5 ms·

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 v

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.
      - kbenson 11y ago
        > I'm not saying that there are not legitimate reasons to seize assets during criminal investigations, or in clear cases of contraband. Then you aren't disagreeing with the spirit of anything I've said. > The legality of these seizures needs a comprehensive overhaul. I've said as much multiple times in this thread, which I started by saying exactly this. I'm merely suggesting a rational look at the pros and cons and not to jump to the conclusion that there's no benefits of the law as it currently stands. It's obvious it needs overhaul though.
- the_ancient 11y ago
  >>That would be an interesting point in the argument if true. Can you substantiate that? http://ij.org/report/policing-for-profit/ http://ij.org/report/policing-for-profit/
  - kbenson 11y ago
    Similar to my reply to your sibling comment, this does not break down (from what I could see) whether the the goods were seized as illegal goods or whether there actually was someone to charge. Under critical examination, I don't think the number mean what most people assume them mean, especially in the following statement: Among DOJ civil forfeitures, 88 percent took place “administratively.” Administrative forfeitures happen automatically when a property owner fails to challenge a seizure in court for any reason, including the inability to afford a lawyer or a missed deadline to file a claim. The seized property is simply presumed “guilty” without a neutral arbiter such as a judge determining whether it should be permanently taken from its owner. All contraband seized at port without a clear attributable own or person to prosecute falls under this. All drugs and drug money illegally transferring to and from the country that were intercepted without someone present to charge (or that they decide isn't the owner) fall under this. To be fair, there may not be a lot of information around now to classify these things correctly, but that doesn't mean it's okay to take the entire amount and apply it towards one type of situation when it obviously doesn't apply.

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.
    - kbenson 11y ago
      > I'm not saying that there are not legitimate reasons to seize assets during criminal investigations, or in clear cases of contraband. Then you aren't disagreeing with the spirit of anything I've said. > The legality of these seizures needs a comprehensive overhaul. I've said as much multiple times in this thread, which I started by saying exactly this. I'm merely suggesting a rational look at the pros and cons and not to jump to the conclusion that there's no benefits of the law as it currently stands. It's obvious it needs overhaul though.
the_ancient 11y ago
>>That would be an interesting point in the argument if true. Can you substantiate that? http://ij.org/report/policing-for-profit/ http://ij.org/report/policing-for-profit/
- kbenson 11y ago
  Similar to my reply to your sibling comment, this does not break down (from what I could see) whether the the goods were seized as illegal goods or whether there actually was someone to charge. Under critical examination, I don't think the number mean what most people assume them mean, especially in the following statement: Among DOJ civil forfeitures, 88 percent took place “administratively.” Administrative forfeitures happen automatically when a property owner fails to challenge a seizure in court for any reason, including the inability to afford a lawyer or a missed deadline to file a claim. The seized property is simply presumed “guilty” without a neutral arbiter such as a judge determining whether it should be permanently taken from its owner. All contraband seized at port without a clear attributable own or person to prosecute falls under this. All drugs and drug money illegally transferring to and from the country that were intercepted without someone present to charge (or that they decide isn't the owner) fall under this. To be fair, there may not be a lot of information around now to classify these things correctly, but that doesn't mean it's okay to take the entire amount and apply it towards one type of situation when it obviously doesn't apply.