3 ms·

I detest civil forfeiture, but this is clickbait. The burglary figure is only reported theft. Also, the actual metric is value of goods, not number of takings.

I detest civil forfeiture, but this is clickbait. The burglary figure is only reported theft. Also, the actual metric is value of goods, not number of takings. Obviously, assets in forfeiture are going to be bigger on average several times over than what a thief typically gets when rummaging a house in a 2 minute panic to get out before the authorities are signaled. EDIT: Also, if you read the article, it buries even one of the few redeeming aspects of civil forfeiture, payments to victims. If you buy a car and the police seize it because the VIN is tracked to a vehicle previously owned by a drug dealer who used it to ply his contraband but then sold it to pay his way as a fugitive, and once apprehended the car is then auctioned off and money is paid to the family of a victim he earlier had killed, that's part of a much bigger legal process. The remedy for the unfortunate person who bought the vehicle unawares in good faith is to go to his dealer and demand a refund or take him to court for misrepresenting the car, or if the paperwork looks good on the part of the dealer, he'll have to rely on his loss insurance.

syshum 9y ago
Your Hypothetical situation of victim payment NEVER happens Most Cars seized by the government are because they found some small amount of drugs are paraphernalia in the car and seized it I can not think of a single instances of what you claim playing out IRL, so I would love to see where your source is that shows cars seized by the government are legally bought off of former drug dealers then seized by the government from the new owners. Even under Asset Forfeiture I do not believe that would be legal. they are also seizing houses from parents because their child has small amount of pot... This defense of Civil Asset Forfeiture you have concocted in your mind is weak and not at all inline with reality
- mijoharas 9y ago
  In general I agree with your statement. However, the article clearly states: > A big chunk of that 2014 deposit, for instance, was the $1.7 billion Bernie Madoff judgment, most of which flowed back to the victims.
  - syshum 9y ago
    I was referring to the hypothetical of a innocent person buying a car from a drug dealer unknowingly, then at some point in the future the police trace the VIN and seize the car because it had been owned by the drug dealer in the past, then selling that car and giving the money to the victims of said drug dealer that also apparently killed someone. That is the situation the comment I was replying to that was concocted to support Civil Asset Forfeiture Further the article is talking about all Federal Seizures not just Civil Asset Forfeiture, the comments I was replying to isolated that to Civil Asset Forfeiture JPMorgan Chase money on behalf of the Madoff criminal prosecution was not a Civil Asset forfeiture Edit: To add, I have no problem with, and most organizations have no problem with CRIMINAL asset forfeiture, which is where the government charges a person with a crime, convicts them then seizes assets that person owns to pay restitution to victims of crimes. Civil Asset Forfeiture is not that, and where most people object calling it basically theft. The government do not charge anyone with a crime, you are not afforded any due process or rights, and you must prove your property innocent in order to get it back Civil Asset Forfeiture is an end run around the constitution, and basic human rights. it needs to be abolished
Clubber 9y ago
The fact that it is even comparable is appalling.
BearGoesChirp 9y ago
>or if the paperwork looks good on the part of the dealer Why should that be a defense for the dealer? If the paperwork was good enough to keep the dealer from being liable, then why should the buyer who bought from that dealer also be liable by having the car seized?

syshum 9y ago

Your Hypothetical situation of victim payment NEVER happens Most Cars seized by the government are because they found some small amount of drugs are paraphernalia in the car and seized it I can not think of a single instances of what you claim playing out IRL, so I would love to see where your source is that shows cars seized by the government are legally bought off of former drug dealers then seized by the government from the new owners. Even under Asset Forfeiture I do not believe that would be legal. they are also seizing houses from parents because their child has small amount of pot... This defense of Civil Asset Forfeiture you have concocted in your mind is weak and not at all inline with reality

mijoharas 9y ago
In general I agree with your statement. However, the article clearly states: > A big chunk of that 2014 deposit, for instance, was the $1.7 billion Bernie Madoff judgment, most of which flowed back to the victims.
- syshum 9y ago
  I was referring to the hypothetical of a innocent person buying a car from a drug dealer unknowingly, then at some point in the future the police trace the VIN and seize the car because it had been owned by the drug dealer in the past, then selling that car and giving the money to the victims of said drug dealer that also apparently killed someone. That is the situation the comment I was replying to that was concocted to support Civil Asset Forfeiture Further the article is talking about all Federal Seizures not just Civil Asset Forfeiture, the comments I was replying to isolated that to Civil Asset Forfeiture JPMorgan Chase money on behalf of the Madoff criminal prosecution was not a Civil Asset forfeiture Edit: To add, I have no problem with, and most organizations have no problem with CRIMINAL asset forfeiture, which is where the government charges a person with a crime, convicts them then seizes assets that person owns to pay restitution to victims of crimes. Civil Asset Forfeiture is not that, and where most people object calling it basically theft. The government do not charge anyone with a crime, you are not afforded any due process or rights, and you must prove your property innocent in order to get it back Civil Asset Forfeiture is an end run around the constitution, and basic human rights. it needs to be abolished

Clubber 9y ago

The fact that it is even comparable is appalling.

BearGoesChirp 9y ago

>or if the paperwork looks good on the part of the dealer Why should that be a defense for the dealer? If the paperwork was good enough to keep the dealer from being liable, then why should the buyer who bought from that dealer also be liable by having the car seized?