3 ms·

>>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 Civ

>>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...
- the_ancient 11y ago
  I am an absolutist in this regard. no one is an embezzler, conman or contract killer until they have been proven to be beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of their peers, Until then they are innocent and any taking of their property it immoral theft. Further During Criminal Proceeding a judge can order property secured, i.e if a person is charged with embezzlement the judge can order prior to conviction a bank account be frozen, this is FAR FAR FAR FAR different than CF. Any Freezing of Assets or property at a minimum should be directly and irrevocably linked to a criminal prosecution of some kind I see no reason the government should be allowed to cease assets with out even charging a persons with crime I also see no reason why when those assets are seized the burden is upon me to prove my innocence CF is an abomination of "Justice" is has no place in any Justice System, any defense of it is promoting unethical practices. Period, End of Discussion
  - kbenson 11y ago
    > Further During Criminal Proceeding a judge can order property secured, i.e if a person is charged with embezzlement the judge can order prior to conviction a bank account be frozen, this is FAR FAR FAR FAR different than CF. Yes, and it also requires time. > CF is an abomination of "Justice" is has no place in any Justice System, any defense of it is promoting unethical practices. CF is used to seize intercepted illegal goods at the border, and items left at the scene of a crime where there is nobody around to charge. Is that promoting unethical practices? A grenade is left in a populated area, and the police are called and confiscate it. That's CF. Without it the police are stealing someone's property. Requiring the police to find and convict someone before seizing what is an dangerous or illegal item does not make sense. It needs to be accounted for in some manner, which is the heart of my argument. Revise CF, or abolish it and pass other laws as needed for the useful cases it supported. Abolishment without understanding or examination is irresponsible. > Period, End of Discussion Sure. If you know everything there is to know about a topic, and all possible current and future interpretations of it, then that makes sense. Since I don't believe that applies to any human being, I don't think that's a rational stance to take. Apparently you do.

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...

the_ancient 11y ago
I am an absolutist in this regard. no one is an embezzler, conman or contract killer until they have been proven to be beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of their peers, Until then they are innocent and any taking of their property it immoral theft. Further During Criminal Proceeding a judge can order property secured, i.e if a person is charged with embezzlement the judge can order prior to conviction a bank account be frozen, this is FAR FAR FAR FAR different than CF. Any Freezing of Assets or property at a minimum should be directly and irrevocably linked to a criminal prosecution of some kind I see no reason the government should be allowed to cease assets with out even charging a persons with crime I also see no reason why when those assets are seized the burden is upon me to prove my innocence CF is an abomination of "Justice" is has no place in any Justice System, any defense of it is promoting unethical practices. Period, End of Discussion
- kbenson 11y ago
  > Further During Criminal Proceeding a judge can order property secured, i.e if a person is charged with embezzlement the judge can order prior to conviction a bank account be frozen, this is FAR FAR FAR FAR different than CF. Yes, and it also requires time. > CF is an abomination of "Justice" is has no place in any Justice System, any defense of it is promoting unethical practices. CF is used to seize intercepted illegal goods at the border, and items left at the scene of a crime where there is nobody around to charge. Is that promoting unethical practices? A grenade is left in a populated area, and the police are called and confiscate it. That's CF. Without it the police are stealing someone's property. Requiring the police to find and convict someone before seizing what is an dangerous or illegal item does not make sense. It needs to be accounted for in some manner, which is the heart of my argument. Revise CF, or abolish it and pass other laws as needed for the useful cases it supported. Abolishment without understanding or examination is irresponsible. > Period, End of Discussion Sure. If you know everything there is to know about a topic, and all possible current and future interpretations of it, then that makes sense. Since I don't believe that applies to any human being, I don't think that's a rational stance to take. Apparently you do.