4 ms·

Apologies if I overemphasized one portion of your comment. I actually thought it was informative, but think it lacked that one critical element of conflict in t

by dv_dt 10y ago

Apologies if I overemphasized one portion of your comment. I actually thought it was informative, but think it lacked that one critical element of conflict in the practice as a whole. I now think I understand what you meant in the phrase "the identity of the property owner is unknown" is that this is an assumption under which the theory of the laws of forfeiture is operating. Can you perhaps expand on why this assumption hasn't been successfully challenged as a basis for overturning many of these other cases where there clearly is a property owner? That's the head scratcher to me in how long this practice has continued.

anigbrowl 10y ago
As I said (but should probably have said at the beginning rather than the end) I think the use of civil forfeiture in practice is frequently horribly corrupt. While the basic idea has merit - we don't want criminals to profit from ill-gotten gains - the application of that principle frequently turns into an asymmetrical and highly politicized contest between who can better manipulate the rules, to the point of drastically undermining respect for the principles they were established to uphold. I'm sorry that I don't always make it clear enough when I'm making a narrow technical argument vs when I'm making a sweeping ideological one. I am 100% against police departments being able to profit from civil asset forfeiture, both because the incentives for abuse become overwhelming and because the existence of abuse is then used by others as a pretext for undermining the system within which such rules originate. My personal concepts of the relation between individuals, society, government, law, and justice, are radically outside the mainstream, which is why you should consider switching to a monarchy and installing me as King, or Queen. On the other hand, distilling those radical ideas down to a manageable set of operational principals that don't require everyone to be a philosopher is difficult, which is why you should probably hold off on the coronation for a bit.

by dv_dt 10y ago

anigbrowl 10y ago

As I said (but should probably have said at the beginning rather than the end) I think the use of civil forfeiture in practice is frequently horribly corrupt. While the basic idea has merit - we don't want criminals to profit from ill-gotten gains - the application of that principle frequently turns into an asymmetrical and highly politicized contest between who can better manipulate the rules, to the point of drastically undermining respect for the principles they were established to uphold. I'm sorry that I don't always make it clear enough when I'm making a narrow technical argument vs when I'm making a sweeping ideological one. I am 100% against police departments being able to profit from civil asset forfeiture, both because the incentives for abuse become overwhelming and because the existence of abuse is then used by others as a pretext for undermining the system within which such rules originate. My personal concepts of the relation between individuals, society, government, law, and justice, are radically outside the mainstream, which is why you should consider switching to a monarchy and installing me as King, or Queen. On the other hand, distilling those radical ideas down to a manageable set of operational principals that don't require everyone to be a philosopher is difficult, which is why you should probably hold off on the coronation for a bit.