.S. Treasury Department held more than $400 million in net assets in 2008. By contrast, in 1986, the year after the AFF was created, it took in just $93.7 million in deposits. "• State data reveal that state and local law enforcement also use forfeiture extensively: From 2001 to 2002, currency forfeitures alone in just nine states totaled more than $70 million. This measure excludes cars and other forfeited property, as well as forfeitures from many states that did not make data available for those years, and so likely represents just the tip of the forfeiture iceberg. • Equitable sharing payments to states have nearly doubled from 2000 to 2008, from a little more than $200 million to $400 million. Source: Williams, Marian R.; Holcomb, Jefferson H.; Kovandzic, Tomislav V; and Bullock, Scott, "Policing for Profit: The Abuse of Civil Asset Forfeiture," The Institute for Justice (Arlington, VA: March 2010), p. 7. http://www.ij.org/images/pdf_folder/other_pubs/assetforfeituretoemail.pdf http://www.ij.org/images/pdf_folder/other_pubs/assetforfeitu... _______________________________ I'm not saying that there are not legitimate reasons to seize assets during criminal investigations, or in clear cases of contraband. The problem is clearly that LE agencies are heavily incentivized to purse civil forfeiture as a means, in best case, to bolster budgets and support - in Generous Forfeiture states, public school budgets etc, and worst case, as slush funds. See Maricopa Country Sherriff's office. And Local PDs and Sheriff's depts nationwide. The legality of these seizures needs a comprehensive overhaul. For every Madoff or HSBC or shipping container filled with coke or knockoff prada bags, there are a thousand people like the family in the OP.
- solotronics 11y ago
  I understand your appeal to emotions here but wouldn't it be better to go through a court process to seize that property? There could be a process like getting a search warrant to temporarily seize property, but it shouldn't be that the police can literally just snatch anything they want without due process. That is ridiculous and exactly the kind of thing the founders of the USA were upset about.
- patmcc 11y ago
  >>>For example, CF is used to return stolen good to the owner. It's also used to keep criminals from using the fruits of their crime prior to conviction. Should a bank robber be allowed to use the money from their heist to pay for their defense? Should the embezzler be allowed to transfer the money in question to locations where the government has no jurisdiction? Easy fix; hold/freeze the bank robber's funds (or the crack dealers house, or whatever other property) temporarily - if they're convicted, take it permanently. If they're not convicted (be that acquitted, charges dropped, charges never laid, whatever) they should get the property back. Anything else is ridiculous.
  - kbenson 11y ago
    That's still civil forfeiture, just an alteration for the rules in which it is allowed and how it must be carried out. Which is fine, and actually supports my position, which is that a critical look needs to be taken before we decide to just abolish it completely. Really, I just think acting like there will be no negative consequences of abolishing it, or that the negative consequences will be easily outweighed by the positives, without bothering to actually bothering to look at the pros and cons is an unsupportable position.
- the_ancient 11y ago
  >>Without civil forfeiture, any time the police take something from you, it's theft Anytime the police take something from you it is theft... Period With Civil Forfeiture it might be legal theft, but it is still theft. >> For example, CF is used to return stolen good to the owner. Citation.. I know of no instances where this is the case. >> It's also used to keep criminals from using the fruits of their crime prior to conviction. That is part of the problem with CF, I do not see that as a Good thing. You are denying a person a right to a fair criminal hearing if you take all of their assets before conviction. >>For example, if drug dealers I believe all drugs should be legal.... using Drug Dealers as and example of why we need CF is a fail for me
  - kbenson 11y ago
    > Anytime the police take something from you it is theft... Period Is it? If you've stolen the goods form someone else, is it theft? Maybe it is theft, but we condone it because it rights the initial wrong. > With Civil Forfeiture it might be legal theft, but it is still theft. I've used almost those exact words elsewhere here at least once. > Citation.. I know of no instances where this is the case. The government also uses forfeiture to take the profit out of crime, and to return property to victims. No one has the right to retain the money gained from bribery, extortion, illegal gambling, or drug dealing. With the forfeiture laws, we can separate the criminal from his profits -- and any property traceable to it -- thus removing the incentive others may have to commit similar crimes tomorrow. And if the crime is one that has victims -- like carjacking or fraud -- we can use the forfeiture laws to recover the property and restore it to the owners far more effectively than the restitution statutes permit.[1] I've referenced it multiple times at this point. > That is part of the problem with CF, I do not see that as a Good thing. You are denying a person a right to a fair criminal hearing if you take all of their assets before conviction. That's one side of it, and it's definitely a problem in some instances. What about someone using the money they've stolen from you to defend themselves? What about people in organized crime using money from that enterprise to defend themselves? > I believe all drugs should be legal.... using Drug Dealers as and example of why we need CF is a fail for me Can you not come up with a single other group that you don't agree with? What about contract killers? Or embezzlers? Or con men? I expect if you disagree you should be able to come up with a general rebuttal to what is obviously meant as a general example. Keep in mind my assertion here is not that civil forfeiture is good, but that there are some useful aspects, and before abolishing it outright, we owe it to ourselves to at least rationally examine the pros and cons, and see if we can mitigate the downsides or possible change the law instead of abolish it. 1: http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/detail/forfeiture-is-reasonable-and-it-works http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/detail/forfeiture-is-rea...

kbenson 11y ago

Without civil forfeiture, any time the police take something from you, it's theft. Without it, the courts would need to be the ones to deal with this issue, and while I think most of us agree that would yield a fairer judgement, it wouldn't necessarily be timely, and time can matter. For example, CF is used to return stolen good to the owner. It's also used to keep criminals from using the fruits of their crime prior to conviction. Should a bank robber be allowed to use the money from their heist to pay for their defense? Should the embezzler be allowed to transfer the money in question to locations where the government has no jurisdiction? For reasons for civil forfeiture, this[1] might be an interesting read. You don't have to agree with everything in it (I don't), but I believe there are some good points. Here's an excerpt: Forfeiture is also used to abate nuisances and to take the instrumentalities of crime out of circulation. For example, if drug dealers are using a "crack house" to sell drugs to children as they pass by on the way to school, the building is a danger to the health and safety of the neighborhood. Under the forfeiture laws, we can shut it down. If a boat or truck is being used to smuggle illegal aliens across the border, we can forfeit the vessel or vehicle to prevent its use time and again for the same purpose. The same is true for an airplane used to fly cocaine from Peru into Southern California, or a printing press used to mint phony $100 bills. 1: http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/detail/forfeiture-is-reasonable-and-it-works http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/detail/forfeiture-is-rea...

simplemath 11y ago
Ah yes, thanks for invoking "save the children" and the farcical War on Drugs. Throw the baby out with the bathwater r.e. civil forfeiture. Civil forfeiture victimizes far more people than it helps protect people and society at large from bad actors using ill-gotten gains. In fact, I'd say that the bad actors using the ill-gotten gains are overwhelmingly LE itself.
- kbenson 11y ago
  > Ah yes, thanks for invoking "save the children" and the farcical War on Drugs. That's from an excerpt from a document I referenced. I already noted I didn't agree with everything in it, but there were more examples that just that in the excerpt. > Civil forfeiture victimizes far more people than it helps protect people and society at large from bad actors using ill-gotten gains. That would be an interesting point in the argument if true. Can you substantiate that?
  - simplemath 11y ago
    >That would be an interesting point in the argument if true. Can you substantiate that? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States#Statistics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United... in 1986 reported civil forfeiture assets were $93.7M in 2010 that figure was $2.5B "Over 12 years, agencies have taken $20 billion in cash, securities, other property from drug bosses and Wall Street tycoons as well as "ordinary Americans who have not committed crimes."[31] One estimate was that in 85% of civil forfeiture instances, the property owner was never charged with a crime" emphasis mine.
    - kbenson 11y ago
      > One estimate was that in 85% of civil forfeiture instances, the property owner was never charged with a crime" That needs more explanation, as large shipments of contraband that are seized would likely fall under that category. How do you charge the owner of a shipping container, or an abandoned boat, or illegal items left at the scene of a crime, when the owner is not present, or is in a location you have no jurisdiction, or you don't know who the owner is? You don't, you use Civil Forfeiture and seize the illegal goods without a criminal case, because that's the mechanism the law provides.
      - simplemath 11y ago
        • In 2008, for the first time in history, the U.S. Department of Justice’s Assets Forfeiture Fund (AFF) held more than $1 billion in net assets—that is, money forfeited from property owners and now available for federal law enforcement activities after deducting various expenses. A similar fund at the U.S. Treasury Department held more than $400 million in net assets in 2008. By contrast, in 1986, the year after the AFF was created, it took in just $93.7 million in deposits. "• State data reveal that state and local law enforcement also use forfeiture extensively: From 2001 to 2002, currency forfeitures alone in just nine states totaled more than $70 million. This measure excludes cars and other forfeited property, as well as forfeitures from many states that did not make data available for those years, and so likely represents just the tip of the forfeiture iceberg. • Equitable sharing payments to states have nearly doubled from 2000 to 2008, from a little more than $200 million to $400 million. Source: Williams, Marian R.; Holcomb, Jefferson H.; Kovandzic, Tomislav V; and Bullock, Scott, "Policing for Profit: The Abuse of Civil Asset Forfeiture," The Institute for Justice (Arlington, VA: March 2010), p. 7. http://www.ij.org/images/pdf_folder/other_pubs/assetforfeituretoemail.pdf http://www.ij.org/images/pdf_folder/other_pubs/assetforfeitu... _______________________________ I'm not saying that there are not legitimate reasons to seize assets during criminal investigations, or in clear cases of contraband. The problem is clearly that LE agencies are heavily incentivized to purse civil forfeiture as a means, in best case, to bolster budgets and support - in Generous Forfeiture states, public school budgets etc, and worst case, as slush funds. See Maricopa Country Sherriff's office. And Local PDs and Sheriff's depts nationwide. The legality of these seizures needs a comprehensive overhaul. For every Madoff or HSBC or shipping container filled with coke or knockoff prada bags, there are a thousand people like the family in the OP.
solotronics 11y ago
I understand your appeal to emotions here but wouldn't it be better to go through a court process to seize that property? There could be a process like getting a search warrant to temporarily seize property, but it shouldn't be that the police can literally just snatch anything they want without due process. That is ridiculous and exactly the kind of thing the founders of the USA were upset about.
patmcc 11y ago
>>>For example, CF is used to return stolen good to the owner. It's also used to keep criminals from using the fruits of their crime prior to conviction. Should a bank robber be allowed to use the money from their heist to pay for their defense? Should the embezzler be allowed to transfer the money in question to locations where the government has no jurisdiction? Easy fix; hold/freeze the bank robber's funds (or the crack dealers house, or whatever other property) temporarily - if they're convicted, take it permanently. If they're not convicted (be that acquitted, charges dropped, charges never laid, whatever) they should get the property back. Anything else is ridiculous.
- kbenson 11y ago
  That's still civil forfeiture, just an alteration for the rules in which it is allowed and how it must be carried out. Which is fine, and actually supports my position, which is that a critical look needs to be taken before we decide to just abolish it completely. Really, I just think acting like there will be no negative consequences of abolishing it, or that the negative consequences will be easily outweighed by the positives, without bothering to actually bothering to look at the pros and cons is an unsupportable position.
the_ancient 11y ago
>>Without civil forfeiture, any time the police take something from you, it's theft Anytime the police take something from you it is theft... Period With Civil Forfeiture it might be legal theft, but it is still theft. >> For example, CF is used to return stolen good to the owner. Citation.. I know of no instances where this is the case. >> It's also used to keep criminals from using the fruits of their crime prior to conviction. That is part of the problem with CF, I do not see that as a Good thing. You are denying a person a right to a fair criminal hearing if you take all of their assets before conviction. >>For example, if drug dealers I believe all drugs should be legal.... using Drug Dealers as and example of why we need CF is a fail for me
- kbenson 11y ago
  > Anytime the police take something from you it is theft... Period Is it? If you've stolen the goods form someone else, is it theft? Maybe it is theft, but we condone it because it rights the initial wrong. > With Civil Forfeiture it might be legal theft, but it is still theft. I've used almost those exact words elsewhere here at least once. > Citation.. I know of no instances where this is the case. The government also uses forfeiture to take the profit out of crime, and to return property to victims. No one has the right to retain the money gained from bribery, extortion, illegal gambling, or drug dealing. With the forfeiture laws, we can separate the criminal from his profits -- and any property traceable to it -- thus removing the incentive others may have to commit similar crimes tomorrow. And if the crime is one that has victims -- like carjacking or fraud -- we can use the forfeiture laws to recover the property and restore it to the owners far more effectively than the restitution statutes permit.[1] I've referenced it multiple times at this point. > That is part of the problem with CF, I do not see that as a Good thing. You are denying a person a right to a fair criminal hearing if you take all of their assets before conviction. That's one side of it, and it's definitely a problem in some instances. What about someone using the money they've stolen from you to defend themselves? What about people in organized crime using money from that enterprise to defend themselves? > I believe all drugs should be legal.... using Drug Dealers as and example of why we need CF is a fail for me Can you not come up with a single other group that you don't agree with? What about contract killers? Or embezzlers? Or con men? I expect if you disagree you should be able to come up with a general rebuttal to what is obviously meant as a general example. Keep in mind my assertion here is not that civil forfeiture is good, but that there are some useful aspects, and before abolishing it outright, we owe it to ourselves to at least rationally examine the pros and cons, and see if we can mitigate the downsides or possible change the law instead of abolish it. 1: http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/detail/forfeiture-is-reasonable-and-it-works http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/detail/forfeiture-is-rea...